Tours (and for that matter, the Siege of Vienna) may have saved Western Civilization but Greece was the birthplace of it. We can never say how the Greek cities would have fared as Persian client states but it seems highly unlikely that history would have unfolded as it did if the Greeks hadn't retained their Independence. If you accept Greece as the cradle of Western Civilization then it follows that the Greco-Persian wars were decisive. In that instance it's just a matter of picking the turning point, and Salamis is the best contender. The better known battles of Marathon and Thermopylae weren't turning points, the former bought a ten year reprieve and the latter was a delaying action turned into noble and doomed last stand.
Salamis was also a naval engagement, which may lead to some bias on my part, though the West has traditionally excelled at sea, so.....:)
If depends on how you define "massive"; Salamis had more ships than Leyte Gulf and was significantly more important to Western history. In fact, it was arguably the most important battle in Western history, but that's a different discussion.:)
Leyte Gulf usually wins the biggest title on the basis of personnel involved and sheer geographical scope, neither of which have a historical analogue.
It was only by 1942 that the shift had become apparent
This is commonly repeated but it's a false assertion. The Two-Ocean Navy Act was passed in 1940 and explicitly recognized the ascendancy of the aircraft carrier.
They were, in essence, the best WW1 warships ever made... except that they were deployed during WW2. The age of the dreadnought-style battleship was on its way out by this point and the era of aircraft carrier dominance had begun. Even if Musashi and Yamato had been deployed for key battles such as Midway and Guadalcanal, it's unlilkely they would have made much difference.
Yamato was deployed at Midway. She was part of the body of surface combatants (with one light carrier as escort) kept out of range for the surface action that Spruance wisely declined to permit. The deployment at Midway was a Rube Goldberg contraption that personifies everything that was wrong with IJN thinking in WW2; multiple formations scattered too far apart for mutual support and a requirement that the enemy do what you expect for victory to occur.
Neither ship was used at Guadalcanal for the same reason that the old American battleships weren't used: Neither side had sufficient tanker assets in theater to keep the old battle-wagons fueled. The USN deployed new design battleships (USS South Dakota, North Carolina, and Washington) but kept the Pearl Harbor survivors on the West Coast. The IJN used two older battle cruisers (Kirishima and Fuso) that weren't as fuel hungry as their bigger/newer cousins.
They were, in essence, the best WW1 warships ever made... except that they were deployed during WW2.
The biggest flaw with the IJN was their inferior fire control technology. This is evidenced both in surface actions (Samar being the best case study) and in the anti-aircraft role. The USN had radar directed fire control in 1942, for both surface targets and aircraft. The Japanese paid an extremely heavy price when attacking our ships with aircraft, the two carrier battles in the Guadalcanal campaign (Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz) were Pyrrhic tactical victories at best, with most of the Japanese aircraft losses coming from AA fire.
Straw man; better one! Bonus points for absolutism.
When you've finished with Atlas Shrugged do yourself a favor and Google "compelling state interest", "strict scrutiny", and "case law." If you're going to rail against the system you might as well understand how it works in the real world.
Is it the government's business what I'm doing with 100 $100 bills? Fuck no. I should make it very clear that I don't approve of reporting requirements. And the idea of civil forfeiture is entirely ridiculous.
You'll brook no argument from me on civil forfeiture. The reporting requirements are trickier; they were put in place because ongoing criminal enterprises were using cash to launder the proceeds of their ill gotten gains. There's a history there and if you want to drill down deeper into Constitutional Law the reporting requirements pass a strict scrutiny test. The State has a compelling interest in preventing criminals from laundering money and the policy is narrowly tailored. It does not represent a significant burden on or intrusion into your daily life.
I can see the philosophical objection, but in the hierarchy of infringements (real and imagined) on my personal liberty this ranks pretty damned close to the bottom. Such are the tradeoffs you make for being a member of civilization and I doubt that there are many people in the political mainstream (or even within Libertarianism) that think we should make it easier for criminal enterprises to launder money.
ALL is a qualifier, and negates any limitations, including documentation of origin.
So your chief complaint really is the fact that the Government doesn't make it easy for you to cheat^Wlive outside the system?
Yawn.
I suppose you could try your luck at living off the land in Alaska. They're still doing homesteads up there and you'll find a ton of parcels that can be had for <$10,000. Property taxes are pretty low, albeit a non-zero amount. It's probably as far away from the man as you can get and still be on planet Earth.
Technically it should be possible, without any government interference. But it isn't.
