in 1933 the German Conservatives decided to support Hitler as chancellor to destroy the Nazi movement by confronting its ludicrous proposals with the cold reality of real life government.
To be honest, this story - although apparently often told in classrooms - is somewhat of a canard. The "Germany Conservatives" who supported Hitler and Von Papen in a coalition were the DNVP - a nationalistic, populist and anti-Semitic party with leaders only slightly less crazy than those of the Nazis. The actual conservatives (the fiscally and socially conservative bourgeois KVP, Zentrum and BVP parties) did negotiate with the Nazis but never reached a coalition agreement with them - exactly because the Nazi ideology was so fundamentally different from traditional Christian-conservative ideas of government...
The only person who might have this idea of marginalizing Hitler by putting him into the spotlight was Von Papen; and while Von Papen was nominally still a member of the Zentrum party when Hindenburg asked him to try and form a government, none of the members of Zentrum were willing to support his 1932 "cabinet of barons". He was pretty much discredited by the centre-right as the "Ephialtes of the Centre Party".
Intelligence is overrated when it comes to the president. They did IQ tests on the accused at Nuremberg trials and all of them scored far above average. Common sense and real life experience (outside academic and political world, which don't count) and understanding of history are more important. A slightest inkling of a clue about economics would be a nice change too. Not saying that Palin qualifies by any means, just that the fact that Obama has high academic qualifications doesn't make him a good candidate, as his presidency so far has demonstrated.
Given that you can (theoretically) choose among the best and brightest of more than 200 million people, it might not be too much to ask for a candidate to have been at least in the top 5 or 10% in his classroom -- in order for them to understand the issues at least.
By your criteria - excluding academic and political experience from a candidate's CV and disregarding intellect - ex-CEOs Dick Cheney and George W. Bush should have been the most competent stewards of the US economy out of the past few decades' leaders... Look how that turned out.
As it is, she's a drop-out governor and media pundit... no better than Obama - a community organizer.
Malicious cheap shot at Barry O. She dropped out of 5 different undergrad party schools, he graduated HLS with highest honors and as editor of the Harvard Law review. She still has her "own" books ghostwritten, he wrote a best-selling non-fiction book way before he was ever elected into any public office. She speaks as a "pundit" on issues she doesn't understand, he has had a 12-year-tenure as a lecturer on constitutional law at UChicago.
To what jury are you referring? Manning isn't going to see a typical court proceeding. The Fifth Ammendment to the Constitution negates his right to due process, trial by jury, etc. I certainly would like to see his case go to a public trial, but that's not in the cards here.
Seth
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the 5th Amendment only abolishes the right to a grand jury trial for military members, but not the right to due process, against double jeopardy and all the rest.
I apologize: I just realized I came on way too aggressively given the relatively limited amount of reading that I've done on Afghan history. And you're quite right that the taleban didn't exist in the early 1980s, given that Mullah Omar only formally founded the group in '92.
However, I still think that one shouldn't marginalize either the CIA involvement in the funding of the mujahedeen, or the continuity in ideas or fighting personnel between the mujahedeen and the taleban. After all, Hekmatyar as well as Haqquani and Mullah Omar were mujahedeen officers who fought against the Soviets (and Hekmatyar and Haqquani apparently received quite a lot of CIA money for support), all of them stayed on top during the 90s with the help of Pakistani money, and finally all of them were also involved with radical islamist groups and were rumored to be involved with bin Laden when they were in power...
Many falsehoods have been spread about the allegations against Assange. In addition, the circumstances surrounding the allegations, as well as certain actions by the women who made them, have been used to discredit those women. But these are, as Kate Harding puts it, "tactics used to discredit rape victims every day, and not Really Convincing Special Facts About This Particular Case." [1] (I very strongly urge you to read her piece in its entirety.)
