I think a diagnosis on his terminal stupidity is in order. He knows nothing about physics, knows nothing about why that ring of gas can be seen, and why that casts a shadow of the event horizon.
Owing a debt is not the same as derived from. The two movements largely came into existence at the same time; along with the Falangists (though the latter had much deeper roots in Spanish instability since the Peninsular War).
But there's a path from just being a "grumbler" to becoming an active supporter. Prior to the Nazi racial laws, general grumbling about Jews was pretty common. Talk to your average German in, say, the 1920s, and the idea that every Jew under German control would end up in concentration camps or being murdered on an industrial scale would have seemed ludicrous. Oh sure, they'd probably bring up some popular tropes of the day about the greedy Jew, and they had a cousin who had a friend who had been stiffed by a Jew or denied a bank loan by a Jew or didn't get a job because of Jew, but out of that sort of embryonic discomfort and low-grade dislike the Nazis were able to build a society that was violently anti-Semitic, to the point where God-fearing men and women facilitated that transfer and execution of millions of Jews. And it didn't even take that long; less than a decade for long-standing discomfort with Jews to turn into genocide.
If these 4chan types are aping racist sentiments just because it pisses the adults off, well, in my view, at best that makes them deluded pricks. But it's worse than that, because if nothing else they act as an unwitting online army for the really nasty guys. Racism is still racism, whether it's just some attempt at a bit self-masturbatory humor. Even if it's some sort of satire, there's a way to do satire of racists that doesn't involve basically behaving exactly like a racist.
No, Nazism was not a variant of Italian Fascism. Nazism grew out of a certain brand of socialism that came to the fore in Germany in the 1920s, in particular with the rise of the SA. Mussolini himself at first determined to stay neutral in WWII, but thought that by backing Hitler, Italy would keep and enlarge its embryonic African empire (it was deeply stung by the League of Nations determining the invasion and annexation of Ethiopia was illegal). They may have grown out of similar sentiments in both countries (I'd chunk Hungarian nationalism and Spanish Falange in the same boat), but the SA, the progenitor of the Nazis, was in many ways a very different movement ideologically from Mussolini's.
Nazism itself was always a moving target. Hitler was primarily interested in achieving power. He allied with Rohm and his SA thugs because it gave him a private army to go after the softer elements of the Weimar republic. But as soon as the SA ceased to be useful to Hitler, it was absorbed into the SS and other units, and Rohm, who, bizarrely enough, still seemed to love Hitler right up until the end, was shot. After that, Nazism became basically a full-on personality cult. It was whatever Hitler said it was.
Ironically enough, Churchill actually plead with Mussolini to either join the Allies (as Italy had done in WWI), or at least to stay out of the war. Churchill actually took the time to praise some of Mussolini's accomplishments. While he didn't approve of the methods or the form of government, the Italian Fascists were a different creature from the SA or the Nazi Party.
The ruling on Trump's twitter account was that he couldn't block it for certain people. Different argument. Comment forums, like newspaper editorial sections, have every right to not publish or edit any commentary letter. This is nothing new. If you don't like Youtube's rules, build your own forum, or, what the heck, use one of those nice accommodating ones like Stormfront.
Google doesn't control the government so far as I know, so no, the point is not invalidated. Google is not bound by the First Amendment. It is not a branch of the government. It has no obligation to carry every message that someone attempts to post to its comments, any more than a newspaper has any obligation to publish every letter to the editor.
White Nationalists are picked on because they're idiotic and racist thugs. Like all pariahs, they will suffer considerable social censure. The Founding Fathers had no intention of protecting vile people from their neighbors' disapproval. The First Amendment is about not having the State interfere in their right to spew. The First Amendment does not apply to private corporations, no matter how cleverly (or in your case, how awkwardly) you try to reframe the statement.
For the same reason the Government uses newspapers to advertise and TV networks for televised addresses. Just because the government can use private companies for providing services does not mean that private companies suddenly become branches of the government, and bound to the first Amendments.
Jesus Christ, the utter lack of understanding on the part of some here just astonishes. This black and white thinking, this inability to comprehend nuance or complexity, and the fundamental ignorance that gets married to it, so that your lack of knowledge gets coupled with astonishing arrogance, that you become blind to how things are actually supposed to work.
The narrative here seems to be "talk about white nationalists, and gangs of white nationalists show up to prove just how demented and determined to be assholes they are."
The lesson here is that Chrome won the browser wars. Firefox is kept alive by Google simply so Google can point to it and say "See, there's another browser!" Sure, there's Safari for Apple products, but while Chrome has forked, both browsers have the same DNA. WebKit is king in one guise or another. If Microsoft, with all its market power, couldn't convince people to move to Edge, I fail to see what Opera will accomplish other than to finish writing the epitaph on its grave stone.
