Re: macjules Re: Concrete answers
"Russian or Italian?" I'm just waiting for the last minute pardons from Obambi for his Chicago mafia buddies.
9822 posts • joined 21 May 2007
Poor Chinese, they have years of fun with Obama, and then suddenly they have to deal with someone that doesn't "play by their rules"! Gosh, so underhand, using Twatter! If 140 chars gives them this much trouble just wait until Trumpet gives a speech in Beijing (or Taipei!).
"Guy wants to go help the Kurds fight IS terrorists...." That's what he said. Of course, the reality could be that he was saved from being kidnapped by a group claiming to be able to hook him up with the Kurds (unlikely given he was trying to route through Jordan and not Turkey). This guy was a complete muppet for broadcasting his intent - if he really did want to provide humanitarian aid to the Kurds then there are at least a dozen charities he could have offered his services to, but his posts seem to show he just wanted to go play Rambo. And he could have avoided any charge if he'd simply given up his iPhone PIN but he decided it was smarter to "play it hard" - what a maroon! It doesn't look like the Kurds missed out on a Bourne-level operative, more like an obnoxious version of Private Pike. When you finish laughing at this twit you could always enjoy some vintage Pike and comrades.
"....or shrinkage?" Unfortunately (for the Rutgers' staff) that's unlikely. You see, once Cloud operators have your data locked up in their systems, it's like they have your genitals in a vice - tearing yourself away will hemorrhage money and probably kill your business, either through outright expense or through loss of business during the exit. The majority of migrations to the Cloud I've seen have also seen "efficiencies" made amongst the staff that could provide a fallback service, ensuring that it's even harder for the victim to tear away even if they could extract their data. I'm pretty certain the next quarter will still see fees from Rutgers in the Oracle "plus" column and some dean desperately insisting through gritted teeth that "the worst is behind us, the partnership with Oracle is working", etc., etc.
".... A bit like Hull, but without the charm." Strangely, the "charm" has been missing from every visit I've made to Hull. Perchance, were you comparing Hull to Aleppo?
"....He actively participated in interference with the election of the US, which is (AFAIK) a criminal offence....." Debatable. Assange himself didn't put them up on a website, Dickileaks did, but only after they let a worldwide network of accredited journalists go to town on them. Once again, stop trying to bash the source in avoidance of the damning content. Assange is happily getting more of the revenge on "the Big Bad US" he has dreamed of ever since he got convicted of hacking US systems, but he didn't create the material out of thin air. Podesta and the DNC did.
"....raging authoritarian populists...." You talking about Obama? I mean, it's not like the industry has been warning for years that the grid (and other utilities - remember the Stuxnet furor?) are badly protected against hacking, yet all of a sudden (when the DNC needs to blame an election result on it) Obama starts "punishing" the Russians! I'd have to say this is far too little and far too late from the Obama administration, just a frustrated tantrum rather than what they should have started years ago. It's not like the idea of air-gapping was born yesterday (IIRC, the Bell-LaPadula security model talked about it in the '70s!), so - given the shrieking about Chinese and Russian hacking for at least the last five years - why hasn't anyone in Obama's administration done anything to enforce basic security measures like air-gapping as a Federal requirement on utility operators, let alone areas like voting machines? It's not like Gee Dubya didn't set the ball rolling with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Properly enforced air-gapping virtually eliminates the threat of the kind of phishing attacks used in Vermont. But no, Obama was more interested in "building his legacy" than actually focusing on real issues.
"....Let's see how long it takes for Congress and Trump to undo it all..." Actually, the GOP has been trying to goad the Obama administration into some more effective action over cybersecurity for years, so they're unlikely to undo this executive order. I did chuckle at Trumpet's Twitter dig though - he manages to defuse the issue with Putin by making it look like Obama is just throwing a bad loser's tantrum on his way out the door.
"....It is not however wrong for someone to become a president despite winning less votes than the losing candidate?...." The Electoral College was intended to stop one area of the US dominating the voting through demographics. In the recent elections, Shrillary's "popular vote win" can be explained simply by pointing out that she won big in California alone, whilst losing in the majority of States. Indeed, if you take California out of the picture, then Trumpet scored 1.4m more votes across the rest of the States than Shrillary. As it stands, Democrat-dominated California alone guaranteed Shrillary a whopping 55 Electoral College votes, meaning she only needed 215 from the other 49 states - she failed to get them. If you are happy with California alone getting to decide who gets to be POTUS then you (probably willfully) failed to understand why the Electoral College system was implemented in the first place.
