I made my post before I saw yours. Yeah, Usenet is pretty much prior art.
Read my post which tries to directly address each claim. Namely, you need an 'episodic content' aspect, which, luckily, illegal television newsgroups provide.
It even uses the term 'subscription' and even has episodic content, in the form of actual TV episodes. All we have to demonstrate that there were 'channels' dedicatied to specific content...like alt.binaries.multimedia.firefly, for an example of a 2002 group.
Specific, episodic content that you subscribe to and your client (For example, NewsBin) can download automatically.
Yes, that behavior would be illegal, but that doesn't stop it from being prior art.
That alone seems to fit claim 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the patent. And I have a Usenet client that can do 7, but someone needs to find one with that feature from 2003.
3 and 6 could happen based on what directory you download into. (3 if that directory is automatically synced, and 6 if that directory is chared.)
Claim 8 appears to be...compression? Yum, those episode files were compressed. Usually using rar. (For no apparent gain, as you can't compress video files much that way, but, hey, I'm sure at least one of those files ended up at least a tiny fraction smaller.)
Chaim 9...we need someone to find a Usenet client that let you watch while you download, which could be easily used to download only part of an episode. (OTOH, we don't need to really worry about this claim. If they're left with a patent on automatically 'partially downloading podcasts based on space', whatever.)
As should extensions that retrieve data from responsible sites, like those extensions that alter google result pages. Assuming Google doesn't try to attack us, they should be fine.
I use to have an assload of extensions, but I've been really trying to restrict what I have for speed issues, so I'm not that worried.
I'm not asserting that anything was better, just asking if spending four times the money (your number) has resulted in four times better results
No, it's resulted in a lot better than four times the results. Because, like I said, organized private charity wasn't even directed in the same direction, and 'depending on neighbors' seems like a great plan until the plant closes or until four people in a town of a thousand all get some incredibly expensive disease at once.
How do you know? Do you just take that on faith, or do you have a source of data that shows this?
So, you've unaware of the average human lifespan getting longer?
What about the track record of getting those people to the point of not needing further assistance? What percentage of the total recepients are the "responsible" ones and what percentage are abusing the system?
You appear to be under the impression that all that spending is for unemployment or something.
No, a good deal of that is for social security, which people are not expected to get off or, or disability, which people are not expected to get off of, or medical or food aid to children of low income families. (Which hopefully they will get off of, but the aid itself it not designed to help that process.)
Also you seem to be unaware that all actual unemployment and poverty based welfare for adults is time limited. It all runs out.
Please show me where any individual has "a right to exist at all".
You do not have to grant actual real objects the right to exist. They either exist, or they do not exist. If you can touch it, it needs no 'right' to exist, that makes no sense at all. Humans are not created via government documents. Humans cannot cease existing by filing paperwork.
Humans 'live'. Humans have a right to life.
The right to life, in addition to be in the Declaration of Independence (Which some people wrongly argue is not valid US law.), is also in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US did sign, making it US law.
Legally, people in the US have the right to live. (The government, of course, can remove this right via due process of the courts, just like it can remove the right to liberty and imprison people, or remove their right to vote.)
And the courts aren't "pretending that they have some rights", the courts have established that some rights as individuals also apply to corporations.
As corporations have no right to exist, they cannot possibly have any other rights whatsoever, regardless of what nonsense the court has invented. I have no problem with saying 'People running a corporation have the right to free speech using that corporation', but phrasing it like the corporation has the right itself is just stupid.
The fact we've forgotten that corporations have no right to exist, that we've forgotten that corporations are merely paperwork that the government approves or does not, that we've forgotten that before a corporation is allowed to exist we're supposed to check the stated purpose of it and see if granting the incorporation of it would be in the best interests of society, is a lot of what's wrong with this nation.
And legally speaking, a corporation is an individual.
No, it's not.
The courts are idiotically pretending that they have some rights, but that doesn't make them an individual, and they certainly has never been found to have the right to exist at all.
No, any solution that requires 'suing' is inherently flawed and will not work for the 90% of society that can't really afford a lawyer.
That said, I agree that we should have compensation without restrictions. I've often argued that people should get full copyright for a certain amount, like 14 years, and then the renewal should give them compensation but not control.
And then, hell, maybe another step. Maybe after the first renewal, anyone can use your ideas and characters but not your actual images and words.
Aka, someone could write the last Harry Potter book from Neville's POV, but not republish the originals, or make a movie from the originals. Or make a new Superman movie, or whatever.
