Oh, please. I'm no fan of Hillary, but the "ace up her sleeve" is she inherited her husband's organization. Thousands of volunteers who phone her likely voters to make sure they actually voted, drivers who will take them to the polls, etc. That's why you saw the discrepancy between pre-vote polls and the actual result; Obama doesn't have as many feet on the ground as Clinton does, and he probably didn't get all his supporters to the polls. This ready made organization is Clinton's big advantage going forward.
Don't you have scrutineers in the US? In Canada, all major parties assign a person to each poll -that's individual polls, not ridings - to ensure that the votes are counted correctly. If someone tried to manipulate a poll to favour, say, the Liberals, the Conservative scrutineer would call shenanigans, and vice versa. Of course, we still use paper ballots. No Diebold conspiracies here!
Blue-rare is the only way to go! Actually, I like mine charred on the outside but blue in the middle. When I worked in a steak house, we used to call this "Pittsburgh" style. And don't get me started on the number of idiots that ordered "medium rare" and then sent the damn thing back until there was no trace of pink left. Morons.
Is improving operation effectiveness "strategic" ? Well yes, they implemented a plan with a specific goal or result.
Does that give them an advantage? Well yes, they now have an advantage over their competition (improved operation efficiency), at least for the time being.
Actually watched a WWII documentary this weekend that supports the above, with the strong caution "it's for the time being". The show compared early tank tactics of the Allies and Germans. The Allies thought tanks were like moving bunkers, and built early tanks that were slow and cumbersome. These tanks were spread across a broad front, and as such, didn't provide much support to each other.
Under Guderian in Europe, and Rommel in Africa, the Germans chose completely different tactics. In Europe, they massed their armour in large groups, and they built tanks that were faster and more agile than Allied tanks. As one Panzer commander recalled, this speed and striking power allowed them to roll through three countries - Belgium, Holland, and France - in less than 72 hours. Allied tanks, isolated and unsupported, were easy prey for the Germans. The Germans held most of Europe until the D-Day offensive.
Rommel used a different approach in Africa. Without the benefit of natural cover and roads, he chose "hit and run" as a strategy. Again, he massed his armour, would descend on targets identified by air support, fight a short battle, and then melt away into the desert. Since Auchinleck, the British general, didn't get the message, and continued to disperse his units, he got his butt kicked all the way back into Egypt. Monty replaced him, and realized the superior German tactics were correct. Monty waited until he had nearly 2-to-1 superiority in tanks and men before the Second battle of El Alamein. (This drew on the Allies' strategic advantage - the massive industrial capability of America - and on Hitler's ridiculous Russian campaign which drained huge amounts of men and materiel from Rommel. Rommel had 500 tanks to fight Monty's 1,000, and when the Americans landed in western Africa a few months later, the numbers got even worse.)
After the disaster of the Kasserine Pass, when Allied forces lost 134 tanks to the Germans' 34, the ironically named General Fred-end-all was relieved by Eisenhower, and Bradley and Patton took command. Patton in particular embraced Rommel's tactics (which was necessary, as the US Stuart tanks were under-gunned and under-armoured compared to the Panzers and Tigers.)
So, upon reflection, I think both the GP and GPP are correct. The superior German tactics gave them a huge strategic advantage at the beginning of the war, which resulted in the capture of thousands of Allied troops, and the pushing of the BEF back to the sea at Dunkirk. Rommel came within 40 miles of the Suez in Egypt; if the British had lost that vital link, the whole war might have turned out differently.
On the other hand, once the ineffective Allied commanders had been replaced, and the German tactics were both adopted and improved upon, the German advantage began to dwindle. The Allies' superior production began to pay off. Even though the T-34 and the Sherman weren't as powerful as the Tiger, the Russians and Americans could produce 10 of them for every tank Germany produced.
