An anonymous reader writes "The release last week of the US copyright blacklist is beginning to generate a backlash in countries around the world. Reports from Canada, Europe, and Asia all note that the US claims are very suspect and that the report is little more than an attempt to bully dozens of countries into following the US DMCA model."
He's the one who has appointed all the RIAA goons [wired.com] to high office. Even if he may not know exactly what is going on, he would have to be a fucking moron to not have a clue as to what might happen when he did that.
>>>Yes, because he has an innate knowledge of every single thing the government is doing
Nope he doesn't, but he knew that he appointed 3 of RIAA's top lawyers to the executive branch. And now we're seeing the consequences of that, and yes Obama is responsible.
Ooops. He's appointing them faster than I can keep up. Apparently there are now 5 RIAA lackeys....er, lawyers on Obama's executive branch. Plus a new copyright czar! Yay.
The content industry, including the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, are applauding President Barack Obama's appointments of at least five RIAA lawyers to the Justice Department. They urged him to continue the trend.
"The hallmarks of your administration's appointees have been competence, substantive expertise, and a commitment to your administration's agenda," the Copyright Alliance, a group of three-plus dozen content owners, wrote the president Monday (.pdf). "We have every confidence these hallmarks will be demonstrated in your future IP policy appointments."
The communication was also in response to a letter the copyleft, represented by about two dozen public interest groups, sent Obama three weeks ago. That missive urged the president to stop tapping RIAA insiders to his administration. That letter by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge and others fell on deaf ears.
I think we all must be duped. When Obama said he was bringing change, he actually meant collecting spare change to help pay-off his burgeoning deficit, not that he was going to listen to the People.
I think we all must be duped. When Obama said he was bringing change, he actually meant collecting spare change to help pay-off his burgeoning deficit, not that he was going to listen to the People.
The mistake of many people dissing Obama now is that, when he said "change", they automatically presumed that it is going to involve their pet issues first. On Slashdot, this tends to be FOSS and copyright issues. In practice, though, when speaking of "People" as a whole, those issues aren't even on most people's radar, so it was pretty silly to believe that Obama would do something specifically about them.
Nope he doesn't, but he knew that he appointed 3 of RIAA's top lawyers to the executive branch. And now we're seeing the consequences of that, and yes Obama is responsible.
You know, one thing I've noticed about legal professionals is that they tend to be absolutely loyal to the highest bidder. Which means that when they switch employers, they switch loyalties. And they don't report to Hollywood any more.
I'm not saying they'll necessarily change their attitudes towards the MAFIAA but that it's no longer personally necessary to them to push their old agenda. They report to the chief executive now. My point? Where they used to work may be a flawed predictor for what they're going to do. To turn a phrase on its head, in this case "causation isn't correlation" and to think otherwise would likely impinge upon ad hominem.
To be charitable, we need to give them a chance to repent their misspent youth. And if they don't, I suggest we stone them in a cobblestoned street.
Yes it was. Look up the "Project for a New American Century." 9/11 is what gave them the political capital needed to go forward with the "regime change" they had been clamoring for since the 90s.
Suddenly, Canada's 50% of gdp looks positively cheery.
At rates we were going before the child-like and ignorant Conservatives decided to follow the Americans into the pit of despair and debt, it was going to take only 50 years to pay off the debt at current rates(before accounting for inflation).
I could create a budget to pay-off the United States debt in 5 maybe 10 years time. The only problem is that my budget would involve moving SSI from an "everyone's eligible" system to a "only poor are eligible" system, and none of the voters would want to hear that. Plus my budget would cut military spending to near-zero, and the military-industrial complex doesn't want that either.
I'd likely end-up assassinated. But if the U.S. ever wants to get out of debt, there is no other way except to cut spending. The alternative, hyperinflation of the dollar until you need 10,000 dollars to buy a loaf of bread, is too horrible to contemplate. The only good solution is to sacrifice.
Oh well.