With perhaps some sort of mandatory licensing for small quotes and flashbacks, not totaling more than 10% of the new work. Which, if used, the new author has to go in front of some sort of licensing board to determine, and that percentage of profits go to the author.
And then after another renewal, another step down, which is just like the last step, except the 10% rule is gone. So you could, in theory, copy and resell Star Wars...although, as that would consist 100% of Lucas's property, he'd get 100% of the profits.
Which, oddly enough, people would do. Remember that cut of Phantom Menace without Jar Jar? 14 years after the release, people could do that legally. Or, even better, people taking the higher quality digitally remastered A New Hope, and changing it back so Han shoots first?
It would certainly help on works that were deliberately removed from circulation, like Song of the South.
And of course, in totally, the renewals would only total 14*3, so only 42 years.
I'm sure why the number of problems is relevant. Me flying to France by piloting a jet has numerically more problems (I don't have a jet and I don't know how to fly one.) than me flying to France by flapping my arms (That is not physically possible.)
I'm sure you're wanting me to fall into some trap where we start listing problems and you 'prove' that the current system has more. Well, of course. The bigger any system, the more problems you can list with it. The number of bugs on my computer vs. the number of bugs in my calculator does not prove my calculator is more useful.
Under the current system, more people are better off on average. And less people die. Less children die. Less older people die. Less laid off people die. And the same for living on the streets.
Hell, many of the homeless people that die now are the mentally ill, thanks to Reagan putting them all back on the streets. The system can't actually help people who are not competent enough to show up at the system for help. That has to be solved elsewhere.
Exclude them, only count competent people who actually attempt to get help and use the resources presented to them, and the system has a fairly good track record at actually keeping people alive and moderately well feed.
Although, like I said, many of the homeless are chronically undernourished. They eat enough to fill their (shrunken) stomachs, but don't quite get enough nutrients. So there's stuff that could be fixed, but, overall, the system is much better than it was.
What are we getting for all this money expended that we didn't have then?
Old people who are actually alive and have money to live on? Less tent cities? Less children starving to death?
Frankly, I think I demonstrated it when I pointed out that private charitable giving was roughly the same. People do not give less, or more, based on anything but their income.
And we've proven that society cannot function, during a depression, with that level of charitable giving.
If you want to argue that government charity hasn't done any good, than you provide some sort of statistics to that regard. I'm not going to sit here and have you constantly pester me to provide stats for you. You're the one walking around asserting that somehow charity was 'better' with a quarter of the money it had now, or even less, and that poor people were somehow better off back then.
And as I pointed out, you've managed to ignore black people, 10% of the entire population, and very poor, that certainly was not better off under 'private charity' that they had no access to. A snide remark about their current status does not actually change the truth of what I said.
People were also expected to work themselves out of destitution.
Yeah, which is a great theory until you actually see it in practice. It's called a 'workhouse'. They were horrific.
The current welfare system that exists right now doesn't really seem to be a great long term benefit to black people, unless your goal is to keep an entire segment of the population dependent and basically helpless (so that they keep voting for you).
As opposed to before welfare existed, post civil war, where black people were peons in the feudalism that was sharecropping?
I get sick of the people who think it's the right of businesses who operate however they want.
Corporations exist because the government lets them exist. They're supposed to have some sort of purpose that actual benefits society.
Accepting X dollars of money from people, and giving out X/100 dollars back to people who actually comply with their 'rewards' and submit everything, is not, in any way, shape, or form, benefiting society. They are providing absolutely no goods or service whatsoever.
Individual people can provide whatever sort of scammy service they want, subject only to the various laws about fraud. Corporations exist only because we let them, and we should stop letting them even if they're 'within the law'(1) if they aren't providing any gains for society.
1) Of course, this behavior really shouldn't be within the law in the first place.
In that case the evidence should be easy to locate.
It is not really my job to locate evidence for whatever point you're trying to make.
Also I'm not sure that the friends, relatives and churches that people relied on when they were in trouble back in the 19th and early 20th centuries are quite as non-existant as you claim.
You weren't talking about 'the 19th and early 20th centuries'.
You were talking about 1929. A year in which is was rather obviously determined that the rather scant private charities could not handle a large economic downturn. (And, hell, neither could existing government charities, but as they hardly existed, that wasn't really in question.)
And a year in which friends and relatives were also dropped into poverty. Perhaps there were big charity drives taking place in tent cities? (Okay, those didn't actually exist until later, but whatever.)