Hypocrites because they're prosecuting manufacturers whose products were designed to deceive pollution testing? I'm not sure how that's hypocritical. If, as you state, the EU's goal here is to be "great for the environment", then this seems to be exactly what they're doing.
In that Trump is like every president before him. They'll take credit for recoveries that began long before the entered office, and will deflect blame for the down turns that happen under them. To my mind, it more demonstrates the extreme limitations of politicians, and that in economies as large as the United States, government policy can at best only make modest changes in overall economic performance.
And indeed, the up cycle began in Obama's first term, and now, nearly a decade later, the cyclical down is coming. It demonstrates that its luck of the draw when a President is elected, and cycles have longer terms than election cycles.
I know it's pretty tough for Nazis like yourself. But in the UK, there's never been the level of free speech that would make you invulnerable from being prosecuted for, say, blaming the Jews for everything. If you're a Brit, perhaps you should move to some cabin in Oregon. But then, you probably have a predilection for gathering large amounts of firearms and explosives, so you'll probably end up subject to an FBI raid.
More likely, of course, you're just some 4chan asshole who imagines your racial superiority, despite the fact that you exhibit all the symptoms of being completely inferior.
I fail to see how this would be any different than Ofcom's or the FCC's effective censorship of regular television for "decency" purposes. I'm not necessarily say I support it, but if Facebook, Twitter, et al. are thrown in the same basket as, say, broadcast television and radio, then there's a consistency here. If you can't show programs encouraging child abuse or acts of terrorism on Sky or CBS, then the logic goes, nor should social media.
It of course leaves the question open when you're talking about two-bit operations like Stormfront, but since those are pretty much small scale subscriber portals with a pretty predictable membership, as opposed to Facebook, which is a platform of mass dissemination and sharing, I guess you can square that circle to some degree.
Regulation was going to happen sooner or later. The social media giants have astonishing reach at national and international levels, and have already shown themselves very vulnerable to sharing of this kind of content. Guys like Zuckerberg knew this was coming, and I suspect would rather at this point have governments set up regulatory frameworks than the self-regulation they did in the past, if for no other reason than it levels the playing field.
Hard core libertarians are never going to like this, but then again they don't like any government regulation. I suspect they hate the decency rules the FCC imposes on network television, and yet those have been the rules since the 1950s. The Supreme Court has upheld decency standards in the past, so I see little likelihood of a meaningful court challenge, and really, since these are private companies, unless they want to mount the challenge themselves, I doubt any user whose content is removed or has their account deleted is going to have a leg to stand on.
And further, this particular story is about the UK. The extent of free speech guaranteed in the US Constitution is not guaranteed in the UK, and indeed in most other liberal democracies. Hate laws in Europe are quite a bit stronger than anything that could pass muster in the US.
This flows out of the social media companies' own requests that governments start regulating them. Yes, it's going to be silly in some cases, some Neo-Nazi planning on blowing up a synagogue and bragging about it on Facebook, then they're online equivalent of the moron with the face tattoos that robs a liquor store. At the same time, it's clear that the social media giants have been incapable or unwilling to police their own users to demonstrate at least some minimal of diligence.
I think that's pretty much my point. There will always be scenarios where a PC will be necessary, but that's only for a fairly small subset of users. In the business environment they will persist the longest, but even there portable smart devices have made major inroads. Even corporate environments see a lot of computing done on phones and tablets.
My smartphone has been my salvation on more than one occasion when routers or servers have gone down. It's damned useful to have an independent device I can go on the Internet and find solutions. Yes, I could do the same with a laptop, but then I'd still have to tether to my phone, so it's a helluva lot simpler just to bring up the browser on my phone.
Like it or not, the PC is fading. Yes, there's always going to be use-case scenarios, but a helluva lot of consumer computing these days is happening on portable devices and consoles. The shift is pretty profound, and as those devices become more powerful, I can see a general shift away from PCs in the consumer world.
Heck, in my business, half my emails are composed on my phone. It's the way the world is shifting. I wouldn't want to do any spreadsheet work or composition on a phone, but how many people are doing that?
Do you seriously think Iran could project that much force? Even if they had nuclear weapons, they're in a neighborhood crowded with nukes. Israel, at the very least, could wipe Tehran off the map, and while Russia has a part time role as good buddy to Iran, I doubt very much the Kremlin would look fondly on Iran conquering the Middle East.
Slashdot Mirror
I think a diagnosis on his terminal stupidity is in order. He knows nothing about physics, knows nothing about why that ring of gas can be seen, and why that casts a shadow of the event horizon.
