I'm guessing within the next 5 generations, the console and PC market will converge...
And then which will be left? Will the result be best called a "console", or a "Personal Computer".
I am afraid it will end up as a console, without the computer part. A PC, by definition, allows the user great control to run (arbitrarily defined) computations. Video game consoles have a tendency for a monopoly gatekeeper to prohibit all but a small number of carefully examined programs to run on the system.
It might be no more "a computer" than your existing DVD player or clothes dryer. There's a computer inside, but it's not for you to personally compute with.
This means no Linux or Open Source programming, which will at best be breaking DRM and at worst be illegal.
Then you are talking about something completely different. It was possible to attack a capital ship with a normal iron bomb dropped at low altitude with a 10-second fuse. Happened in the Crimea.
even the person chatting as with sms they usually get one after another and another continually with the beep beep beeps of the incoming alert
With an SMS chat, they can potentially set the phone to vibrate-on-ring, becoming totally silent. A voice chat cannot possibly be accomplished without making audible sounds.
Rodi can operate exactly as BT. tracker is part of the client code
I don't know if you understand English well or not, because this is a subtle point...
But sometimes, supersets do not have all the features of a subset: if some of the subset's valued features were the explicit LACK of something which the superset includes.
For some user needs, bittorrent's lack of searching is essentially a positive feature.
For a side comment, from your web page:
Yet another reason for avoiding of TCP in file sharing application is limited window size in TCP layer when application can actually retransmit any block - the data is stored on the media supporting random access, like hard disk. TCP can not assume that sent by application block can be easily reproduced by the application.
That's true, and makes me wish there was a version of a web-browser's HTTP protocol that used a variant TCP-like effect on top of UDP to take advantage of the knowledge that the data is already buffered in RAM once. Separate copies don't have to be made in the TCP stack for each outgoing connection.
I hope you're saving your best argument for later, because if this is it, you're in sad shape.
You've been automatically entered in the twirp-pudge memorial 2005 contest for Best Self-Descriptive Insult.
Copyright infringement is moral, but illegal.
I shouldn't be surprised to see someone who doesn't know what "evil" is, because churches et al do such a poor job of teaching it. And few schools even try.
An action is "evil" if it is unsustainable for everyone to do it. "Good" things are those which you would prefer if other people did; "evil" things are those which benefit you at the expense of others.
Evil people gain personal advantage at the expense of good people. A population of 100% good people has the maximum happiness. A 100% evil population is minimally happy, because everyone is hurting each other. But the happiest person of all is the 1% evil in a 99% good group. He's the bully who abuses every else's trust to get what he wants.
If you take an example of an action you already think is immoral, such as murder or theft, and consider it in light of the above, you can see why it qualifies as evil. The Golden Rule is applicable there: "Do to others as you would have others do to you", or conversely "Don't do something you wouldn't want done to you".
So, how does copyright infringement fit into that? First assume that you enjoy the current output of RIAA-controlled musicians. (That's not true for everyone, but it is for most people). This production only happens because it is profitable. It is only profitable because most people still pay for it, and they mostly pay for it because of copyright laws.
Habitually breaking copyright restriction cannot possibly be non-evil: either you don't care for RIAA music, in which case you wouldn't want to copy it, or you do enjoy it, which means you are freeloading on other people who honestly pay. If everyone were like that, nobody would pay, and the songs wouldn't get made.
It is equivalent to tax evasion: on an individual level, it's helpful to you to get the benefits of government services without needing to pay for them. But if nobody paid, then you (and everyone else) would be in trouble.
Re:This is why I come to slasdot. Expert opinions!
on
A Gamer's Manifesto
·
· Score: 1
Does beating a twelve-year old make you a "good fighter"?
It makes me a better fighter than her. That's what "advantage" is: being better.
Does beating a twelve-year old make you a "good fighter"? Hardly, you already had the advantage.
By that logic, a clever sneaky flanking-manuver person isn't a good fighter either. His brains and knowledge already gave him an advantage, so it doesn't count.
