If anything is capable of looking beyond the nose into the depths of the Universe, it is Hubble.
Uhmm, no, actually the Hubble is now obsolete.
[Please read all of this before modding me down.]
Its generated a lot of pretty pictures, yes. Why are those pretty pictures interesting and valuable? Because they let us look back in time to the early period of the universe. Thats why Hubble was created, not because the public would like the computer-enhanced pretty pictures (you didn't think those pictures were 100% virgin, right-off-the-satellite, did you?), but because they help us understand the past.
But there's a problem: Hubble looks in visible light, which prevents it from looking far enough back into time to answer the kind of questions we're asking. In particular, if you want to look deep into the past, you have to abandon visible light altogether and go to the far infrared. But there's another problem: Unlike the visible and radio wave spectra, infrared is completely blocked by the Sun's, the Earth's, and even the telescope's own heat, as well as interference from reflected light. This means that a ground based telescope won't work for far infrared. That is why Hubble's successor, the James Webb Space Telescope, is going to replace Hubble, because it can look much farther back into time than Hubble ever could.
Now, if its just pretty pictures from the visible light spectrum that you're interested in, there are several Very Large Telescope Arrays coming online now that use interferometry to achieve resolutions better than Hubble, but using telescopes on Earth. The Cambridge Optical Aperture Synthesis Telescope has already beaten the Hubble in terms of resolution. These VLTAs though can't beat the James Webb Telescope or its European counterpart the Herschel Space Observatory because these space-based telescopes operate in the far infrared, which no ground based telescope can do (decently).
In other words, the Hubble is obsolete. I know thats an unpopular idea around here, but its the truth. Now that we have VLTAs on the ground, and the Spitzer Space Telescope (infrared) in orbit (both of which together cover the Hubble's range), we'll have plenty of pretty pictures (all the pics you see from Hubble, the Spitzer, and others are computer enhanced, so it doesn't matter whether the scope is far infrared, infrared, or visible light, on the ground or in space, the pictures will always be pretty) to keep us busy while waiting for the James Webb or Herschel scopes to get up there. But if you still remember the reason Hubble was put up to begin with, to look deep into the past, then you should understand why we need to move to the James Webb as quickly as possible, because the James Webb will be just as dramatic an improvement as Hubble was over the scopes it replaced. So at this point, any attempts to keep the Hubble going will just be taking money away from the James Webb telescope. I really don't see the point in that.
I won't get into the issue of Mars and such, except to say in a sane country NASA wouldn't be hurting so much for cash all the time (as it currently is with the James Webb project). Someone mentioned NASA's budget of 15 billion. That is a lot of money, until you compare it to our other spending priorities, like 3 billion a month for the Iraqi War. Its all a matter of priorities.
There's a big difference between a loadable library and code that's linked right in so it'll always work and doesn't depend on an external component.
....
It's a legal minefield for developers.
Its only a "legal minefield" if you insist on static linking, which apparently you do for some reason. Most developers of commercial software I suspect will target their support to a particular version of a particular Linux distribution, which will mean that they'll just rely on the standard dynamic linking which avoids all the complicated language in the LGPL about static linking. When you're dynamically linking to an LGPL'd library, the license is straightforward.
If Bioware can ship their premier game, NeverWinter Nights, as one big static app except for the LGPL'd stuff it uses, which in the case of one of the libraries is actually shipped with the game itself in case the user doesn't already have it, most software developers will not have problems working with LGPL'd libraries in a Linux environment.
Maybe you have some issue specific to your project that you haven't mentioned that prevents you from using dynamic linking and thus makes this a "big difference" for you, but I don't see your warning as applying to most developers of closed source apps in Linux. As long as they dynamically link, they don't have to worry, and if they use a library that isn't popular and not likely to be on a Linux system, they can just ship it with their app. It just requires an install program to handle the details, which isn't any more complicated than install programs on Windows that have to worry about DLLs being present and the right versions, and so on.
Since most commercial apps can just dynamically link with the LGPL'd library, either the one the system provides or the one shipped with the app, where is the "legal minefield for [all] developers"?
Ok, I'm really flabbergasted by this. The question mark cursor to find out what another button does, has been around for a very long time, but what I really don't understand is why the only recourse is to destroy the software. WTF? Drop that cursor and use a help option from a right click context menu instead, its easy enough to get around the patent, so why does the entire program have to go away? Anybody know?
