This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!
WATCH: E.R. Doctors Urge A Reopening: Lockdown Creating Public Health Crisis, Doctors ‘Pressured’ To Add COVID To Death Reports, Quarantining Healthy ‘Never Seen’ Before
The idea of science not being a "democracy" - of respecting sincerely held minority views - is a noble one seldom accomplished. We don't want to get into climate change here, as that's off-topic and fairly incendiary, but climate-change "skeptics" are not respected. The majority feel that the science is settled and that the matter is too critical to entertain dissenting views. So the skeptics are marginalized, denied tenure, picked on, scorned, etc. by their comrades. There are other fields with similar patterns too. We would do well to learn to tolerate and accommodate but it's hard to avoid going down the "tyranny of the majority" pathway.
The idea of science not being a "democracy" - of respecting sincerely held minority views - is a noble one seldom accomplished. We don't want to get into climate change here, as that's off-topic and fairly incendiary, but climate-change "skeptics" are not respected. The majority feel that the science is settled and that the matter is too critical to entertain dissenting views. So the skeptics are marginalized, denied tenure, picked on, scorned, etc. by their comrades. There are other fields with similar patterns too. We would do well to learn to tolerate and accommodate but it's hard to avoid going down the "tyranny of the majority" pathway.
Dan, you just brought in climate change to make a point that doesn't necessarily need that to make it.
We had a long off forum discussion about climate change and I checked every single claim you made about those scientists being "mistreated." What I found was that many were proven to be incorrect in their findings by later studies, but held onto their thesis long after they were obsolete. Others had funding from think tanks with anti-climate change agendas and produced science that supported the goals of the institutions paying their wages. Some others had claims that showed very interesting findings, but that didn't necessarily debunk prevailing climate change consensus, and yet they and others claimed that they did.
So maybe keep climate change out to his thread please. No need to go there.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
I get the gist of your thoughts, Erik, though you could express yourself more clearly. What exactly does "to make a point that doesn't necessrarily need that to make it" mean?
I don't think anybody will want to go there but the point is made, with you helping make it. The thoughts of those contrary to yours on the matter aren't "legitimate."
[:)]
ORIGINAL: obvert
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
The idea of science not being a "democracy" - of respecting sincerely held minority views - is a noble one seldom accomplished. We don't want to get into climate change here, as that's off-topic and fairly incendiary, but climate-change "skeptics" are not respected. The majority feel that the science is settled and that the matter is too critical to entertain dissenting views. So the skeptics are marginalized, denied tenure, picked on, scorned, etc. by their comrades. There are other fields with similar patterns too. We would do well to learn to tolerate and accommodate but it's hard to avoid going down the "tyranny of the majority" pathway.
Dan, you just brought in climate change to make a point that doesn't necessarily need that to make it.
We had a long off forum discussion about climate change and I checked every single claim you made about those scientists being "mistreated." What I found was that many were proven to be incorrect in their findings by later studies, but held onto their thesis long after they were obsolete. Others had funding from think tanks with conservative agendas and produced science that supported the goals of the institutions paying their wages. Some others had claims that showed very interesting findings, but that didn't necessarily debunk prevailing climate change consensus, and yet they and others claimed that they did.
So maybe keep climate change out to his thread please. No need to go there.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
US is at 74k, UK at 35k. I think both of these are slight increases on what they had before (I didn't have the numbers written down so may be wrong). Italy, Spain and France are all pretty much unchanged at around 25k which I think is pretty much where they were previously.
The UK one is still looking well off. Of the two days since the predictions appear to have been updated we had:
27/04 Predicted 1250 vs Actual 360 - although some of the difference will be to do with their daily numbers not taking into account the weekend affect.
28/04 Predicted 1205 vs Actual 639
"U.S.—After several embarrassing and widely divergent revisions to the coronavirus projections of infection, hospitalization, and death rate used by government officials around the world to justify shutting down the global economy, experts at John Hopkins have now deployed a state-of-the-art super-scientific computer model and have now determined that between 0 and 12.6 billion people will contract the disease and be completely dead by summer."
"“It is absolutely vital that no one shake hands ever again. Though after June 1 it won’t matter as much,” he added."