"It is always listening..... My guess is it is always recording too....." From a security viewpoint, I'm more worried that the device could be hacked (or the connection to the Amazon servers diverted) to send what it hears to an eavesdropper. It doesn't matter what volume of recordings it stores locally if it can stream it out to a listener over your WiFi router's connection, you'd be effectively paying to install a bugging device in your home.
It doesn't seem that long ago (ten years?) that the market was dominated by two-socket Xeon boxes like hp's DL380.
A Happy New Year to one and all!
".....Hands up if you've ever been to Wikileaks and read them for yourself?....." I have an old PC that boots off a read-only Linux CD for when I go wading in such malware-riddled cesspools as Dickileaks. In this case, all the floating turds were both evidently genuine and under-reported by the mainstream media. But even normally pro-Clinton, Leftie rags had to grudgingly admit the Podesta emails' damning contents, and how the DNC blatantly lied about being caught. Just imagine how much more vitriolic, triumphant and damning The Guardian would have been if the similar material had been leaked from a Tory or Republican campaign manager's emails!
The same mainstream media is now happily jumping at the chance of helping Obambi blame everything on Pootie rather than asking embarrassing questions of how the DNC could be involved in such nefarious activities, how the DNC got a free ride over lying about being caught, how much Obambi himself knew about said activities, nor how Obambi could spend the last few months of the election plugging away for Shrillary after such activities had been exposed. Yes, I'm certain the neo-Soviets do spend plenty of time trying to hack the US, but in concentrating on that there is a definite denial going on that there is something very rotten at the core of the Democrat Party. Ironically, by doing so and not publicly fixing their own problems, the DNC and mainstream media will probably end up guaranteeing eight rather than four years of a Republican-dominated House and POTUS.
The current hysterics from Dummicrat Central are simply an attempt to hide the facts exposed by the "hacking"/leaks. Obambi and co are waving their arms wildly in the hope of distracting the public from th the fact (a) they lost the election, and (b) they screwed Bernie over during the process, the candidate who would probably have won them the election, and (c) Shrillary was busy saying one thing to the Left for votes whilst cuddling up to Wall Street for contributions, and the DNC knew. The support from certain Republicans for blaming Putin is simply because they think Obambi has been weak on dealing with Russian, Chinese and Nork hacking. They see Obambi as the POTUS that gave up US control of the Internet and they'd love to take it back.
"......Could make quite a good haul if you hit the one in the rich neighborhoods where they are stocked with lots of nice high end goods." Just remotely hack the controls for one hovering over Hollywood and have it land in somewhere lawless/extradition-free like Venezuala, Ecuador or Oakland.
Ha! That's nothing, I just submitted a patent application for Efficient Oxygen Inhalation Through an Autonomic Rhythmic Contractions of the Ribcage's Intercostal Muscles and Diagphram. Those fools at Amazon can literally cough up now or quit breathing! On second thoughts, a licensing clause to exclude patent lawyers would be a great benefit to humanity.
"....Netgear....DLink....Linksys...." Well, the best way to avoid the problems of consumer networking gear is simply to avoid consumer networking gear. Standard MO for consultant project teams - setup project office, insist on quality WiFi router bought out of the operating budget (with lifetime professional support), complete budget, then quietly take the quality unit home. I've lost count of the number of contractors' home offices I've seen with "acquired" 3Com, HP or CISCO routers. And printers, scanners, etc. True, the big boys of networking do screw up every now and again (CISCO Catalysts and the dreaded Ping Of Death spring to mind!), but you can usually count on their support delivering a fix pretty quickly and for long after a consumer vendor would drop support for a product.
"......And you REALLY expect Putin to side with Vietnam over China? Really? You are seriously fucking deluded....." You should try a bit more factual reading, especially regarding the existing island disputes between China and Vietnam (which have involved live fire), plus China's invasion of Vietnam and the resulting split between the Soviet Union and China that was seized on by Nixon, before you go posting any more evidence of your complete lack of historic reading.
