You must be referring to Edge, probably the worst browser developed in the last 20 years. I'd get a better experience using the nightly build of Firefox. What an unbelievable hunk of junk.
The unconditional surrenders of Germany and Japan were intended to dissolve the governments and leaderships of those countries. The leadership were to receive no protections, no amnesties, they were to be removed absolutely from power and their ultimate fate was purely in the Allies hands. That was absolutely essential to rebuilding those countries, and assuring that the Nazis in Germany and the militarists in Japan couldn't maintain any power base. The errors made after WWI, particularly in Germany, where the Allies didn't break up the German General Staff and essentially allowed the Weimar Republic to employ those chief military planners as "civilian advisers" meant that in a very real way, the German Army did not terminate at the end of WWI, and that lead to many woes afterwards. Do you think that Hitler invented Blitzkrieg? Do you think violations of Versailles began with Hitler? The fact was that the Weimar Republic was playing fast and loose with the Versailles restrictions, and that much of the German campaign seen in the first two years of the Second World War had been meticulously planned for twenty years.
Total War could never discriminate between "innocent" and "guilty". When you move to defeat a country in Total War, you remove all capacity for it to fight, and that is going to mean significant civilian casualties. If any country should be familiar with this concept, it is the United States, since the Shenandoah Valley campaign during the Civil War was one of the first examples of how Total War is fought.
The actions amount to the US refusing to sell Japan oil, which Japan needed so it could continue its march across Asia, and commit plenty of atrocities along the way.
Yes, the Axis Powers needed to be brought low. The Italians did a fairly good job themselves when they strung up Mussolini on a meat hook. Unfortunately, in Germany and Japan, that wasn't likely to happen, but one way or the other, their ability to violate world peace needed be to dealt with on a permanent level. The atrocities they committed in the territories they occupied demanded the absolute dissolution of their governments and permanent alterations to how future governments were formed and conducted themselves.
Both Germany and Japan in the final stages of the war made offers to the Allies to surrender conditionally. In fact, the leadership of both countries seemed to think that the specter of ascendant Soviet Union would mean the Western Allies would make the obvious choice to stop their campaigns, and ask them to join in a new campaign against the Communists. There was also the fact that the leadership of both countries knew very well that unconditional surrender would mean they were deposed, taken prisoner and there would almost certainly be some sort of war crimes trials for their conduct in the territories they had occupied.
There was a certain level of delusional thinking in the last days of the war in Germany and Japan. After Hitler's suicide, the Flensburg Government assumed that the Allies would treat it as the legitimate government of Germany after the surrender, and Admiral Donitz was pretty shocked when, once he had signed the instruments of surrender, the Allies quickly dissolved it and the country was carved into pieces.
The situation in Japan was a bit more complex, mainly because, unlike Germany, Japan was not occupied when it surrendered. But the Japanese cabinet was dissolved immediately after the instruments of surrender were signed, the US occupied the country and took over its governance. The Emperor was ultimately retained, largely to create a symbolic continuity, but he was stripped of all powers. There are some that still believe that Japan should have been treated more like Germany, that part of the reason that Japan has never come fully to terms with its conduct during the 1930s and during WWII was because the US allowed the Emperor to escape any serious questions about his own influence on Japanese policy. I'm not of that mind. I think one of the lessons of WWI was that imposing a new constitution and system of government on a defeated country, without some continuity, leads to a disconnect between the people and their government. If the German monarchy had been maintained under, say, Crown Prince Wilhelm, but with a proper constitutional monarchy in place, it may have been less likely that the Nazis would have been able to gain power.
And again, any offers to cease hostilities in both Germany and Japan were based on the leadership and senior military being protected and preserving their positions. The Allies were not going to allow the Axis powers to get away with preserving their political structures just to end the war early. They rightly brought those countries low, occupied them and imposed new governing models on them.
And the results speak for themselves. West Germany and Japan became firm allies and among the strongest economies on the planet.
If the existing power structures had been left in place (as some Germans and Japanese in senior positions hoped) then five years of war would have been utterly wasted. The enemy might have been defeated, but the core would remain, and it would have meant either endless occupation or risking a repeat of the 1930s.
Unconditional surrender was the only option, and it was absolutely right to force both countries to open themselves up without limit to the Allies.
And that's the fact of the matter. The only way the great powers will ever shed their nuclear weapons is when they've found replacements. Besides, what would eliminating them even mean? The expertise to produce them would still exist. It's generally understood, for instance, that both South Korea and Japan could rapidly develop nuclear capabilities, and the only reason they don't is because the US has extended its nuclear shield over them.
In total war, there are no innocents. That's why modern war should be avoided.