Sammy, yes, they updated last night. US went from 67k to 74k. I think UK was at 32k, so a slight increase. I think ditto with respect to Italy, Spain, etc. Relatively small increases.
So Univ. of Washington must be zeroing in on the targets now, as the updates are coming a bit less frequently and don't result in the big swings of the past.
State projections also went up, usually in small amounts. Probably not all of them.
What I don't know, and what would be interesting to know, is whether the updated projections take into account easing of countermeasures in states that have done so. It would be very hard to get this right. In my part of Georgia, only a handful of restaurants have opened their dining rooms (probably less than 10%). As best I can tell, people are assiduously maintaining the social distancing protocols. So an assumption that countermeasure easing would be quite hard to quantify.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
For the last few years China and the United States have been at war. A polite war, but a war for world leadership nonetheless. Until recently, the combat was economic. The U.S. imposed tariffs — an 18th-century technology — and the Chinese responded with COVID-19, a 21st-century technology that decimated our economy. They won.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, 40 percent of the U.S. economy will be destroyed — as well as over 200,000 deaths worldwide and 50,000 in the U.S. to date and counting. The latest is that meat-packing plants are closing to avoid spreading the virus, which may lead to food shortages.
There is no question that China did this to us and our economy. Some people still want to believe that it was an accident or an innocent mistake. That is naïve, but more important, irrelevant. The adverse effect on our people and our economy is no less real even if we can’t prove that the Chinese did it on purpose.
It cannot be denied that the Chinese government set loose the COVID-19 coronavirus on the rest of the world and that the U.S. and our NATO allies have been especially hard hit. It appears at present that there will be no adverse consequences for them — with the possible exception of paying $30 million more to support their friends at the World Health Organization to replace the contribution that the U.S. suspended. What a pitiful response!
China has shown the U.S. and the rest of the world who is boss by demonstrating what it can do with a virus. U.S. strategic doctrine calls for the U.S. to retaliate with nuclear weapons if we are subject to an attack by biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction. That strategy — if one can dignify it by using that term — is both impractical and antiquated; it is mired in cold war thinking from the nuclear standoff of the 1960s. Who could possibly imagine that a U.S. nuclear strike on the Chinese people in retaliation for a pandemic their government chose not to prevent is realistic — or desirable? No, the Chinese government has figured out how to attack in a way that gives plausible deniability, and consequently there will be no retaliation.
The lesson from World War II is that the major country that is least damaged by the carnage emerges as the new world leader. In 1945, that was the United States; today it is China. Whether they did this to the rest of the world on purpose or it just happened because they didn’t bother to prevent transmission to the rest of the world is largely irrelevant to assessing the consequences for the new world order. The “Chinese century” has begun.
True, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) have proposed a bill to set loose on China our equivalent of their virus: hordes of American trial lawyers bringing lawsuits in U.S. courts. That won’t pass — and if it did, China wouldn’t accept the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts or pay. What could show more clearly how unprepared we are intellectually to respond to an attack of this type than that the only thing we can think of to do about it is to sue the pandemic’s creators.
This is one of the few major attacks in history that was so brilliantly done — intentionally or not — that no one will counterattack. The only thing that comes to mind is the British breaking the German codes in World War II so that they could redirect the radio targeting beams and German bombers would drop their bombs in empty fields rather than over London.
You have to hand it to them: China out-thought us. They are taking credit worldwide for cures and humanitarian aid for a virus that they set loose on the world.
President Trump says he “is not happy” with China. Whoop-de-doo. They must be shaking in their boots. China is supposed to buy $250 billion of our products, and Trump is pleading with them to live up to their bargain, perhaps because he sees that as crucial to his prospects for reelection.
Imagine that the roles were reversed and we had killed 50,000 Chinese citizens with nuclear or conventional kinetic weapons instead of a naturally occurring virus. What would the response have been?
We are fighting a 21st-century enemy with 20th-century weapons. No wonder that they are winning.
What I don't know, and what would be interesting to know, is whether the updated projections take into account easing of countermeasures in states that have done so. It would be very hard to get this right. In my part of Georgia, only a handful of restaurants have opened their dining rooms (probably less than 10%). As best I can tell, people are assiduously maintaining the social distancing protocols. So an assumption that countermeasure easing would be quite hard to quantify.