I digress, but an interesting point in the documentary was that America turned over production of tanks and support vehicles to Ford, GM, Chrysler, and American Motors, who were all used to churning out tens of thousands of vehicles a year. The Germans had their tanks made by heavy equipment manufacturers, who were used to producing hundreds of vehicles per year. Again, a tactical decision, but one that provided the Allies with the strategic advantage (10 times as many tanks, planes, and ships) that eventually carried the day.
the liberals you think are trying to scam you aren't rich, and none of them have anything to gain by advancing the idea of global climate change.
Um, you are aware that Al Gore is a partner in the largest carbon-trading firm in the world, aren't you? And that as such, he has a vested interest in promoting carbon offsets because it will make him rich? Not that he's doing so badly, collecting $25k-$100k for his speaking engagements, a big chunk of change from the Nobel committee, and a few bucks from "A Convenient Lie".
Meanwhile, over 100 respected climate scientists recently signed a report stating the AGW thesis is quite flawed. But don't let the facts get in the way of your closed mind.
Oh, pooh. The FCC limits advertising on TV to 16 minutes per hour, or a little more than 25%, certainly not 50%. And some ads are fantastic; the US advertising agencies spend enough money on them.
What bugs me is when the same frickin' ad is played twice in one commercial break or four times during a single show. As amusing it might be the first time, by the time I've seen it four times in an hour, I'm never buying the product, no matter how much I might be able to use it, because I'm so annoyed.
Titanium is known to be a very strong metal. If you know anything about metallurgy and its terminology, strong and hard are different properties, and usually work against each other: a metal is usually strong, but not hard, or vice versa, not both.
Sincerely curious.. is this why titanium is so popular in golf clubs these days? Because it's light compared to steel or wood, you can presumably swing it more quickly (thus generating more kinetic energy), while because the metal is softer, presumably it deforms a bit more, and thus you get more of a "trampoline" effect. Does that sound plausible, or is it just marketing hype?
More to the point, does anyone seriously think the woman wants to be chatted up? I have been lucky enough to sit next to some very pretty women over the years, and while they're polite, they make it pretty clear that they want to read, work, or whatever. (Of course, this being/., the female persepective is solely lacking.)
Er, but isn't one of Einstein's most famous quotations "God doesn't play dice with the universe?" - a comment he apparently made repeatedly. Dawkins never met Einstein; how the hell does he know how the man felt?
And in this follow-up episode, we will be examining the important process of understanding the logic through multiple posts. The GGP poster said he didn't want military spending cut because he worked for DoD and didn't want to lose his job. The GP responded "why should he pay him for to produce nothing useful?", to which you pointed out that there have been useful civilian uses of products developed through military research. I didn't dispute your point at all; I merely pointed that AFAIK, Paul just wants to bring the boys home; he doesn't want to end DARPA or get rid of the military - he just wants to stop interfering in other countries' affairs that costs US lives, cost trillions of US dollars, increases hatred of the US, and reduces US security. Paul may not be committed to intrusive US overseas attacks, but he's certainly a staunch advocate of US defense. DARPA is a big part of that. And, I absolutely acknowledge that the resources of DARPA have been instrumental in the rise of many US industries, just as NASA helped spur the microprocessor revolution.
So, let's go step by step:
GPP: Don't cut military spending
GP: why not?
P: because we get good civilian things from military spending (with unwritten implication that any cuts of any kind would endanger this transfer of technologies)
Me: We get good things from DARPA, and other agencies, not for spending trillions in Iraq/Afghan.
Some military cuts are justified, others wouldn't be. Paul wants to cut the useless waste.
You: You don't understand me.
Me: I understand you quite well. In fact, we are in violent agreement. Paul wants to cut useless spending on overseas wars, troops in S. Korea, etc., and redirect those savings to the home front. I doubt he'd try to stop military research; he's not a fool.
I was dating a girl from Cleveland (actually, Independence, a small suburb just south of the city) in the late 70's when Kucinich was mayor of Cleveland. He was widely ridiculed at the time, and proved to be one of the worst mayors in the city's history. Under his rule, the city went into default. When I mention Kucinich to her now, she just laughs her head off.