".....beating up a schoolboy." Wow, the Yank haters really do have short memories! Before Saddam got so soundly trounced in the Gulf War, the "experts" in the haters club were hysterically claiming Saddam's forces in Kuwait were "too big and too well-armed" for the UN forces to handle without catastrophic loss of American lives, that his Republican Guard were some type of experienced "super soldiers". Iraq did have the largest conventional army and airforce in the region, it's just the haters wanted to transpose "largest" with "capable". They argued it was better to take the path of compromise, to appease the bully. History then showed the US-led UN forces completely annihilating the Iraqi forces in Kuwait, especially the Republican Guard. Hilariously, the same "experts" made similar predictions of gloom and woe for the Invasion of Iraq, only to again see the Iraqi conventional forces trounced again. Of course, after he was defeated so easily, the "unbeatable" Saddam has transmogrified into a "schoolboy" in the eyes of the haters.
It's not like the haters don't have previous in denigrating US capabilities. During the Iran-Iraq War, the Iranians attacked unarmed shipping in international waters in the Persian Gulf. The "experts" wailed that any US interference would be a disaster, that the USN could not operate in the Gulf without being destroyed by the large Iranian airforce and navy (including Iranian subs). Operation Preying Mantis then showed the Iranian navy being smashed and the Iranian airforce hiding from sight, and international shipping being given safe passage through the Gulf. I take it the haters will refer to the Ayatollahs as "schoolboys" too after their bluff was called?
The key to the US's ability to beat such bullies was not just a quantative but also a qualitative edge, both in equipment, training and tactics, and the will of other POTUSs to use it. Despite the size of their forces, the Chinese know they cannot match the US in open battle at sea, either above or below the waves, and would be hard pressed to provide support to those distant artificial islands should the US decide to support the other nations in the region in taking those islands. There's also the catastrophic harm such a war would do to the Chinese economy. Obambi should have imposed tough economic sanctions on China the minute they started building those artificial islands, but he waivered and equivocated and tried appeasing China, probably because he listened to too many of those same haters, and China laughed at him. China isn't laughing about Trumpet.
"Something about fighting a land war in Asia?" Firstly, the most likely action wouldn't be a land war in Asia, it would be an US-supported action by local nations to seize (and probably destroy) the artificial islands far from the reach of the massive conventional forces on mainland China. The USN's superior numbers and tech would make such a venture a foregone conclusion. Secondly, the US has not fought an unrestrained "war" in SE Asia since WW2. Even Korea had serious political limitations placed on US forces, and Vietnam saw an US military that could have rolled right through North Vietnam in a week totally hogtied by politics. Thirdly, any unlikely land war would see China actually fighting her neighbours, particularly the Vietnamese. And Russia, with its massive border with China, is still a friend to Vietnam. It is very doubtful that China would ever let it get to a full-blown shooting war in SE Asia, but if it happened it would be the Chinese that would have the most cause to blink first.
".....but it is information that's intended for a military purpose." Not just military purposes. The data is also supplied to a number of scientific programs looking at the marine environment, oceanography, and climatology - http://www.apl.washington.edu/project/project.php?id=seaglider - and was developed by scientists, not the "Eeeevvvviiiiiiillll" DARPA or any other military body. Without the support given to the program by the US Navy it wouldn't have happened at all.
".....Why are MPs and chums exempted from being spied on?....." Sorry to pop your alarmist bubble, but I can assure you, MPs - especially ministers - are monitored. Indeed, as a general member of the public, you would have to get yourself onto a "naughty list" to receive as much attention as our politicians are subjected to.
".....Next step would be "accidentally" delaying some export we need/want...." The problem with that scenario is there is very little that China exports that cannot be found elsewhere, not even the "rare earth minerals" used in electronics. It's not the same as OPEC in 1973, the US economy won't grind to a halt if the US can't get some cheap plastic toys. Countries like Indonesia, Vietnam and Mexico will happily fill any gap in the market left by a China refusal to export. China can go stick their oar in politically in other parts of the World, but that would be little more than a minor annoyance to the US.
On the other hand, China's new economy has made it very vulnerable to restrictions on food imports. All those Chinese factory workers that used to grow crops now want food like beef on a regular basis, and the majority of that food is coming from abroad. That's one of the reasons the Chinese are buying up farms throughout Africa - they desperately need to import food almost as badly as North Korea.
