From every account I've ever heard, the only reason most of Germany's crazy "victory weapon" planes didn't fly much by the end of the war was because they didn't have the fuel to get 4/5 of them off the ground. Well, that and the jet engines had absolutely atrocious life expectancies.
And they didn't hardly have any decently trained pilots left.
And, y'know, most of their industry had been bombed to pieces.
And they had a few million pissed-off Russians on their border.
I'm not entirely sure why someone decided they "had" to surrender unconditionally anyway...in the end, they actually didn't. The one condition was that Hirohito stay on the throne, which he did.
Ukraine kind of demonstrates that if you don't have nukes, you're vulnerable to invasion. Ukraine must be kicking themselves that they didn't keep the nukes they used to have.
That was exactly the part I was talking about when I said:
Isn't this whole thing because people put undue weight on Internet slander anyway? We're trying to use a technological band-aid to fix a social problem.
It's like in juries if a lawyer says something outrageous and they strike it from the record...but the jury can't unhear it so it'll likely still influence them subconsciously.
No idea what you're doing wrong, but I've been using Palemoon (the Linux version) for like the last month at least and it has yet to crash on me a single time (knock on wood).
Oh. Gah. I've gotten in so many arguments about this I've lost track of which one I'm on. Yes, I did mention slander, although I meant more "people saying mean things about me!" than the legal concept, which differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (in the U.K. IIRC "the truth is not a defense").
But in announcing the regulation, Reding said she wanted it to be ambiguous so that it could accommodate new technologies in the future. “This regulation needs to stand for 30 years—it needs to be very clear but imprecise enough that changes in the markets or public opinion can be maneuvered in the regulation,”
I'll quote again what I call HungryHobo's Law: "If there's an insane way to apply a law which everyone dismisses as 'nobody would ever apply it like that' then you can bet your ass it will be abused exactly like that."
On October 27, 2009, lawyers for Wolfgang Werlé who was convicted for murdering Walter Sedlmayr sent the Wikimedia Foundation a cease and desist letter requesting that Werlé's name be removed from the English language Wikipedia article Walter Sedlmayr, citing a 1973 Federal Constitutional Court decision that allows the suppression of a criminal's name in news accounts once he is released from custody.[20][21][22] Previously, the attorney for both men, Alexander H. Stopp, had won a default judgment in German court, on behalf of Lauber, against the Wikimedia Foundation.[20] According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Werlé's lawyers also challenged an Internet service provider in Austria which published the names of the convicted killers.[23]
Wikimedia is based in the United States, where the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press, under which the articles on Wikipedia would fall. In Germany, the law seeks to protect the name and likenesses of private persons from unwanted publicity.[24] On January 18, 2008, a court in Hamburg supported the personality rights of Werlé, which under German law includes removing his name from archive coverage of the case.[25]
Censoring the historical record like this will only make it more and more difficult to actually do research if we let it progress.
You argue the wisdom of having illegal acts, yet want to be able to erase the evidence that you did such illegal acts. I just can't figure out this logic. The whole "right to forget" sounds like it's a big setup for people to refuse to take responsibility for their actions. "He shouldn't be able to know that I murdered those people."
IIRC there have been several court cases already where people have tried to do pretty much exactly that.
Wow, I had actually gotten to the point where I think we understand each other, and then you decide to throw some insults in my face at the last moment. Arguing on/. is so much fun.
If I don't have the right to remember, do you have the right to make me forget? There's a difference between not knowing something, and having public knowledge hidden after the fact for dumb reasons.
Jesus Christ are you ACs fixating on how I supposedly want to spy on your children.
So if it's unworkable, why do you care? You're therefore blathering about something that doesn't matter?
Because they're *not* implementing the unworkable option. They're trying to do it globally, and it will very much matter when they start blocking more relevant stuff "in the name of national security" as they will inevitably do. (Yes, this article is about Canada, but I can't imagine it'll be long before it ends up making its way to the U.S. under some cockamamie excuse and begins being promptly abused.)
I guess I'll just have to take solace in the size of my penis^H^H^H^H^Hmy +5 Insightful mod that tells me that a bunch of people agree with me.
Does that "right" to be informed apply to every bit of knowledge? Do you have a right to know the length of my penis?
God, what is it with all you reductio ad absurdum people on these topic lately?
It was already public and I don't see any particular reason why it should be hidden from the rest of the world. TPTB are only too happy to start out small and get us used to blocked shit before slowly ramping it up until we no longer have the ability to know what's going on in the world. It'll happen many, many times more quickly if we let any old country start blocking parts of the global Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Except then they nuke you back...
There was a total war on and you're talking about murder? Umm...
Not that there isn't a strong argument to be made that it was gratuitous.
The germans didn't run out of fuel and weapons.
From every account I've ever heard, the only reason most of Germany's crazy "victory weapon" planes didn't fly much by the end of the war was because they didn't have the fuel to get 4/5 of them off the ground. Well, that and the jet engines had absolutely atrocious life expectancies.
And they didn't hardly have any decently trained pilots left.
And, y'know, most of their industry had been bombed to pieces.
And they had a few million pissed-off Russians on their border.
And...and...
