Either your offering below market prices and thus taking only inoperable and stolen weapons off the street, or you are offering above market prices and creating an arbitrage situation where owners and manufacturers can turn over inventory at a profit.
Neither seens to be a good idea, either with video games or with guns.
I think the "EW" factor of nude people using public seating (buses, park benches, et.al.) without any buffer is pushing the issue more than morality. The nude folks could disarm the issue by carrying a towel, but they have some militants who are refusing even that minor concession. So, its looking likely that nudity will be banned.
How they enforce it is another matter. How do you force someone to wear clothes? although, i personally would find the uncleanlyness of a jail cell motivating to provide some minimal something between me and it.
Magazines that are mostly/all ads in not exclusive to the fashion world. This has happened in the nerd world too. Back in the day, before the web took off, we nerds often obtained the ad-e-est magazine of all, solely because of ads, the inimitable Computer Shopper.
But, in the long run, we cared more about features and prices than we did about the glossy pictures, and Computer Shopper was killed by the web. RIP Computer Shopper! we would miss you if the web weren't so much better!
Unlikely. Return to the Dark Ages would promptly unleash the 4 Horsemen - conquest, war, famine and death - resulting in a drop in population, resulting in a drop in emissions. And probably most people would stop complaining about anything but the lack of food. Which, come to think of it, fixed the problem of people complaining about global warming or whatever it is we're arguing about.
But i'm with you, i think - i'd rather keep living. I'd die pretty quickly outside a modern society.
Libel and slander are not properly a matter for courts. First, one does not have a right to one's reputation, which would amount to a right to how other people think of you. Damage to your reputation is thus not something you should have legal standing for. Second, suing over libel or slander is counter-productive; it serves only to show how much you want to shut someone up. The more force you bring to bear against someone defaming you, the more credibility you lend to their statements. If the defamation is true then the damage to your reputation is deserved; if not, then the correct response is to educate and persuade, not to make threats.
I disagree. You are assuming relative equality between the parties, which is often not present. There is disparity in people's ability to communicate TRVTH. If I am slandered by Citizen Kane, my chances of correcting peoples impressions are nil to none. Further, your position assumes and equality in skill of presentation. Consider Rush Limbaugh or Barrak Obama disparaging you publicly. Like them or not, they are persuasive speakers. You are unlikely to be able to compete with their presentation skills. The formality of court, with rules of evidence, mandated turns, jury instructions, levels the playing field.
Further, I personally disagree with forcible defenses implying that the defender is dishonest. I think a more evidence-based approach is better. The man accused of rape who denies the charge vigorously to all who will listen, including slander/libel charges, is not more likely to be guilty or innocent based on the energy of his denial.
Even further, there is an interim between slander/libel statements and the time that they can be explained or refuted. Real damage can occur in this time. Slanderous persons should be held liable for the damages they cause, just as companies making false claims about products should. It is kind of two sides of the same coin.
Lastly, it is easy enough to frame your opinon as an opinion, and avoid all possibility of libel. "I think CVS Caremark is dishonest and irresponsible" is never going to be actionable, because it is a factual statement. I actually think that.
For better or worse, we have different penalties for trying to be evil and for succeeding at being evil. Or, you get more jail time if your good at being bad, or something.
Thanks. What was peculiar about the defense's strikes? Very curious. As a prospecitve juror, i would be watching closely who each side struck, and trying to work out why.
Disclosure: my employer has a time code for jury duty, you forfeit your jury pay and recieve regular time in lieu.
My understanding is that it is pretty easy to get off jury duty if it is going to cause finanical hardship. No one wants a bitter juror. In my state, it's not hard to get jurors anyhow, i've never understood that "get out of jury duty" mentality. The one trial i got called for, they had 50-60 people in the room, didn't unseat any of the first 14, and when the judge bluntly announced that anyone who wanted to leave could, no one left. A couple people had left earlier when he dismissed hardship (without questioning). But almost everyone was still there to be sent home.
I'd like details - i hear these stories, and i wonder how they knew the guy was too smart? The one voir dire i've sat through, no one was dismissed by the judge or either side. If I'd been the judge, i'd have booted two people at least that were seated (it was a molestation case, probably late teen on early teen, two of the female jurors acknowledged they'd been molested but were not removed).