In that case you are not DISTRIBUTING the software, just USING it, thus its perfectly fine, the GPL doesn't kick in until you start distributing your software.
Upload your software to an intranet server for example in your company for all its users (fellow employees) to get it from, then use, is no problem. You aren't distributing. Technically (assume the software is written by you but on company time, thus its the company's software - they hold copyright) you wouldn't even have to provide source to any employee (user) that asked, because since the company (the copyright holder) isn't distributing to an "external" entity, the GPL doesn't kick in. (*1)
Put your software in a shrink-wrapped box and sell it in Walmart without the SOURCE CODE, and its a problem, because now you've violated the GPL. In fact, even giving the software away without charge to anyone outside the company without the source code would be a violation of the GPL, because that is distribution without source.
The GPL kicks in ONLY on distribution of software without the software's source code.
1) This is what makes me wonder about Trolltech's thinking. Isn't a lot of their business derived from companies using Qt for internal projects? They can say whatever they want on their website, but if they use the standard GPL, a lot of companies using Qt solely for internal projects who now have a commercial license to allow them to do so (on the Windows side), would no longer need the commercial license. What is the rationale for Trolltech in this case?
Just for the hell of it: isn't "roundness" just a function of perspective and resolution? From the bottom of the Grand Canyon, would the Earth look round to you?
Yes, but never, EVER, underestimate the human need to categorize things. The universe could care less about our semantics, but they're bloody well important here in this neck of the woods.:)
I've used Debian Sid some years ago, and once I needed an additional package. It did install and (due to dependencies) updated an other package, In which some dependency was missing, so it didn't work. I figured out what other package it should have depended on and tried to install it, but couldn't because this package had dependencies which couldn't be fulfilled. That's what I call broken.
No, its only "broken" if the breakage reaches your machine. In your example, use aptitude and put all packages that can't be upgraded because of dependency problems ON HOLD until the problem is fixed. The maintainers hear about the problems and usually fix it within a day or so. Sometimes it may be several days before some critical library is updated to fix a dependency chain mess, but NOTHING ON YOUR SYSTEM IS BROKEN IF YOU JUST HOLD EVERYTHING AND WAIT FOR THE FIXES. Patience is all you need.
Sigh, the folks who modded this funny have obviously never used Debian Sid for awhile.
Look, for cryin' out loud people, there are people like me who been running on Debian Sid (unstable) for YEARS. At least 5 so far, long enough that I can't even keep track, and in all that time I can count the number of serious problems on just one hand (and yes, I only have 5 fingers per hand just like all other humans).
All it takes is some common sense to have great stability with the up2date software you want. The rule is really simple, if a little heretical: DON'T USE APT-GET. Use aptitude; upgrade what you need and keep everything else on hold until upgrades are forced because of dependencies. Don't bloody update everything everyday, thats just asking for trouble. Only upgrade on significant version changes, don't upgrade large packages when they first hit debian.org, wait 24-48 hours and see if anything bad shakes out. Really people, its not that hard.
Sorry, for the tissy response, but those of us who KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE that Debian Sid is not "broken" are getting really tired of the lame jokes.
While there are loads of cool things on here, the constant bickering about M$, open sores, etc, is turning this place into a pretty boring one that is less pleasant to visit. And this is at a time when open source is becoming more prominent and people want more information !
Where did you get the idea/. was a news organization in the way of say cnn.com or bbc.co.uk?/. is the company coffee/break room for all Geeks and Geek Wannabes, nothing more. They're going to talk about MS and open source, because thats whats on their mind. As long as/. remains unmoderated and open to all, thats not going to change: the majority will continue to talk about what interests them, and as long as that remains the case, the editors will deliberately or subconsciously cater to the majority's interests.
which is to effectively strongarm him/her into using the GPL regardless of what he/she wants.
"Strongarm"? Please. If you don't like the GPL, don't use it. I still shake my head in disbelief about all the endless arguments here on/. about FOSS being "communistic", despite one massive difference: FOSS is an opt-in system, you don't like it, you can do things another way. Communism on the other hand, at least in all the ways it was actually implemented, was neither opt-in or opt-out, you simply have no option at all, i.e., !opt.
Frankly, I suspect the situation is actually the complete reverse. The only people here demanding "freebies" are the ones attacking the GPL, because they can't use GPL code without having to follow the GPL's rules, and they don't want to have to follow those rules.