So you're railing against laws and regulations (I'm guessing the $10,000 reporting requirement?) put in place to combat money laundering? Is that your best argument? You really expect sympathy from me because Uncle Sam wants you to account for large amounts of cash, when there's decades worth of history of violent criminal organizations using laundering techniques to hide ill gotten gains?
If you can actually ACCOUNT for where your pile of cash came from you're not going to have any difficulties paying in cash. If you just show up with a pile of money and can't document where it came from, well, that's a different story.
Here is another test, pay your taxes with coins (real coins) see if the government that issued the money will take the money it issued.
This is a stupid straw man. You know exactly what I meant. United States Dollars are valid for all debts, public and private. Is this your second best argument? That you can't pay your taxes with pennies? If you really insist on this stupid straw man:
Step #1: Travel to your local USPS.
Step #2: Purchase a postal money order using whatever combination of coins you happen to possess.
Step #3: Mail money order to IRS.
Step #4: Pat yourself on the back for sticking it to the man, because, I dunno, a bare chested blue painted Mel Gibson shouting "FREEDOM" at the top of his lungs?
Good People doing nothing allows evil to prosper. Be it Somalia or Nazi Germany.
There were plenty of "Good People" (tm) in Nazi Germany. Many of them did a lot more than nothing; resistance ranged from non-violent underground protests (White Rose) to violent attempts at assassination. "Good People" (tm) are no guarantee against tyranny and this entire topic is irrelevant in a discussion about the proper bounds of Government.
Since time immortal Governments have claimed the right to coin and regulate the currency. This is not a new concept that started with the Federal Reserve Act. If you're going to upend a few thousand years of precedent why don't you explain to us why your desired cryptocurrency solution is better than the system you're railing against? Particularly since the Government (or anyone with enough guns really) can still compel you to participate in the system if push comes to shove.
I also want representative democracy, and for the people to ratify bills directly.
These two desires are incompatible with each other. People tend to vote in favor of benefits from the public treasury. There's a few quotes (some real, some attributed) floating around the internet about this. There's also the very real world example of California to point to.
No I would not. But then again those Thai women in the bars who keep wanting to have a drink with me all seem on the up and up.
I thought so too, but it turns out they were just gold diggers after the millions of United States Dollars my long lost Uncle smuggled out of Nigeria.:(
I think the people who look at fools are those investing in an "asset" that has less tangible value than just about anything, including the fiat currencies that many of them condemn. Bitcoin will never be a currency as such, because it will never be accepted for "all debts, public and private." It's an asset, with nothing backing it up, and you'd arguably be better off buying something tangible (real estate, firearms, precious metals, works of art, jewels, and so on) if you're unwilling to store wealth in a fiat currency. There are also intangible assets (blue chip stocks) that are arguably a better bet for storing wealth than bitcoin, unless of course your primary motivation is hiding wealth from the authorities, but even in that instance there are things you can do that are a safer bet than bitcoin.
And to be fair didn't USA more or less invented freedom?;D (No? Someone feel free to write down some points, I'm interested and don't really mean and say that USA was first but I respect it being a thing from the very beginning over there and taken seriously.)
The Western concept of freedom probably started with the Greeks. Of course, they weren't perfect, they owned slaves (as did the young American Republic) but Western civilization has never been and never will be perfect. The Romans added a great deal to the mix, as did the British, and the United States is really just built on all that came before it.
Incidentally, I've never been to Sweden, but I've spent some time in Finland. I'm actually headed back there for a month this summer and have a trip to Stockholm on the agenda. If you've got any suggestions for things to do....:)
Most likely he would be tried under a military tribunal as an enemy combatant, which means he is already guilty no matter what evidence is presented.
Our country can't even move forward with the military tribunals of unlawful combatant foreign nationals captured aboard, even though such tribunals are explicitly allowed under both domestic and international law. You think we'd be able to do it against an American citizen, for crimes allegedly committed on American soil? Give me a break. This is the type of conspiracy theory nonsense that makes internet discussions a complete waste of time. Study how the real world works, it's a lot more boring and bureaucratic than you think.
You'll forgive me if I decline to discuss my views of the relevant NSA programs, since/. isn't exactly welcoming to opinions more nuanced than "Snowden Good. NSA Bad."
All I'll say on the subject is that there are mechanisms in place for people who feel their Government is doing wrong. He could have gone to the relevant Congressional committees or the Inspector General at NSA. He could have used the whistleblower act. He ignored all of those options and leaped straight to leaking, then further threw the baby out with the bathwater by leaking details of programs that had no bearing whatsoever on domestic civil liberties, like NSA's activities against China. In effect, he substituted his judgment for the judgment of our elected representatives, an act of extraordinary hubris in the words of Robert Gates.