Owing a debt is not the same as derived from. The two movements largely came into existence at the same time; along with the Falangists (though the latter had much deeper roots in Spanish instability since the Peninsular War).
But there's a path from just being a "grumbler" to becoming an active supporter. Prior to the Nazi racial laws, general grumbling about Jews was pretty common. Talk to your average German in, say, the 1920s, and the idea that every Jew under German control would end up in concentration camps or being murdered on an industrial scale would have seemed ludicrous. Oh sure, they'd probably bring up some popular tropes of the day about the greedy Jew, and they had a cousin who had a friend who had been stiffed by a Jew or denied a bank loan by a Jew or didn't get a job because of Jew, but out of that sort of embryonic discomfort and low-grade dislike the Nazis were able to build a society that was violently anti-Semitic, to the point where God-fearing men and women facilitated that transfer and execution of millions of Jews. And it didn't even take that long; less than a decade for long-standing discomfort with Jews to turn into genocide.
You dance with the one that brung ya.
If these 4chan types are aping racist sentiments just because it pisses the adults off, well, in my view, at best that makes them deluded pricks. But it's worse than that, because if nothing else they act as an unwitting online army for the really nasty guys. Racism is still racism, whether it's just some attempt at a bit self-masturbatory humor. Even if it's some sort of satire, there's a way to do satire of racists that doesn't involve basically behaving exactly like a racist.
No, Nazism was not a variant of Italian Fascism. Nazism grew out of a certain brand of socialism that came to the fore in Germany in the 1920s, in particular with the rise of the SA. Mussolini himself at first determined to stay neutral in WWII, but thought that by backing Hitler, Italy would keep and enlarge its embryonic African empire (it was deeply stung by the League of Nations determining the invasion and annexation of Ethiopia was illegal). They may have grown out of similar sentiments in both countries (I'd chunk Hungarian nationalism and Spanish Falange in the same boat), but the SA, the progenitor of the Nazis, was in many ways a very different movement ideologically from Mussolini's.
Nazism itself was always a moving target. Hitler was primarily interested in achieving power. He allied with Rohm and his SA thugs because it gave him a private army to go after the softer elements of the Weimar republic. But as soon as the SA ceased to be useful to Hitler, it was absorbed into the SS and other units, and Rohm, who, bizarrely enough, still seemed to love Hitler right up until the end, was shot. After that, Nazism became basically a full-on personality cult. It was whatever Hitler said it was.
Ironically enough, Churchill actually plead with Mussolini to either join the Allies (as Italy had done in WWI), or at least to stay out of the war. Churchill actually took the time to praise some of Mussolini's accomplishments. While he didn't approve of the methods or the form of government, the Italian Fascists were a different creature from the SA or the Nazi Party.
The ruling on Trump's twitter account was that he couldn't block it for certain people. Different argument. Comment forums, like newspaper editorial sections, have every right to not publish or edit any commentary letter. This is nothing new. If you don't like Youtube's rules, build your own forum, or, what the heck, use one of those nice accommodating ones like Stormfront.
Google doesn't control the government so far as I know, so no, the point is not invalidated. Google is not bound by the First Amendment. It is not a branch of the government. It has no obligation to carry every message that someone attempts to post to its comments, any more than a newspaper has any obligation to publish every letter to the editor.
White Nationalists are picked on because they're idiotic and racist thugs. Like all pariahs, they will suffer considerable social censure. The Founding Fathers had no intention of protecting vile people from their neighbors' disapproval. The First Amendment is about not having the State interfere in their right to spew. The First Amendment does not apply to private corporations, no matter how cleverly (or in your case, how awkwardly) you try to reframe the statement.
For the same reason the Government uses newspapers to advertise and TV networks for televised addresses. Just because the government can use private companies for providing services does not mean that private companies suddenly become branches of the government, and bound to the first Amendments.
Jesus Christ, the utter lack of understanding on the part of some here just astonishes. This black and white thinking, this inability to comprehend nuance or complexity, and the fundamental ignorance that gets married to it, so that your lack of knowledge gets coupled with astonishing arrogance, that you become blind to how things are actually supposed to work.
The narrative here seems to be "talk about white nationalists, and gangs of white nationalists show up to prove just how demented and determined to be assholes they are."
Perhaps, but that's better than being an ignoramus
It's hard to tell whether you're serious, or just a moron.
The lesson here is that Chrome won the browser wars. Firefox is kept alive by Google simply so Google can point to it and say "See, there's another browser!" Sure, there's Safari for Apple products, but while Chrome has forked, both browsers have the same DNA. WebKit is king in one guise or another. If Microsoft, with all its market power, couldn't convince people to move to Edge, I fail to see what Opera will accomplish other than to finish writing the epitaph on its grave stone.