For all you capitalists out there, just think of GPL code as being more "expensive". If you want the GPL code, you simply have to pay a higher price for it, but it is all completely voluntary, no strong-arming involved. If you can find some "cheaper" non-GPL code to do the same thing, great, problem solved. But just like choosing between a Ford Escort and a Mercedes Benz, if you simply have to have the Mercedes, you're going to have to meet the Mercedes dealer's price. And if you can't afford the price, don't bother bitching at the dealer how expensive his car is, its his product, AND HE CAN SET WHATEVER PRICE HE CHOOSES.
Probably, but it has the capacity to be much more than a parochial American site.
Maybe, but the point is what it is right now, not what it might one day be.
When every other discussion on the site degenerates immediately into the same two groups haranging each other, an outsider to those two parties might be forgiven for thinking that neither side really cares about the story at all.
And I forgive outsiders for making that mistake, its understandable. There is no technology however that can help us (the US) solve the increasingly serious problem of Iraq though, that will be "solved" the old fashioned way, via politics of some kind. And that kind of politics usually starts with discussions, debates, arguments, and even flamefests among the people. So wherever those people congregate, online or offline, no one should be surprised when their political problems follow them.
Really, you're basically complaining about something which is basic human nature. The only way to accomplish what you seek would be to moderate/. discussions, but that would destroy what makes/. so popular. There are plenty of other sites which do moderate their discussions to keep them on topic, take a look at those.
What disturbs me the most is that someone modded this as flamebait.
Talk about a moderator with no imagination; I mean really, is it still possible in this world for someone who's savvy enough use a computer and the internet, to not get the warnings behind stuff like The Terminator and The Matrix?
People like Heinlein were writing sci-fi 50 years ago that explored the ethics of human-robot interaction, back when it really was sci-fi, its even more relevant now, considering how much closer to reality the scenario has gotten.
It's technology that will sahpe the future, and it's that we should be looking at.
Well, consider this: would you rather have robots killing in Iraq or humans doing the fighting? Dying is still dying, I don't see improvement there. Instead how about an even bigger question that has nothing to do with technology: if Bush Junior had had the patience and diplomatic skill of his father, would anyone be fighting in Iraq at all right now?
Technology may shape the future, but only after we humans have set the mold.
PS: Most users of/. are Americans, and wherever Americans congregate, they are going to argue about things important to them, like having a moron for a President. I wouldn't object to Brits arguing on, say, a BBC forum about Tony Blair, its just to be expected.
As soon as the religious fundamentalist folks figure out that even when "God is on their side", their group collective IQ still doesn't go up. An inadvertent oversight on God's part, I'm sure.
And no, the case that started the legend doesn't count. What happened was that Poles charged a German supply column and were in process of destroying it when a platoon of German armored cars arrived at the scene and drove the Poles away with MG fire.
Well, I didn't mean to imply that large cavalry units attacked large armored units, I meant to refer to smaller units, and I also didn't mean to imply they deliberately charged tanks when they saw them. By this time, most cavalry in the world dismounted and fought as infantry when they met the enemy.
As for that specific case, according to this guy who claimed to be there, they were aware of the armored cars that were with the supply column when they attacked, and he doesn't mention being chased away by them. In any event, my statement was too misleading, and I only "knew" of one case of a deliberate charge against infantry that had the support of armored vehicles.
>but in equally (or even more) important characteristics they were much worse.
Agreed, but in 1940, these advantages you speak of were not as important as the killing ability of a tank. Even these advantages didn't help panzer commanders (of early model PzIIs or that Checzk model tank that the Germans used early on) who had the misfortune of confronting a T-34 or one of the heavy KV Soviet tanks in 1941. Fortunately for the Germans, the Soviet command structure was largely ineffective for most of 1941, and Soviet tactics for tank usage were primitive. This doesn't change the fact that a veteran panzer crew could get off multiple shots at a T-34 and do absolutely no damage only to suddenly get hit by a single 76mm shell from the T-34 and instantly be out of action or worse.
The problem was that the French never massed their armor, so we never got to see any major tank battles between them. Had it happened I don't believe the advantage in communications or rate of fire would have made as big a difference as you suggest. Later battles on the Russion front, with Russian tanks (T-34/85, the IS series) that had awful communications and often poorly trained crews, showed that firepower and armor still counted for a lot.
happened to be in the wrong place when the shit hit the fan.