It was American lives or Japanese lives, and the US rightly decided to save American lives. In the end, an invasion of the Japanese main island would likely have cost a lot more Japanese lives than the two atom bombs.
There were a lot American GIs, a lot of Chinese, a lot of Koreans, a lot Filipinos, a lot of Burmese, and so forth, who shed no tears for the dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan was an aggressor state, an expansionist militaristic empire that caused the peoples of Asia significant grief and death. The atrocities the Japanese committed in Asia have never got the attention they deserved.
At any rate, even after the first bomb, the Japanese government dithered on whether to surrender unconditionally. Even after the second bomb, some officers briefly attempted to kidnap the Emperor to prevent him ordering the unconditional surrender. So all this rubbish that so frequently gets claimed about Japan being ready to surrender before the atomic bombs really is revisionist crapola. Japan wanted a conditional surrender that would have largely left the aristocracy and the military leadership intact, and there was no way the US was going to allow the regime to remain intact. Japan needed to brought low. The Japanese people needed to be brought low, just as the German people needed to be. Yes, the Emperor was ultimately preserved, but largely for continuity. Everything else about Japan was transformed.
Their promotion of other products means it's a lot bigger pain in the ass to use. Frankly, I think Google should just do the right thing and put a proper file browser in Android. But if it's going to start throwing ads on my lockscreen, then whatever utility the app may have, it's going to be deleted. There's a level of assholeishness that I just won't tolerate.
We've updated the Dells we bought around 2009 to Windows 10. They're all running Office 2010 as well, and thus far no issues. Not the fastest in the world, to be sure, but for office work, there's no need for anything advanced. It basically saved us half our upgrade budget, enough that we stuck some extra money to take into account attrition. We certainly expect some of these computers to kick the bucket over the next couple of years, and we'll do a more casual upgrade schedule. Yes, it means having a more homogeneous group of workstations, but the tests we've done taking a Windows 10 image and throwing it on Dells, HPs and Acers indicates Windows 10 is fairly good and moving to new hardware, so I'm less worried about inconsistent behavior from different makes and models than I was five or six years ago.
So you have some actual evidence that these islands sinking is due to subduction, right? As well as evidence that there is no sea level rise, right?
I mean, you wouldn't just be making this up because you have an infantile attitude towards life and are too much of a coward to ponder that maybe,just maybe, the universe doesn't care about your tender little feelings.
How about just pricing fossil fuels to take into account extant and future climate change, and then let the market find the solution? Is the market capable of finding solutions to finite and/or expensive resources or not?
Which explains why the leaders of China and Russia, while apparently all but destitute, appear to have many wealthy relatives. It's pretty clear that a number of even larger nations are using offshore havens to squirrel away significant amounts of money.
Of course, there is more than one kind of haven as well. Vancouver and London are cities that are becoming notorious for the number of people from Russia and China buying up real estate. The amount of real estate being bought up in Vancouver by Chinese nationals, many of which who do not even live here, is becoming a significant political issue. London, of course, is home to many properties owned by Russian oligarchs, again looking for a way of protecting their wealth. The amount of financial activity going on with these property schemes is actually distorting real estate prices in these two markets.
A lot of this is happening now, I think, because the more traditional place for oligarchs, criminals and the more generically wealthy to hide their cash (ill gotten or otherwise), Switzerland, was forced, largely by the US, to end the practice of secret bank accounts. When that happened, it forced many people to look elsewhere, and that is how these other somewhat lesser known tax shelters have become so popular.
Doesn't that usually apply when the state is the one using illegally obtaining the information (i.e. without a warrant or with an overbroad warrant, etc.)
What exactly is the status of illegal conduct revealed by a third party? I'm sure the IRS, and really tax authorities the world over, must be able to investigate potential evasion if a third party releases the data.
I hope the court realizes that the State officials are incompetent retards who created a serious security situation, not to mention wasting huge sums of money, and that all they're trying to do is use the courts to bury their severe intellectual and technical inadequacies. Courts shouldn't be used to protect the fundamentally moronic.
Beyond that, are the alleged consequences even that probable? This sounds more like a combination of legal stupidity and the general ability of people to overestimate risks by such a wide degree. In other words, it is irrational from the top down.
I have a couple of custom built routers using Cyrix 586 clones that this will likely affect. Mind you, these are probably reaching EOL anyways, but if I want to keep them going into the future, I'm sure I can throw another distro on there. Crappy little processors, but fine for iptables, QOS and traffic/intrusion monitoring.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus Christ, this fucking asshole again? His claims were utterly decimated before, and now he wants to try to make the claim again.
For the fucking record, you pathetic worthless fraud, if there was any single inventor of modern email, then it was Roy Tomlinson.