For once I'm glad the U.S. is in 15th place. Normally when we fall behind nations like Norway or Sweden on the internet speeds, I think that's bad, but in this case I'm glad we carry less debt than they do. (By the way, I thought the European Union forbids deficit spending of its member states?)
Off the top of my head, I'd say that the big changes would be: 1. Russia will get boisterous and attempt to take on some of its smaller satellites. 2. China will make a move for Taiwan, and might get more aggressive with Japan/Korea. 3. At some point, someone will attack Israel. 4. Um... 5. Nope, that's about it.
Number 1 has been happening on and off anyway. I just think that with no threat of U.S. intervention, Russia might throw caution to the wind and go a bit nuts on that front.
China taking Taiwan is kind of predictable, too. Japan and Korea might follow.
Israel is obvious. Someone will see a moment of what they think is weakness, and try to walk in and be an Islamic hero. I'd say that they'll have their arse handed to them on a plate, unless they're remarkably successful, in which case their arse will become a glowing cinder. No country in the world has the will to use its Nukes in self defence like Israel has... But because it's a religious thing, someone will be dumb enough to try it at some point. Sad, but true. The absence of the U.S. might just make them a little more eager about it though.
But here's the thing that most Americans don't seem to understand... NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE U.S. ANYMORE. The U.S. HAS BECOME FAR LESS RELEVANT.
If the U.S. dismantled its military, it wouldn't affect much. The only countries it would really affect are Russia, China and Israel. By extension, it will affect the ex-USSR states, Taiwan, Japan, Korea and whoever's dumb enough to attack Israel.
However, I must ask why you think the U.S. should completely dismantle its military. It's just not necessary.
The U.S. could make huge savings just by admitting that the cold war ended years ago, and that state vs state war is going to be skirmish at best - especially if they keep their ICBMs.
The U.S. has carrier fleets that they're afraid to deploy against pirates, because they know that a speedboat loaded with explosives can take out one of their destroyers.
The U.S. has hordes of tanks that take forever to deploy, require huge supply lines, and yet can be taken out from a rooftop with an RPG.
The U.S. has aircraft that are truly fantastic, amazing bits of kit - but that are hugely expensive and not much more effective than their immediate (much cheaper) competition.
The U.S. military-industrial complex is throwing money away fighting a war that ended two decades ago. What's needed now is helicopter carrier fleets - smaller, faster, more agile. More Marines and more transport and support for them. More unmanned aircraft and ground support aircraft (like the old A-10 and the AC-130).
Also badly needed is strong military field engineering, with a civilian eye. No U.S. field base should leave an area without giving every nearby village better water supplies, a prefabbed school building, and a courtesy lick of paint. Hearts and minds will secure the bases just as well, if not better, than barbed wire and watchtowers.
And the U.S. needs a "Missile Shield" to protect itself like I need a six-barrelled rotary cannon with laser sights to protect me from flies in the summer.
You could cut the U.S. military budget in half, embark on a major restructuring project, and within five years America would have a far more effective military force than it has right now.
Because right now, if the U.S. was attacked, it wouldn't be able to defend itself. That was proved on September 11th, 2001. The leader of the group that made that attack is still not captured. The senior leadership of that group is hardly dented. The group has made huge territorial gains in Pakistan because of the U.S.'s military ability to handle it. And that group is recruiting more people every day.
Dismantling the military isn't necessary. But realising that the USSR has been dead and buried for almost 20 years would be a nice first step to making it cost effective...
They are a mechanism to put the fear of gawd into people "voluntarily" paying their taxes.
If people do not pay their taxes, they get at least two, but maybe up to four involuntary things:
A) Fine(s) (not voluntary) B) Interest (not voluntary) C) If adjudicated, jail (also, not voluntary) and possibly D) Be appointed as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury (since only one person can serve this post at a time, good luck on getting this option).
Seriously, there's nothing here. Countries will always try to vilify other countries in order to satisfy their own interests. The Axis of Evil is a pretty good example.