Mathematically, spending for 'charity' in the US is about about 12% of pure private charity, 28% with private organizations subsidized by the government, and about 60% pure government.
In 1929, you had roughly the same percent of donations to private charities as you do in the present day. Somewhere between 3%-5% of the GDP. Hence you had about the same 12% spending by private organizations, and maybe the same amount by the government, or a total of 25% of what we have currently, which proved to be nowhere near enough when actual disaster struck.
And, as I said earlier, those organizations were not designed to help 'the poor'. Private charities pre-1929 were things like orphanages and widow pension system and a church that might let a homeless person sleep in it. Maybe a boarding house where three or four down-on-their-luck people could live while looking for jobs. They were not soup kitchens, they were not homeless shelters.
People were, in fact, expected to get help from friends and family. (Incidentally, that was something that vastly contributed to black people being unable to pull themselves out of poverty, which is why I mentioned prejudices in private charity previously. Thanks to the segregation of society, black people could only turn to other black people, who also did not have money.)
This entire system fell to pieces when, suddenly, everyone was poor.
They're really the same thing for countries, which is why it's amazingly goddamn stupid for the strongest countries in the world to use them to throw their weight around. Strong countries don't need nukes.
It's like a world where Chuck Norris starts carrying a gun, and no one else even thought of guns until he did. And now he runs around having to kick the butt of who looks like he might buy a guy, and a few people have managed to get them and lock themselves away in sniper nests so he can't come by and kick their ass.
Of course, I'm saying that as a member of ChuckNorristan. Probably if I was in one of the other countries I'd be saying 'Thank goodness we have a nuke and he can't attack us!'
What good does a concealed weapon (in a holster on my side I assume?) do me when there's a gun 2 inches from my face or a even a knife point at my neck? None, there jack shit i can do without getting stabbed/shot.
What on earth does that have to do with my comment. Handguns means that anyone can mug anyone. Handguns also mean that anyone can stop their mugger.
I have a better question for you:
If you are physically weak, what good does nothing do when you're thirty feet away from your mugger?
Anyone can invent scenarios where they lose. But without guns, if someone is weak, they always lose, and if they're strong, they always win.
It is much better for society if the weak and strong are randomized instead of the strong being able to glance around and figure out who they'll be able to force into doing what they want.
This isn't an argument about self protection. People could openly carry hunting rifles around for self protection, and it wouldn't do what I'm talking about.
This is an informational security argument. I am asserting that making 'people who it will be very hard to mug' into an unknown quality, there will be less muggings in general.
And, please, feel free to replace 'weak' with 'women' and 'mug' with 'rape' in this argument.
Perhaps before commenting, you should actually attempt to learn what I'm talking about. Namely, that a specific channel here, the History Channel, has gained fame for showing WWII documentaries all the damn time. Not like 'every day', like literally every single second of every day. (Although this is exaggeration, it was only every other second of the every day.)
I have no idea what sort of point you're trying to make about the Holocaust, but what the GP ACTUALLY said was that there was a documentary on 'the Third Reich and World War Two' once a week, and I was commenting that that was not actually that impressive.
Likewise, if Japan had not attacked the US, but simply continued their war with China without attempting to get the Philippine's oil, the US wouldn't have entered the war either, or at least entered it later.
It's interesting how, strategically, the two countries that caused the defeat of the Axis in WWII shouldn't have been in the war at all, and wouldn't have been without seriously stupid miscalculations on the part of the Germans and Japanese.
Um...a lot less? We now have unemployment, social security, etc.
Do we really even need stats about that?
I have no idea what sort of point you're trying to make, or what 'the question' is supposed to be.
Of course federal anti-poverty programs(1) have produced better results than the almost completely non-existent private charities that existed in the 1929.
1) I assume you mean 'charity'. Providing for the homeless is not 'anti-poverty'. Anti-poverty is trying remove people from poverty, not keep the poor from dying.
Slashdot Mirror
How about you use the money to keep the state from going even more bankrupt, instead?
I made my post before I saw yours. Yeah, Usenet is pretty much prior art.
Read my post which tries to directly address each claim. Namely, you need an 'episodic content' aspect, which, luckily, illegal television newsgroups provide.
How about usenet?
It even uses the term 'subscription' and even has episodic content, in the form of actual TV episodes. All we have to demonstrate that there were 'channels' dedicatied to specific content...like alt.binaries.multimedia.firefly, for an example of a 2002 group.