In spite of everything I may have retained some understanding of his choices had he opted to selectively leak the details of NSA's domestic activities. He didn't do that though, he took as much as he possibly could and leaked it all, with no consideration for the damage it would do to American interests and national security. That may not mean anything to you but such actions have far reaching ramifications and I don't recall seeing Mr. Snowden's name on the ballot when I was selecting the people who would wield that power on my behalf.
You might have a different perspective if you're homosexual. Or Muslim. Or generally anything but Slavic Orthodox.
Here's an interesting statistic that speaks volumes about corruption in Russia: The annual global wealth study published by the financial services group Credit Suisse says a mere 110 Russian citizens now control 35 percent of the total household wealth across the vast country.
I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. - MLK Jr, emphasis mine
I can't arose much sympathy for someone who professes to love his country but seeks refuge from a regime that stands opposed to virtually everything his country stands for. There are people who are willing to die for this country, without fame or recognition, but Mr. Snowden both outs himself and refuses to face a jury of his fellow citizens?
I've already had to turn down a couple of high-prestige projects for some remote stuff because of this.
If they're "high-prestige" why aren't you willing to move? It's not like you own that apartment you're renting. Move out when your lease comes up and make sure you tell management why you're doing it. Good tenants are hard to find, if you complain infrequently and pay your rent on time (less common than you'd think) they'll be sorry to see you go and will listen to your reasons for doing so.
Doesn't solve your problem in the short term but it's more effective for long term change than griping about the problem on Slashdot.
That's really the crux of it. Any argument against this ruling is immediately shouted down. I posited this question on another forum and received the equivalent of -1, Troll: Why is everybody cheering a ruling that attacks hypothetical problems (the oft discussed "fast lane" has yet to actually happen) while ignoring the actual problems that are impeding innovation? The "killer app" that started this whole argument is streaming video, so ask yourself which of these two things are a greater threat to that: The data caps that are currently being imposed or the fast lane that only exists on paper?
Slashdot Mirror
Tours (and for that matter, the Siege of Vienna) may have saved Western Civilization but Greece was the birthplace of it. We can never say how the Greek cities would have fared as Persian client states but it seems highly unlikely that history would have unfolded as it did if the Greeks hadn't retained their Independence. If you accept Greece as the cradle of Western Civilization then it follows that the Greco-Persian wars were decisive. In that instance it's just a matter of picking the turning point, and Salamis is the best contender. The better known battles of Marathon and Thermopylae weren't turning points, the former bought a ten year reprieve and the latter was a delaying action turned into noble and doomed last stand.
Salamis was also a naval engagement, which may lead to some bias on my part, though the West has traditionally excelled at sea, so..... :)
Ah... the Yamato-class. Largest battleships ever built, but largely obsolete before they ever went out to sea.
Well, close. It was totally obsolete before it ever went to sea. Unfortunately, no one listened to Billy Mitchell.
The Iconians did. ;)
If depends on how you define "massive"; Salamis had more ships than Leyte Gulf and was significantly more important to Western history. In fact, it was arguably the most important battle in Western history, but that's a different discussion. :)
Leyte Gulf usually wins the biggest title on the basis of personnel involved and sheer geographical scope, neither of which have a historical analogue.
It was only by 1942 that the shift had become apparent
This is commonly repeated but it's a false assertion. The Two-Ocean Navy Act was passed in 1940 and explicitly recognized the ascendancy of the aircraft carrier.
They were, in essence, the best WW1 warships ever made... except that they were deployed during WW2. The age of the dreadnought-style battleship was on its way out by this point and the era of aircraft carrier dominance had begun. Even if Musashi and Yamato had been deployed for key battles such as Midway and Guadalcanal, it's unlilkely they would have made much difference.
Yamato was deployed at Midway. She was part of the body of surface combatants (with one light carrier as escort) kept out of range for the surface action that Spruance wisely declined to permit. The deployment at Midway was a Rube Goldberg contraption that personifies everything that was wrong with IJN thinking in WW2; multiple formations scattered too far apart for mutual support and a requirement that the enemy do what you expect for victory to occur.
Neither ship was used at Guadalcanal for the same reason that the old American battleships weren't used: Neither side had sufficient tanker assets in theater to keep the old battle-wagons fueled. The USN deployed new design battleships (USS South Dakota, North Carolina, and Washington) but kept the Pearl Harbor survivors on the West Coast. The IJN used two older battle cruisers (Kirishima and Fuso) that weren't as fuel hungry as their bigger/newer cousins.
They were, in essence, the best WW1 warships ever made... except that they were deployed during WW2.