Reneging on an agreement is immoral, even when it's legal
Wrong. There are many kinds of situations where breaking your sworn oath is the more moral thing to do. It's dishonest, but honest isn't always right.
so if I had agreed not to infringe copyright, then for me to do so would be immoral. But of course, I never agreed to any such thing, and to claim that I'm agreeing to some nebulous "social contract" simply by listening to a song is ridiculous.
Maybe you're completely ignorant, but if so, we can change that. Go to your nearest police station or district attorney, and ask him if obeying the laws of your country is a requirement for living in that country and being unarrested.
There, now you have heard of the social contract. If you don't agree with it, leave your country and never return. Since you believe that "reneging agreements is immoral", you now think it is immoral to violate copyrights.
Of course, since you don't (yet) agree to the social contract, you also think it's right to never pay taxes, to sell cocaine and heroin, and many other things.
I never agreed to any such thing, and to claim
Seriously, if a government agent came to your doorstep with a contract reading: "I agree to obey the laws of this country, or be subject to various penalties listed in national and regional law codes", and told you to sign it or be escorted to the border, would you from then on start believing the "social contract" exists?
I have no idea why people think its mostly movies and songs going across bittorrent. That makes no sense as bittorrent is not anonymous in the least, and requires a central server.
It is BECAUSE BitTorrent is non-anonymous that they can TELL what most of the files are. If you personally don't look at the illegal stuff, it doesn't stop existing.
Patch releases, shareware games, movie trailers, all perfectly legal and easily found on bittorrent. Stuff you used to need an account on fileplanet or some such to get.
That is also frequently illegal, but only technically. For example, many of the game demos on Filerush are illegal copyright infringements. Just because someone gave you a demo for free doesn't make it legal for you to give copies to all your friends.
Downloading a DVD-rip takes you two minutes? Damn, I want your connection
They have this machine, called a "Pea Sea" or something, which can execute programs all by itself!
No more listening into PPP handsets and decoding TCP/IP requests by ear. Instead of transcribing for days before carving a CD-R with a laser-pointer and magnifying lense, you simply click a "Mouse" on a "Web Page", and check back on it in 2 or 3 days. The time you save the first time you use it more than makes up for the cost of the machine!
. A Pirate is someone who attacks and robs ships at sea. Key word here "robs", AKA stealing stuff.
Not exactly... piracy includes any kind of violent crime at sea. If you just stab someone or make him walk the plank, you're still a pirate, even if there was no stuff to steal.
But, if you sneak onto a ship and steal something without using at least the threat of violence, you're no pirate.
I don't recall signing any social contract. Please show me a copy of this signature, or I shall have to file a claim with my social credit card company.
That was the dumbest thing I've read in 91 days. And I was just listening to George W Bush talk, but you've got him beat by far! Interestingly, your comment is much like the fundamental flaw of "capital-L" Libertarianism theory.
I don't recall signing any social contract. Please show me a copy of this signature, or I shall have to file a claim with my social credit card company.
Did you sign something saying you won't kill people, rape babies, or disobey the laws of your country? No?
yet we still have people like the FSF saying that it is by fighting big companies for violations.
Nope. If they were fighting companies for "theft", then they'd be saying it is property. But instead when they fight against "violations", they are merely asserting that they have "rights".
Good for those the choose to promote, bad for others.
Including bad for listeners.
Promotion (like most advertisement) is an attempt to trick people into purchasing against their own best interests. It's attempted mind control: to change the things the audience enjoys to more directly correspond with what the corporation is selling.
Promotion is harmful to customers. While music labels can argue that some of their activities are for the benefit of listeners and society in general, promotion isn't one of them.
Repeating the AC's line, because it's smart: "Good stuff promotes itself. That's another thing they fear."
Yes, there are some, but I guess they are very minority, at least, according to my observations.
This is a self-selection fallacy. The people who CAN afford to pay but CHOOSE not to are the ones least likely to feel proud about it. But a person who already has downloaded a show but buys the DVDs anyway is more likely to tell all her friends, almost as bragging.