You must be referring to Edge, probably the worst browser developed in the last 20 years. I'd get a better experience using the nightly build of Firefox. What an unbelievable hunk of junk.
But it's pretty obvious you are a paid shill.
If you're not, then you're just a moron.
This message brought to you by Microsoft...
The unconditional surrenders of Germany and Japan were intended to dissolve the governments and leaderships of those countries. The leadership were to receive no protections, no amnesties, they were to be removed absolutely from power and their ultimate fate was purely in the Allies hands. That was absolutely essential to rebuilding those countries, and assuring that the Nazis in Germany and the militarists in Japan couldn't maintain any power base. The errors made after WWI, particularly in Germany, where the Allies didn't break up the German General Staff and essentially allowed the Weimar Republic to employ those chief military planners as "civilian advisers" meant that in a very real way, the German Army did not terminate at the end of WWI, and that lead to many woes afterwards. Do you think that Hitler invented Blitzkrieg? Do you think violations of Versailles began with Hitler? The fact was that the Weimar Republic was playing fast and loose with the Versailles restrictions, and that much of the German campaign seen in the first two years of the Second World War had been meticulously planned for twenty years.
Total War could never discriminate between "innocent" and "guilty". When you move to defeat a country in Total War, you remove all capacity for it to fight, and that is going to mean significant civilian casualties. If any country should be familiar with this concept, it is the United States, since the Shenandoah Valley campaign during the Civil War was one of the first examples of how Total War is fought.
The actions amount to the US refusing to sell Japan oil, which Japan needed so it could continue its march across Asia, and commit plenty of atrocities along the way.
Cue the Holocaust Deniers. Worse than scum.
Yes, the Axis Powers needed to be brought low. The Italians did a fairly good job themselves when they strung up Mussolini on a meat hook. Unfortunately, in Germany and Japan, that wasn't likely to happen, but one way or the other, their ability to violate world peace needed be to dealt with on a permanent level. The atrocities they committed in the territories they occupied demanded the absolute dissolution of their governments and permanent alterations to how future governments were formed and conducted themselves.
Both Germany and Japan in the final stages of the war made offers to the Allies to surrender conditionally. In fact, the leadership of both countries seemed to think that the specter of ascendant Soviet Union would mean the Western Allies would make the obvious choice to stop their campaigns, and ask them to join in a new campaign against the Communists. There was also the fact that the leadership of both countries knew very well that unconditional surrender would mean they were deposed, taken prisoner and there would almost certainly be some sort of war crimes trials for their conduct in the territories they had occupied.
There was a certain level of delusional thinking in the last days of the war in Germany and Japan. After Hitler's suicide, the Flensburg Government assumed that the Allies would treat it as the legitimate government of Germany after the surrender, and Admiral Donitz was pretty shocked when, once he had signed the instruments of surrender, the Allies quickly dissolved it and the country was carved into pieces.
The situation in Japan was a bit more complex, mainly because, unlike Germany, Japan was not occupied when it surrendered. But the Japanese cabinet was dissolved immediately after the instruments of surrender were signed, the US occupied the country and took over its governance. The Emperor was ultimately retained, largely to create a symbolic continuity, but he was stripped of all powers. There are some that still believe that Japan should have been treated more like Germany, that part of the reason that Japan has never come fully to terms with its conduct during the 1930s and during WWII was because the US allowed the Emperor to escape any serious questions about his own influence on Japanese policy. I'm not of that mind. I think one of the lessons of WWI was that imposing a new constitution and system of government on a defeated country, without some continuity, leads to a disconnect between the people and their government. If the German monarchy had been maintained under, say, Crown Prince Wilhelm, but with a proper constitutional monarchy in place, it may have been less likely that the Nazis would have been able to gain power.
And again, any offers to cease hostilities in both Germany and Japan were based on the leadership and senior military being protected and preserving their positions. The Allies were not going to allow the Axis powers to get away with preserving their political structures just to end the war early. They rightly brought those countries low, occupied them and imposed new governing models on them.
And the results speak for themselves. West Germany and Japan became firm allies and among the strongest economies on the planet.
If the existing power structures had been left in place (as some Germans and Japanese in senior positions hoped) then five years of war would have been utterly wasted. The enemy might have been defeated, but the core would remain, and it would have meant either endless occupation or risking a repeat of the 1930s.
Unconditional surrender was the only option, and it was absolutely right to force both countries to open themselves up without limit to the Allies.
And that's the fact of the matter. The only way the great powers will ever shed their nuclear weapons is when they've found replacements. Besides, what would eliminating them even mean? The expertise to produce them would still exist. It's generally understood, for instance, that both South Korea and Japan could rapidly develop nuclear capabilities, and the only reason they don't is because the US has extended its nuclear shield over them.