I'm not entirely sure why someone decided they "had" to surrender unconditionally anyway...in the end, they actually didn't. The one condition was that Hirohito stay on the throne, which he did.
basically the only country
I wasn't aware that there was any argument over this whatsoever.
cobalt bomb
Not to mention Germany from, hmm, 1930 to 1989?
Ukraine kind of demonstrates that if you don't have nukes, you're vulnerable to invasion. Ukraine must be kicking themselves that they didn't keep the nukes they used to have.
Russia was never under obligation to force any part of Ukraine's civilian population to stay in Ukraine against its will.
I love the weasel wording on this. From the way they say it, Russia reluctantly decided not to go to war to prevent Ukraine from joining them.
If 7 is the entire sample size, that means 100% of the emails they've been looking for have been missing.
Because you usually have more than 2 parties in Europe. We don't.
They were accidentally hit 47 times with a sledgehammer and then thrown into traffic. Accidentally.
More of a hybrid between an inverted Hanlon's Razor and Clarke's Third Law.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
That was exactly the part I was talking about when I said:
Isn't this whole thing because people put undue weight on Internet slander anyway? We're trying to use a technological band-aid to fix a social problem.
It's like in juries if a lawyer says something outrageous and they strike it from the record...but the jury can't unhear it so it'll likely still influence them subconsciously.
No idea what you're doing wrong, but I've been using Palemoon (the Linux version) for like the last month at least and it has yet to crash on me a single time (knock on wood).
Oh. Gah. I've gotten in so many arguments about this I've lost track of which one I'm on. Yes, I did mention slander, although I meant more "people saying mean things about me!" than the legal concept, which differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (in the U.K. IIRC "the truth is not a defense").
I would sympathize with this guy somewhat.
I never said anything about slander.
He should have taken it up with the newspaper; no laws should have been necessary.
The Right to Be Forgotten--Stanford Law Review
What scares me the most is:
But in announcing the regulation, Reding said she wanted it to be ambiguous so that it could accommodate new technologies in the future. “This regulation needs to stand for 30 years—it needs to be very clear but imprecise enough that changes in the markets or public opinion can be maneuvered in the regulation,”
I'll quote again what I call HungryHobo's Law: "If there's an insane way to apply a law which everyone dismisses as 'nobody would ever apply it like that' then you can bet your ass it will be abused exactly like that."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
On October 27, 2009, lawyers for Wolfgang Werlé who was convicted for murdering Walter Sedlmayr sent the Wikimedia Foundation a cease and desist letter requesting that Werlé's name be removed from the English language Wikipedia article Walter Sedlmayr, citing a 1973 Federal Constitutional Court decision that allows the suppression of a criminal's name in news accounts once he is released from custody.[20][21][22] Previously, the attorney for both men, Alexander H. Stopp, had won a default judgment in German court, on behalf of Lauber, against the Wikimedia Foundation.[20] According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Werlé's lawyers also challenged an Internet service provider in Austria which published the names of the convicted killers.[23]
Wikimedia is based in the United States, where the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press, under which the articles on Wikipedia would fall. In Germany, the law seeks to protect the name and likenesses of private persons from unwanted publicity.[24] On January 18, 2008, a court in Hamburg supported the personality rights of Werlé, which under German law includes removing his name from archive coverage of the case.[25]
Censoring the historical record like this will only make it more and more difficult to actually do research if we let it progress.
You argue the wisdom of having illegal acts, yet want to be able to erase the evidence that you did such illegal acts. I just can't figure out this logic. The whole "right to forget" sounds like it's a big setup for people to refuse to take responsibility for their actions. "He shouldn't be able to know that I murdered those people."
IIRC there have been several court cases already where people have tried to do pretty much exactly that.
Wow, I had actually gotten to the point where I think we understand each other, and then you decide to throw some insults in my face at the last moment. Arguing on /. is so much fun.
If I don't have the right to remember, do you have the right to make me forget? There's a difference between not knowing something, and having public knowledge hidden after the fact for dumb reasons.
Jesus Christ are you ACs fixating on how I supposedly want to spy on your children.
So if it's unworkable, why do you care? You're therefore blathering about something that doesn't matter?
Because they're *not* implementing the unworkable option. They're trying to do it globally, and it will very much matter when they start blocking more relevant stuff "in the name of national security" as they will inevitably do. (Yes, this article is about Canada, but I can't imagine it'll be long before it ends up making its way to the U.S. under some cockamamie excuse and begins being promptly abused.)
I guess I'll just have to take solace in the size of my penis^H^H^H^H^Hmy +5 Insightful mod that tells me that a bunch of people agree with me.
Does that "right" to be informed apply to every bit of knowledge? Do you have a right to know the length of my penis?
God, what is it with all you reductio ad absurdum people on these topic lately?
It was already public and I don't see any particular reason why it should be hidden from the rest of the world. TPTB are only too happy to start out small and get us used to blocked shit before slowly ramping it up until we no longer have the ability to know what's going on in the world. It'll happen many, many times more quickly if we let any old country start blocking parts of the global Internet.
If your main argument is that this ISN'T in fact Right to Forget, I'll concede that point. But my points still stand.