Survey respondents have a well-known bias towards socially acceptable answers.
Or better yet, don't rasterize the subtitles into the video stream.
Many fansubbers (and their viewers) consider this an advantage. The font is often better than what the player would provide, and the color choice can be better. The coloration may adjust to maintain high contrast with the background imagery, or font/color changes can be used as an aid to tell which person is saying which line (helpful in a rapid conversation between off-screen characters).
Background lyrics can be placed on the top of the screen, while normal conversation continues at the bottom. Unimportant background speech can be in a smaller font, to reflect it's inaudibility.
Also, translations for onscreen signage can be overlaid directly on the sign, keeping them from being mixed in with speech.
Despite those advantages, there are also benefits to your suggestion. The technically best solution would be to have the subtitles exist BOTH as an ASCII text file, and also as a video of transparent text which can be overlaid on the raw animation (assuming the player software has been modified for that feature, of course). This would give maximum flexibility and functionality.
While this would add an extra file, it would greatly improve the quality of fansubs.
It would also greatly expand their legal jeopardy. Now they would not only face threats from USA companies wanting to import the anime, but also from the original Japanese producers. By uploading shows that can be viewed with the subtitles removed, they are bootlegging a product that may attract same-language fans. (Remember that DVDs of native Japanese TV are priced much higher than anime DVDs in the USA)
Typically, anime is only distributed via torrent when there is no american company planning to sell it.
Shall we test that theory? Follow along at home.
www.google.com
"anime torrent"
"I'm Feeling Lucky"
You get "http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/romeria/animesit es.htm"
Click the first link shown, which says Boxtorrents
Click "Browse"
Scroll down and look for a licensed series
On the first page that came up, only two "Series" are listed (the rest are categorized as Movie, OAV or OST). They are "Niea Under 7" and "Wolf's Rain"... and surprise surprise, both of them have already had legal DVD releases in USA stores. Also on the page is "Howl's Moving Castle *cam-rip*", which aside from being a blurry degradation of artistic integrity, has already been licensed by Disney Corporation.
I suppose it was a waste of time to walk through that whole experiment, when it has already been stipulated that Naruto is transmitted by bittorrent, and we already know a USA company is planning to publish it.
Just because it's the next DragonBall doesn't mean it's bad.
Nothing like that was implied.
The comment means that Naruto is inevitable going to become nearly as popular as Dragonball was, and continued fansubbing is not increasing the audience size any bigger than it already is. It literally doesn't NEED fansubbing anymore, so that excuse doesn't hold up anymore.
Fansubbed shows are questionable in their legality.
Wrong. There is absolutely no question about the legality.
They are completely illegal, simple as that. Back in 1986 or so, there was occasionally a valid question about if an international license had been obtained yet. Those days are long over.
If you wanted to produce fan-subs that were marginally legal, then just make text-only SRT files, and allow people to play them alongside the recordings they make from TV themselves.
It's kind of hilarious to think that anyone in their right mind would consider for minute any sort of "conditional" surrender from Japan, after the total barbarity of the Japanese towards anyone who surrendered to Japan.
Yeah, that is totally funny! And you know what else is hilarious?
That movie, Passion of the Christ. The idea that a guy would stand there taking all that bloody punishment, and then immediately forgive the attackers. Ha ha! And, have you read the crazy book it was based on?
Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies
What a joke! Anyone who doesn't respond to violence with more violence is just laughable.
Well, if we are to believe the revisionist history of Dresden, the RAF was instructed to flatten the militarily insignificant, but culturally significant city for revenge or some such.
No, that's the real version. The revisionist account is the same, but with 4-5 times more deaths.
Those same revisionists drastically undercount the number of concentration camp fatalities, with the end effect of making Dresden appear bigger than the Holocaust.
If this is truly the only stipulation they had, you've won the arguemnt, but i kinda doubt it since they were left alive, as the your point right before this one states.