The biggest flaw with the IJN was their inferior fire control technology. This is evidenced both in surface actions (Samar being the best case study) and in the anti-aircraft role. The USN had radar directed fire control in 1942, for both surface targets and aircraft. The Japanese paid an extremely heavy price when attacking our ships with aircraft, the two carrier battles in the Guadalcanal campaign (Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz) were Pyrrhic tactical victories at best, with most of the Japanese aircraft losses coming from AA fire.
Straw man; better one! Bonus points for absolutism.
When you've finished with Atlas Shrugged do yourself a favor and Google "compelling state interest", "strict scrutiny", and "case law." If you're going to rail against the system you might as well understand how it works in the real world.
Is it the government's business what I'm doing with 100 $100 bills? Fuck no. I should make it very clear that I don't approve of reporting requirements. And the idea of civil forfeiture is entirely ridiculous.
You'll brook no argument from me on civil forfeiture. The reporting requirements are trickier; they were put in place because ongoing criminal enterprises were using cash to launder the proceeds of their ill gotten gains. There's a history there and if you want to drill down deeper into Constitutional Law the reporting requirements pass a strict scrutiny test. The State has a compelling interest in preventing criminals from laundering money and the policy is narrowly tailored. It does not represent a significant burden on or intrusion into your daily life.
I can see the philosophical objection, but in the hierarchy of infringements (real and imagined) on my personal liberty this ranks pretty damned close to the bottom. Such are the tradeoffs you make for being a member of civilization and I doubt that there are many people in the political mainstream (or even within Libertarianism) that think we should make it easier for criminal enterprises to launder money.
I'm not so thrilled that large cash transactions must be reported to the government, but that strays off topic.
That's actually his chief complaint if you read between the lines.
ALL is a qualifier, and negates any limitations, including documentation of origin.
So your chief complaint really is the fact that the Government doesn't make it easy for you to cheat^Wlive outside the system?
Yawn.
I suppose you could try your luck at living off the land in Alaska. They're still doing homesteads up there and you'll find a ton of parcels that can be had for <$10,000. Property taxes are pretty low, albeit a non-zero amount. It's probably as far away from the man as you can get and still be on planet Earth.
It's a pretend asset. :)
Maybe Samuel Jackson knows: isn't he the one who's always asking, "What's in your wallet Motherfucker?"
Fixed it for you.
Technically it should be possible, without any government interference. But it isn't.
So you're railing against laws and regulations (I'm guessing the $10,000 reporting requirement?) put in place to combat money laundering? Is that your best argument? You really expect sympathy from me because Uncle Sam wants you to account for large amounts of cash, when there's decades worth of history of violent criminal organizations using laundering techniques to hide ill gotten gains?
If you can actually ACCOUNT for where your pile of cash came from you're not going to have any difficulties paying in cash. If you just show up with a pile of money and can't document where it came from, well, that's a different story.
Here is another test, pay your taxes with coins (real coins) see if the government that issued the money will take the money it issued.
This is a stupid straw man. You know exactly what I meant. United States Dollars are valid for all debts, public and private. Is this your second best argument? That you can't pay your taxes with pennies? If you really insist on this stupid straw man:
Step #1: Travel to your local USPS.
Step #2: Purchase a postal money order using whatever combination of coins you happen to possess.
Step #3: Mail money order to IRS.
Step #4: Pat yourself on the back for sticking it to the man, because, I dunno, a bare chested blue painted Mel Gibson shouting "FREEDOM" at the top of his lungs?
Good People doing nothing allows evil to prosper. Be it Somalia or Nazi Germany.
There were plenty of "Good People" (tm) in Nazi Germany. Many of them did a lot more than nothing; resistance ranged from non-violent underground protests (White Rose) to violent attempts at assassination. "Good People" (tm) are no guarantee against tyranny and this entire topic is irrelevant in a discussion about the proper bounds of Government.
Since time immortal Governments have claimed the right to coin and regulate the currency. This is not a new concept that started with the Federal Reserve Act. If you're going to upend a few thousand years of precedent why don't you explain to us why your desired cryptocurrency solution is better than the system you're railing against? Particularly since the Government (or anyone with enough guns really) can still compel you to participate in the system if push comes to shove.
misattributed
What I actually want is weak central government.
I also want representative democracy, and for the people to ratify bills directly.
These two desires are incompatible with each other. People tend to vote in favor of benefits from the public treasury. There's a few quotes (some real, some attributed) floating around the internet about this. There's also the very real world example of California to point to.
No I would not. But then again those Thai women in the bars who keep wanting to have a drink with me all seem on the up and up.