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday May 05 2009, @04:26PM (#27837943)
Yes, I hear that air superiority went quite well for you at Pearl Harbour in World War II and in Vietnam where you were sent running with your tail between your legs after suffering thousands of casualties. Very successful in Korea too I notice, I mean, North Korea is a nice friendly nation now thanks to America's success their right? What about Somalia too in the 90s, that went really well right? Or wait, you were sent running their too.
How's that air superiority going in Afghanistan and Iraq by the way where your soldiers get slaughtered by men in cloth dresses with rifles that are about 35 years old and about as accurate as a blind man with a water pistol? I hear your air superiority worked great over New York on 9/11 also!
It's funny, because when it comes to wars, the US hasn't really actually won that many in the last century. About all it's won was the Pacific campaign of World War II but even that was only because the Russians covered it's arse in defeating Germany and because it had vast amounts of allied support to the West of Japan in China and from the South from Australia etc.
In fact, what wars has the US won by itself in the last century? I'm not sure it's actually won any, even in the first Iraq war it needed massive amounts of allied support. That's a stark contrast to European nations like say, Britain that unilaterally sent the Argentinians running back home in the Falklands for example.
The US has far and away the biggest military in the world, but it can't win wars because it doesn't have a single general capable of anything loosely resembling tactics and because it's soldiers can't fight for shit. That's before you even get started on their poor engineering abilities in the field and their inability to win the required hearts and minds of the civilian population which has time and time again left them running from the battlefield with many dead and their tails between their legs.
The problem is, the only thing Americans ever manage to actually shoot are each other or their allies.
I'm to blame for the presidents I did not elect. I'm to blame for the wars I did not fight in. I'm to blame for the economic policies I disagree with. I'm to blame for the economic expansionism I don't want to be happening. I'm to blame for the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned my grandparents and parents about. I'm to blame for most of the wealth being in the hands of the smallest population demographic. I'm to blame? I'm an Average American.
I don't like the way things are. I believe that we proved once before that it took a Revolution to attempt to make things right, and that is what it is going to take to make it right again. Of course, what was a good idea to start with, is now a set of rules that are argued to be needed, just because they are there. Sometimes it is incredible how ardently a rule is argued to be needed, and the strength of the argument is based on how OLD the rule is.
The 2nd Amendment (IE a change to that Constitution so many people wave around and say should not be changed) protects the people with the right to bear arms crap. I'm sorry. That Amendment was put in when there was no police force, no army, a need to shoot your dinner before you ate it, and an occasional need to shoot the indigenous people when they got upset at our invasion. Thus, the need to protect every citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Times have changed. We don't need the 2nd amendment any more.
The 16 amendment brings taxes into bear. We started the country because we were being taxed without being represented. This is why there was no Income Tax before the 16th amendment. Now, once again, we are not being represented for our taxes. That means there is legal precedent to support a revolution.
The 18th amendment dealt with prohibition. Taking away Alcohol from the people. The 21st amendment proved that NONE of these amendments are sacred, and any or all could be repealed... in the repealing of the 18th amendment.
Did you know that with a cell phone, every citizen could now potentially vote on every issue? This means we do not even NEED a Congress anymore. The creation of our Constitutional Republic here (it's not a democracy) was done because at the time it was impossible for each Citizen to represent himself (women couldn't vote then). Now, this is not the case. It IS possible for each citizen to represent him or herself, and vote. I'm not saying it WOULD work immediately, I am saying that it is POSSIBLE now. Does this mean that Congress will be dissolved? Absolutely not.
What I don't like, is how people outside the US of A blame me. I'm held accountable for the actions of my government, when the ability to change my government was removed from my hands long before I was ever born. The only option I have available to me, is to join in a revolution. There would never be enough people to be able to make the changes necessary within the system. The Patriot act is already in place. Now, anyone who opposes the government enough, can be whisked away as a "terrorist". But it is still all MY FAULT! If I travel, I'll get shit on, because I'm an American. That pisses me off. Not because my government is great, but because the person giving me shit (aka, the parent I am replying to) is too fucking stupid to see that the problems my government is causing, have nothing to do with me. I am not making policy, I am not enforcing policy. I am not even agreeing with policy. But if I speak up, I get ignored. If I get too loud to ignore, I'll be put away.