Yes that is an interesting question. My initial reaction was that as far as I can tell the current projections are still based on lockdown measures being in place until their own predicted 'safe' date.
But looking at Georgia - they are now saying that the predicted peak in deaths is now in 4 days time? If this is very different from their estimated peak dates for Georgia previously then maybe they are taking it into account, in which case I agree with you that it is pretty difficult to model as you don't know how people will continue to behave once compulsory measures are lifted.
With respect to the UK, the drop in daily mortality has been dramatic - much different than other European countries with high numbers, including Spain and Italy. There the decline was gradual and prolonged. In the UK it's been more abrupt. Hopefully that's not merely an aberration.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
For the last few years China and the United States have been at war. A polite war, but a war for world leadership nonetheless. Until recently, the combat was economic. The U.S. imposed tariffs — an 18th-century technology — and the Chinese responded with COVID-19, a 21st-century technology that decimated our economy. They won.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, 40 percent of the U.S. economy will be destroyed — as well as over 200,000 deaths worldwide and 50,000 in the U.S. to date and counting. The latest is that meat-packing plants are closing to avoid spreading the virus, which may lead to food shortages.
There is no question that China did this to us and our economy. Some people still want to believe that it was an accident or an innocent mistake. That is naïve, but more important, irrelevant. The adverse effect on our people and our economy is no less real even if we can’t prove that the Chinese did it on purpose.
It cannot be denied that the Chinese government set loose the COVID-19 coronavirus on the rest of the world and that the U.S. and our NATO allies have been especially hard hit. It appears at present that there will be no adverse consequences for them — with the possible exception of paying $30 million more to support their friends at the World Health Organization to replace the contribution that the U.S. suspended. What a pitiful response!
China has shown the U.S. and the rest of the world who is boss by demonstrating what it can do with a virus. U.S. strategic doctrine calls for the U.S. to retaliate with nuclear weapons if we are subject to an attack by biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction. That strategy — if one can dignify it by using that term — is both impractical and antiquated; it is mired in cold war thinking from the nuclear standoff of the 1960s. Who could possibly imagine that a U.S. nuclear strike on the Chinese people in retaliation for a pandemic their government chose not to prevent is realistic — or desirable? No, the Chinese government has figured out how to attack in a way that gives plausible deniability, and consequently there will be no retaliation.
The lesson from World War II is that the major country that is least damaged by the carnage emerges as the new world leader. In 1945, that was the United States; today it is China. Whether they did this to the rest of the world on purpose or it just happened because they didn’t bother to prevent transmission to the rest of the world is largely irrelevant to assessing the consequences for the new world order. The “Chinese century” has begun.
True, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) have proposed a bill to set loose on China our equivalent of their virus: hordes of American trial lawyers bringing lawsuits in U.S. courts. That won’t pass — and if it did, China wouldn’t accept the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts or pay. What could show more clearly how unprepared we are intellectually to respond to an attack of this type than that the only thing we can think of to do about it is to sue the pandemic’s creators.
This is one of the few major attacks in history that was so brilliantly done — intentionally or not — that no one will counterattack. The only thing that comes to mind is the British breaking the German codes in World War II so that they could redirect the radio targeting beams and German bombers would drop their bombs in empty fields rather than over London.
You have to hand it to them: China out-thought us. They are taking credit worldwide for cures and humanitarian aid for a virus that they set loose on the world.
President Trump says he “is not happy” with China. Whoop-de-doo. They must be shaking in their boots. China is supposed to buy $250 billion of our products, and Trump is pleading with them to live up to their bargain, perhaps because he sees that as crucial to his prospects for reelection.
Imagine that the roles were reversed and we had killed 50,000 Chinese citizens with nuclear or conventional kinetic weapons instead of a naturally occurring virus. What would the response have been?
We are fighting a 21st-century enemy with 20th-century weapons. No wonder that they are winning.
Yep there is light in that direction. As I said CoVid19 is a GREAT bioweapon.
Guess I need to start wearing my Copper Fit compression gloves to the grocery store now.
