They stopped them until they got what they wanted. Sheesh man, do you ever admit to being wrong?
That wasn't stated and can certainly not be implied. Shesh man, do you ever admit to being wrong? You seem to be arguing there is no law or the law is completely powerless in France.
Since it happens every time, it can only mean they absolutely know that pirating is harmful and that the points I bring to the table are absolutely valid. This means the troll moderators have a very low opinion of themselves and other pirates. Else, why consistently hide their shame?
Entitlement to cause harm to others is always a bad thing. Sadly, that's the pro-pirate platform.
IF it gets to the sorts of magnitudes they're predicting, then point stands. If huge numbers of your citizens are doing it then you need to take a look at the bigger picture for a while and evaluate things.
That basically means the only viable solution left is no more digital music - live performances only.
If a majority of the population decided bank robbery was okay, does that mean we should re-evaluate if robbing banks is really a bad thing? Of course not!
People become so crazy, emotional, and flat out insane every time this topic comes up here. Traditionally, pro-pirating trolls moderate any reasonable counter-point so reasonable discussions can never ensure. Hopefully this post will be one of the few exceptions.
Ultimately, copying someone else's IP, to which you have no rights, means someone didn't get paid. Period. And if you copied it, you have assigned some value to it. Period. At best, it means you've inflicted direct financial harm by devaluing of the product in question. If you doubt me, I encourage you to verse yourself in the basics of economics.
No bones about it, if you pirate IP, you absolutely are harming the IP owners. Either that, or *everything* published on economics is wrong. The reasonable, safe bet, is the former rather than the later.
Time and time again the pirate position seems to be, I want it. You can't stop me. Its unlikely I'll be prosecuted. Therefore, I'm entitled to whatever I can take. If you try to stop me, you're a bad person. Hell, look above, someone is openly advocating slaughtering lawyers in one of the threads. When a massive number of people feel entitled to take what isn't theirs, what do you expect is going to happen. Draconian laws are the only likely result. And frankly, you can't really blame them. If you worked and didn't get paid time and time again, you'd be begging for help and relief with the law too.
If my point was not legitimate, the would stop them indefinitely. Since the duration is so short, it seems to imply my take on things is completely accurate.
If French courts are anything like courts in the rest of the world, the "spirit" of the law will apply. Meaning, the spirit of the law is clear and unambiguous. Such a loophole is in violation of the spirit of the law. Chances are, assuming a reasonably sane court/judge, they will simply tell them to comply with the law and supply the information in question. At which point, failure to comply will result in their arrest followed by whatever penalties apply for violation of the law.
Umm, why didn't Bush "create a new government works program"?
Ummm....because Obama was elected?!? That's sorta of obvious! Bush was the status quo - so to expect him to do anything other than the status quo is beyond silly. Obama was "new blood" and all about "change" at a time when jobs were direly needed and oil/energy continues to be scarce. Besides that, Bush has well known oil connections, which were widely known even before he was elected. No one would ever expect him to act in this regard. On the other hand, Obama was elected on the lies that he would do these types of things - which he hasn't - not one tiny bit.
You seem to be completely forgetting that Bush was already a lame duck by the time the economy completely tanked. Obama was stepping in right at the beginning. In other words, the stars aligned for Obama to actually prove he's not a complete idiot and to do something noteworthy for the history books; in much the same way the likes of Truman and Roosevelt are kindly remembered.
Not to mention, doing something intelligent, such as what I laid out, would have ensured re-election for the Democrats. That's one thing you can always be assured of, no matter how small the chance of screwing it up, the Democrats will screw it up many multiples greater than any mathematical model which indicate is even possible.
Basically Obama screwed the economy compared to what he could have. Obama screwed the nation's energy plan compared to what he could have. Obama screwed the jobs market compared to what he could have. Obama screwed our nations infrastructure compared to what he could have. Obama screwed over Democrat elections, compared to what they could have.
In a nutshell, Obama has proved to be even more inept than Bush - which is a fairly sad statement.
