The average German (let alone the average Nazi) most likely knew some of what was going on. They would certainly have been aware of the concentration camps even if they only thought hey were labor camps and not death camps.
Most of the killing did not actually occur in the death camps anyway but by soldiers behind the front lines as the army moved into Russia (the einstatzgrupen). These were often regular soldiers, not the SS troopers or die hard Nazi's. Check out Ordinary Men by Chris Browning if interested. Granted the German population was generally shielded from most of this info, but with the large number of ordinary soldiers who knew what was happening suspicions should were probably widespread.
As far as it happening in the US, this is also not correct. Yes, the Japanese on the West Coast were put into internment camps (though not the Japanese in other parts of the country, or even Hawaii- you know where Pearl Harbor is). And I'm not aware of any German or Italian citizens being arrested and put into camps (please correct me if I'm wrong). This despite the fact that before the war there were pro-Nazi rallies held in the US, including one at Madison Square Garden, and there being many prominent Nazi sympathizers in America.
When I bought The Fellowship of the Ring dvd last November it had a ticket for The Two Towers with it. I'd assume they are doing the same thing this winter.
That certainly is a problem and I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who expect the state to install noise barriers because they decide to build a home next to a highway.
But part of the problem (especially here in NJ where everything is becoming more congested) is that new highway construction or expanding local roads into larger highways is bringer traffic nearer to more homes. In this case I don't have a problem with putting a little extra expense into reducing the noise.
I have found memories of this game. It was one of the only games ever that my whole family played, including my mother.
Sure it was awful, the same board never changing, the "secret" passage going from top to bottom rather than side to side. Awful graphics with sound to match, but we were always trying for new high scores.
Also Asteroid was loads of fun, this game was as awful as Pac-Man, but the thing I always remeber was god-forbid if you gave that ship a little bit of thrust because you could never get it to stop again.
Living on the east coast I know next to nothing about earthquakes, but for even a modestly strong earthquake I qouldn't think you would need to evacuate an entire city. If you could just warn people to stay out of high risk areas (bridges & underpasses for example) I would think you would eliminate most fatalities.
The reason people accept that the Newtonian prediction that Pluto will take 250 years to revolve around the sun is that there are plenty of other planetary bodies that are observed to follow those rules. But in the case of the ultimate fate of the universe we obviously have no other reference to compare this theory to. I realize that there probably are verifiable predictions the theories do make (birth and death of stars/galaxies) but the ultimate result can never be checked.
I'm not trying to imply that this theory is wrong, just that there are always likely to be questions raised since it is ultimately unverifiable. Obviously bits and pieces (probably even the majority of it) can be confirmed, but we'll never be able to say, "This theory acurately depicted the ultimate death of Universe Alpha over there and that's going to be the same fate as our universe."
Yes but everytime an article comes up about SETI we get the "if only one in a billion stars have a planet and only one in a billion of them has life speech" in support of spending money without any physical or testable evidence. It's just faith by the sceintists that the odds are on their sides.
Why should only one side in the debate be allowed to refine its position. Science continually refines and sometimes outright rejects things that it held as correct as new evidence comes up. Do we throw Newton away because Einstein showed that he is not entirely correct?
Maybe, but remember there was lousy pre-packaged music made back in the sixties too. Bubble-gum pop in the 60's, bad disco in the 70's and hair bands in the 80's.
People shouldn't get so nostalgic about the past, we remember the good stuff from then because it was good and forget the bad. I don't think the quality of music has a whole lot of affect on these numbers. In any case the peak sales numbers that the RIAA uses when talking about the recent decline are from the late 90's, not exactly a golden era of music (unless everyone here thinks the Spice Girls are going to be making a big come-back soon).
The Catholic Church had a moral objection to Galileo's research. I guess you're telling me they were really open-minded, too
I don't understand you're point here. Do you really mean that there can never be a valid moral objection to any kind of research? Sure, at times there are people/groups who make moral objections that are stupid, but that hardly implies that all moral objections to research are foolish.
I doubt that legally you could get a bunch of suits joined into one big suit. The best you could probably do would be pooling resources together (and getting donations from others that support your actions) into a joint defense fund that would provide money/lawyers to people in this situation.