Specific, episodic content that you subscribe to and your client (For example, NewsBin) can download automatically.
Yes, that behavior would be illegal, but that doesn't stop it from being prior art.
That alone seems to fit claim 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the patent. And I have a Usenet client that can do 7, but someone needs to find one with that feature from 2003.
3 and 6 could happen based on what directory you download into. (3 if that directory is automatically synced, and 6 if that directory is chared.)
Claim 8 appears to be...compression? Yum, those episode files were compressed. Usually using rar. (For no apparent gain, as you can't compress video files much that way, but, hey, I'm sure at least one of those files ended up at least a tiny fraction smaller.)
Chaim 9...we need someone to find a Usenet client that let you watch while you download, which could be easily used to download only part of an episode. (OTOH, we don't need to really worry about this claim. If they're left with a patent on automatically 'partially downloading podcasts based on space', whatever.)
As should extensions that retrieve data from responsible sites, like those extensions that alter google result pages. Assuming Google doesn't try to attack us, they should be fine.
I use to have an assload of extensions, but I've been really trying to restrict what I have for speed issues, so I'm not that worried.
I'm not asserting that anything was better, just asking if spending four times the money (your number) has resulted in four times better results
No, it's resulted in a lot better than four times the results. Because, like I said, organized private charity wasn't even directed in the same direction, and 'depending on neighbors' seems like a great plan until the plant closes or until four people in a town of a thousand all get some incredibly expensive disease at once.
How do you know? Do you just take that on faith, or do you have a source of data that shows this?
So, you've unaware of the average human lifespan getting longer?
What about the track record of getting those people to the point of not needing further assistance? What percentage of the total recepients are the "responsible" ones and what percentage are abusing the system?
You appear to be under the impression that all that spending is for unemployment or something.
No, a good deal of that is for social security, which people are not expected to get off or, or disability, which people are not expected to get off of, or medical or food aid to children of low income families. (Which hopefully they will get off of, but the aid itself it not designed to help that process.)
Also you seem to be unaware that all actual unemployment and poverty based welfare for adults is time limited. It all runs out.
Please show me where any individual has "a right to exist at all".
You do not have to grant actual real objects the right to exist. They either exist, or they do not exist. If you can touch it, it needs no 'right' to exist, that makes no sense at all. Humans are not created via government documents. Humans cannot cease existing by filing paperwork.
Humans 'live'. Humans have a right to life.
The right to life, in addition to be in the Declaration of Independence (Which some people wrongly argue is not valid US law.), is also in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US did sign, making it US law.
Legally, people in the US have the right to live. (The government, of course, can remove this right via due process of the courts, just like it can remove the right to liberty and imprison people, or remove their right to vote.)
And the courts aren't "pretending that they have some rights", the courts have established that some rights as individuals also apply to corporations.
As corporations have no right to exist, they cannot possibly have any other rights whatsoever, regardless of what nonsense the court has invented. I have no problem with saying 'People running a corporation have the right to free speech using that corporation', but phrasing it like the corporation has the right itself is just stupid.
The fact we've forgotten that corporations have no right to exist, that we've forgotten that corporations are merely paperwork that the government approves or does not, that we've forgotten that before a corporation is allowed to exist we're supposed to check the stated purpose of it and see if granting the incorporation of it would be in the best interests of society, is a lot of what's wrong with this nation.
And legally speaking, a corporation is an individual.
No, it's not.
The courts are idiotically pretending that they have some rights, but that doesn't make them an individual, and they certainly has never been found to have the right to exist at all.
Then they choose to believe the world is ending but they won't be saved by Superman or Batman.
Indeed, we're apparently falling down on the game with improbable heros, and problems everyone knows some actual person could not defeat.
'Fairy tales are more than true — not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten.' -G. K. Chesterton
No, any solution that requires 'suing' is inherently flawed and will not work for the 90% of society that can't really afford a lawyer.
That said, I agree that we should have compensation without restrictions. I've often argued that people should get full copyright for a certain amount, like 14 years, and then the renewal should give them compensation but not control.
And then, hell, maybe another step. Maybe after the first renewal, anyone can use your ideas and characters but not your actual images and words.
Aka, someone could write the last Harry Potter book from Neville's POV, but not republish the originals, or make a movie from the originals. Or make a new Superman movie, or whatever.
With perhaps some sort of mandatory licensing for small quotes and flashbacks, not totaling more than 10% of the new work. Which, if used, the new author has to go in front of some sort of licensing board to determine, and that percentage of profits go to the author.