However, I just heard Kucinich's brother has died. At present foul play, drugs, etc. are not suspected; he was 52, and it just seems it was his time. So I'll lay off any more DK bashing out of respect.
I don't see where Paul says he wants to eliminate the military; he just wants to bring them home. Pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq would save about $500 billion/yr, IIRC. I've never seen where he wants to eliminate DARPA.
Very interesting post, but since the 2000 election proved that there are great many Americans who don't understand how to fill out their ballots when it's a simple "pick one" choice, do you seriously think they're going to be able to handle more complicated ones? Also, how much more time would this take in the individual voting booth? If you have to spend 20+ minutes in the booth to complete your ballot, how many more Americans are going to say "Screw you guys, I'm going home"? Voter turnout is already pretty poor. I believe more complicated ballots will make it worse, and will effectively disenfranchise the poor and uneducated.
Just for the record: if Ron were to file that suit, and actually succeed, you can expect that the Congress would have a Constitutional Amendment to rectify the problem passed with record speed.
Thank you for proving Mr. Paul's point; you don't even understand how the amending process works, as defined in your constitution. No wonder Congress and the Supremes don't feel bound by it.
Regardless of your position on abortion, most legal scholars agree the Roe v. Wade was one of the worst legal decisions ever made, relying on a non-existent and spurious "right to privacy". The Consitution dictates that money shall be "gold and silver"; the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 has completely perverted that. (Look up inflation figures from 1800-1900 - prices fell by 50%, using a gold backed currency. Since the Fed has been created, prices have risen by 20 times, or 2000%.) The Patriot Acts - there's a piece of Newspeak for you - trample all over the Constitution's 4th amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". The Constitution, has written, is being ignored.
If you want to be one of the sheeple, willing to be pushed around without any rights, be my guest. I'm a Canadian, but I support Ron Paul because I want to see America back where it should be: a bright, shining example to the rest of the world.
As I posted in another thread, CNBC released results around 11:15 this morning noting that fully 79% of potential game buyers want a Wii, 16% want a PS3, and a measly 5% want an Xbox. Among women, the number of potential Wii buyers is an impressive 90%.
And when I went looking for Guitar Hero III for my daughter's Christmas present in Toronto, Future Shop (an electronics chain) doesn't even carry it, but they have scads of the Activision version. And at my local Wal-Mart, there are stacks of Activision, but no Wii copies. The sales clerk told me she doubts they will get any more copies before Christmas, and that they only got six in their last shipment, while they got cases of the Activision version.
No offense to you personally, but I installed OO on my home computer (which already MS Office installed). After a few weeks, I went back to MS Office. OO seemed to take forever to load (3-4 minutes in some cases), while MS apps loaded in 30 seconds or less. And I like VBA; I was able to use it to completely automate my routine reports, so that what had taken almost 6 hours a day was done in 15 minutes. That freed me up to do more in-depth analysis, which increased my value to the company. Of course, I'm working with Office 2003; I wouldn't touch 2007 until service pack 2 comes out.
Oh man, when I was studying engineering in the '70s, my dad gave me a circular slide rule. It was way easier to fit in your pocket than a traditional slip stick, though you did lose some accuracy on the inner bands. My friends all thought it was cool.
Of course, in second year, I got a TI SR-52, which they thought was even cooler because it could do polar-rectangular conversions in my choice of degrees or radians. Everyone wanted me in their study group.
Just saw a report on CNBC at 11:15 EST that showed 79% of prospective game system buyers want to buy a Wii, some 16% for Playstation, and a measly 5% for Xbox. And something like 90% of women buyers are interested in the Wii. It is interesting to note that while shopping for the Wii version of Guitar Hero III in Toronto, there are stacks of the Activision version, and the PC version, but no Wii versions to be had, and the clerk at the local Wal-Mart told me that they get cases of the other versions, but only six copies of the Wii system. She doubts they will get any more before Christmas.
Elder daughter wants Guitar Hero III for the Wii for Christmas. Six friggin' stores.. not one copy in stock, and they won't let you reserve a copy either. I'll be haunting the stores for the next two weeks, hoping to get lucky.