Here comes the run on Copper Fit and Tommy Copper compression wear.
Better get your orders in now folks!
Just like all forms of long term storage survivalist food this stuff will be back ordered for a year before we know it.
Not to mention all the people who are going to swallow copper pennies (which are mostly steel) or make copper powder by grinding pipe and ingest it ...
They should consider that what kills a virus may not be too good for the delicate cells and beneficial bacteria in their gut!
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
"Roughly half of all U.S. workers stand to earn more in unemployment benefits than they did at their jobs before the coronavirus pandemic shut down wide swaths of the U.S. economy, and employers say the government relief is complicating plans to reopen businesses."
--------------------------
This will play out at all levels of non-farm and farm jobs. I've heard rumors of farm owners planning to let crops and livestock go bad because they will make more money from GOV and insurance.
For the last few years China and the United States have been at war. A polite war, but a war for world leadership nonetheless. Until recently, the combat was economic. The U.S. imposed tariffs — an 18th-century technology — and the Chinese responded with COVID-19, a 21st-century technology that decimated our economy. They won.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, 40 percent of the U.S. economy will be destroyed — as well as over 200,000 deaths worldwide and 50,000 in the U.S. to date and counting. The latest is that meat-packing plants are closing to avoid spreading the virus, which may lead to food shortages.
There is no question that China did this to us and our economy. Some people still want to believe that it was an accident or an innocent mistake. That is naïve, but more important, irrelevant. The adverse effect on our people and our economy is no less real even if we can’t prove that the Chinese did it on purpose.
It cannot be denied that the Chinese government set loose the COVID-19 coronavirus on the rest of the world and that the U.S. and our NATO allies have been especially hard hit. It appears at present that there will be no adverse consequences for them — with the possible exception of paying $30 million more to support their friends at the World Health Organization to replace the contribution that the U.S. suspended. What a pitiful response!
China has shown the U.S. and the rest of the world who is boss by demonstrating what it can do with a virus. U.S. strategic doctrine calls for the U.S. to retaliate with nuclear weapons if we are subject to an attack by biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction. That strategy — if one can dignify it by using that term — is both impractical and antiquated; it is mired in cold war thinking from the nuclear standoff of the 1960s. Who could possibly imagine that a U.S. nuclear strike on the Chinese people in retaliation for a pandemic their government chose not to prevent is realistic — or desirable? No, the Chinese government has figured out how to attack in a way that gives plausible deniability, and consequently there will be no retaliation.
The lesson from World War II is that the major country that is least damaged by the carnage emerges as the new world leader. In 1945, that was the United States; today it is China. Whether they did this to the rest of the world on purpose or it just happened because they didn’t bother to prevent transmission to the rest of the world is largely irrelevant to assessing the consequences for the new world order. The “Chinese century” has begun.
True, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) have proposed a bill to set loose on China our equivalent of their virus: hordes of American trial lawyers bringing lawsuits in U.S. courts. That won’t pass — and if it did, China wouldn’t accept the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts or pay. What could show more clearly how unprepared we are intellectually to respond to an attack of this type than that the only thing we can think of to do about it is to sue the pandemic’s creators.
This is one of the few major attacks in history that was so brilliantly done — intentionally or not — that no one will counterattack. The only thing that comes to mind is the British breaking the German codes in World War II so that they could redirect the radio targeting beams and German bombers would drop their bombs in empty fields rather than over London.
You have to hand it to them: China out-thought us. They are taking credit worldwide for cures and humanitarian aid for a virus that they set loose on the world.
President Trump says he “is not happy” with China. Whoop-de-doo. They must be shaking in their boots. China is supposed to buy $250 billion of our products, and Trump is pleading with them to live up to their bargain, perhaps because he sees that as crucial to his prospects for reelection.
Imagine that the roles were reversed and we had killed 50,000 Chinese citizens with nuclear or conventional kinetic weapons instead of a naturally occurring virus. What would the response have been?
We are fighting a 21st-century enemy with 20th-century weapons. No wonder that they are winning.