And then after another renewal, another step down, which is just like the last step, except the 10% rule is gone. So you could, in theory, copy and resell Star Wars...although, as that would consist 100% of Lucas's property, he'd get 100% of the profits.
Which, oddly enough, people would do. Remember that cut of Phantom Menace without Jar Jar? 14 years after the release, people could do that legally. Or, even better, people taking the higher quality digitally remastered A New Hope, and changing it back so Han shoots first?
It would certainly help on works that were deliberately removed from circulation, like Song of the South.
And of course, in totally, the renewals would only total 14*3, so only 42 years.
I'm sure why the number of problems is relevant. Me flying to France by piloting a jet has numerically more problems (I don't have a jet and I don't know how to fly one.) than me flying to France by flapping my arms (That is not physically possible.)
I'm sure you're wanting me to fall into some trap where we start listing problems and you 'prove' that the current system has more. Well, of course. The bigger any system, the more problems you can list with it. The number of bugs on my computer vs. the number of bugs in my calculator does not prove my calculator is more useful.
Under the current system, more people are better off on average. And less people die. Less children die. Less older people die. Less laid off people die. And the same for living on the streets.
Hell, many of the homeless people that die now are the mentally ill, thanks to Reagan putting them all back on the streets. The system can't actually help people who are not competent enough to show up at the system for help. That has to be solved elsewhere.
Exclude them, only count competent people who actually attempt to get help and use the resources presented to them, and the system has a fairly good track record at actually keeping people alive and moderately well feed.
Although, like I said, many of the homeless are chronically undernourished. They eat enough to fill their (shrunken) stomachs, but don't quite get enough nutrients. So there's stuff that could be fixed, but, overall, the system is much better than it was.
What are we getting for all this money expended that we didn't have then?
Old people who are actually alive and have money to live on? Less tent cities? Less children starving to death?
Frankly, I think I demonstrated it when I pointed out that private charitable giving was roughly the same. People do not give less, or more, based on anything but their income.
And we've proven that society cannot function, during a depression, with that level of charitable giving.
If you want to argue that government charity hasn't done any good, than you provide some sort of statistics to that regard. I'm not going to sit here and have you constantly pester me to provide stats for you. You're the one walking around asserting that somehow charity was 'better' with a quarter of the money it had now, or even less, and that poor people were somehow better off back then.
And as I pointed out, you've managed to ignore black people, 10% of the entire population, and very poor, that certainly was not better off under 'private charity' that they had no access to. A snide remark about their current status does not actually change the truth of what I said.
People were also expected to work themselves out of destitution.
Yeah, which is a great theory until you actually see it in practice. It's called a 'workhouse'. They were horrific.
The current welfare system that exists right now doesn't really seem to be a great long term benefit to black people, unless your goal is to keep an entire segment of the population dependent and basically helpless (so that they keep voting for you).
As opposed to before welfare existed, post civil war, where black people were peons in the feudalism that was sharecropping?
Indeed.
I get sick of the people who think it's the right of businesses who operate however they want.
Corporations exist because the government lets them exist. They're supposed to have some sort of purpose that actual benefits society.
Accepting X dollars of money from people, and giving out X/100 dollars back to people who actually comply with their 'rewards' and submit everything, is not, in any way, shape, or form, benefiting society. They are providing absolutely no goods or service whatsoever.
Individual people can provide whatever sort of scammy service they want, subject only to the various laws about fraud. Corporations exist only because we let them, and we should stop letting them even if they're 'within the law'(1) if they aren't providing any gains for society.
1) Of course, this behavior really shouldn't be within the law in the first place.
In that case the evidence should be easy to locate.
It is not really my job to locate evidence for whatever point you're trying to make.
Also I'm not sure that the friends, relatives and churches that people relied on when they were in trouble back in the 19th and early 20th centuries are quite as non-existant as you claim.
You weren't talking about 'the 19th and early 20th centuries'.
You were talking about 1929. A year in which is was rather obviously determined that the rather scant private charities could not handle a large economic downturn. (And, hell, neither could existing government charities, but as they hardly existed, that wasn't really in question.)
And a year in which friends and relatives were also dropped into poverty. Perhaps there were big charity drives taking place in tent cities? (Okay, those didn't actually exist until later, but whatever.)
Mathematically, spending for 'charity' in the US is about about 12% of pure private charity, 28% with private organizations subsidized by the government, and about 60% pure government.
