Bay 12 Games Forum

The old Vaudeville and slapstick stuff is the kind of comedy I prefer, also I've always liked Monty Python and have never figured out why other people hate it, guess it's one of those love it or hate it things.

Do you like Monty Python, or do you like the small handful of very popular bits that got distilled out of their general morass and passed around? They were a very prolific group for decades, and yet it seems like 90 percent of what people who "like Monty Python" reference is Holy Grail, some bits from Life Of Brian, and the Cheese Shop sketch.

Charlie Chaplin, like most stars of his era, is largely forgotten. Many people would recognize him on sight, and his famous "tramp" character has shown up in advertisements, but he isn't really on most people's radars. He is most well known via association with Adolf Hitler, both because they had the same mustache and (more importantly) because one of Chaplin's most famous roles (The Great Dictator) is a vicious mockery of Hitler that ends with what amounts to a call to arms.

The closest modern equivalent in the West is Mel Brooks, I think.

Not only does fly ash release a higher volume of radioactives than this will, the radioactives it contains are more radioactive. Coal contains natural trace levels of not only uranium and thorium (on par with what the nuclear plant is releasing) but radium as well. These are present in very small quantities, of course, but when you burn away most of the material you concentrate them bigly. That's before you consider the immense amount of coal burned on a daily basis.

I wouldn't be surprised if some Russian Air Force pilot was looking for revenge, but the quick media response tastes like a pre-planned event to me. As if they had the story ready before the plane went down.

They target different things. NoScript prevents websites from running scripts (which are basically little programs executed by your browser), while uBlock blocks media elements. There's some overlap, of course, but the thrust of their targeting is not the same.

This is not consistent with the information I've heard, which I have good reason to believe is accurate. The information I have access to is specifically that lighter tanks are surviving better "pound-for-pound", by which I mean, adjusted for equivalent circumstances, and as a proportion of the number used. I acknowledge that I can't prove this, but my impression was that this is widely known.

Maybe if you post your sources it would be easier to explain to you why this is absolutely, categorically, wrong. What you're arguing is something that theoreticians believed roughly sixty years ago, but which was abandoned after only a single vehicle generation (represented primarily by the Leopard 1) because exercises and reports from combat zones (primarily late-era Vietnam and various wars in the Middle East) showed that older vehicles with heavier armor routinely had greater chances to accomplish their mission than lighter ones. They were also much more likely to be able to be repaired and returned to service if knocked out, and the crew was more likely to survive.

Of the more modern, heavier vehicles that have gone into action, far fewer have been knocked out in proportional terms, not just absolute. Of those that have been knocked out, the vast majority have been repaired and returned to service rather than ceasing to exist.



Your comparison to the M4 Sherman (or T-34) is fundamentally flawed, because it was not a lighter tank compared to the main German equivalents. The Panzer IV was of similar size, and mostly struggled due to be obsolescent even at the start of the war (this is not Germany's fault, tank technology just advanced ludicrously fast by then and the Sherman was about four years newer. The Panzer V "Panther" was heavier, but the generally poor (yes, poor - the early engagements heavily favored the Panther because of the terrain, but that did not last) performance was due to significant design flaws*, not the size. Eliminate those, and the comparison looks far worse. The Tigers generally were irrelevant in this comparison, as they were not a M4/T-34 analog. They were the equivalent of the KV/IS series, or the British Churchills, primarily intended as heavy assault vehicles to punch through a particularly tough defensive line rather than outflanking it.



*For the interested, the big flaws were pathetic side armor (prewar AT rifles could punch through it), an excessively large gun (it was capable of punching through almost Allied armor at a distance of a kilometer, and most at 2, but such shots are so extremely rare that having that range is essentially wasted - it would be better to settle for punching through most armor at 500 meters and enjoy a much lighter weapon) that fired excessively large and heavy ammunition (rate of fire was drastically slowed, and the loader fatigued easily), extremely unreliable transmission gear (though not as bad as the morbidly obese Tiger II), and absolutely terrible visibility for the gunner (he only had a telescopic sight, while a Sherman (or Panzer IV!) gunner had a wide angle periscope, which allowed him to readily find a marked target instead of having to be coached by the commander),

Maybe that video left me an impression that Hawaii plays the role of Taiwan in the USA.

Part of this impression is probably because of the Federal system - each of our states has their own government, judiciary, and military that is distinct from (though subordinate to in complicated ways) the national government, judiciary, and military. That's a very different situation from the way your country is organized, always a great recipe for confusion. But Hawaii has the same elected representation as any other state, and functions no differently from Ohio or New York or Florida except for the challenges caused by their great distance over water from the rest of the nation.

The larger part, however, is probably from a specific event that occurred in 1993, under the administration of William Jefferson Clinton. At the urging of Hawaii's senators, Daniel Inouye (a highly decorated hero of the Second World War) and Daniel Akaka (the first US Senator of Native Hawaiian ethnicity), the US Congress passed a resolution apologizing to the Native Hawaiians for the illegal annexation of their lands. This highly-publicized act probably spurred the question you are referring to, as somebody less familiar with the history might not fully realize that it was largely a symbolic act.

I admit to having installed the killable children mods, because it just felt wrong to have a dragon flame a village street, killing everybody but the children. I don't remember which village that happened in, but it was really jarring.