I've read that post in its entirety, and most of the comments as well. I'm close to throwing up. By her own admission Harding is "an arrogant, man-hating cunt who hates free speech, can’t tolerate dissenting opinions, and lives to preserve [her] echo chamber of brainwashed sycophants". I agree fully. Most of these women advocate locking Assange away indefinitely without trial or hearing; anyone who mentions the evidence against the women (like those oh-so-caring/admiring Tweets about him the day after the alleged 'rape') gets immediately banned by Harding.
Given the apparent echo-chamber nature of reactions to the allegations on these feminist sites, I start to seriously lean towards discounting the women's statements and assuming innocence, given that word stands against word anyway.
Taliban and therefore parts of Al-Qaeda were created by CIA to counter
Apparently the CIA helped train some of the Pakistani intelligence guys that helped set up the Taliban but that's getting into so fragile a link that it's a bit like blaming the Russian church for Stalin's excesses simply because he went to a seminary.
From the wee 'pedia: "One of the CIA's longest and most expensive covert operations was the supplying of billions of dollars in arms to the Afghan mujahideen militants. The arms included Stinger missiles, shoulder-fired, antiaircraft weapons that they used against Soviet helicopters and that later were in circulation among terrorists who have fired such weapons at commercial airliners. Between $3–$20 billion in U.S. funds were funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons, including Stinger surface-to-air missiles.[8][9] Some media reports claim up to $40 billion.[10] Osama bin Laden was allegedly among the recipients of U.S. arms,[11] although this view has been disputed."
The Taliban ("students") were a splinter group of the Mujahideen ("jihad fighters"), who were backed by Pakistan and thus prevailed in the 1980s Mujahideen internal power struggle.
Wilson funded one warlord that was not connected to the Taliban but he's one of our many enemies in Afganistan now.
Really? One warlord? Unconnected? What's your source?
There is no such rule in Islam. Rather if you rape a lady or a child you are punished by death. Not the raped person. In some pathetic tribes such things might exist but not in that religion.
What I do not get is, of course weight will be different in nature. Weight is dependant on acceleration due to gravity and mass. An atom would weigh more on Earth than it would on the moon.
I think these chemists mean 'atomic mass'? I'm an engineer so correct me if I'm wrong.
Atomic weight is a dimensionless quantity (ratio of the average mass of atoms of an element to 1/12 of the mass of an atom of carbon-12).
I think the convention in chemistry is to call the absolute mass of an isotope (in kg or whatever) "atomic mass", and to call its relative mass (dimensionless) "atomic weight".
My understanding is that it's a collection of public and private individuals funding Assange's bail, not Wikileaks.
I wouldn't expect Wikileaks to seek to defend criminal charges on staff members that are entirely unrelated to their operations, although I could probably argue why they should:)
Yes, you're quite right -- I didn't even think of the possibility that the other Wikileaks boardmembers might deny to post bail from WL funds...
Actually: "The BBC says bail was set at 200,000 British pounds — about $317,000. A number of Assange's wealthy friends appeared in court today to pledge the funds."
So, Moore put up six percent of the bail-- but publically claims he "posted Julian Assage's Bail". Gosh.
Both Bloomberg and BBC say that it's £240k ($378k).
But your comment says more about you than about Moore... Compare the Slashdot headline to the HuffPo headline; and then tell me with a straight face that you'd have been just as enraged by your misinterpretation of Malda's rubbish headline if it would have been any other person -- say, Ron Paul...
It looks like Assange may have found a way to generate the capital he so desperately needs to continue his fight against conspiracy in government. He would have lost completely without someone in big media with serious cash on his side. Now it looks like he might actually have a fighting chance of having some success with his goals, and staying out of prison.
$20,000 from Moore will not pay for much -- public donations are a far bigger source of funds... Wikileaks already received $1 million in donations collected by the German Wau-Holland-Foundation. (And it needs them - given that Wikileaks needs to finance half of Manning's $100k defense costs, and Assanges UK bail of $378k...)