This isn't always the case. If the laws make criminals out of everyone then yes, it's good that the judicial system just gives up. Essentially this is what happened with Prohibition.
As a side note, I don't equate Prohibition with prosecuting file-sharing, just pointing out at least one example were the courts getting tired of enforcing the law was probably a good thing.
I once saw an episode of COPS where they sent out contest-winning announcements to people they'd been trying to arrest for awhile, but never seemed to get able to get their hands on. The people gladly showed up to claim their prize where they were promptly arrested.
The police are so unoriginal these days. This was actually the opening scene of the movie Sea of Love with Al Pacino (though I'm sure they got the idea from a real police operation). The best part was that a really young Samuel Jackson was one of the guys they rounded up.
More importantly, when are people going to learn that these lame copyright jokes aren't funny or clever. Especially in an article that has NOTHING to do with copyright/SCO/RIAA or whtever.
You know, there were crappy movies and sequels back in the '80's and there's a whole string of lousy bubblegum pop stars going back at least to the '60's. There are always going to be attempts to reach the largest audience by appealing to the lowest common denominator (or attempts to recapture an earlier success with cheap knock-offs. Hell, for the last 15 years every other action movie has been a copycat of Die Hard in a new locale.) At worst it may be a little more prevalent today only because we are so bombarded by mass media.
Don't forget that there is plenty of good movies, music, books, etc coming out everyday as long as you're willing to look for them.
It's articles like this that make me think that the recording and movie industries are right to go after online piracy with everything they've got.
Here we have the NYT, one of the premier news organizations in the world, offering its articles for free on the same day that they are published. Yet a large number of people, of this online community at least, refuses to provide even a minimal amount of information (and no money) so that the newspaper can try to make its online presence profitable.
I think the spam fears are a red herring, I've been registered with the times for over 2 years. I've never gotten spam that I think is traceable from them. I get a daily email of the day's headlines (and with the click of a box I could discontinue this).
Why should the RIAA change its business model to a pennies per song method when there is such a blatant example of the online community refusing to go directly to the source for even free material?
When an accountant named Chris Moneymaker won $2.5 million in the World Series of Poker last May...
Last Two Sentences:
No one knows this better than Robert Varkonyi, the unknown who surprised everyone by winning the World Series of Poker in 2002. This year he was eliminated the first day.
I'm pretty sure they are talking about this years tourney.
That's true for higher stakes games (not that I've ever played in any) but in a low limit game ($2-4 or $3-6 hold-em for example) you're less likely to win with a bluff since many people playing these games figure, "Well, it's just $2 more to see the last card (or see what he had) so I might as well call."
You're just much more likely to need the best hand to win in low limit games. Bluffing may sometimes work (especially against better, or at least tighter, players) and is probably useful to at least occasionaly mix up your style.
Slashdot Mirror
The average German (let alone the average Nazi) most likely knew some of what was going on. They would certainly have been aware of the concentration camps even if they only thought hey were labor camps and not death camps.
Most of the killing did not actually occur in the death camps anyway but by soldiers behind the front lines as the army moved into Russia (the einstatzgrupen). These were often regular soldiers, not the SS troopers or die hard Nazi's. Check out Ordinary Men by Chris Browning if interested. Granted the German population was generally shielded from most of this info, but with the large number of ordinary soldiers who knew what was happening suspicions should were probably widespread.
As far as it happening in the US, this is also not correct. Yes, the Japanese on the West Coast were put into internment camps (though not the Japanese in other parts of the country, or even Hawaii- you know where Pearl Harbor is). And I'm not aware of any German or Italian citizens being arrested and put into camps (please correct me if I'm wrong). This despite the fact that before the war there were pro-Nazi rallies held in the US, including one at Madison Square Garden, and there being many prominent Nazi sympathizers in America.
What are you talking about, Vietnem gave us the hereos of one of the great tv shows of the 80's- the A-team.
When I bought The Fellowship of the Ring dvd last November it had a ticket for The Two Towers with it. I'd assume they are doing the same thing this winter.
But part of the problem (especially here in NJ where everything is becoming more congested) is that new highway construction or expanding local roads into larger highways is bringer traffic nearer to more homes. In this case I don't have a problem with putting a little extra expense into reducing the noise.