What questions did they ask? were you removed for cause, or with a blank check strike (forget the term)? were there demographic considerations? (wrong sex, race, etc)?
So the Panthers were trying to scare away white voters?
That's silly.
You can't elect a black president in the absence of white voters. The math just doesn't work out. In a precinct with a Panther presence you are more likely than not just going to scare away sympathetic voters.
You know that and I know that, but there were still black guys with clubs trying to scare away white voters. Stupidity may not win elections, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some people get off on having power over others, even if the others might help them out if left to their own devices.
I am a transplant patient. Prior to transplant, i was tested monthly for everything (diagnostic stuff, and drug screens through in as a bonus). I tested positive for everything the first time too. It was impossible as with no kidney function and limited liver function, i'd be disabled or die from that many illicit substances (in addition to the pretty substantial drug load from liver/kidney failure treatment). Second test, I was positive for every other drug (i.e. Yes, no, yes, no, etc). Dr. ordered a change in lab, at the new lab suddenly i'm clean.
More than just lab equipment can fail.
But, back to the original topic, taking a lot of drugs can change your attitude toward them. I don't mind folks taking drugs, mostly, as long as they are completely legal such that recreational addicts will kill or sterilize themselves. Watching them torment the inevitable children they will have is too much.
I am not seeing Google as robbing anyone. I can't see where Google killed anything. I use Google to find sites i am interested in. Before Google, i located sites with Yahoo! Before Yahoo!, I used a started with a list my ISP provided and painfully crawled around the net to find sites. Sometimes I even guessed at URLs to find sites. In all cases, sites that I found and liked went into my favorites list, or a text file I kept to track such things.
Before the web, I did the same thing with a piece of paper by my desk, using USENET groups as a source (although the USENET groups were more useful, generally).
In any case, my behavior on the sites is identical whether I use Google, a personal webpage, or a favorites list to get there. If the site has interesting, changing content, or is a useful reference, i will return periodically. If it doesn't, one very short visit will be all they see of me.
All Google (or Yahoo! et.al.) do is allow me to find more sites more quickly and easily. Is that hurting the sites?? I suppose so, if you think that finding sites makes me more likely to stick with the first site i find. This seems fundamentally anti-competitive, pro-brand name to me though.
Or do you think i'm seriously going to use Newsweek as my home page? really??
I would really like to understand your position, so please respond. I really see my pre-Google, post-Google behavior on websites as identical. I have ignored all but one ad that I've ever seen and I regret that one AT&T ad and am bitter about them to this day.
What are you hoping I would do differently? I expect that forcing Google to pay for indexing sites might cause Google to be less effective as a search engine by either not showing interesting sites that charge for indexing, or by showing more ads to make up for it. Either would push me to a different search engine provider. If the "only" option is to pay for your site, i find it uninteresting. Someone will provide a search tool for only free sites, and i will use that and ignore your pay site. Are you intending to make this behavior illegal?
Because you're asking them to make it better than Google. There isn't one website in the world that is better than Google, and you're asking every site to be better than Google. And Google is that good because it offers practically zero original content, so how the heck does a content provider compete with Google?
If providing no content is better than providing some content, clearly you'll need to solve the negative content problem to be better than Google. Demonstration of this is left as a exercise for the reader.
227hp awd in the snow is indeed fun. and not unreasonable, IMHO. Wanting a V8 was her generation's "I want a car that isn't klunky". That it doesn't have to be a V8 anymore is her ignorance of the changes in engine technology. But, for the young whipersnappers out there, keep in mind that in the early 80s, Mustangs with "sport tuned" engines had V8s that made 140hp. Seriously. The old lady probably experienced a 4-banger of that era, which were uniformly pathetic. As an ex-Pinto owner, I understand her feeling.
As a car salesman, you need to put her into a 16valve 4cyl turbo to help her understand that cylinders alone does not measure power very well.:-) And it would be funny...
Ironically, the legal system can't work quite that way. Old laws have to have the least power, not the most. Otherwise, you can't change the law. Consequently, the first amendment isn't the highest priority, it's the lowest. The last amendment would override it (if there was a conflict). Consider the Prohibition amendments before you consider it.
The first priority of a democracy has to be equality before the law. That is, same rules for everyone. The second is that the people determine what the law is. The third is that the people can change the law if they see fit.