As a side note, Obama is on Video, in at least three distinct videos, publicly stating he is from Kenya and how fortunate he is to have made it as far as he has. And that's ignoring the fairly recent screw up where he said the same thing again - and then back peddled when he was called on it. Basically, Obama doesn't even qualify to be President - according to Obama himself. Do some Google and YouTube searches. You'll be amazed how many times this idiot is on the record incriminating himself - firmly establishing he does not even qualify for Presidency.
So not only has he proved he's a completely impotent idiot - unfortunately, according to himself, he's also a fraud.
I take it you found my questions too difficult to answer
???
since you ignored them while contradicting yourself
Not even once. No idea what you're talking about. Just trolling?
unless those gun laws were voted in by a minority
You completely missed the part where the highest law of the land says those laws created by the majority are completely illegal and unenforceable. And yet - they do get enforced. That's entirely the point of the plainly stated post which seems to have gone clear over your head.
A pretty poor showing for somebody who thinks other people are too dumb to know what democracy is if they disagree with you.
I was responding to this post that claimed you can't have tyranny in a democracy. That's patently false, as any observer of history knows.
I said, "Pragmatically, a well run democratic or republic society is the antithesis of tyranny." I never made your claim which you are now supposedly refuting. Basically, the only false statement here is yours - at every turn. The only statement you are refuting is your own.
You made a generalized statement that this was the tyranny of the many; to paraphrase. There is no such proof to support such a statement and lots, according to statements by others, that your statement, within this context, it completely fabricated. You then go on to refute a correct statement by additional fabrication.
It doesn't sound like there's a problem here, save only for your contributions to it.
Berlin would have fallen to the Soviets because Hitler made the classic mistake of trying to invade Russia in the winter -
Had it not been for the Allies (materially backed by the US) putting pressure on Germany's other fronts, come first thaw, the Germans would have simply re-enforced their Russian fronts and finished the Russians. And that's ignoring the forces which were not committed because of the British front which was completely sustained by US resources.
Bluntly, without the Allies receiving massive direct and indirect support from the US, its extremely unlikely the Russians would have won. Even with massive support and as you point out, the harsh Russian winter, Russia was barely able to turn the tide. With any less support, its extremely unlikely Russia would look anything like it did post WWII.
In my country we have a thing called the Constitution that we use as a rulebook for the laws we pass.
The US has a rather well known Constitution. Unfortunately, in recent years, even many judges seem extremely confused at how to read and understand what many seven to ten years olds can easy accomplish. Its become somewhat in vogue to create law from the bench. These are called activist judges.
Beyond that, many (most?) representatives don't feel the Constitution actually applies to them. This is in part, by design. Nothing really stops anyone from create any law they like. The flip side is, the Judicial branch is there is strike down these laws as being unconstitutional. In theory, this would prevent all but idiots from creating unconstitutional laws. In practice, it no longer seems to have a chilling effect and its abused, waiting for it to be struck down.
This all stems from the fact the US legal system is completely broken. It can take years and millions and millions of dollars to strike down even plainly obviously unconstitutional laws.
For example, in my own state, the state's gun laws are clearly and plainly unconstitutional (and contrary to the original author's well documented reasons and intent) at both the state (state also has a constitution too) and federal level (US Constitution). It doesn't change the fact that many, many people's lives have been completely ruined by these completely unconstitutional laws. And my state is far from alone. Looks at states like California and New York, and you'll get a good taste of what it means to be run by absolute fucking idiots who wipe their ass with the US Constitution. Washington DC was also a recent example - where corrupt, anti-gun, unconstitutional guns laws were recently struck down. That required a trip all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Sadly, the US has become badly corrupted. Our education system is in the toilet. Most people don't even understand how badly things are because they've never been educated on the way things were designed to be. Lawyers, and by extension, lobbyists, now more or less run the US. No joke.
If things continue as they are, I do fully expect there will be revolution in the US within the next one or two hundred years. But these things also tend to be cyclic in nature so chances are, the pendulum to eventually start to swing the other way before that happens. Time will tell.
Its actually part and parcel of living in the unincorporated country. Many country homes do not have fire or police services. Many don't have sewage or trash. In exchange, they has little or no taxes.
The fact that fire services were available at such a low annual fee was a blessing. The fact he didn't pay for it, makes him an idiot.