Come on, the wii is casual gaming. Casual gaming is not the same as what would be considered "hardcore". No one is talking about making a film out of Wii Sports or Farmville or any of the other games which are well and truly casual gaming. We're talking about Mass Effect, we're talking about Resident Evil, we're talking about House of Dead we're talking about the other million and one games which a majority of people in the world simply will not play.
Arguably a Zelda movie or a Warcraft movie would have a target audience that is an order of magnitude larger than any of these... And first person shooters rarely translate well into movies - I didn't expect the Doom movie to be any good, but even Max Payne (which is an FPS that is as narrative-driven as they come) was pretty rubbish as a movie.
BTW, if you read that wiki, it about a NEWS organization 1'st amendment rights. Wikileaks is not about news or about reporters. It is about dumping stolen information on the web. There is a big difference.
Oh really?
Tell me the difference between "publishing" and "dumping information on the web" with reference to why the latter is excepted from the 1st Amendment.
Tell me what differentiates "legal" news created from the pentagon papers and "illegal" news created from the cablegate leaks.
WOuld you mind backing up what you say with sharing your Credit card # and Social Security numbers on wikileaks? Or perhaps here?
And would you mind to stop beating your wife? I did not say that the US government should share its secrets, I said that once the cat is out of the bag, there is precedent that publishing is not a crime.
Of course, you put your finger on an unrelated wound: that the US system of "secret" SSN and "secret" credit card number are the worst case of "security-by-obscurity" thinking and should be replaced with proper ID documents and chip&pin respectively -- but that is a discussion for another thread.
Bzzzt. Information is not physical property. Arguments about "stealing" and "fencing" are invalid, since the law about theft does not apply if nobody has been deprived of the use of a good.
Of course there is a different set of laws that deal with sharing state secrets, but it does not allow for punishing the equivalent of "fencing", at least in the US -- the NYT vs. USA court case documented this very clearly.
This is a raft of crap written by someone who wants things their own way 100% of the time. I seem to remember the EU fining American companies several billion dollars.
Should American's complain that all those EU fines were just EU jingoism?
To tell the truth I don't see any jingoism going on at all, in either case, as this doesn't fit the description of jingoism. Jingoism is feverish excitement for a nation, not a company, unless you're trying to say that SAP == Germany, and that Oracle == US. I can't see how that is even close to being logical thinking, nor have I ever met anyone dumb enough to think that way.
Usually this is not the case with publicly listed multinational corporations, but if any of them can be assigned a nationality, it's SAP and Oracle: In both cases, ownership is extremely heavily concentrated in their country of origin -- in Oracle's case partly due to Larry's ~25% holding and in SAP's case due to the fact that the founders (Plattner, Tschira, Hopp) each still own 10% of the company. Since they are actually resident in their respective countries and actually are spending their wealth there, it is not "dumb" at all to state the obvious conclusion that this is a wholesale transfer of wealth from the German economy to the US economy. (In a way that a fine for Intel, for instance, wouldn't be, since Intel's ownership is globally diversified.)
Whether anybody likes Oracle/SAP or their products or any of their owners doesn't really come into it at all.
well, very few people will actually go thru it; those who do are highly motivated - either paid searchers, hired, by say the brit equivalent of the Koch brothers, or cranks, or whatever
What ever they find, most of it will be unkown unless published by the media
The UK equivalent of the Kochs are the Barclay brothers, and they own the media (at least the parts not already owned by Murdoch or the Rothschilds). Their paid searchers occasionally dig up some really interesting material... The 2009 UK parliamentary expenses scandal, for instance, was a nice scoop for the Barclay Brothers' Daily Telegraph...
Slashdot Mirror
in 1933 the German Conservatives decided to support Hitler as chancellor to destroy the Nazi movement by confronting its ludicrous proposals with the cold reality of real life government.