In total war, there are no innocents. That's why modern war should be avoided.
It was American lives or Japanese lives, and the US rightly decided to save American lives. In the end, an invasion of the Japanese main island would likely have cost a lot more Japanese lives than the two atom bombs.
There were a lot American GIs, a lot of Chinese, a lot of Koreans, a lot Filipinos, a lot of Burmese, and so forth, who shed no tears for the dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan was an aggressor state, an expansionist militaristic empire that caused the peoples of Asia significant grief and death. The atrocities the Japanese committed in Asia have never got the attention they deserved.
At any rate, even after the first bomb, the Japanese government dithered on whether to surrender unconditionally. Even after the second bomb, some officers briefly attempted to kidnap the Emperor to prevent him ordering the unconditional surrender. So all this rubbish that so frequently gets claimed about Japan being ready to surrender before the atomic bombs really is revisionist crapola. Japan wanted a conditional surrender that would have largely left the aristocracy and the military leadership intact, and there was no way the US was going to allow the regime to remain intact. Japan needed to brought low. The Japanese people needed to be brought low, just as the German people needed to be. Yes, the Emperor was ultimately preserved, but largely for continuity. Everything else about Japan was transformed.
Their promotion of other products means it's a lot bigger pain in the ass to use. Frankly, I think Google should just do the right thing and put a proper file browser in Android. But if it's going to start throwing ads on my lockscreen, then whatever utility the app may have, it's going to be deleted. There's a level of assholeishness that I just won't tolerate.
We've updated the Dells we bought around 2009 to Windows 10. They're all running Office 2010 as well, and thus far no issues. Not the fastest in the world, to be sure, but for office work, there's no need for anything advanced. It basically saved us half our upgrade budget, enough that we stuck some extra money to take into account attrition. We certainly expect some of these computers to kick the bucket over the next couple of years, and we'll do a more casual upgrade schedule. Yes, it means having a more homogeneous group of workstations, but the tests we've done taking a Windows 10 image and throwing it on Dells, HPs and Acers indicates Windows 10 is fairly good and moving to new hardware, so I'm less worried about inconsistent behavior from different makes and models than I was five or six years ago.
So you have some actual evidence that these islands sinking is due to subduction, right? As well as evidence that there is no sea level rise, right?
I mean, you wouldn't just be making this up because you have an infantile attitude towards life and are too much of a coward to ponder that maybe ,just maybe, the universe doesn't care about your tender little feelings.
How about just pricing fossil fuels to take into account extant and future climate change, and then let the market find the solution? Is the market capable of finding solutions to finite and/or expensive resources or not?
Which explains why the leaders of China and Russia, while apparently all but destitute, appear to have many wealthy relatives. It's pretty clear that a number of even larger nations are using offshore havens to squirrel away significant amounts of money.
Of course, there is more than one kind of haven as well. Vancouver and London are cities that are becoming notorious for the number of people from Russia and China buying up real estate. The amount of real estate being bought up in Vancouver by Chinese nationals, many of which who do not even live here, is becoming a significant political issue. London, of course, is home to many properties owned by Russian oligarchs, again looking for a way of protecting their wealth. The amount of financial activity going on with these property schemes is actually distorting real estate prices in these two markets.
A lot of this is happening now, I think, because the more traditional place for oligarchs, criminals and the more generically wealthy to hide their cash (ill gotten or otherwise), Switzerland, was forced, largely by the US, to end the practice of secret bank accounts. When that happened, it forced many people to look elsewhere, and that is how these other somewhat lesser known tax shelters have become so popular.
Doesn't that usually apply when the state is the one using illegally obtaining the information (i.e. without a warrant or with an overbroad warrant, etc.)
What exactly is the status of illegal conduct revealed by a third party? I'm sure the IRS, and really tax authorities the world over, must be able to investigate potential evasion if a third party releases the data.
Or, in the future, sell it to the Russian mob for big bucks and retire.
I hope the court realizes that the State officials are incompetent retards who created a serious security situation, not to mention wasting huge sums of money, and that all they're trying to do is use the courts to bury their severe intellectual and technical inadequacies. Courts shouldn't be used to protect the fundamentally moronic.
Beyond that, are the alleged consequences even that probable? This sounds more like a combination of legal stupidity and the general ability of people to overestimate risks by such a wide degree. In other words, it is irrational from the top down.
And then deal with the fact that the versions are EOL and you're running without patches.
I have a couple of custom built routers using Cyrix 586 clones that this will likely affect. Mind you, these are probably reaching EOL anyways, but if I want to keep them going into the future, I'm sure I can throw another distro on there. Crappy little processors, but fine for iptables, QOS and traffic/intrusion monitoring.