"....Yes, there is. Salvage doesn't mean you get to keep whatever you find out there, just that you have a claim for compensation...." Actually, no. You are thinking of a contract salvage, which is when a wreck has happened and a third party steps in and offers to perform the salvage operation for a fee, in return for which they usually get sole rights to make the salvage. If no contract has been made then anyone can make a salvage and then turn round and bill the owner. If there is no salvage contract in place, and the original owner wishes to reclaim the salvaged material, then they must make a claim and then pay a salvage fee. If the original owner thinks the fee being charged by the salvager is unfair then they can go to court, and if the original owner decides they don't want to pay for an unsanctioned salvage they can refuse and the salvager gets to keep the wreck. In the case of the Soviet sub, no sovereign wreck was declared, so the US didn't approach the Russians to demand a salvage fee, and the Russians didn't make a claim to have the salvaged material returned, so the US gets to keep it. If the Russians want it back now they would have to pay the US for the salvage. If they want to stop the salvage of the rest that remains on the seabed then they can just declare what's left a sovereign wreck, but it probably has zero intelligence value by now.
".....It'll be sunk almost immediately. The Yanks won't want a significant retaliation for its loss...." It will be sailing with plenty of US airmen and sailors on board (it will be operating US Marines jets), so it would still be seen as an attack on the US.
"From China's point of view the US are operating in Chinese waters. The rest of the world may have decided new islands don't make territorial water, but did China ever agree?...." The area in question would be outside even the fake 200 mile economic zone created by any of the artificial islands China has created at the Mischief and Fiery Cross Reefs.
".....Fundamentally its just not very clever of the US, sabre rattling in dispurted (sic) territory...." This event occurred about 50 miles from Subic Bay, well inside the internationally-recognised Philipines' waters, and is outside the Nice Dash Line claimed by China, which makes it even more an act of piracy as it is completely indefensible by any Chinese claim of "China Sea" sovereignty. Which just makes your comment fundamentally not very clever.
"....just like allowing Russias (sic) neighbours to sign up for Nato (sic) wasn't clever...." The ex-Warsaw pact countries wanted to join the protection offered by NATO because they are scared of Russian intervention, not because NATO offers them any other incentive. Indeed, the commitment to spending 2% of GDP on modern weaponry plus the expense of overhauling their militaries to fit with NATO operating systems and policies is a serious expense to those ex-Warsaw pact countries, which just goes to show Pootie's tantrums and brinkmanship brought that little trouble on himself.
".....Chinese were already experts at power politics and playing the game of chicken when american indians were still chasing the buffaloes, european sea-faring nations were using log rafts, and both believed the Earth to be flat....." Please do then explain the fact that China disintegrated into a feudal land ruled by warlords in the early 20th century, then fell under the myth of Communism for the late 20th century? Make sure you explain the "brilliance" of Mao's Great Leap Forward". Then you might come to realise the Chinese have a lot to learn from the rest of the World too.
".....Windscale ?" The nucleur piles at Sellafield were based on the B Reactor design from the American Manhattan Project. Even so, despite the anti-nuke crowd's shrieking, the Windscale fire was a relatively minor nucleur event, releasing far less radiation than many other such events (such as Three Mile Island, and much, much less than Chernobyl), and not one single death has actually been linked to the Windscale fire. One of the reasons the Windscale fire wasn't so bad an event was because of the additions made to the US design by British engineers and scientists, especially Sir John Cockroft's chimney filters (Cockcroft was a very clever chap and was also behind the use of the proximity fuses that shot down the majority of V-1 flying bombs in WW2).
The British nuke power effort is currently mainly around nuke sub engines, and HMG considered the Chinese and French offers as they were cheaper, not because Britain was thought unable to develop her own.
".....So maybe the Chinese believe the US has already set a precedent." No, because the K-129 had been abandoned by her crew (who are all presumed to have died in the event) and had sunk, the Soviets did not declare the K-129 a sovereign wreck (giving it protected warship wreck status), therefore maritime salvage law applied. The Yanks kept the salvage attempt quiet but there is no actual law saying you have to make a public declaration of any salvage operation on a ship that has been abandoned. The USSR could have stopped the effort by declaring the K-129 a sovereign wreck, but to do so would have meant making the embarrassing admission that they had lost a nuke-armed sub in the first place, which they were reluctant to do because they didn't think the wreck was salvageable. As it stands, Project Azorian was an amazing technical feat and probably one of the biggest intelligence coups of the Cold War, and bears no relation to the situation in hand.