To be honest, this story - although apparently often told in classrooms - is somewhat of a canard. The "Germany Conservatives" who supported Hitler and Von Papen in a coalition were the DNVP - a nationalistic, populist and anti-Semitic party with leaders only slightly less crazy than those of the Nazis. The actual conservatives (the fiscally and socially conservative bourgeois KVP, Zentrum and BVP parties) did negotiate with the Nazis but never reached a coalition agreement with them - exactly because the Nazi ideology was so fundamentally different from traditional Christian-conservative ideas of government...
The only person who might have this idea of marginalizing Hitler by putting him into the spotlight was Von Papen; and while Von Papen was nominally still a member of the Zentrum party when Hindenburg asked him to try and form a government, none of the members of Zentrum were willing to support his 1932 "cabinet of barons". He was pretty much discredited by the centre-right as the "Ephialtes of the Centre Party".
Intelligence is overrated when it comes to the president. They did IQ tests on the accused at Nuremberg trials and all of them scored far above average. Common sense and real life experience (outside academic and political world, which don't count) and understanding of history are more important. A slightest inkling of a clue about economics would be a nice change too. Not saying that Palin qualifies by any means, just that the fact that Obama has high academic qualifications doesn't make him a good candidate, as his presidency so far has demonstrated.
Given that you can (theoretically) choose among the best and brightest of more than 200 million people, it might not be too much to ask for a candidate to have been at least in the top 5 or 10% in his classroom -- in order for them to understand the issues at least.
By your criteria - excluding academic and political experience from a candidate's CV and disregarding intellect - ex-CEOs Dick Cheney and George W. Bush should have been the most competent stewards of the US economy out of the past few decades' leaders... Look how that turned out.
As it is, she's a drop-out governor and media pundit... no better than Obama - a community organizer.
Malicious cheap shot at Barry O. She dropped out of 5 different undergrad party schools, he graduated HLS with highest honors and as editor of the Harvard Law review. She still has her "own" books ghostwritten, he wrote a best-selling non-fiction book way before he was ever elected into any public office. She speaks as a "pundit" on issues she doesn't understand, he has had a 12-year-tenure as a lecturer on constitutional law at UChicago.
Or just use cables sliding through a slot in the road. Why don't they do that?
If they rip up the road, they might as well install proper tram rails -- not having to do that is the biggest advantage of trolley buses over trams...
this is the apex of copyright bullshit...
I think "nadir" is the word you're looking for here.
Nonono, just imagine a mountain of steaming bovine dung, with a GEMA executive on its apex...
To what jury are you referring? Manning isn't going to see a typical court proceeding. The Fifth Ammendment to the Constitution negates his right to due process, trial by jury, etc. I certainly would like to see his case go to a public trial, but that's not in the cards here. Seth
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the 5th Amendment only abolishes the right to a grand jury trial for military members, but not the right to due process, against double jeopardy and all the rest.
Hell, how many English-speaking people even realize that there isn't A language called "Chinese"?
There is. Given that the GGP said "read/write Chinese" rather than "speak Chinese".
However, I still think that one shouldn't marginalize either the CIA involvement in the funding of the mujahedeen, or the continuity in ideas or fighting personnel between the mujahedeen and the taleban. After all, Hekmatyar as well as Haqquani and Mullah Omar were mujahedeen officers who fought against the Soviets (and Hekmatyar and Haqquani apparently received quite a lot of CIA money for support), all of them stayed on top during the 90s with the help of Pakistani money, and finally all of them were also involved with radical islamist groups and were rumored to be involved with bin Laden when they were in power...
Many falsehoods have been spread about the allegations against Assange. In addition, the circumstances surrounding the allegations, as well as certain actions by the women who made them, have been used to discredit those women. But these are, as Kate Harding puts it, "tactics used to discredit rape victims every day, and not Really Convincing Special Facts About This Particular Case." [1] (I very strongly urge you to read her piece in its entirety.)