Yes, they've already been nailed for the emissions testing scam, and now they're being nailed for the collusion.
Hypocrites because they're prosecuting manufacturers whose products were designed to deceive pollution testing? I'm not sure how that's hypocritical. If, as you state, the EU's goal here is to be "great for the environment", then this seems to be exactly what they're doing.
So really, the residents of Lesbos should have first kick at the can.
In that Trump is like every president before him. They'll take credit for recoveries that began long before the entered office, and will deflect blame for the down turns that happen under them. To my mind, it more demonstrates the extreme limitations of politicians, and that in economies as large as the United States, government policy can at best only make modest changes in overall economic performance.
And indeed, the up cycle began in Obama's first term, and now, nearly a decade later, the cyclical down is coming. It demonstrates that its luck of the draw when a President is elected, and cycles have longer terms than election cycles.
That really makes absolutely no sense at all.
I know it's pretty tough for Nazis like yourself. But in the UK, there's never been the level of free speech that would make you invulnerable from being prosecuted for, say, blaming the Jews for everything. If you're a Brit, perhaps you should move to some cabin in Oregon. But then, you probably have a predilection for gathering large amounts of firearms and explosives, so you'll probably end up subject to an FBI raid.
More likely, of course, you're just some 4chan asshole who imagines your racial superiority, despite the fact that you exhibit all the symptoms of being completely inferior.
I fail to see how this would be any different than Ofcom's or the FCC's effective censorship of regular television for "decency" purposes. I'm not necessarily say I support it, but if Facebook, Twitter, et al. are thrown in the same basket as, say, broadcast television and radio, then there's a consistency here. If you can't show programs encouraging child abuse or acts of terrorism on Sky or CBS, then the logic goes, nor should social media.
It of course leaves the question open when you're talking about two-bit operations like Stormfront, but since those are pretty much small scale subscriber portals with a pretty predictable membership, as opposed to Facebook, which is a platform of mass dissemination and sharing, I guess you can square that circle to some degree.
Regulation was going to happen sooner or later. The social media giants have astonishing reach at national and international levels, and have already shown themselves very vulnerable to sharing of this kind of content. Guys like Zuckerberg knew this was coming, and I suspect would rather at this point have governments set up regulatory frameworks than the self-regulation they did in the past, if for no other reason than it levels the playing field.
Hard core libertarians are never going to like this, but then again they don't like any government regulation. I suspect they hate the decency rules the FCC imposes on network television, and yet those have been the rules since the 1950s. The Supreme Court has upheld decency standards in the past, so I see little likelihood of a meaningful court challenge, and really, since these are private companies, unless they want to mount the challenge themselves, I doubt any user whose content is removed or has their account deleted is going to have a leg to stand on.
And further, this particular story is about the UK. The extent of free speech guaranteed in the US Constitution is not guaranteed in the UK, and indeed in most other liberal democracies. Hate laws in Europe are quite a bit stronger than anything that could pass muster in the US.
This flows out of the social media companies' own requests that governments start regulating them. Yes, it's going to be silly in some cases, some Neo-Nazi planning on blowing up a synagogue and bragging about it on Facebook, then they're online equivalent of the moron with the face tattoos that robs a liquor store. At the same time, it's clear that the social media giants have been incapable or unwilling to police their own users to demonstrate at least some minimal of diligence.
I think that's pretty much my point. There will always be scenarios where a PC will be necessary, but that's only for a fairly small subset of users. In the business environment they will persist the longest, but even there portable smart devices have made major inroads. Even corporate environments see a lot of computing done on phones and tablets.
My smartphone has been my salvation on more than one occasion when routers or servers have gone down. It's damned useful to have an independent device I can go on the Internet and find solutions. Yes, I could do the same with a laptop, but then I'd still have to tether to my phone, so it's a helluva lot simpler just to bring up the browser on my phone.
Like it or not, the PC is fading. Yes, there's always going to be use-case scenarios, but a helluva lot of consumer computing these days is happening on portable devices and consoles. The shift is pretty profound, and as those devices become more powerful, I can see a general shift away from PCs in the consumer world.
Heck, in my business, half my emails are composed on my phone. It's the way the world is shifting. I wouldn't want to do any spreadsheet work or composition on a phone, but how many people are doing that?
Do you seriously think Iran could project that much force? Even if they had nuclear weapons, they're in a neighborhood crowded with nukes. Israel, at the very least, could wipe Tehran off the map, and while Russia has a part time role as good buddy to Iran, I doubt very much the Kremlin would look fondly on Iran conquering the Middle East.