If you mean by that that they were concentrated in the Maginot Line, you would be wrong. The French Army was spread from Switzerland to the Atlantic. The French were ready for a thrust coming to the north through the Low Countries, since that was what the Germans did in WWI. The popular mythology that has come down to us that the French Army was completely bypassed by the Germans is wrong. The French were caught off guard, but not immediately bypassed. The surprise the Germans achieved was in moving their armor through a dense forested area and attacking the French where they didn't believe the Germans would launch a major atttack. The Germans would use that same area again to launch another surprise attack 4 years later during the Battle of the Bulge.
There was hard fighting, especially around the bridgeheads over the French rivers north and east of Paris (the Sedan and others) as the Germans pushed west. As I mentioned before though, the French did not concentrate their armor, and their infantry, with only minor armor support, could not stand against massed German armor. After heavy fighting, the Germans broke through the French lines, and it was then that their fast moving armor turned, for the French, a lost battle into a lost war. The French tried to recover, but just didn't have enough time, and they had long standing problems within their command structure.
Charles De Gaulle, for example, was leading an ad hoc tank unit trying to slow the Germans down and was able to inflict casualties (because French tanks, one-on-one, were better than the German tanks) but he didn't have enough massed armor to stop them. If De Gaulle (who thought much like Patton did at the end of WWI) had had his way the French Army would have been tank heavy, with a light or non-existant Maginot Line, and their philosophy would have been reversed: the infantry's purpose would have been to protect the tanks, not the other way around.
Economically is another story entirely. All major nations economies are directly connected to America's, but others are downright dependant.
The problem is that many of my fellow Americans will make a statement like this without realizing the flip-side of the coin: America is increasingly dependent economically on our allies. Its "co-dependency", not one-sided dependency.
If we continue to ignore the rest of the world, despite the fact that we are increasingly needing them almost as much as they need us, one day we are going to wake up with a nasty surprise. It would be really interesting to see your reaction if Europe, the Mid-East, China and Asia, Canada and Mexico, all decided to stop trading with us for about 4 months, just to show us how "independent" we really are.:)
As someone else mentioned, you are forgetting the "impact" side of the equation, and no, thats not a pun. The consequences of an asteroid impact is worse than every other use of a nuclear weapon or moderate nuclear war, short of a mass suicidal/genocidal use of *all* current nuclear weapons at once. The argument is we need to worry about the next Big One From Outer Space, even if it is more unlikely (and some will argue about the probabilities issue) because the odds of surviving are about as bad as bad odds can get.:)
Find in the constitution where it says that the church and state must be separate. It's no where.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." -- US Constitution, Amendment I.
The rest of the story: SCOTUS routinely looks at what other things our founders said when trying to understand what they meant in the Constitution. This is just another common example. When people claim its "nowhere in the Constitution" they mean the word "separation" in reference to religion and the state isn't there. But the above statement which is explicitly in the Constitution clearly implies a separation as some founders have confirmed elsewhere, that is why SCOTUS has always interpreted that section as meaning a seperation, to the extreme disgust of those who desperately want to establish a new theocracy here.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhmm, no, actually the Hubble is now obsolete.
[Please read all of this before modding me down.]
Its generated a lot of pretty pictures, yes. Why are those pretty pictures interesting and valuable? Because they let us look back in time to the early period of the universe. Thats why Hubble was created, not because the public would like the computer-enhanced pretty pictures (you didn't think those pictures were 100% virgin, right-off-the-satellite, did you?), but because they help us understand the past.
But there's a problem: Hubble looks in visible light, which prevents it from looking far enough back into time to answer the kind of questions we're asking. In particular, if you want to look deep into the past, you have to abandon visible light altogether and go to the far infrared. But there's another problem: Unlike the visible and radio wave spectra, infrared is completely blocked by the Sun's, the Earth's, and even the telescope's own heat, as well as interference from reflected light. This means that a ground based telescope won't work for far infrared. That is why Hubble's successor, the James Webb Space Telescope, is going to replace Hubble, because it can look much farther back into time than Hubble ever could.