You do not blame the cashier at the corner store, if the potato chips are stale (or just taste bad). You do not blame the cashier at the corner store if the "thing" you just bought there breaks. People still do though. People are ignorant, and they lash out at the most available target. The easier the target is to hit, the more likely they will try to hit it. it gives them some satisfaction knowing they had a person and a face to vent at, and they never stop to
The 16 amendment brings taxes into bear. We started the country because we were being taxed without being represented. This is why there was no Income Tax before the 16th amendment. Now, once again, we are not being represented for our taxes. That means there is legal precedent to support a revolution.
Last I checked, elected representatives are the ones who approve increases in taxes. So which taxes are you talking about where "we are not being represented"??
/And AFAIK, income taxes became permanent because sales taxes were regressive and government wanted to redistribute the burden
Has there ever been a successful revolution with weapons? Even the Americans who like to brag about their revolution never got one shot off within 3000 miles of the capital, though they did succeed in separating. The French revolution led to a reign of terror. The first English revolution led to having a Lord Protector instead of a King. The Russian revolution led to the USSR. Most of the successful revolutions where the government was overthrown have been mostly non-violent, from the Glorious Revolution of the late 1600's (where the first Bill of Rights, 1689 came from) through to the overthrowing of the communists of eastern Europe.
Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter in which, unusually, they said: "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply". The response consisted, in part, of the following: "[We] would therefore be grateful if you could inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off".
Nope, repeat until people realise that the corporates have been stealing from them (theft of the public domain), and come to the conclusion that Copyright Law is now no longer a deal that the people are willing to enter into, and thus just take back by rampant piracy. At which point copyright laws are completely useless and unenforceable as you've just criminalised most of your population, which is pretty much a yardstick of a bad and unworkable law.
Hm, I wonder why other countries don't want a DMCA style law, could it be that the DMCA is effectively killing the US software/hardware market? Why do we see so many (innovative and clone) products from China? Because they don't have the stupidities of US patent and copyright laws. Imagine the marketplace being flooded with choices, of phones that can do as much as the iPhone, yet cost hundreds less (unlocked of course) and including features not currently found in most phones (open hardware*, dual-sim slots, etc). The USA could easily be first in the technology market, if our lawmakers weren't in the pocketbooks of the RIAA, MPAA and other backwards lobby groups.
*Well, perhaps open hardware is the wrong word, but basically hardware that if off-the-shelf, contains very little proprietary components and can be easily studied/modified.
Why do we see so many (innovative and clone) products from China? Because they don't have the stupidities of US patent and copyright laws.
It's interesting to note that we did the exact same thing in the 1800s with any and all technology that we could manage to get our hands on during our industrial revolution phase.
China has a system of blatantly stealing known technology too (see the Redberry, and Chery motors). They have no rules regarding foreign products, and in fact are encouraged to rip off what happens overseas by the govt. So I don't think that using China as an example of "innovation" is appropriate.
Simple rules to allow artists and creators to make a living off of being artists aren't bad things. I'm perfectly fine with a musician being ticked that someone's jacking their music, writings, or whatever.
In fact, if the RIAA and MPAA actually operated within those confines, I'm sure we'd have nowhere near the issue that we have now. The problem I have with the copyright lobby is that they've become a lobby. They don't value add, and they employ methods of enforcement that should be illegal. If they understood that their business model needs changing, and were willing to work *with* the markets instead of *against* the people, I'd see them as quite good and helpful.
Sadly, their impression of embracing technology involves wiretapping, and not using the wire to sell and distribute.