The real failure is your inability to figure out that the Government is responsible for this entire fucking mess.
Why the hostility at me? I'm explaining to you how things work. That means I'm the messenger. Haven't you ever heard, don't shoot the messenger? We are the government. So you're very clearly pointing a finger at the very same people I did. Its a sad fact, but we get the very best government we deserve.
According to another poster, they tried to pass it as a tax. The population said no. That means the government did not fail them. Not in the least. They provided them exactly what they asked for. As I originally said, this idiot gambled and lost. To then point a finger elsewhere is delusional at best.
To quote one of my other posts, "...the story is ultimately about someone complaining they received their liberty."
I take it the vote was unanimous. Or do people who disagree just not count?
I encourage you to learn what democracy and republic forms of governance are all about. In either case, I'm not aware of any forms of these governments which require unanimous votes. Most are based on the principal of majority. The majority measure may vary from place to place, but unanimity is generally never a requirement. These forms of governance are about the majority. Their vote was counted - it just didn't win. That's a HUGE difference.
By that definition, all democratic or republic forms of governance are inherently tyrannical. I disagree but this is entering philosophical domains. Really, your definition is contrary to their very existence. The entire point of this form of governance exists such that the majority are served based on their wishes either directly (democratic) or indirectly (republic via electorate). That means some minority is always unhappy. In recent times, this has started to change, meaning some minority inflicts tyranny on the majority and that may be why your perceptions are as such.
Pragmatically, a well run democratic or republic society is the antithesis of tyranny.
I was assuming it would follow standard routes such as an election of vote by representatives, city counsel, etc - therefore, no, it would not be tyranny. Though that may not stop some from perceiving it as such - especially in some parts of Tennessee.
I don't live in Tennessee but I do live in a small town. Our town is so small, we pool resources with two other towns. As a result of the combined tax base, we have a nice fire and police department (ignoring the fact the police depart is almost 2x larger than it should be and tickets are considered a source of revenue). Without this pooling of resources, we would likely be forced to depend on a volunteer fire department.
In states such as Tennessee, they are already fairly poor. They are also, typically, anti-government and anti-taxes. Many live in the country to avoid paying various taxes. Believe it or not, simply raising taxes for such an obvious service would likely raise ire and have many up in arms. As a result, the easiest, lowest cost in political terms, is to simply make it optional. As a result, some idiots like this guy are going to gamble and lose. By any measure, $75.00/yr is extremely cheap for the service - especially if you ever need it - especially if they are better equipped than many volunteer FDs.
County and city taxes pay for county and city services and infrastructure. Federal taxes pay for federal services, to which the military belongs. They are completely different taxes.
Now some cities and municipalities may qualify for grants and what-not from federal and state sources, but none of that changes that this idiot gambled and lost. Paying $75/hr for fire service is an easy, low IQ decision. Not to mention dirt cheap.
The real failure, IMOHO, is the fact the fee is not mandatory.
Berlin would have fallen with or without the USA - it was only a question of who it fell too; the Soviets, the Allies or Both (as happened).
It happened only because of US involvement requiring Germany to split between two fronts, which is completely ignoring the pressures placed elsewhere because of directly US involvement.
In small towns, the taxes may barely be enough to pay for utilities, police, and roads. Some towns don't even have their own fire department and must pay fees to neighboring cities.
Without US involvement, Germany still wouldn't have taken Europe - much less Russia. It's the Soviets who would have been the big winners and "liberated" Western Europe had the Americans stayed at home.
Completely wrong. Period.
Russia had their asses completely kicked. The only reason they were able to push is because of the US. Most people don't know but the US was supplying weapons and support long before the US even declared war. US merchant ships had been sunk by German U-Boats long before the US entered the war.
Many of the planes flown by China, Briton, and even Russia were supplied by the US. Small arms and munitions were also provided, along with food, and raw materials. If you've ever heard of the famous Flying Tigers, then you'll understand. Those were US built P-40s being flown by US and Chinese pilots.