Now, if its just pretty pictures from the visible light spectrum that you're interested in, there are several Very Large Telescope Arrays coming online now that use interferometry to achieve resolutions better than Hubble, but using telescopes on Earth. The Cambridge Optical Aperture Synthesis Telescope has already beaten the Hubble in terms of resolution. These VLTAs though can't beat the James Webb Telescope or its European counterpart the Herschel Space Observatory because these space-based telescopes operate in the far infrared, which no ground based telescope can do (decently).
In other words, the Hubble is obsolete. I know thats an unpopular idea around here, but its the truth. Now that we have VLTAs on the ground, and the Spitzer Space Telescope (infrared) in orbit (both of which together cover the Hubble's range), we'll have plenty of pretty pictures (all the pics you see from Hubble, the Spitzer, and others are computer enhanced, so it doesn't matter whether the scope is far infrared, infrared, or visible light, on the ground or in space, the pictures will always be pretty) to keep us busy while waiting for the James Webb or Herschel scopes to get up there. But if you still remember the reason Hubble was put up to begin with, to look deep into the past, then you should understand why we need to move to the James Webb as quickly as possible, because the James Webb will be just as dramatic an improvement as Hubble was over the scopes it replaced. So at this point, any attempts to keep the Hubble going will just be taking money away from the James Webb telescope. I really don't see the point in that.
I won't get into the issue of Mars and such, except to say in a sane country NASA wouldn't be hurting so much for cash all the time (as it currently is with the James Webb project). Someone mentioned NASA's budget of 15 billion. That is a lot of money, until you compare it to our other spending priorities, like 3 billion a month for the Iraqi War. Its all a matter of priorities.
Its only a "legal minefield" if you insist on static linking, which apparently you do for some reason. Most developers of commercial software I suspect will target their support to a particular version of a particular Linux distribution, which will mean that they'll just rely on the standard dynamic linking which avoids all the complicated language in the LGPL about static linking. When you're dynamically linking to an LGPL'd library, the license is straightforward.
If Bioware can ship their premier game, NeverWinter Nights, as one big static app except for the LGPL'd stuff it uses, which in the case of one of the libraries is actually shipped with the game itself in case the user doesn't already have it, most software developers will not have problems working with LGPL'd libraries in a Linux environment.
Maybe you have some issue specific to your project that you haven't mentioned that prevents you from using dynamic linking and thus makes this a "big difference" for you, but I don't see your warning as applying to most developers of closed source apps in Linux. As long as they dynamically link, they don't have to worry, and if they use a library that isn't popular and not likely to be on a Linux system, they can just ship it with their app. It just requires an install program to handle the details, which isn't any more complicated than install programs on Windows that have to worry about DLLs being present and the right versions, and so on.
Since most commercial apps can just dynamically link with the LGPL'd library, either the one the system provides or the one shipped with the app, where is the "legal minefield for [all] developers"?
Ok, I'm really flabbergasted by this. The question mark cursor to find out what another button does, has been around for a very long time, but what I really don't understand is why the only recourse is to destroy the software. WTF? Drop that cursor and use a help option from a right click context menu instead, its easy enough to get around the patent, so why does the entire program have to go away? Anybody know?
In that case you are not DISTRIBUTING the software, just USING it, thus its perfectly fine, the GPL doesn't kick in until you start distributing your software.
Upload your software to an intranet server for example in your company for all its users (fellow employees) to get it from, then use, is no problem. You aren't distributing. Technically (assume the software is written by you but on company time, thus its the company's software - they hold copyright) you wouldn't even have to provide source to any employee (user) that asked, because since the company (the copyright holder) isn't distributing to an "external" entity, the GPL doesn't kick in. (*1)
Put your software in a shrink-wrapped box and sell it in Walmart without the SOURCE CODE, and its a problem, because now you've violated the GPL. In fact, even giving the software away without charge to anyone outside the company without the source code would be a violation of the GPL, because that is distribution without source.
The GPL kicks in ONLY on distribution of software without the software's source code.
1) This is what makes me wonder about Trolltech's thinking. Isn't a lot of their business derived from companies using Qt for internal projects? They can say whatever they want on their website, but if they use the standard GPL, a lot of companies using Qt solely for internal projects who now have a commercial license to allow them to do so (on the Windows side), would no longer need the commercial license. What is the rationale for Trolltech in this case?
Heh, letsee, what is it? About 3 light-years to the nearest star? Thats a HELL of a lot of nothing between us, I'd say.