No, this is true. The Allies first rejected Japan's offer to surrender because it had the condition of leaving the Emperor in place, but then when they had achieved an unconditional surrender, they never exercised the option to prosecute him anyhow.
Maybe it doesn't seem to make much sense to you, but people weren't thinking clearly (or had ulterior motives). For one thing, the decisions were made at different times, by different people. It was MacArthur's personal choice to leave Hirohito unarrested for war crimes, because he knew it would make his job of occupation easier.
i've already pointed out that this would have left us with just another eastern europe to deal with.
Which means that atomic bombs were not needed to defeat Japan in WWII, but were instead a jump-start on the Cold War against the USSR.
There was no "signal" from the Japanese in any form that indicated anything other than their willingness to fight to the last man, woman, and child.
Yes there was. At the Postdam Conference, amoung other places. This information is an open secret, because the Western Allies didn't WANT a conditional surrender.
That's exactly what they did on Okinawa.
Because they hadn't surrendered yet. An Imperial order to stop fighting would've been obeyed.
AS far as Russia invading, that's even sillier. The Russians were not even at war with Japan until after we dropped the bomb!!!!!!!!!!
Ha ha. Whatever. At the Yalta Conference on February 10, Stalin published a promise to attack Japan exactly 3 months after whenever Germany surrendered. That turned out to be May 8, meaning Japan would be attacked on August 8, which is precisely what happened.
In the real world, he was was eager to invade as much of Japan as possible, so the country could be split up between Communist and Capitalist forces just like Germany was.
The Russians were not even at war with Japan until after we dropped the bomb!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, that's WHY the bomb was dropped. Because it was known that Stalin was going to attack Japan immediately (his armies had been driving from Europe to Asia ever since V-E day). The Bomb let the USA have Japan all to itself, instead of allowing the Soviets to claim some of the territory too.
You know the "Race to Berlin"? The Hiroshima attack was part of a "Race to Tokyo".
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing within the next 5 generations, the console and PC market will converge...
And then which will be left? Will the result be best called a "console", or a "Personal Computer".
I am afraid it will end up as a console, without the computer part. A PC, by definition, allows the user great control to run (arbitrarily defined) computations. Video game consoles have a tendency for a monopoly gatekeeper to prohibit all but a small number of carefully examined programs to run on the system.
It might be no more "a computer" than your existing DVD player or clothes dryer. There's a computer inside, but it's not for you to personally compute with.
This means no Linux or Open Source programming, which will at best be breaking DRM and at worst be illegal.
The sources that I have seen up until now are simply not terribly convincing.
FAS is a tremendously well-respected organization. I said it was an "expert opinion". They are experts, and that's their opinion.
For example, the one you linked to is not peer-reviewed,
If peer-review is what you want, then of course that costs money. It's not easy to get for free on the web, and I'm not in a university library at the moment. But if you have an account, you can find a copy of Establishing Remediation Levels in Response to a Radiological Dispersal Event.
was written by a member of a political think tank whose education consists of a B.A. in biology and political science.
No. Presenters are not authors.
No! It was a special bomb.
Then you are talking about something completely different. It was possible to attack a capital ship with a normal iron bomb dropped at low altitude with a 10-second fuse. Happened in the Crimea.
even the person chatting as with sms they usually get one after another and another continually with the beep beep beeps of the incoming alert
With an SMS chat, they can potentially set the phone to vibrate-on-ring, becoming totally silent. A voice chat cannot possibly be accomplished without making audible sounds.
I don't know if you understand English well or not, because this is a subtle point...
But sometimes, supersets do not have all the features of a subset: if some of the subset's valued features were the explicit LACK of something which the superset includes.
For some user needs, bittorrent's lack of searching is essentially a positive feature.
For a side comment, from your web page:
That's true, and makes me wish there was a version of a web-browser's HTTP protocol that used a variant TCP-like effect on top of UDP to take advantage of the knowledge that the data is already buffered in RAM once. Separate copies don't have to be made in the TCP stack for each outgoing connection.