The ONLY reason the allies won the war was because of US involvement on a "third and forth front". Remember, despite having a front with the British in Europe, including a theater in Africa, Germany completely kicked Russia's ass. The only reason the British were able to hang on as long as they did was because of the steady stream of supplies received from the US, including fuel, food, raw materials, small arms, munitions, ships, planes, tanks, trucks, man power, so on and so on.
While US forces did frequently integrate with British forces, such as in Africa, many US forces stood completely alone and effectively created that third and/or forth front on Germany. This drew massive pressure off of the Russians (not ignoring the British efforts which did more of the same). This in turn allowed Russia to come back swinging with technological wonders like their T-34, which allowed many shells and man portable AT rounds to largely ricochet right off.
To say WWII would have been won without the US' active involvement is nothing but a wet dream.
Game programming, save only for a select, privileged few, is considered the bottom rung of the programming field. Part of the problem is that so many are ignorantly waiting in line to be walked on by the rest of the the programming field. This means they are absolutely free to be used and abused as any company sees fit. This also means being one of the most poorly paid in the industry. And most will tell you, its not fun work. You wind up implementing and/or tweaking the same stuff over and over and over again. Its called drudgery. And its no surprise that game developers have one of the highest burn-out rates in the industry.
So by all means, if you love extremely boring work for extremely long hours and extremely poor pay, while having almost no life, by all means go work in the video game industry.
I fought in WWII, and mainland America never faced the "threat of every person coming under the rule of a handful of tyrants".
The secondary target for Hitler's nuclear bomb program was the US' east coast. Hitler's flying wing bomber project would have been capable of reaching the US in non-stop round trip. Their flying wing is basically what the US' B2 stealth bomber is based on. In fact, the dimensions are almost identical. Had only minor differences in the war occurred and the war had dragged on until 1946 or 1947, the US' east coast would have seen many a mushroom cloud.
Slashdot Mirror
They stopped them until they got what they wanted. Sheesh man, do you ever admit to being wrong?
That wasn't stated and can certainly not be implied. Shesh man, do you ever admit to being wrong? You seem to be arguing there is no law or the law is completely powerless in France.
And the troll moderation has begun...
Since it happens every time, it can only mean they absolutely know that pirating is harmful and that the points I bring to the table are absolutely valid. This means the troll moderators have a very low opinion of themselves and other pirates. Else, why consistently hide their shame?
Entitlement to cause harm to others is always a bad thing. Sadly, that's the pro-pirate platform.
IF it gets to the sorts of magnitudes they're predicting, then point stands. If huge numbers of your citizens are doing it then you need to take a look at the bigger picture for a while and evaluate things.
That basically means the only viable solution left is no more digital music - live performances only.
If a majority of the population decided bank robbery was okay, does that mean we should re-evaluate if robbing banks is really a bad thing? Of course not!
People become so crazy, emotional, and flat out insane every time this topic comes up here. Traditionally, pro-pirating trolls moderate any reasonable counter-point so reasonable discussions can never ensure. Hopefully this post will be one of the few exceptions.
Ultimately, copying someone else's IP, to which you have no rights, means someone didn't get paid. Period. And if you copied it, you have assigned some value to it. Period. At best, it means you've inflicted direct financial harm by devaluing of the product in question. If you doubt me, I encourage you to verse yourself in the basics of economics.
No bones about it, if you pirate IP, you absolutely are harming the IP owners. Either that, or *everything* published on economics is wrong. The reasonable, safe bet, is the former rather than the later.
Time and time again the pirate position seems to be, I want it. You can't stop me. Its unlikely I'll be prosecuted. Therefore, I'm entitled to whatever I can take. If you try to stop me, you're a bad person. Hell, look above, someone is openly advocating slaughtering lawyers in one of the threads. When a massive number of people feel entitled to take what isn't theirs, what do you expect is going to happen. Draconian laws are the only likely result. And frankly, you can't really blame them. If you worked and didn't get paid time and time again, you'd be begging for help and relief with the law too.
for weeks on end.
If my point was not legitimate, the would stop them indefinitely. Since the duration is so short, it seems to imply my take on things is completely accurate.
Again - yawn!