I agree that there's a certain amount of violence in some Wii games, but it's cartoon violence, as opposed to the realistic gore of PS3 and Xbox. I mean, kicking bunnies off the stage in Mario is not the same as slicing someone in half in Halo. I'm happy to have my daughters play Wii games; I would not have an Xbox or PS3 in the house.
Re:Couple Thoughts
on
Where are Wii?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
What good has capitalism brought to the world ?
Seriously, are you a low-functioning moron, or a high-functioning imbecile? Let's look at that bastion of socialist perfection, Cuba. It's been nearly 50 years since Castro took over; can you name a single invention or useful good that they've developed in half a century? Didn't think so.
In the meantime, bad old America created mini- and micro-computers, a bunch of useful programming languages, some tremendously useful software applications, cable and DSL data connections, a whole bunch of life-saving medicines and technologies, cellphones, LANs, fibre optics - I could go on, but what's the point? Jobs and Wozniak, Gates and Allen - I'm sure they were all interested in what they were doing, but I'm also pretty sure they did it because they wanted to make money.
I've seen some stupid comments on/., but this one takes the cake. You live in a style that kings and queens didn't enjoy 100 years ago, and you question the system that provided it? You are some kind of ingrate.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, please. I'm no fan of Hillary, but the "ace up her sleeve" is she inherited her husband's organization. Thousands of volunteers who phone her likely voters to make sure they actually voted, drivers who will take them to the polls, etc. That's why you saw the discrepancy between pre-vote polls and the actual result; Obama doesn't have as many feet on the ground as Clinton does, and he probably didn't get all his supporters to the polls. This ready made organization is Clinton's big advantage going forward.
Don't you have scrutineers in the US? In Canada, all major parties assign a person to each poll -that's individual polls, not ridings - to ensure that the votes are counted correctly. If someone tried to manipulate a poll to favour, say, the Liberals, the Conservative scrutineer would call shenanigans, and vice versa. Of course, we still use paper ballots. No Diebold conspiracies here!
Blue-rare is the only way to go! Actually, I like mine charred on the outside but blue in the middle. When I worked in a steak house, we used to call this "Pittsburgh" style. And don't get me started on the number of idiots that ordered "medium rare" and then sent the damn thing back until there was no trace of pink left. Morons.
Does that give them an advantage? Well yes, they now have an advantage over their competition (improved operation efficiency), at least for the time being.
Actually watched a WWII documentary this weekend that supports the above, with the strong caution "it's for the time being". The show compared early tank tactics of the Allies and Germans. The Allies thought tanks were like moving bunkers, and built early tanks that were slow and cumbersome. These tanks were spread across a broad front, and as such, didn't provide much support to each other.
Under Guderian in Europe, and Rommel in Africa, the Germans chose completely different tactics. In Europe, they massed their armour in large groups, and they built tanks that were faster and more agile than Allied tanks. As one Panzer commander recalled, this speed and striking power allowed them to roll through three countries - Belgium, Holland, and France - in less than 72 hours. Allied tanks, isolated and unsupported, were easy prey for the Germans. The Germans held most of Europe until the D-Day offensive.
Rommel used a different approach in Africa. Without the benefit of natural cover and roads, he chose "hit and run" as a strategy. Again, he massed his armour, would descend on targets identified by air support, fight a short battle, and then melt away into the desert. Since Auchinleck, the British general, didn't get the message, and continued to disperse his units, he got his butt kicked all the way back into Egypt. Monty replaced him, and realized the superior German tactics were correct. Monty waited until he had nearly 2-to-1 superiority in tanks and men before the Second battle of El Alamein. (This drew on the Allies' strategic advantage - the massive industrial capability of America - and on Hitler's ridiculous Russian campaign which drained huge amounts of men and materiel from Rommel. Rommel had 500 tanks to fight Monty's 1,000, and when the Americans landed in western Africa a few months later, the numbers got even worse.)