I hope you're saving your best argument for later, because if this is it, you're in sad shape.
You've been automatically entered in the twirp-pudge memorial 2005 contest for Best Self-Descriptive Insult.
Copyright infringement is moral, but illegal.
I shouldn't be surprised to see someone who doesn't know what "evil" is, because churches et al do such a poor job of teaching it. And few schools even try.
An action is "evil" if it is unsustainable for everyone to do it. "Good" things are those which you would prefer if other people did; "evil" things are those which benefit you at the expense of others.
Evil people gain personal advantage at the expense of good people. A population of 100% good people has the maximum happiness. A 100% evil population is minimally happy, because everyone is hurting each other. But the happiest person of all is the 1% evil in a 99% good group. He's the bully who abuses every else's trust to get what he wants.
If you take an example of an action you already think is immoral, such as murder or theft, and consider it in light of the above, you can see why it qualifies as evil. The Golden Rule is applicable there: "Do to others as you would have others do to you", or conversely "Don't do something you wouldn't want done to you".
So, how does copyright infringement fit into that?
First assume that you enjoy the current output of RIAA-controlled musicians. (That's not true for everyone, but it is for most people). This production only happens because it is profitable. It is only profitable because most people still pay for it, and they mostly pay for it because of copyright laws.
Habitually breaking copyright restriction cannot possibly be non-evil: either you don't care for RIAA music, in which case you wouldn't want to copy it, or you do enjoy it, which means you are freeloading on other people who honestly pay. If everyone were like that, nobody would pay, and the songs wouldn't get made.
It is equivalent to tax evasion: on an individual level, it's helpful to you to get the benefits of government services without needing to pay for them. But if nobody paid, then you (and everyone else) would be in trouble.
Does beating a twelve-year old make you a "good fighter"?
It makes me a better fighter than her. That's what "advantage" is: being better.
Does beating a twelve-year old make you a "good fighter"? Hardly, you already had the advantage.
By that logic, a clever sneaky flanking-manuver person isn't a good fighter either. His brains and knowledge already gave him an advantage, so it doesn't count.
If you have a source for this assertion, I'd be interested in seeing it.
m
It's called "Google", it's not hard to use.
For the first hit, http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002/v55n2/dirtybomb.ht
Reneging on an agreement is immoral, even when it's legal
Wrong. There are many kinds of situations where breaking your sworn oath is the more moral thing to do. It's dishonest, but honest isn't always right.
so if I had agreed not to infringe copyright, then for me to do so would be immoral. But of course, I never agreed to any such thing, and to claim that I'm agreeing to some nebulous "social contract" simply by listening to a song is ridiculous.
Maybe you're completely ignorant, but if so, we can change that. Go to your nearest police station or district attorney, and ask him if obeying the laws of your country is a requirement for living in that country and being unarrested.
There, now you have heard of the social contract. If you don't agree with it, leave your country and never return. Since you believe that "reneging agreements is immoral", you now think it is immoral to violate copyrights.
Of course, since you don't (yet) agree to the social contract, you also think it's right to never pay taxes, to sell cocaine and heroin, and many other things.
I never agreed to any such thing, and to claim
Seriously, if a government agent came to your doorstep with a contract reading: "I agree to obey the laws of this country, or be subject to various penalties listed in national and regional law codes", and told you to sign it or be escorted to the border, would you from then on start believing the "social contract" exists?
You put that much import on a technicality?
You like posting the same thing over, huh?
I have no idea why people think its mostly movies and songs going across bittorrent. That makes no sense as bittorrent is not anonymous in the least, and requires a central server.
It is BECAUSE BitTorrent is non-anonymous that they can TELL what most of the files are. If you personally don't look at the illegal stuff, it doesn't stop existing.
Patch releases, shareware games, movie trailers, all perfectly legal and easily found on bittorrent. Stuff you used to need an account on fileplanet or some such to get.