Take a lesson from Japan and break out the bubonic (Yersinia Pestis) plague infected rats, let the fleas feed on them, then ship the fleas to China.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).” ; Julia Child
Haha! Is that what you think I said? It has nothing to do with legitimacy of anyone's thoughts, just how you expand and spin them into something else entirely.
Please read again. I said no need to bring your personal views on climate change into this discussion as a crutch for another premiss. Not needed.
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I get the gist of your thoughts, Erik, though you could express yourself more clearly. What exactly does "to make a point that doesn't necessrarily need that to make it" mean?
I don't think anybody will want to go there but the point is made, with you helping make it. The thoughts of those contrary to yours on the matter aren't "legitimate."
[:)]
ORIGINAL: obvert
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
The idea of science not being a "democracy" - of respecting sincerely held minority views - is a noble one seldom accomplished. We don't want to get into climate change here, as that's off-topic and fairly incendiary, but climate-change "skeptics" are not respected. The majority feel that the science is settled and that the matter is too critical to entertain dissenting views. So the skeptics are marginalized, denied tenure, picked on, scorned, etc. by their comrades. There are other fields with similar patterns too. We would do well to learn to tolerate and accommodate but it's hard to avoid going down the "tyranny of the majority" pathway.
Dan, you just brought in climate change to make a point that doesn't necessarily need that to make it.
We had a long off forum discussion about climate change and I checked every single claim you made about those scientists being "mistreated." What I found was that many were proven to be incorrect in their findings by later studies, but held onto their thesis long after they were obsolete. Others had funding from think tanks with conservative agendas and produced science that supported the goals of the institutions paying their wages. Some others had claims that showed very interesting findings, but that didn't necessarily debunk prevailing climate change consensus, and yet they and others claimed that they did.
So maybe keep climate change out to his thread please. No need to go there.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
"U.S.—After several embarrassing and widely divergent revisions to the coronavirus projections of infection, hospitalization, and death rate used by government officials around the world to justify shutting down the global economy, experts at John Hopkins have now deployed a state-of-the-art super-scientific computer model and have now determined that between 0 and 12.6 billion people will contract the disease and be completely dead by summer."
"“It is absolutely vital that no one shake hands ever again. Though after June 1 it won’t matter as much,” he added."
The projection is clearly wrong - at least half of the victims will not be completely dead, just mostly dead. See Miracle Max for the cure ...
I didn't bring my personal views in. Read again. I offered it as an example of a field where science isn't accommodating to dissenting views. My comment was neutral as to the controversy but accurate to support the point made.
ORIGINAL: obvert
Haha! Is that what you think I said? It has nothing to do with legitimacy of anyone's thoughts, just how you expand and spin them into something else entirely.
Please read again. I said no need to bring your personal views on climate change into this discussion as a crutch for another premiss. Not needed.
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I get the gist of your thoughts, Erik, though you could express yourself more clearly. What exactly does "to make a point that doesn't necessrarily need that to make it" mean?
I don't think anybody will want to go there but the point is made, with you helping make it. The thoughts of those contrary to yours on the matter aren't "legitimate."
[:)]
ORIGINAL: obvert
Dan, you just brought in climate change to make a point that doesn't necessarily need that to make it.
We had a long off forum discussion about climate change and I checked every single claim you made about those scientists being "mistreated." What I found was that many were proven to be incorrect in their findings by later studies, but held onto their thesis long after they were obsolete. Others had funding from think tanks with conservative agendas and produced science that supported the goals of the institutions paying their wages. Some others had claims that showed very interesting findings, but that didn't necessarily debunk prevailing climate change consensus, and yet they and others claimed that they did.
So maybe keep climate change out to his thread please. No need to go there.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
Guess I need to start wearing my Copper Fit compression gloves to the grocery store now.
Here comes the run on Copper Fit and Tommy Copper compression wear.
Better get your orders in now folks!
Just like all forms of long term storage survivalist food this stuff will be back ordered for a year before we know it.
Not to mention all the people who are going to swallow copper pennies (which are mostly steel) or make copper powder by grinding pipe and ingest it ...
They should consider that what kills a virus may not be too good for the delicate cells and beneficial bacteria in their gut!
Brett Favre could cover himself in COVID secretions and nothing would happen.