I've read that post in its entirety, and most of the comments as well. I'm close to throwing up. By her own admission Harding is "an arrogant, man-hating cunt who hates free speech, can’t tolerate dissenting opinions, and lives to preserve [her] echo chamber of brainwashed sycophants". I agree fully. Most of these women advocate locking Assange away indefinitely without trial or hearing; anyone who mentions the evidence against the women (like those oh-so-caring/admiring Tweets about him the day after the alleged 'rape') gets immediately banned by Harding.
Given the apparent echo-chamber nature of reactions to the allegations on these feminist sites, I start to seriously lean towards discounting the women's statements and assuming innocence, given that word stands against word anyway.
Apparently the CIA helped train some of the Pakistani intelligence guys that helped set up the Taliban but that's getting into so fragile a link that it's a bit like blaming the Russian church for Stalin's excesses simply because he went to a seminary.
From the wee 'pedia: "One of the CIA's longest and most expensive covert operations was the supplying of billions of dollars in arms to the Afghan mujahideen militants. The arms included Stinger missiles, shoulder-fired, antiaircraft weapons that they used against Soviet helicopters and that later were in circulation among terrorists who have fired such weapons at commercial airliners. Between $3–$20 billion in U.S. funds were funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons, including Stinger surface-to-air missiles.[8][9] Some media reports claim up to $40 billion.[10] Osama bin Laden was allegedly among the recipients of U.S. arms,[11] although this view has been disputed."
The Taliban ("students") were a splinter group of the Mujahideen ("jihad fighters"), who were backed by Pakistan and thus prevailed in the 1980s Mujahideen internal power struggle.
Wilson funded one warlord that was not connected to the Taliban but he's one of our many enemies in Afganistan now.
Really? One warlord? Unconnected? What's your source?
There is no such rule in Islam. Rather if you rape a lady or a child you are punished by death. Not the raped person. In some pathetic tribes such things might exist but not in that religion.
Not necessarily death, it might be just a prison sentence and a public whipping. Pathetic tribes indeed.
What I do not get is, of course weight will be different in nature. Weight is dependant on acceleration due to gravity and mass. An atom would weigh more on Earth than it would on the moon.
I think these chemists mean 'atomic mass'? I'm an engineer so correct me if I'm wrong.
Atomic weight is a dimensionless quantity (ratio of the average mass of atoms of an element to 1/12 of the mass of an atom of carbon-12).
I think the convention in chemistry is to call the absolute mass of an isotope (in kg or whatever) "atomic mass", and to call its relative mass (dimensionless) "atomic weight".
My understanding is that it's a collection of public and private individuals funding Assange's bail, not Wikileaks.
I wouldn't expect Wikileaks to seek to defend criminal charges on staff members that are entirely unrelated to their operations, although I could probably argue why they should :)
Yes, you're quite right -- I didn't even think of the possibility that the other Wikileaks boardmembers might deny to post bail from WL funds...
Actually: "The BBC says bail was set at 200,000 British pounds — about $317,000. A number of Assange's wealthy friends appeared in court today to pledge the funds."
So, Moore put up six percent of the bail-- but publically claims he "posted Julian Assage's Bail". Gosh.
Both Bloomberg and BBC say that it's £240k ($378k).
But your comment says more about you than about Moore... Compare the Slashdot headline to the HuffPo headline; and then tell me with a straight face that you'd have been just as enraged by your misinterpretation of Malda's rubbish headline if it would have been any other person -- say, Ron Paul...
It looks like Assange may have found a way to generate the capital he so desperately needs to continue his fight against conspiracy in government. He would have lost completely without someone in big media with serious cash on his side. Now it looks like he might actually have a fighting chance of having some success with his goals, and staying out of prison.
$20,000 from Moore will not pay for much -- public donations are a far bigger source of funds... Wikileaks already received $1 million in donations collected by the German Wau-Holland-Foundation. (And it needs them - given that Wikileaks needs to finance half of Manning's $100k defense costs, and Assanges UK bail of $378k...)