A constitution should lay out these, including the method for changing the constitution. It should refrain from specifying any further rights/responsibility, etc - those should be spelled out by the people, per the rules in the consitution.
It is entirely possible for the consitition to spell out a layered law format - in which some laws require a super-majority to change, for example - say the constitution itself, to prevent momentary deception from seizing and retaining power. But you want to keep super-majority rules to a minimum, to allow each generation it's own chance to adapt and change the society.
Per the author, Fahrenheit 451 is a tract on the evils of TV. I read it in school and was preached the party line that it was about censorship. I think thats because the English Lit folks fear censorship more than anything, and so anything that could remotely be treated as about censorship becomes about censorship, even it it really wasn't.
451 has a protaganist who burns books, but eventually reads a few and finds he likes them (for their emotional content, largely). His boss has read a few, and doesn't like them (for their emotional content, they make you FEEL, which is bad). The protaganists wife is the exemplar of why TV is bad - she does nothing but watch it, has no feelings (and little thought). Message diluted by the fact that she's also pretty drugged up. When the protaganist is eventually fleeing, it is TV that is used (primarily) to track him down by broadcasting his image on all channels, and telling everyone to go to their door and look for him at the same time. With a countdown. When he eventually gets out to an independent community, people are memorizing books to keep them alive. They don't start with 1984, Animal Farm, Atlas Shrugged, et.al. They start with literature - the stuff English majors go on and on about, Shakespeare, Melvile, Milton and the like. Stuff that makes you feel, more than political or economic rants.
Missed message for most people, apparently. Happens sometimes - Upton Sinclair famously said "I aimed for America's heart, but I got it's stomache instead." No socialization, just food regulations.
Eating pork is not a tenet of any religion that I am aware of. The New Testement specifically addressed it by NOT imposing Jewish dietary law on Gentiles. Whether Jews were still bound or not is a bit vague. So, its kind of "do what you want".
Christianity as described by the New Testiment has a lot of that. Slavery is mentioned a couple times - once "Servants obey your masters..." used as a justification by the Old South as a justification. OTOH the book of Philemon is one long plea for a particular slave owner to free a particular slave (Philemon). However, it is not a COMMAND, rather, a rational and very emotional plea. Paul, the author, offers to pay any compensation in order to free Philemon. But, Paul apparently sent the letter back to the owner in the hands of the aformentioned Philemon. Make of it what you will. It can be hard to interpet a foriegn culture from only snippets of writing.
The articles cited state that researchers looked at BPA levels in people's urine, and found a correlation with obesity. No mice where harmed. You must be be thinking of a different study.
I have run into these folks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite. The community is a couple hundred years old, so they're doing something right. I admire it, but i'm not sure i'd actually want to live there. But, for the naysayers, communism can be done. It certainly takes a lot of personal committment, it's not for the pot-smoking hippie types, or for type A personalities either.
I did a quick search, but couldn't find it. It had little details, but lacked some of the overarching story (it assumed knowledge of things that would not be obvious to an outside viewer). The story followed this line however: http://yarchive.net/mil/japanese_surrender.html
Not so. Wikipedia, Surrender of Japan will give you some insight. I have also run across a diary account of one of the Imperial cabinet staff documenting the discussions of the cabinet in those 3 days. Japan had two seperate nuclear bomb initiatives running, so they understood the concept and capability (generally) already. The cabinet's concerns were:
1) we can still bargain for a better cease-fire/surrender agreement (by inflicting heavy casualties on the Americans). 2) we can get the still-neutral USSR to act as an intermediary to assist in bargaining 3) we cannot surrender under any circumstances because of the implications to our honor 4) the Emporor must be protected at all costs 5) nuclear weapons are insanely difficult to build, so it is likely the Americans have only the one
The USSR invaded Manchuria, the US dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki, the Emperor personally intervened, and the war ended.
This fundamental misunderstanding was that the US could be intimidated out of fighting by the infliction of mass casualties. Occurred back in 1941, continued through August, 1945.
Slashdot Mirror
Either your offering below market prices and thus taking only inoperable and stolen weapons off the street, or you are offering above market prices and creating an arbitrage situation where owners and manufacturers can turn over inventory at a profit.