That is also frequently illegal, but only technically. For example, many of the game demos on Filerush are illegal copyright infringements. Just because someone gave you a demo for free doesn't make it legal for you to give copies to all your friends.
Downloading a DVD-rip takes you two minutes? Damn, I want your connection
They have this machine, called a "Pea Sea" or something, which can execute programs all by itself!
No more listening into PPP handsets and decoding TCP/IP requests by ear. Instead of transcribing for days before carving a CD-R with a laser-pointer and magnifying lense, you simply click a "Mouse" on a "Web Page", and check back on it in 2 or 3 days. The time you save the first time you use it more than makes up for the cost of the machine!
. A Pirate is someone who attacks and robs ships at sea. Key word here "robs", AKA stealing stuff.
Not exactly... piracy includes any kind of violent crime at sea. If you just stab someone or make him walk the plank, you're still a pirate, even if there was no stuff to steal.
But, if you sneak onto a ship and steal something without using at least the threat of violence, you're no pirate.
I don't recall signing any social contract. Please show me a copy of this signature, or I shall have to file a claim with my social credit card company.
That was the dumbest thing I've read in 91 days. And I was just listening to George W Bush talk, but you've got him beat by far! Interestingly, your comment is much like the fundamental flaw of "capital-L" Libertarianism theory.
I don't recall signing any social contract. Please show me a copy of this signature, or I shall have to file a claim with my social credit card company.
Did you sign something saying you won't kill people, rape babies, or disobey the laws of your country? No?
Does that make it OK?
yet we still have people like the FSF saying that it is by fighting big companies for violations.
Nope. If they were fighting companies for "theft", then they'd be saying it is property. But instead when they fight against "violations", they are merely asserting that they have "rights".
Good for those the choose to promote, bad for others.
Including bad for listeners.
Promotion (like most advertisement) is an attempt to trick people into purchasing against their own best interests. It's attempted mind control: to change the things the audience enjoys to more directly correspond with what the corporation is selling.
Promotion is harmful to customers. While music labels can argue that some of their activities are for the benefit of listeners and society in general, promotion isn't one of them.
Repeating the AC's line, because it's smart: "Good stuff promotes itself. That's another thing they fear."
Yes, there are some, but I guess they are very minority, at least, according to my observations.
This is a self-selection fallacy. The people who CAN afford to pay but CHOOSE not to are the ones least likely to feel proud about it. But a person who already has downloaded a show but buys the DVDs anyway is more likely to tell all her friends, almost as bragging.
Survey respondents have a well-known bias towards socially acceptable answers.
Or better yet, don't rasterize the subtitles into the video stream.
Many fansubbers (and their viewers) consider this an advantage. The font is often better than what the player would provide, and the color choice can be better. The coloration may adjust to maintain high contrast with the background imagery, or font/color changes can be used as an aid to tell which person is saying which line (helpful in a rapid conversation between off-screen characters).
Background lyrics can be placed on the top of the screen, while normal conversation continues at the bottom. Unimportant background speech can be in a smaller font, to reflect it's inaudibility.
Also, translations for onscreen signage can be overlaid directly on the sign, keeping them from being mixed in with speech.
Despite those advantages, there are also benefits to your suggestion. The technically best solution would be to have the subtitles exist BOTH as an ASCII text file, and also as a video of transparent text which can be overlaid on the raw animation (assuming the player software has been modified for that feature, of course). This would give maximum flexibility and functionality.
While this would add an extra file, it would greatly improve the quality of fansubs.
It would also greatly expand their legal jeopardy. Now they would not only face threats from USA companies wanting to import the anime, but also from the original Japanese producers. By uploading shows that can be viewed with the subtitles removed, they are bootlegging a product that may attract same-language fans. (Remember that DVDs of native Japanese TV are priced much higher than anime DVDs in the USA)
Why do you assume that official subs will not be made available?
Because in the context he was describing, they won't be. He was referring only to what he can legally get for free: televised (crude) English dubs.
It is perverse that the importing companies spend major money to make the product worse, in the opinions of many.