".....If it's not under control, where control is usually defined as having a crew onboard able to pilot the vessel, and has been abandoned, and it's not a military vessel, isn't it fair game?" No, it has to be "abandoned", so a drone under remote control or following a pre-configured route is neither. The fact that the US ship in question had just picked up two other similar drones means the Chinese would have a hard time arguing they thought the third was "abandoned", especially as this is also not the first such outing for these quite well-publicised drones. I suggest you need to do some more reading, starting here. China ratified the UNCLOS in 1996, and therefore hasn't got a peg-leg to stand on as far as this act of piracy is concerned.
"obviously an American spy ship, good luck to the Chinese for having a bit of a laugh !" Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it! Oh, hold on a sec - wasn't Lyndon B. Johnson a Dummicrat POTUS though?
The Chinese were a bit smarter the last time they tried something like this, getting the Norks to do their dirty work. Mind you, they probably think Obambi is more of a push-over than Johnson.
The cheekiest revenge snatch I can think of would be to send a sub with plenty of SEALs to one of those man-made Chinese islands, have the SEALs land sneakily and quietly pinch all the weapons the Chinese have put on the island, replacing them with imitation ones stamped "made in Taiwan"!
"You'll soon be able to buy them on eBay." Soon a copy will appear from Iran, who will claim it is the original work of their scientists. It will be capable of carrying a tiny limpet mine (basically a copy of an M-80 in a plastic bag tied to a fridge magnet), which the Iranians will claim gives them the capability to sink all "The Great Satan" USN vessels.
".....Trump believes in producing friction. Expect fireworks." Which is why the Chinese have committed this act of piracy whilst the toothless Obama administration is still in power. There's plenty of time for them to extract concessions, for Obama to declare another "red line" and for China to step over it to get Obama on bended knee, long before Trumpet actually gets to take over.
".... And you are not going to get people to vote for a third party on the basis of one issue alone." Shush! Don't disincentivise the poor bugger, he was probably quite happy to go waste his vote, only now you've pointed out the reality he's probably going to do something silly instead, like vote Green. Best to leave the ignorant to wallow in the dark.
"....a sexbot that you find so attractive and sexually fulfilling....." Even more to the point, is he suggesting we should somehow punish those women that are currently the "apex predators" in attractiveness as they reduce the chance men will want to have sex with "ordinary" women? Will a legally-enforced limit be set to how sexy Margot Robbie can look going to be set? Seeing as the whole fashion industry depends on people remaining insecure about their looks and constantly trying to attain an artificial and - frankly, for the majority of people - unobtainable level of attractive "perfectness", I don't see that being a problem for the sex robot manufacturers in court. And that's before we start looking at other hanger-ones to the fashion industry, such as womens' magazines, which seem to constantly pump out articles stating "buy this rag and we'll tell you how to have the best sex ever".
".....I was given a written warning...." Their tantrums are just making easier for Romnety's to identify who goes on her next downsizing list.
".... I want to upvote you and sometimes do...." Thanks but do you really think I'm at all bothered by the ratio of upvotes to downvotes? Indeed, it's often quite fun imagining some of the forum members mashing the downvote button in helpless rage as they find another post to which they cannot actually formulate a reasoned counter.
PS: I also do upvote your posts sometimes.
".... every reference to 'Obambi' reduces any respect for you by another notch." What, you thought anyone posted here to get your approval? Sheesh, reign in that ego, buddy!
"....Contrast with Mrs. Clinton who proactively squashed Bernie using secret inside leverage over the Democrat Party....." Which is hilarious after she complained about the way some members of the DNC backed Obambi in their very dirty infighting in 2008! Quick, The Huff must be Russian cyber spies that tried to "influence" the election! Or, looking at the "lies" he spread about Obambi in 2008, maybe Bill Clinton was a "Russian spy influencing the election"! ROFL!
"Still waiting for anything of substance....." Been much like that throughout Barry's whole two administrations, TBH. Quite ironic that Michelle Obama is now claiming "Americans don't have hope", after it's two cycles of her hubby's promising to deliver "hope and change" that left the electorate so desperate for change they put their hopes in someone like Donald Trump! I suppose the TLAs think that going with this baloney will get them some more cyber funding.
You know there is something seriously wrong in the World when you have to upvote Henri! I cannot believe Obambi agreed to put his name to this evidence-free allegations, which fly in the face of actual evidence of it being a leak. Obambi's usually so set on polishing his "legacy" that I find it bizarre he'd get caught up in this silliness. Is it a last and desperate attempt to influence the Electoral College voters, hoping they will not vote for Trump (as their constituents clearly directed them to)? If so then it is an even less moral attempt to influence the outcome of the election than what they have accused Pootie of doing!