Neither seens to be a good idea, either with video games or with guns.
I think the "EW" factor of nude people using public seating (buses, park benches, et.al.) without any buffer is pushing the issue more than morality. The nude folks could disarm the issue by carrying a towel, but they have some militants who are refusing even that minor concession. So, its looking likely that nudity will be banned.
How they enforce it is another matter. How do you force someone to wear clothes? although, i personally would find the uncleanlyness of a jail cell motivating to provide some minimal something between me and it.
Magazines that are mostly/all ads in not exclusive to the fashion world. This has happened in the nerd world too. Back in the day, before the web took off, we nerds often obtained the ad-e-est magazine of all, solely because of ads, the inimitable Computer Shopper.
But, in the long run, we cared more about features and prices than we did about the glossy pictures, and Computer Shopper was killed by the web. RIP Computer Shopper! we would miss you if the web weren't so much better!
Unlikely. Return to the Dark Ages would promptly unleash the 4 Horsemen - conquest, war, famine and death - resulting in a drop in population, resulting in a drop in emissions. And probably most people would stop complaining about anything but the lack of food. Which, come to think of it, fixed the problem of people complaining about global warming or whatever it is we're arguing about.
But i'm with you, i think - i'd rather keep living. I'd die pretty quickly outside a modern society.
Libel and slander are not properly a matter for courts. First, one does not have a right to one's reputation, which would amount to a right to how other people think of you. Damage to your reputation is thus not something you should have legal standing for. Second, suing over libel or slander is counter-productive; it serves only to show how much you want to shut someone up. The more force you bring to bear against someone defaming you, the more credibility you lend to their statements. If the defamation is true then the damage to your reputation is deserved; if not, then the correct response is to educate and persuade, not to make threats.
I disagree. You are assuming relative equality between the parties, which is often not present. There is disparity in people's ability to communicate TRVTH. If I am slandered by Citizen Kane, my chances of correcting peoples impressions are nil to none. Further, your position assumes and equality in skill of presentation. Consider Rush Limbaugh or Barrak Obama disparaging you publicly. Like them or not, they are persuasive speakers. You are unlikely to be able to compete with their presentation skills. The formality of court, with rules of evidence, mandated turns, jury instructions, levels the playing field.
Further, I personally disagree with forcible defenses implying that the defender is dishonest. I think a more evidence-based approach is better. The man accused of rape who denies the charge vigorously to all who will listen, including slander/libel charges, is not more likely to be guilty or innocent based on the energy of his denial.
Even further, there is an interim between slander/libel statements and the time that they can be explained or refuted. Real damage can occur in this time. Slanderous persons should be held liable for the damages they cause, just as companies making false claims about products should. It is kind of two sides of the same coin.
Lastly, it is easy enough to frame your opinon as an opinion, and avoid all possibility of libel. "I think CVS Caremark is dishonest and irresponsible" is never going to be actionable, because it is a factual statement. I actually think that.
For better or worse, we have different penalties for trying to be evil and for succeeding at being evil. Or, you get more jail time if your good at being bad, or something.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Said the slave owner.
I believe this is a Benjamin Franklin quote, and to the best of my limited knowledge and quick research, he did not own slaves. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
Snail mail PO boxes run in that region. Snail mail is ostensibly free delivery.
Thanks. What was peculiar about the defense's strikes? Very curious. As a prospecitve juror, i would be watching closely who each side struck, and trying to work out why.
Disclosure: my employer has a time code for jury duty, you forfeit your jury pay and recieve regular time in lieu.
My understanding is that it is pretty easy to get off jury duty if it is going to cause finanical hardship. No one wants a bitter juror. In my state, it's not hard to get jurors anyhow, i've never understood that "get out of jury duty" mentality. The one trial i got called for, they had 50-60 people in the room, didn't unseat any of the first 14, and when the judge bluntly announced that anyone who wanted to leave could, no one left. A couple people had left earlier when he dismissed hardship (without questioning). But almost everyone was still there to be sent home.
I'd like details - i hear these stories, and i wonder how they knew the guy was too smart? The one voir dire i've sat through, no one was dismissed by the judge or either side. If I'd been the judge, i'd have booted two people at least that were seated (it was a molestation case, probably late teen on early teen, two of the female jurors acknowledged they'd been molested but were not removed).