Sure it was awful, the same board never changing, the "secret" passage going from top to bottom rather than side to side. Awful graphics with sound to match, but we were always trying for new high scores.
Also Asteroid was loads of fun, this game was as awful as Pac-Man, but the thing I always remeber was god-forbid if you gave that ship a little bit of thrust because you could never get it to stop again.
Well, since I'm only 27 years old I happened to miss out on those.
Living on the east coast I know next to nothing about earthquakes, but for even a modestly strong earthquake I qouldn't think you would need to evacuate an entire city. If you could just warn people to stay out of high risk areas (bridges & underpasses for example) I would think you would eliminate most fatalities.
The reason people accept that the Newtonian prediction that Pluto will take 250 years to revolve around the sun is that there are plenty of other planetary bodies that are observed to follow those rules. But in the case of the ultimate fate of the universe we obviously have no other reference to compare this theory to. I realize that there probably are verifiable predictions the theories do make (birth and death of stars/galaxies) but the ultimate result can never be checked.
I'm not trying to imply that this theory is wrong, just that there are always likely to be questions raised since it is ultimately unverifiable. Obviously bits and pieces (probably even the majority of it) can be confirmed, but we'll never be able to say, "This theory acurately depicted the ultimate death of Universe Alpha over there and that's going to be the same fate as our universe."
Considering the comments I read in most of the articles I thought I was on bizaro slashdot.
If their logs were that accessible I don't think that they would be on the list.
Yes but everytime an article comes up about SETI we get the "if only one in a billion stars have a planet and only one in a billion of them has life speech" in support of spending money without any physical or testable evidence. It's just faith by the sceintists that the odds are on their sides.
Why should only one side in the debate be allowed to refine its position. Science continually refines and sometimes outright rejects things that it held as correct as new evidence comes up. Do we throw Newton away because Einstein showed that he is not entirely correct?
People shouldn't get so nostalgic about the past, we remember the good stuff from then because it was good and forget the bad. I don't think the quality of music has a whole lot of affect on these numbers. In any case the peak sales numbers that the RIAA uses when talking about the recent decline are from the late 90's, not exactly a golden era of music (unless everyone here thinks the Spice Girls are going to be making a big come-back soon).
Where do I sign up?
I don't understand you're point here. Do you really mean that there can never be a valid moral objection to any kind of research? Sure, at times there are people/groups who make moral objections that are stupid, but that hardly implies that all moral objections to research are foolish.
But I don't really know.
As a side note, I don't equate Prohibition with prosecuting file-sharing, just pointing out at least one example were the courts getting tired of enforcing the law was probably a good thing.
The police are so unoriginal these days. This was actually the opening scene of the movie Sea of Love with Al Pacino (though I'm sure they got the idea from a real police operation). The best part was that a really young Samuel Jackson was one of the guys they rounded up.
More importantly, when are people going to learn that these lame copyright jokes aren't funny or clever. Especially in an article that has NOTHING to do with copyright/SCO/RIAA or whtever.
Sure, it's pink skin of Babe the pig you've been watching for hours. Come on, who do you think you're fooling?
Don't forget that there is plenty of good movies, music, books, etc coming out everyday as long as you're willing to look for them.
Here we have the NYT, one of the premier news organizations in the world, offering its articles for free on the same day that they are published. Yet a large number of people, of this online community at least, refuses to provide even a minimal amount of information (and no money) so that the newspaper can try to make its online presence profitable.
I think the spam fears are a red herring, I've been registered with the times for over 2 years. I've never gotten spam that I think is traceable from them. I get a daily email of the day's headlines (and with the click of a box I could discontinue this).
Why should the RIAA change its business model to a pennies per song method when there is such a blatant example of the online community refusing to go directly to the source for even free material?
When an accountant named Chris Moneymaker won $2.5 million in the World Series of Poker last May...
Last Two Sentences:
No one knows this better than Robert Varkonyi, the unknown who surprised everyone by winning the World Series of Poker in 2002. This year he was eliminated the first day.
I'm pretty sure they are talking about this years tourney.
You're just much more likely to need the best hand to win in low limit games. Bluffing may sometimes work (especially against better, or at least tighter, players) and is probably useful to at least occasionaly mix up your style.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Two things a lot of people here overlook is that he is talking about essential and temporary safety.