".....When did Russia become such buddies with the United States that the mere possibility of their inferring with internal domestic affairs is utterly dismissed by the right wing??...." No-one on the Right is saying that the neo-Soviets wouldn't or couldn't "hack" the election (they probably hacked Shrillary's private email server years ago), they are simply pointing out that the evidence says that, in this case, it was a leak by a disgruntled/disgusted insider. In the face of which, Obambi's claim rings very hollow given that he has presented zero evidence for the latest excuse for the Dummicrats' defeat. I have no doubt Pootie's hackers are busy every day trying to hack US stuff, it's what he pays them to do, just as we pay our hackers to hack Pootie and his buddies, but trying to hang their election defeat on Pootie is just more Dummicrats denial.
"You don't happen to have that list of disasters do you?...." Sorry, the majority of them are covered by NDAs. Maybe I'll retire to somewhere without an extradition treaty with Europe or the US and release them in a book (without names changed to protect the guilty).
In the meantime, a good source for scaring beancounters is the excellent Catalogue of Catastrophe. As probably a World record of expensive benacounter-induced failure ($43bn to date and counting), it looks like cost-cutting was the root of the VW emissions "cheat device" - ".....Reports indicate that the technology needed to comply with the government regulations was available, but someone in the project that designed the affected engine decided that the cost of the necessary components was too high....."
One of the tricks I like for dealing with beancounters is showing them real World scenarios where cost-cutting led to expensive disasters. I'm guessing this was one of those events where someone decided to buy a single-node, single-shelf 3PAR instead of an MSA or some P4000s (whaddya bet the salesgrunt was after the extra hp commission being offered for flogging 3PARs?), but it would be nice to know the design and operational details so the effects of the cost-cutting can be highlighted. I generally find that about 90% of IT disasters are actually beancounter-induced.
As an aside, I remember building a fileserver out of spare PC parts for a professor (many, many years ago) to get round a centralized backup policy he had no faith in. It seems little has changed in academia.
".....Tiger tanks - it was easy to disable them by targetting their fuel supply....." The Tiger was the perfect example of an attempt to ensure dominance through making a vast and unproven leap in technology. The result was massively unreliable in the few advancing campaigns it participated in (such as Kursk, where the majority of Tigers broke down before even reaching the start lines), gaining its reputation in the predominantly defensive operations the Germans were forced into after 1942. Throughout 1944-45, more Tigers were abandoned and lost due to mechanical problems than lack of fuel. However, the fuel point raised is still valid as the Tiger used twice as much as even the "good enough" long-75mm-armed PzIVs. Indeed, the Tiger took more than twice as long to build and used up almost twice the resources as the arguably more effective PzIV.
".....The desperation part only kicked in in the latter stages of the war....." No. When Hitler committed Germany to war in 1939, his generals and most of his economic staff had already twigged that Germany did not have the economic and production resources, especially for high-quality steel and refined oil, to pursue a long war. Hitler's Chief of Staff, Ludwig Beck, opposed the annexation of Czecheslovakia in 1938 because he was one of the Nazis to realise that Germany couldn't win a war with France and Britain without significant changes to supply and production. The Germans had already absorbed the lessons of WW1, where Germany and her partners had been unable to compete economically with the Allies (as an example of this, Germany was so short of high-quality steel by 1916 that the Germans were forced to recycle the engines from crashed Allied aircraft, the engine in one of Manfred von Richtifen's scouts being a recycled French unit). In the 30s this led the Nazis to a policy of "dominance though superior technology" - Germany would beat her enemies by making such giant leaps in science and technology that they would maintain a qualitative edge for the duration of the expected short war (staring in mid-1940 at the earliest, and preferably not until 1942, and lasting only six months), yet require the production of fewer actual weapons. This strategy dictated that a "supertank" would use less resources and defeat ten or more ordinary tanks expected to be produced by the more economically-affluent Allies or Russians over the timeframe of a short war. This chimed neatly with the Nazi ideal of Aryan superiority (and why the T-34 was such a shock to those ideas of racial superiority). Thus, schemes which promised quick rewards (such as the Tiger "supertank") were encouraged, whilst those requiring slow and steady development (such as the Heinkel 280, the actual first jet fighter) were ignored or ordered to stop. When the actual War went on longer than the few months expected, and the programs didn't provide the war-winning superweapons expected, the desperation set in very early on (in cases as early as November 1940, when it became clear Germany could not invade Britain and bring the War to a quick conclusion). Fortunately for the Allies, the Nazis had instilled such a focus on the "dominance through superior technology" mantra, and with resources getting ever fewer, the Germans simply pushed even further into unproven technologies (and ridiculous "supersupertank" projects like the Maus tank), producing designs that consumed even more resources for less returns than their Allied counterparts. Last ditch attempts to rationalise development and production programs eventually churned out masses of ordinary weapons which were actually technologically-inferior to the best Allied designs (such as the Bf109K compared to the P-51D or Tempest V), but failed because the Germans didn't meet easily anticipated shortfalls in other areas (aero fuels and pilot training in the case of the Bf109K).