After the disaster of the Kasserine Pass, when Allied forces lost 134 tanks to the Germans' 34, the ironically named General Fred-end-all was relieved by Eisenhower, and Bradley and Patton took command. Patton in particular embraced Rommel's tactics (which was necessary, as the US Stuart tanks were under-gunned and under-armoured compared to the Panzers and Tigers.)
So, upon reflection, I think both the GP and GPP are correct. The superior German tactics gave them a huge strategic advantage at the beginning of the war, which resulted in the capture of thousands of Allied troops, and the pushing of the BEF back to the sea at Dunkirk. Rommel came within 40 miles of the Suez in Egypt; if the British had lost that vital link, the whole war might have turned out differently.
On the other hand, once the ineffective Allied commanders had been replaced, and the German tactics were both adopted and improved upon, the German advantage began to dwindle. The Allies' superior production began to pay off. Even though the T-34 and the Sherman weren't as powerful as the Tiger, the Russians and Americans could produce 10 of them for every tank Germany produced.
I digress, but an interesting point in the documentary was that America turned over production of tanks and support vehicles to Ford, GM, Chrysler, and American Motors, who were all used to churning out tens of thousands of vehicles a year. The Germans had their tanks made by heavy equipment manufacturers, who were used to producing hundreds of vehicles per year. Again, a tactical decision, but one that provided the Allies with the strategic advantage (10 times as many tanks, planes, and ships) that eventually carried the day.
Um, you are aware that Al Gore is a partner in the largest carbon-trading firm in the world, aren't you? And that as such, he has a vested interest in promoting carbon offsets because it will make him rich? Not that he's doing so badly, collecting $25k-$100k for his speaking engagements, a big chunk of change from the Nobel committee, and a few bucks from "A Convenient Lie".
Meanwhile, over 100 respected climate scientists recently signed a report stating the AGW thesis is quite flawed. But don't let the facts get in the way of your closed mind.
What bugs me is when the same frickin' ad is played twice in one commercial break or four times during a single show. As amusing it might be the first time, by the time I've seen it four times in an hour, I'm never buying the product, no matter how much I might be able to use it, because I'm so annoyed.
Sincerely curious.. is this why titanium is so popular in golf clubs these days? Because it's light compared to steel or wood, you can presumably swing it more quickly (thus generating more kinetic energy), while because the metal is softer, presumably it deforms a bit more, and thus you get more of a "trampoline" effect. Does that sound plausible, or is it just marketing hype?
Yes, that's been hard for me.. well, actually, not hard for me.. er, never mind.
then it's a witch?
More to the point, does anyone seriously think the woman wants to be chatted up? I have been lucky enough to sit next to some very pretty women over the years, and while they're polite, they make it pretty clear that they want to read, work, or whatever. (Of course, this being /., the female persepective is solely lacking.)
Er, but isn't one of Einstein's most famous quotations "God doesn't play dice with the universe?" - a comment he apparently made repeatedly. Dawkins never met Einstein; how the hell does he know how the man felt?
So, let's go step by step:
GPP: Don't cut military spending
GP: why not?
P: because we get good civilian things from military spending (with unwritten implication that any cuts of any kind would endanger this transfer of technologies)
Me: We get good things from DARPA, and other agencies, not for spending trillions in Iraq/Afghan. Some military cuts are justified, others wouldn't be. Paul wants to cut the useless waste.
You: You don't understand me.
Me: I understand you quite well. In fact, we are in violent agreement. Paul wants to cut useless spending on overseas wars, troops in S. Korea, etc., and redirect those savings to the home front. I doubt he'd try to stop military research; he's not a fool.
However, I just heard Kucinich's brother has died. At present foul play, drugs, etc. are not suspected; he was 52, and it just seems it was his time. So I'll lay off any more DK bashing out of respect.
I don't see where Paul says he wants to eliminate the military; he just wants to bring them home. Pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq would save about $500 billion/yr, IIRC. I've never seen where he wants to eliminate DARPA.
Oh, wait...