Shall we test that theory? Follow along at home.
On the first page that came up, only two "Series" are listed (the rest are categorized as Movie, OAV or OST). They are "Niea Under 7" and "Wolf's Rain"... and surprise surprise, both of them have already had legal DVD releases in USA stores. Also on the page is "Howl's Moving Castle *cam-rip*", which aside from being a blurry degradation of artistic integrity, has already been licensed by Disney Corporation.
I suppose it was a waste of time to walk through that whole experiment, when it has already been stipulated that Naruto is transmitted by bittorrent, and we already know a USA company is planning to publish it.
Just because it's the next DragonBall doesn't mean it's bad.
Nothing like that was implied.
The comment means that Naruto is inevitable going to become nearly as popular as Dragonball was, and continued fansubbing is not increasing the audience size any bigger than it already is. It literally doesn't NEED fansubbing anymore, so that excuse doesn't hold up anymore.
Fansubbed shows are questionable in their legality.
Wrong. There is absolutely no question about the legality.
They are completely illegal, simple as that. Back in 1986 or so, there was occasionally a valid question about if an international license had been obtained yet. Those days are long over.
If you wanted to produce fan-subs that were marginally legal, then just make text-only SRT files, and allow people to play them alongside the recordings they make from TV themselves.
Yeah, that is totally funny! And you know what else is hilarious?
That movie, Passion of the Christ. The idea that a guy would stand there taking all that bloody punishment, and then immediately forgive the attackers. Ha ha! And, have you read the crazy book it was based on?
What a joke! Anyone who doesn't respond to violence with more violence is just laughable.
Well, if we are to believe the revisionist history of Dresden, the RAF was instructed to flatten the militarily insignificant, but culturally significant city for revenge or some such.
No, that's the real version. The revisionist account is the same, but with 4-5 times more deaths.
Those same revisionists drastically undercount the number of concentration camp fatalities, with the end effect of making Dresden appear bigger than the Holocaust.
If this is truly the only stipulation they had, you've won the arguemnt, but i kinda doubt it since they were left alive, as the your point right before this one states.
No, this is true. The Allies first rejected Japan's offer to surrender because it had the condition of leaving the Emperor in place, but then when they had achieved an unconditional surrender, they never exercised the option to prosecute him anyhow.
Maybe it doesn't seem to make much sense to you, but people weren't thinking clearly (or had ulterior motives). For one thing, the decisions were made at different times, by different people. It was MacArthur's personal choice to leave Hirohito unarrested for war crimes, because he knew it would make his job of occupation easier.
i've already pointed out that this would have left us with just another eastern europe to deal with.
Which means that atomic bombs were not needed to defeat Japan in WWII, but were instead a jump-start on the Cold War against the USSR.
There was no "signal" from the Japanese in any form that indicated anything other than their willingness to fight to the last man, woman, and child.
Yes there was. At the Postdam Conference, amoung other places. This information is an open secret, because the Western Allies didn't WANT a conditional surrender.
That's exactly what they did on Okinawa.
Because they hadn't surrendered yet. An Imperial order to stop fighting would've been obeyed.
AS far as Russia invading, that's even sillier. The Russians were not even at war with Japan until after we dropped the bomb!!!!!!!!!!
Ha ha. Whatever. At the Yalta Conference on February 10, Stalin published a promise to attack Japan exactly 3 months after whenever Germany surrendered. That turned out to be May 8, meaning Japan would be attacked on August 8, which is precisely what happened.
In the real world, he was was eager to invade as much of Japan as possible, so the country could be split up between Communist and Capitalist forces just like Germany was.
The Russians were not even at war with Japan until after we dropped the bomb!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, that's WHY the bomb was dropped. Because it was known that Stalin was going to attack Japan immediately (his armies had been driving from Europe to Asia ever since V-E day). The Bomb let the USA have Japan all to itself, instead of allowing the Soviets to claim some of the territory too.
You know the "Race to Berlin"? The Hiroshima attack was part of a "Race to Tokyo".