".....Shermans might have been tommycookers....." The Sherman tank was actually arguably the best all-round tank when introduced to combat in 1942. It had good enough armour, a good gun that also fired a good HE shell, was manoeuvrable and fast enough, was quick to build in numbers, and was easy to train on, service and reliable in use. The problem was the Yanks didn't understand the irrational "dominance through superior technology" mantra pushing the Nazi scientists and engineers, and thought the Sherman was such a technological leap whilst still being reliable that they could not see anyone producing a better all-round tank by the expected end of the War (which the Yanks predicted in 1941 as ending by Christmas 1943!). Therefore the Yanks virtually stopped development of a real heavy tank, and were later surprised by the appearance of the heavier (but much less reliable) Tiger and Panther. Even so, the majority of Shermans knocked out in 1944 and 1945 were attacked by German infantry using cheap recoiless weapons (such as the Panzerscrechk, a copy of the American Bazooka technology) and not Tiger tanks (as many as 70% of all T-34s destroyed are thought to have been lost to the cheap and simple Panzerscrechk and Panzerfaust weapons).
".....Japan's war effort was doomed from the moment its fuel supplies were cut off...." The Japanese had plenty of fuel (they went to war to seize oilfields in Malaya and Java, and were still in control of them through 1945), what they lacked was the industrial capability to produce enough aircraft and pilots of good enough quality to fight the more numerous and better-armed Allies. The Japanese never did produce a tank to match even the Sherman, but they did produce some excellent fighters (such as the Ki-84 and the chop-shop Ki100). Their problem was producing those fighters in numbers and training enough pilots to the level of their Allied opponents, both of which proved impossible. As an added problem, no-one had predicted and prepared Japan for bombing by B-29s, and so what industry they did have was not dispersed and was poorly protected. The Japanese also tried to make technological leaps so they could produce "superweapons" to defeat the larger numbers of superior Allied planes, but these projects were even less successful than those of the Germans.
"How did they get caught? Surely they didn't upload it from their own computers? Rookie mistake, scumbags." Indeed, it does seem a quite clever scheme, just poorly implemented. I'm guessing their lack of forethought was due to thinking how could anyone resist the blackmail, the threat of being exposed as a giant, free-loading, immoral perv to their friends and family?
But then someone from Hollywood downloaded the pr0n....
".... You all move to your fun languages, and I'll fatten my pension account with the Java left-overs." er, unlikely. You'll find yourself competing against the Chinese and Indian offshorers, all willing to create reams of (bad) Java code at a fraction of what you'll want to charge for your time. During the Y2K fun I spent a lot of time steering banks away from using such offshorers in preference for actual experienced COBOL coders, not always with success.
"..... And call it Vaja." No, that would make me think of "vagina". Then again, that might be more appropriate!
".....Oracle's strategy has always been to make sure your balls are in one of its vices and then to turn the screw every so often to extract more money....." Which is exactly why this is good news! Larry also had adopted Sun's crazy plan to try and flog the hardware he got with the Sun corpse, so this is more evidence that Larry is finally beginning to realise his hardware toys are simply not an efficient use of resources, and he should go back to concentrating on the core products that us customers actually want, namely the database.
As to why it has taken so long to happen, it was because Oracle needed to embed bits into the SE suite that he could claim were proprietary, such as the unwanted Desktop "product". Hey, do you remember all the pro-Oracle, ex-Sun fanbois insisting that would never happen? Those fanbois should be sheepishly hanging their naive heads in shame. The best thing they could do now is help the open source community devise some free and clear instructions for users on how to not install or remove the added crud that Larry has inserted into the Java suite so users can tell Larry's vultures where to insert their license demands.