Thank you for proving Mr. Paul's point; you don't even understand how the amending process works, as defined in your constitution. No wonder Congress and the Supremes don't feel bound by it.
Regardless of your position on abortion, most legal scholars agree the Roe v. Wade was one of the worst legal decisions ever made, relying on a non-existent and spurious "right to privacy". The Consitution dictates that money shall be "gold and silver"; the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 has completely perverted that. (Look up inflation figures from 1800-1900 - prices fell by 50%, using a gold backed currency. Since the Fed has been created, prices have risen by 20 times, or 2000%.) The Patriot Acts - there's a piece of Newspeak for you - trample all over the Constitution's 4th amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". The Constitution, has written, is being ignored.
If you want to be one of the sheeple, willing to be pushed around without any rights, be my guest. I'm a Canadian, but I support Ron Paul because I want to see America back where it should be: a bright, shining example to the rest of the world.
True, but they did post the one Libertarian who has some chance of winning, and you know who he is.
And when I went looking for Guitar Hero III for my daughter's Christmas present in Toronto, Future Shop (an electronics chain) doesn't even carry it, but they have scads of the Activision version. And at my local Wal-Mart, there are stacks of Activision, but no Wii copies. The sales clerk told me she doubts they will get any more copies before Christmas, and that they only got six in their last shipment, while they got cases of the Activision version.
No offense to you personally, but I installed OO on my home computer (which already MS Office installed). After a few weeks, I went back to MS Office. OO seemed to take forever to load (3-4 minutes in some cases), while MS apps loaded in 30 seconds or less. And I like VBA; I was able to use it to completely automate my routine reports, so that what had taken almost 6 hours a day was done in 15 minutes. That freed me up to do more in-depth analysis, which increased my value to the company. Of course, I'm working with Office 2003; I wouldn't touch 2007 until service pack 2 comes out.
Of course, in second year, I got a TI SR-52, which they thought was even cooler because it could do polar-rectangular conversions in my choice of degrees or radians. Everyone wanted me in their study group.
Just saw a report on CNBC at 11:15 EST that showed 79% of prospective game system buyers want to buy a Wii, some 16% for Playstation, and a measly 5% for Xbox. And something like 90% of women buyers are interested in the Wii. It is interesting to note that while shopping for the Wii version of Guitar Hero III in Toronto, there are stacks of the Activision version, and the PC version, but no Wii versions to be had, and the clerk at the local Wal-Mart told me that they get cases of the other versions, but only six copies of the Wii system. She doubts they will get any more before Christmas.
Elder daughter wants Guitar Hero III for the Wii for Christmas. Six friggin' stores.. not one copy in stock, and they won't let you reserve a copy either. I'll be haunting the stores for the next two weeks, hoping to get lucky.
I agree that there's a certain amount of violence in some Wii games, but it's cartoon violence, as opposed to the realistic gore of PS3 and Xbox. I mean, kicking bunnies off the stage in Mario is not the same as slicing someone in half in Halo. I'm happy to have my daughters play Wii games; I would not have an Xbox or PS3 in the house.
Seriously, are you a low-functioning moron, or a high-functioning imbecile? Let's look at that bastion of socialist perfection, Cuba. It's been nearly 50 years since Castro took over; can you name a single invention or useful good that they've developed in half a century? Didn't think so.
In the meantime, bad old America created mini- and micro-computers, a bunch of useful programming languages, some tremendously useful software applications, cable and DSL data connections, a whole bunch of life-saving medicines and technologies, cellphones, LANs, fibre optics - I could go on, but what's the point? Jobs and Wozniak, Gates and Allen - I'm sure they were all interested in what they were doing, but I'm also pretty sure they did it because they wanted to make money.
I've seen some stupid comments on /., but this one takes the cake. You live in a style that kings and queens didn't enjoy 100 years ago, and you question the system that provided it? You are some kind of ingrate.
Agreed. Isn't "skint" a synonym for "broke", as in having no money? Who would ever say "you're a broke"?