In 1929, you had roughly the same percent of donations to private charities as you do in the present day. Somewhere between 3%-5% of the GDP. Hence you had about the same 12% spending by private organizations, and maybe the same amount by the government, or a total of 25% of what we have currently, which proved to be nowhere near enough when actual disaster struck.
And, as I said earlier, those organizations were not designed to help 'the poor'. Private charities pre-1929 were things like orphanages and widow pension system and a church that might let a homeless person sleep in it. Maybe a boarding house where three or four down-on-their-luck people could live while looking for jobs. They were not soup kitchens, they were not homeless shelters.
People were, in fact, expected to get help from friends and family. (Incidentally, that was something that vastly contributed to black people being unable to pull themselves out of poverty, which is why I mentioned prejudices in private charity previously. Thanks to the segregation of society, black people could only turn to other black people, who also did not have money.)
This entire system fell to pieces when, suddenly, everyone was poor.
They're really the same thing for countries, which is why it's amazingly goddamn stupid for the strongest countries in the world to use them to throw their weight around. Strong countries don't need nukes.
It's like a world where Chuck Norris starts carrying a gun, and no one else even thought of guns until he did. And now he runs around having to kick the butt of who looks like he might buy a guy, and a few people have managed to get them and lock themselves away in sniper nests so he can't come by and kick their ass.
Of course, I'm saying that as a member of ChuckNorristan. Probably if I was in one of the other countries I'd be saying 'Thank goodness we have a nuke and he can't attack us!'
What good does a concealed weapon (in a holster on my side I assume?) do me when there's a gun 2 inches from my face or a even a knife point at my neck? None, there jack shit i can do without getting stabbed/shot.
What on earth does that have to do with my comment. Handguns means that anyone can mug anyone. Handguns also mean that anyone can stop their mugger.
I have a better question for you:
If you are physically weak, what good does nothing do when you're thirty feet away from your mugger?
Anyone can invent scenarios where they lose. But without guns, if someone is weak, they always lose, and if they're strong, they always win.
It is much better for society if the weak and strong are randomized instead of the strong being able to glance around and figure out who they'll be able to force into doing what they want.
This isn't an argument about self protection. People could openly carry hunting rifles around for self protection, and it wouldn't do what I'm talking about.
This is an informational security argument. I am asserting that making 'people who it will be very hard to mug' into an unknown quality, there will be less muggings in general.
And, please, feel free to replace 'weak' with 'women' and 'mug' with 'rape' in this argument.
The Australians just outlawed homicides? Homicides in general or just firearm homicides?
I think if I was an Australian I'd be asking for my tax money back for the last few decades.
Oh, well that's...um...better? Somehow?
I'm so glad I don't have that channel.
Perhaps before commenting, you should actually attempt to learn what I'm talking about. Namely, that a specific channel here, the History Channel, has gained fame for showing WWII documentaries all the damn time. Not like 'every day', like literally every single second of every day. (Although this is exaggeration, it was only every other second of the every day.)
I have no idea what sort of point you're trying to make about the Holocaust, but what the GP ACTUALLY said was that there was a documentary on 'the Third Reich and World War Two' once a week, and I was commenting that that was not actually that impressive.
We have several Holocaust memorial days, there is probably a documentary on the Third Reich and World War Two once week on the TV channel.
Only once a week? Man, the History channel must have really cut back on the WWII stuff over in Germany.
Here it's about 50/50 WWII stuff.
You know who else banned displays of Nazi symbolism?
Hitler, that's who.
Likewise, if Japan had not attacked the US, but simply continued their war with China without attempting to get the Philippine's oil, the US wouldn't have entered the war either, or at least entered it later.
It's interesting how, strategically, the two countries that caused the defeat of the Axis in WWII shouldn't have been in the war at all, and wouldn't have been without seriously stupid miscalculations on the part of the Germans and Japanese.
Oddly enough, that's how I play Civ 4.
Before invading a country, I make demands from it. Starting with the reasonable, and then getting increasing unreasonable. And then I invade anyway.
I am Hitlereque.
Um...a lot less? We now have unemployment, social security, etc.
Do we really even need stats about that?
I have no idea what sort of point you're trying to make, or what 'the question' is supposed to be.
Of course federal anti-poverty programs(1) have produced better results than the almost completely non-existent private charities that existed in the 1929.
1) I assume you mean 'charity'. Providing for the homeless is not 'anti-poverty'. Anti-poverty is trying remove people from poverty, not keep the poor from dying.