What questions did they ask? were you removed for cause, or with a blank check strike (forget the term)? were there demographic considerations? (wrong sex, race, etc)?
So the Panthers were trying to scare away white voters?
That's silly.
You can't elect a black president in the absence of white voters. The math just doesn't work out. In a precinct with a Panther presence you are more likely than not just going to scare away sympathetic voters.
You know that and I know that, but there were still black guys with clubs trying to scare away white voters. Stupidity may not win elections, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some people get off on having power over others, even if the others might help them out if left to their own devices.
I am a transplant patient. Prior to transplant, i was tested monthly for everything (diagnostic stuff, and drug screens through in as a bonus). I tested positive for everything the first time too. It was impossible as with no kidney function and limited liver function, i'd be disabled or die from that many illicit substances (in addition to the pretty substantial drug load from liver/kidney failure treatment). Second test, I was positive for every other drug (i.e. Yes, no, yes, no, etc). Dr. ordered a change in lab, at the new lab suddenly i'm clean.
More than just lab equipment can fail.
But, back to the original topic, taking a lot of drugs can change your attitude toward them. I don't mind folks taking drugs, mostly, as long as they are completely legal such that recreational addicts will kill or sterilize themselves. Watching them torment the inevitable children they will have is too much.
I am not seeing Google as robbing anyone. I can't see where Google killed anything. I use Google to find sites i am interested in. Before Google, i located sites with Yahoo! Before Yahoo!, I used a started with a list my ISP provided and painfully crawled around the net to find sites. Sometimes I even guessed at URLs to find sites. In all cases, sites that I found and liked went into my favorites list, or a text file I kept to track such things.
Before the web, I did the same thing with a piece of paper by my desk, using USENET groups as a source (although the USENET groups were more useful, generally).
In any case, my behavior on the sites is identical whether I use Google, a personal webpage, or a favorites list to get there. If the site has interesting, changing content, or is a useful reference, i will return periodically. If it doesn't, one very short visit will be all they see of me.
All Google (or Yahoo! et.al.) do is allow me to find more sites more quickly and easily. Is that hurting the sites?? I suppose so, if you think that finding sites makes me more likely to stick with the first site i find. This seems fundamentally anti-competitive, pro-brand name to me though.
Or do you think i'm seriously going to use Newsweek as my home page? really??
I would really like to understand your position, so please respond. I really see my pre-Google, post-Google behavior on websites as identical. I have ignored all but one ad that I've ever seen and I regret that one AT&T ad and am bitter about them to this day.
What are you hoping I would do differently? I expect that forcing Google to pay for indexing sites might cause Google to be less effective as a search engine by either not showing interesting sites that charge for indexing, or by showing more ads to make up for it. Either would push me to a different search engine provider. If the "only" option is to pay for your site, i find it uninteresting. Someone will provide a search tool for only free sites, and i will use that and ignore your pay site. Are you intending to make this behavior illegal?
Because you're asking them to make it better than Google. There isn't one website in the world that is better than Google, and you're asking every site to be better than Google. And Google is that good because it offers practically zero original content, so how the heck does a content provider compete with Google?
If providing no content is better than providing some content, clearly you'll need to solve the negative content problem to be better than Google. Demonstration of this is left as a exercise for the reader.
227hp awd in the snow is indeed fun. and not unreasonable, IMHO. Wanting a V8 was her generation's "I want a car that isn't klunky". That it doesn't have to be a V8 anymore is her ignorance of the changes in engine technology. But, for the young whipersnappers out there, keep in mind that in the early 80s, Mustangs with "sport tuned" engines had V8s that made 140hp. Seriously. The old lady probably experienced a 4-banger of that era, which were uniformly pathetic. As an ex-Pinto owner, I understand her feeling.
As a car salesman, you need to put her into a 16valve 4cyl turbo to help her understand that cylinders alone does not measure power very well. :-) And it would be funny...
Ironically, the legal system can't work quite that way. Old laws have to have the least power, not the most. Otherwise, you can't change the law. Consequently, the first amendment isn't the highest priority, it's the lowest. The last amendment would override it (if there was a conflict). Consider the Prohibition amendments before you consider it.