If French courts are anything like courts in the rest of the world, the "spirit" of the law will apply. Meaning, the spirit of the law is clear and unambiguous. Such a loophole is in violation of the spirit of the law. Chances are, assuming a reasonably sane court/judge, they will simply tell them to comply with the law and supply the information in question. At which point, failure to comply will result in their arrest followed by whatever penalties apply for violation of the law.
Basically - yawn!
Umm, why didn't Bush "create a new government works program"?
Ummm....because Obama was elected?!? That's sorta of obvious! Bush was the status quo - so to expect him to do anything other than the status quo is beyond silly. Obama was "new blood" and all about "change" at a time when jobs were direly needed and oil/energy continues to be scarce. Besides that, Bush has well known oil connections, which were widely known even before he was elected. No one would ever expect him to act in this regard. On the other hand, Obama was elected on the lies that he would do these types of things - which he hasn't - not one tiny bit.
You seem to be completely forgetting that Bush was already a lame duck by the time the economy completely tanked. Obama was stepping in right at the beginning. In other words, the stars aligned for Obama to actually prove he's not a complete idiot and to do something noteworthy for the history books; in much the same way the likes of Truman and Roosevelt are kindly remembered.
Not to mention, doing something intelligent, such as what I laid out, would have ensured re-election for the Democrats. That's one thing you can always be assured of, no matter how small the chance of screwing it up, the Democrats will screw it up many multiples greater than any mathematical model which indicate is even possible.
Basically Obama screwed the economy compared to what he could have. Obama screwed the nation's energy plan compared to what he could have. Obama screwed the jobs market compared to what he could have. Obama screwed our nations infrastructure compared to what he could have. Obama screwed over Democrat elections, compared to what they could have.
In a nutshell, Obama has proved to be even more inept than Bush - which is a fairly sad statement.
As a side note, Obama is on Video, in at least three distinct videos, publicly stating he is from Kenya and how fortunate he is to have made it as far as he has. And that's ignoring the fairly recent screw up where he said the same thing again - and then back peddled when he was called on it. Basically, Obama doesn't even qualify to be President - according to Obama himself. Do some Google and YouTube searches. You'll be amazed how many times this idiot is on the record incriminating himself - firmly establishing he does not even qualify for Presidency.
So not only has he proved he's a completely impotent idiot - unfortunately, according to himself, he's also a fraud.
I take it you found my questions too difficult to answer
???
since you ignored them while contradicting yourself
Not even once. No idea what you're talking about. Just trolling?
unless those gun laws were voted in by a minority
You completely missed the part where the highest law of the land says those laws created by the majority are completely illegal and unenforceable. And yet - they do get enforced. That's entirely the point of the plainly stated post which seems to have gone clear over your head.
A pretty poor showing for somebody who thinks other people are too dumb to know what democracy is if they disagree with you.
Wow! You're a real fucking idiot!
I was responding to this post that claimed you can't have tyranny in a democracy. That's patently false, as any observer of history knows.
I said, "Pragmatically, a well run democratic or republic society is the antithesis of tyranny." I never made your claim which you are now supposedly refuting. Basically, the only false statement here is yours - at every turn. The only statement you are refuting is your own.
You made a generalized statement that this was the tyranny of the many; to paraphrase. There is no such proof to support such a statement and lots, according to statements by others, that your statement, within this context, it completely fabricated. You then go on to refute a correct statement by additional fabrication.
It doesn't sound like there's a problem here, save only for your contributions to it.
First: No said otherwise, so its simply not a problem, nor does it have any bearing on the subject.
Second: You're completely ignoring the time line.
None of your points place into contention any of the counter points I've previously provided.
Berlin would have fallen to the Soviets because Hitler made the classic mistake of trying to invade Russia in the winter -
Had it not been for the Allies (materially backed by the US) putting pressure on Germany's other fronts, come first thaw, the Germans would have simply re-enforced their Russian fronts and finished the Russians. And that's ignoring the forces which were not committed because of the British front which was completely sustained by US resources.
Bluntly, without the Allies receiving massive direct and indirect support from the US, its extremely unlikely the Russians would have won. Even with massive support and as you point out, the harsh Russian winter, Russia was barely able to turn the tide. With any less support, its extremely unlikely Russia would look anything like it did post WWII.