:)
Just for the hell of it: isn't "roundness" just a function of perspective and resolution? From the bottom of the Grand Canyon, would the Earth look round to you?
Yes, but never, EVER, underestimate the human need to categorize things. The universe could care less about our semantics, but they're bloody well important here in this neck of the woods.
And instant teleportation to get you out before frying to a crisp?
No, its only "broken" if the breakage reaches your machine. In your example, use aptitude and put all packages that can't be upgraded because of dependency problems ON HOLD until the problem is fixed. The maintainers hear about the problems and usually fix it within a day or so. Sometimes it may be several days before some critical library is updated to fix a dependency chain mess, but NOTHING ON YOUR SYSTEM IS BROKEN IF YOU JUST HOLD EVERYTHING AND WAIT FOR THE FIXES. Patience is all you need.
Sigh, the folks who modded this funny have obviously never used Debian Sid for awhile.
Look, for cryin' out loud people, there are people like me who been running on Debian Sid (unstable) for YEARS. At least 5 so far, long enough that I can't even keep track, and in all that time I can count the number of serious problems on just one hand (and yes, I only have 5 fingers per hand just like all other humans).
All it takes is some common sense to have great stability with the up2date software you want. The rule is really simple, if a little heretical: DON'T USE APT-GET. Use aptitude; upgrade what you need and keep everything else on hold until upgrades are forced because of dependencies. Don't bloody update everything everyday, thats just asking for trouble. Only upgrade on significant version changes, don't upgrade large packages when they first hit debian.org, wait 24-48 hours and see if anything bad shakes out. Really people, its not that hard.
Sorry, for the tissy response, but those of us who KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE that Debian Sid is not "broken" are getting really tired of the lame jokes.
Where did you get the idea
"Strongarm"? Please. If you don't like the GPL, don't use it. I still shake my head in disbelief about all the endless arguments here on
Frankly, I suspect the situation is actually the complete reverse. The only people here demanding "freebies" are the ones attacking the GPL, because they can't use GPL code without having to follow the GPL's rules, and they don't want to have to follow those rules.
For all you capitalists out there, just think of GPL code as being more "expensive". If you want the GPL code, you simply have to pay a higher price for it, but it is all completely voluntary, no strong-arming involved. If you can find some "cheaper" non-GPL code to do the same thing, great, problem solved. But just like choosing between a Ford Escort and a Mercedes Benz, if you simply have to have the Mercedes, you're going to have to meet the Mercedes dealer's price. And if you can't afford the price, don't bother bitching at the dealer how expensive his car is, its his product, AND HE CAN SET WHATEVER PRICE HE CHOOSES.
No, I'm not. You could have found that out yourself just by reading my
Maybe, but the point is what it is right now, not what it might one day be.
And I forgive outsiders for making that mistake, its understandable. There is no technology however that can help us (the US) solve the increasingly serious problem of Iraq though, that will be "solved" the old fashioned way, via politics of some kind. And that kind of politics usually starts with discussions, debates, arguments, and even flamefests among the people. So wherever those people congregate, online or offline, no one should be surprised when their political problems follow them.
Really, you're basically complaining about something which is basic human nature. The only way to accomplish what you seek would be to moderate
What disturbs me the most is that someone modded this as flamebait.
Talk about a moderator with no imagination; I mean really, is it still possible in this world for someone who's savvy enough use a computer and the internet, to not get the warnings behind stuff like The Terminator and The Matrix?
People like Heinlein were writing sci-fi 50 years ago that explored the ethics of human-robot interaction, back when it really was sci-fi, its even more relevant now, considering how much closer to reality the scenario has gotten.
Well, consider this: would you rather have robots killing in Iraq or humans doing the fighting? Dying is still dying, I don't see improvement there. Instead how about an even bigger question that has nothing to do with technology: if Bush Junior had had the patience and diplomatic skill of his father, would anyone be fighting in Iraq at all right now?
Technology may shape the future, but only after we humans have set the mold.
PS: Most users of
As soon as the religious fundamentalist folks figure out that even when "God is on their side", their group collective IQ still doesn't go up. An inadvertent oversight on God's part, I'm sure.
Well considering we tend to act like a bull in the world's china shop, maybe they should have a say....
Well, I didn't mean to imply that large cavalry units attacked large armored units, I meant to refer to smaller units, and I also didn't mean to imply they deliberately charged tanks when they saw them. By this time, most cavalry in the world dismounted and fought as infantry when they met the enemy.