The first priority of a democracy has to be equality before the law. That is, same rules for everyone. The second is that the people determine what the law is. The third is that the people can change the law if they see fit.
A constitution should lay out these, including the method for changing the constitution. It should refrain from specifying any further rights/responsibility, etc - those should be spelled out by the people, per the rules in the consitution.
It is entirely possible for the consitition to spell out a layered law format - in which some laws require a super-majority to change, for example - say the constitution itself, to prevent momentary deception from seizing and retaining power. But you want to keep super-majority rules to a minimum, to allow each generation it's own chance to adapt and change the society.
Per the author, Fahrenheit 451 is a tract on the evils of TV. I read it in school and was preached the party line that it was about censorship. I think thats because the English Lit folks fear censorship more than anything, and so anything that could remotely be treated as about censorship becomes about censorship, even it it really wasn't.
451 has a protaganist who burns books, but eventually reads a few and finds he likes them (for their emotional content, largely). His boss has read a few, and doesn't like them (for their emotional content, they make you FEEL, which is bad). The protaganists wife is the exemplar of why TV is bad - she does nothing but watch it, has no feelings (and little thought). Message diluted by the fact that she's also pretty drugged up. When the protaganist is eventually fleeing, it is TV that is used (primarily) to track him down by broadcasting his image on all channels, and telling everyone to go to their door and look for him at the same time. With a countdown. When he eventually gets out to an independent community, people are memorizing books to keep them alive. They don't start with 1984, Animal Farm, Atlas Shrugged, et.al. They start with literature - the stuff English majors go on and on about, Shakespeare, Melvile, Milton and the like. Stuff that makes you feel, more than political or economic rants.
Missed message for most people, apparently. Happens sometimes - Upton Sinclair famously said "I aimed for America's heart, but I got it's stomache instead." No socialization, just food regulations.
Eating pork is not a tenet of any religion that I am aware of. The New Testement specifically addressed it by NOT imposing Jewish dietary law on Gentiles. Whether Jews were still bound or not is a bit vague. So, its kind of "do what you want".
Christianity as described by the New Testiment has a lot of that. Slavery is mentioned a couple times - once "Servants obey your masters..." used as a justification by the Old South as a justification. OTOH the book of Philemon is one long plea for a particular slave owner to free a particular slave (Philemon). However, it is not a COMMAND, rather, a rational and very emotional plea. Paul, the author, offers to pay any compensation in order to free Philemon. But, Paul apparently sent the letter back to the owner in the hands of the aformentioned Philemon. Make of it what you will. It can be hard to interpet a foriegn culture from only snippets of writing.
Where the idea came from originally doesn't matter much in the West, we accept ideas from everywhere. Iran purports to not have that same liberality.
Also, graphite vs lead. But your point still stands, quantity matters.
The articles cited state that researchers looked at BPA levels in people's urine, and found a correlation with obesity. No mice where harmed. You must be be thinking of a different study.
I have run into these folks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite. The community is a couple hundred years old, so they're doing something right. I admire it, but i'm not sure i'd actually want to live there. But, for the naysayers, communism can be done. It certainly takes a lot of personal committment, it's not for the pot-smoking hippie types, or for type A personalities either.
I did a quick search, but couldn't find it. It had little details, but lacked some of the overarching story (it assumed knowledge of things that would not be obvious to an outside viewer). The story followed this line however: http://yarchive.net/mil/japanese_surrender.html
Not so. Wikipedia, Surrender of Japan will give you some insight. I have also run across a diary account of one of the Imperial cabinet staff documenting the discussions of the cabinet in those 3 days. Japan had two seperate nuclear bomb initiatives running, so they understood the concept and capability (generally) already. The cabinet's concerns were:
1) we can still bargain for a better cease-fire/surrender agreement (by inflicting heavy casualties on the Americans).
2) we can get the still-neutral USSR to act as an intermediary to assist in bargaining
3) we cannot surrender under any circumstances because of the implications to our honor
4) the Emporor must be protected at all costs
5) nuclear weapons are insanely difficult to build, so it is likely the Americans have only the one
The USSR invaded Manchuria, the US dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki, the Emperor personally intervened, and the war ended.
This fundamental misunderstanding was that the US could be intimidated out of fighting by the infliction of mass casualties. Occurred back in 1941, continued through August, 1945.