In my country we have a thing called the Constitution that we use as a rulebook for the laws we pass.
The US has a rather well known Constitution. Unfortunately, in recent years, even many judges seem extremely confused at how to read and understand what many seven to ten years olds can easy accomplish. Its become somewhat in vogue to create law from the bench. These are called activist judges.
Beyond that, many (most?) representatives don't feel the Constitution actually applies to them. This is in part, by design. Nothing really stops anyone from create any law they like. The flip side is, the Judicial branch is there is strike down these laws as being unconstitutional. In theory, this would prevent all but idiots from creating unconstitutional laws. In practice, it no longer seems to have a chilling effect and its abused, waiting for it to be struck down.
This all stems from the fact the US legal system is completely broken. It can take years and millions and millions of dollars to strike down even plainly obviously unconstitutional laws.
For example, in my own state, the state's gun laws are clearly and plainly unconstitutional (and contrary to the original author's well documented reasons and intent) at both the state (state also has a constitution too) and federal level (US Constitution). It doesn't change the fact that many, many people's lives have been completely ruined by these completely unconstitutional laws. And my state is far from alone. Looks at states like California and New York, and you'll get a good taste of what it means to be run by absolute fucking idiots who wipe their ass with the US Constitution. Washington DC was also a recent example - where corrupt, anti-gun, unconstitutional guns laws were recently struck down. That required a trip all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Sadly, the US has become badly corrupted. Our education system is in the toilet. Most people don't even understand how badly things are because they've never been educated on the way things were designed to be. Lawyers, and by extension, lobbyists, now more or less run the US. No joke.
If things continue as they are, I do fully expect there will be revolution in the US within the next one or two hundred years. But these things also tend to be cyclic in nature so chances are, the pendulum to eventually start to swing the other way before that happens. Time will tell.
Its actually part and parcel of living in the unincorporated country. Many country homes do not have fire or police services. Many don't have sewage or trash. In exchange, they has little or no taxes.
The fact that fire services were available at such a low annual fee was a blessing. The fact he didn't pay for it, makes him an idiot.
The real failure is your inability to figure out that the Government is responsible for this entire fucking mess.
Why the hostility at me? I'm explaining to you how things work. That means I'm the messenger. Haven't you ever heard, don't shoot the messenger? We are the government. So you're very clearly pointing a finger at the very same people I did. Its a sad fact, but we get the very best government we deserve.
According to another poster, they tried to pass it as a tax. The population said no. That means the government did not fail them. Not in the least. They provided them exactly what they asked for. As I originally said, this idiot gambled and lost. To then point a finger elsewhere is delusional at best.
To quote one of my other posts, "...the story is ultimately about someone complaining they received their liberty."
So, even in Tennessee, there eventually must be some level where we let them live their own lives. This is my definition of 'liberty'.
Agreed! But the story is ultimately about someone complaining they received their liberty - else there wouldn't be a story at all.
Certainly an underrated and insightful post!
I take it the vote was unanimous. Or do people who disagree just not count?
I encourage you to learn what democracy and republic forms of governance are all about. In either case, I'm not aware of any forms of these governments which require unanimous votes. Most are based on the principal of majority. The majority measure may vary from place to place, but unanimity is generally never a requirement. These forms of governance are about the majority. Their vote was counted - it just didn't win. That's a HUGE difference.
The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
By that definition, all democratic or republic forms of governance are inherently tyrannical. I disagree but this is entering philosophical domains. Really, your definition is contrary to their very existence. The entire point of this form of governance exists such that the majority are served based on their wishes either directly (democratic) or indirectly (republic via electorate). That means some minority is always unhappy. In recent times, this has started to change, meaning some minority inflicts tyranny on the majority and that may be why your perceptions are as such.
Pragmatically, a well run democratic or republic society is the antithesis of tyranny.
Except that would be tyranny, wouldn't it?
I was assuming it would follow standard routes such as an election of vote by representatives, city counsel, etc - therefore, no, it would not be tyranny. Though that may not stop some from perceiving it as such - especially in some parts of Tennessee.