I thought so too, but it turns out they were just gold diggers after the millions of United States Dollars my long lost Uncle smuggled out of Nigeria. :(
I think the people who look at fools are those investing in an "asset" that has less tangible value than just about anything, including the fiat currencies that many of them condemn. Bitcoin will never be a currency as such, because it will never be accepted for "all debts, public and private." It's an asset, with nothing backing it up, and you'd arguably be better off buying something tangible (real estate, firearms, precious metals, works of art, jewels, and so on) if you're unwilling to store wealth in a fiat currency. There are also intangible assets (blue chip stocks) that are arguably a better bet for storing wealth than bitcoin, unless of course your primary motivation is hiding wealth from the authorities, but even in that instance there are things you can do that are a safer bet than bitcoin.
And to be fair didn't USA more or less invented freedom? ;D (No? Someone feel free to write down some points, I'm interested and don't really mean and say that USA was first but I respect it being a thing from the very beginning over there and taken seriously.)
The Western concept of freedom probably started with the Greeks. Of course, they weren't perfect, they owned slaves (as did the young American Republic) but Western civilization has never been and never will be perfect. The Romans added a great deal to the mix, as did the British, and the United States is really just built on all that came before it.
Incidentally, I've never been to Sweden, but I've spent some time in Finland. I'm actually headed back there for a month this summer and have a trip to Stockholm on the agenda. If you've got any suggestions for things to do.... :)
Most likely he would be tried under a military tribunal as an enemy combatant, which means he is already guilty no matter what evidence is presented.
Our country can't even move forward with the military tribunals of unlawful combatant foreign nationals captured aboard, even though such tribunals are explicitly allowed under both domestic and international law. You think we'd be able to do it against an American citizen, for crimes allegedly committed on American soil? Give me a break. This is the type of conspiracy theory nonsense that makes internet discussions a complete waste of time. Study how the real world works, it's a lot more boring and bureaucratic than you think.
You'll forgive me if I decline to discuss my views of the relevant NSA programs, since /. isn't exactly welcoming to opinions more nuanced than "Snowden Good. NSA Bad."
All I'll say on the subject is that there are mechanisms in place for people who feel their Government is doing wrong. He could have gone to the relevant Congressional committees or the Inspector General at NSA. He could have used the whistleblower act. He ignored all of those options and leaped straight to leaking, then further threw the baby out with the bathwater by leaking details of programs that had no bearing whatsoever on domestic civil liberties, like NSA's activities against China. In effect, he substituted his judgment for the judgment of our elected representatives, an act of extraordinary hubris in the words of Robert Gates.
In spite of everything I may have retained some understanding of his choices had he opted to selectively leak the details of NSA's domestic activities. He didn't do that though, he took as much as he possibly could and leaked it all, with no consideration for the damage it would do to American interests and national security. That may not mean anything to you but such actions have far reaching ramifications and I don't recall seeing Mr. Snowden's name on the ballot when I was selecting the people who would wield that power on my behalf.
I would not generalize Russia to be a shithole.
You might have a different perspective if you're homosexual. Or Muslim. Or generally anything but Slavic Orthodox.
Here's an interesting statistic that speaks volumes about corruption in Russia: The annual global wealth study published by the financial services group Credit Suisse says a mere 110 Russian citizens now control 35 percent of the total household wealth across the vast country.
I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. - MLK Jr, emphasis mine
I can't arose much sympathy for someone who professes to love his country but seeks refuge from a regime that stands opposed to virtually everything his country stands for. There are people who are willing to die for this country, without fame or recognition, but Mr. Snowden both outs himself and refuses to face a jury of his fellow citizens?
It's not Finnish. ;)
I've already had to turn down a couple of high-prestige projects for some remote stuff because of this.
If they're "high-prestige" why aren't you willing to move? It's not like you own that apartment you're renting. Move out when your lease comes up and make sure you tell management why you're doing it. Good tenants are hard to find, if you complain infrequently and pay your rent on time (less common than you'd think) they'll be sorry to see you go and will listen to your reasons for doing so.
Doesn't solve your problem in the short term but it's more effective for long term change than griping about the problem on Slashdot.
Because corporations bad, mmm'kay?
That's really the crux of it. Any argument against this ruling is immediately shouted down. I posited this question on another forum and received the equivalent of -1, Troll: Why is everybody cheering a ruling that attacks hypothetical problems (the oft discussed "fast lane" has yet to actually happen) while ignoring the actual problems that are impeding innovation? The "killer app" that started this whole argument is streaming video, so ask yourself which of these two things are a greater threat to that: The data caps that are currently being imposed or the fast lane that only exists on paper?