Come on, the wii is casual gaming. Casual gaming is not the same as what would be considered "hardcore". No one is talking about making a film out of Wii Sports or Farmville or any of the other games which are well and truly casual gaming. We're talking about Mass Effect, we're talking about Resident Evil, we're talking about House of Dead we're talking about the other million and one games which a majority of people in the world simply will not play.
Arguably a Zelda movie or a Warcraft movie would have a target audience that is an order of magnitude larger than any of these... And first person shooters rarely translate well into movies - I didn't expect the Doom movie to be any good, but even Max Payne (which is an FPS that is as narrative-driven as they come) was pretty rubbish as a movie.
BTW, if you read that wiki, it about a NEWS organization 1'st amendment rights. Wikileaks is not about news or about reporters. It is about dumping stolen information on the web. There is a big difference.
Oh really?
Tell me the difference between "publishing" and "dumping information on the web" with reference to why the latter is excepted from the 1st Amendment.
Tell me what differentiates "legal" news created from the pentagon papers and "illegal" news created from the cablegate leaks.
WOuld you mind backing up what you say with sharing your Credit card # and Social Security numbers on wikileaks? Or perhaps here?
And would you mind to stop beating your wife? I did not say that the US government should share its secrets, I said that once the cat is out of the bag, there is precedent that publishing is not a crime.
Of course, you put your finger on an unrelated wound: that the US system of "secret" SSN and "secret" credit card number are the worst case of "security-by-obscurity" thinking and should be replaced with proper ID documents and chip&pin respectively -- but that is a discussion for another thread.
Of course there is a different set of laws that deal with sharing state secrets, but it does not allow for punishing the equivalent of "fencing", at least in the US -- the NYT vs. USA court case documented this very clearly.
"A clone of" or "Like X" consist of 50% of the freelance projects I see in my inbox on a daily basis. I ignore 100% of them.
Zynga didn't. After 3 years of this, Zynga is now worth $4bn and change.
No, I'm not sure what the lesson here is, but the inpiration/perspiration cliché might apply...
This is a raft of crap written by someone who wants things their own way 100% of the time. I seem to remember the EU fining American companies several billion dollars.
Should American's complain that all those EU fines were just EU jingoism?
To tell the truth I don't see any jingoism going on at all, in either case, as this doesn't fit the description of jingoism. Jingoism is feverish excitement for a nation, not a company, unless you're trying to say that SAP == Germany, and that Oracle == US. I can't see how that is even close to being logical thinking, nor have I ever met anyone dumb enough to think that way.
Usually this is not the case with publicly listed multinational corporations, but if any of them can be assigned a nationality, it's SAP and Oracle: In both cases, ownership is extremely heavily concentrated in their country of origin -- in Oracle's case partly due to Larry's ~25% holding and in SAP's case due to the fact that the founders (Plattner, Tschira, Hopp) each still own 10% of the company. Since they are actually resident in their respective countries and actually are spending their wealth there, it is not "dumb" at all to state the obvious conclusion that this is a wholesale transfer of wealth from the German economy to the US economy. (In a way that a fine for Intel, for instance, wouldn't be, since Intel's ownership is globally diversified.)
Whether anybody likes Oracle/SAP or their products or any of their owners doesn't really come into it at all.
Posting to undo negative moderation... I actually agree with you.
of Facetime?
1! 2! 3! 4! I call an IP war!
5! 6! 7! 8! Imitate and Litigate!
What I want to know about these tablets is: Can I write on them with a stylus and get results like writing in a notebook?
Apparently yes, but you need a special iAccessory that simulates a finger.
well, very few people will actually go thru it; those who do are highly motivated - either paid searchers, hired, by say the brit equivalent of the Koch brothers, or cranks, or whatever What ever they find, most of it will be unkown unless published by the media
The UK equivalent of the Kochs are the Barclay brothers, and they own the media (at least the parts not already owned by Murdoch or the Rothschilds). Their paid searchers occasionally dig up some really interesting material... The 2009 UK parliamentary expenses scandal, for instance, was a nice scoop for the Barclay Brothers' Daily Telegraph...