I don't live in Tennessee but I do live in a small town. Our town is so small, we pool resources with two other towns. As a result of the combined tax base, we have a nice fire and police department (ignoring the fact the police depart is almost 2x larger than it should be and tickets are considered a source of revenue). Without this pooling of resources, we would likely be forced to depend on a volunteer fire department.
In states such as Tennessee, they are already fairly poor. They are also, typically, anti-government and anti-taxes. Many live in the country to avoid paying various taxes. Believe it or not, simply raising taxes for such an obvious service would likely raise ire and have many up in arms. As a result, the easiest, lowest cost in political terms, is to simply make it optional. As a result, some idiots like this guy are going to gamble and lose. By any measure, $75.00/yr is extremely cheap for the service - especially if you ever need it - especially if they are better equipped than many volunteer FDs.
This is fucking incomprehensible to me.
County and city taxes pay for county and city services and infrastructure. Federal taxes pay for federal services, to which the military belongs. They are completely different taxes.
Now some cities and municipalities may qualify for grants and what-not from federal and state sources, but none of that changes that this idiot gambled and lost. Paying $75/hr for fire service is an easy, low IQ decision. Not to mention dirt cheap.
The real failure, IMOHO, is the fact the fee is not mandatory.
Berlin would have fallen with or without the USA - it was only a question of who it fell too; the Soviets, the Allies or Both (as happened).
It happened only because of US involvement requiring Germany to split between two fronts, which is completely ignoring the pressures placed elsewhere because of directly US involvement.
In small towns, the taxes may barely be enough to pay for utilities, police, and roads. Some towns don't even have their own fire department and must pay fees to neighboring cities.
Without US involvement, Germany still wouldn't have taken Europe - much less Russia. It's the Soviets who would have been the big winners and "liberated" Western Europe had the Americans stayed at home.
Completely wrong. Period.
Russia had their asses completely kicked. The only reason they were able to push is because of the US. Most people don't know but the US was supplying weapons and support long before the US even declared war. US merchant ships had been sunk by German U-Boats long before the US entered the war.
Many of the planes flown by China, Briton, and even Russia were supplied by the US. Small arms and munitions were also provided, along with food, and raw materials. If you've ever heard of the famous Flying Tigers, then you'll understand. Those were US built P-40s being flown by US and Chinese pilots.
The ONLY reason the allies won the war was because of US involvement on a "third and forth front". Remember, despite having a front with the British in Europe, including a theater in Africa, Germany completely kicked Russia's ass. The only reason the British were able to hang on as long as they did was because of the steady stream of supplies received from the US, including fuel, food, raw materials, small arms, munitions, ships, planes, tanks, trucks, man power, so on and so on.
While US forces did frequently integrate with British forces, such as in Africa, many US forces stood completely alone and effectively created that third and/or forth front on Germany. This drew massive pressure off of the Russians (not ignoring the British efforts which did more of the same). This in turn allowed Russia to come back swinging with technological wonders like their T-34, which allowed many shells and man portable AT rounds to largely ricochet right off.
To say WWII would have been won without the US' active involvement is nothing but a wet dream.
We have a winner.
Game programming, save only for a select, privileged few, is considered the bottom rung of the programming field. Part of the problem is that so many are ignorantly waiting in line to be walked on by the rest of the the programming field. This means they are absolutely free to be used and abused as any company sees fit. This also means being one of the most poorly paid in the industry. And most will tell you, its not fun work. You wind up implementing and/or tweaking the same stuff over and over and over again. Its called drudgery. And its no surprise that game developers have one of the highest burn-out rates in the industry.
So by all means, if you love extremely boring work for extremely long hours and extremely poor pay, while having almost no life, by all means go work in the video game industry.
I fought in WWII, and mainland America never faced the "threat of every person coming under the rule of a handful of tyrants".
The secondary target for Hitler's nuclear bomb program was the US' east coast. Hitler's flying wing bomber project would have been capable of reaching the US in non-stop round trip. Their flying wing is basically what the US' B2 stealth bomber is based on. In fact, the dimensions are almost identical. Had only minor differences in the war occurred and the war had dragged on until 1946 or 1947, the US' east coast would have seen many a mushroom cloud.