As for that specific case, according to this guy who claimed to be there, they were aware of the armored cars that were with the supply column when they attacked, and he doesn't mention being chased away by them. In any event, my statement was too misleading, and I only "knew" of one case of a deliberate charge against infantry that had the support of armored vehicles.
>but in equally (or even more) important characteristics they were much worse.
Agreed, but in 1940, these advantages you speak of were not as important as the killing ability of a tank. Even these advantages didn't help panzer commanders (of early model PzIIs or that Checzk model tank that the Germans used early on) who had the misfortune of confronting a T-34 or one of the heavy KV Soviet tanks in 1941. Fortunately for the Germans, the Soviet command structure was largely ineffective for most of 1941, and Soviet tactics for tank usage were primitive. This doesn't change the fact that a veteran panzer crew could get off multiple shots at a T-34 and do absolutely no damage only to suddenly get hit by a single 76mm shell from the T-34 and instantly be out of action or worse.
The problem was that the French never massed their armor, so we never got to see any major tank battles between them. Had it happened I don't believe the advantage in communications or rate of fire would have made as big a difference as you suggest. Later battles on the Russion front, with Russian tanks (T-34/85, the IS series) that had awful communications and often poorly trained crews, showed that firepower and armor still counted for a lot.
If you mean by that that they were concentrated in the Maginot Line, you would be wrong. The French Army was spread from Switzerland to the Atlantic. The French were ready for a thrust coming to the north through the Low Countries, since that was what the Germans did in WWI. The popular mythology that has come down to us that the French Army was completely bypassed by the Germans is wrong. The French were caught off guard, but not immediately bypassed. The surprise the Germans achieved was in moving their armor through a dense forested area and attacking the French where they didn't believe the Germans would launch a major atttack. The Germans would use that same area again to launch another surprise attack 4 years later during the Battle of the Bulge.
There was hard fighting, especially around the bridgeheads over the French rivers north and east of Paris (the Sedan and others) as the Germans pushed west. As I mentioned before though, the French did not concentrate their armor, and their infantry, with only minor armor support, could not stand against massed German armor. After heavy fighting, the Germans broke through the French lines, and it was then that their fast moving armor turned, for the French, a lost battle into a lost war. The French tried to recover, but just didn't have enough time, and they had long standing problems within their command structure.
Charles De Gaulle, for example, was leading an ad hoc tank unit trying to slow the Germans down and was able to inflict casualties (because French tanks, one-on-one, were better than the German tanks) but he didn't have enough massed armor to stop them. If De Gaulle (who thought much like Patton did at the end of WWI) had had his way the French Army would have been tank heavy, with a light or non-existant Maginot Line, and their philosophy would have been reversed: the infantry's purpose would have been to protect the tanks, not the other way around.
The problem is that many of my fellow Americans will make a statement like this without realizing the flip-side of the coin: America is increasingly dependent economically on our allies. Its "co-dependency", not one-sided dependency.
If we continue to ignore the rest of the world, despite the fact that we are increasingly needing them almost as much as they need us, one day we are going to wake up with a nasty surprise. It would be really interesting to see your reaction if Europe, the Mid-East, China and Asia, Canada and Mexico, all decided to stop trading with us for about 4 months, just to show us how "independent" we really are.
As someone else mentioned, you are forgetting the "impact" side of the equation, and no, thats not a pun. The consequences of an asteroid impact is worse than every other use of a nuclear weapon or moderate nuclear war, short of a mass suicidal/genocidal use of *all* current nuclear weapons at once. The argument is we need to worry about the next Big One From Outer Space, even if it is more unlikely (and some will argue about the probabilities issue) because the odds of surviving are about as bad as bad odds can get. :)
Now look who's trolling....
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
-- US Constitution, Amendment I.
The rest of the story: SCOTUS routinely looks at what other things our founders said when trying to understand what they meant in the Constitution. This is just another common example. When people claim its "nowhere in the Constitution" they mean the word "separation" in reference to religion and the state isn't there. But the above statement which is explicitly in the Constitution clearly implies a separation as some founders have confirmed elsewhere, that is why SCOTUS has always interpreted that section as meaning a seperation, to the extreme disgust of those who desperately want to establish a new theocracy here.