Now, onto your iPhone example - I think that you should concentrate elsewhere. In Japan, the iPhone is nothing special. They have excellent cutting edge phones, but from what I've gathered they do tend to be a little less reliable software wise. The features they have make the iPhone rather pedestrian (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/02/why-the-iphone/). In the case of the US, we do have a massive phone market, with a lot of competition, and decent product lines. It's not amazing by any stretch, but we have very solid phones, and they're engineered for reliability since that seems to be more important to the market here. Make no mistake, there's a lot of choice in the US.
China has a system of blatantly stealing known technology too (see the Redberry, and Chery motors). They have no rules regarding foreign products, and in fact are encouraged to rip off what happens overseas by the govt. So I don't think that using China as an example of "innovation" is appropriate.
So this is different from Germany or the U.S. in the 19th century, or Japan in the 1950ies, or Taiwan in the 1980ies exactly how? Every country that has managed to close up to the technology leaders of its time has used the same tactics.
There is a fine balance imo. China is like Geocities. There is a lot of shit coming out China for every geniune innovation.
The same could be said for any market, thats why we have reviews, if every game was as good as *insert favorite game here, as to not start a flamewar* then there wouldn't be a need for game reviews. Same thing for books, etc.
The nice thing about China though is, everything is cheap and unhampered by corporations. For example, if they manage to get Bluetooth in there, they aren't going to disable tethering, etc. like what the phone monopolies in the USA make vendors do. You similarly are going to get cheap, unlocked phones. Most people's phones (especially 20-somes and teenagers) don't have a long life. For example, a phone accidentally dropped in a cup of coffee is probably going to be dead no matter if it was a top of the line phone from Nokia or Samsung or if it was a generic Chinese crap phone. So quality really doesn't matter, and the cloned phones have enough features that people need in a dumbphone (SMS, calls, sometimes a touchscreen or full keyboard, camera, etc) while not costing $300 unlocked.
While we do need the freedom to improve upon things we also need protection from companies making shoddy knock-offs
Sure, but that already happens in America, if we simply enforce trademark and weak copyright you don't get deceived that the cheap phone you bought was an iPhone, but there will be cheap iPhone-like phones available. Everyone wins. (And if you don't think that the iPhone is already cloned, it already is by most cell phone vendors here in the USA, the difference is you pay $400 for the rip off rather then $100)
We seem to continue operating under the false assumption that we are still the biggest dog on the block. After effectively skewering the financial system, starting a couple wars, and heaven knows what else we still expect to be taken so seriously.
I recognize we still have the most bombs, but when or country acts like a petulant child it's still tough to be serious about it. It isn't leading the world, it isn't change. It's thinly veiled fascism.
Yes, the USA as a whole, seems to be living in a time where WWII just got over. We seem to think that in WWII we singlehandedly A) Rebuilt Europe B) Rebuilt Japan (which, does have some merit to that, but only after we managed to commit some of the most terrible crimes against humanity via the atomic bombs) C) Defeated both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. When history tells a different story. Then we also brag about our "win" in the Cold War against Soviet Russia *insert some joke here* and how by our superior diplomacy ended up saving humanity, no thanks to Russia, the other nations affected or the Russian people who opposed the Kremlin. Really, the USA thinks that they are the only thing holding humanity back from utter destruction and because of that the USA must be the country you model your countries after, including our draconian copyright laws, lack of free speech or other constitutional guarantees, the encroachment of government into business, the general failure of our economy, etc.
we managed to commit some of the most terrible crimes against humanity via the atomic bombs
Which is nothing compared to the war crimes the Japanese themselves managed to commit. The Japanese engaged in mass killings of civilians, numbering between 3-10 million during the war. In addition, the Japanese conducted experiments not unlike those performed by Mendle under Unit 731, which was accused of both vivisection and cannibalism. They also used banned toxic gasses on the Chinese, tortured and executed prisoners, cannibalized allied prisoners, employed sex slaves and serial rape, and ran forced labor camps which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.
The atomic weapons used on Japan saved millions and millions of lives, and prevented even greater Japanese atrocities. Indeed, we still have purple hearts left over today from the supply ordered before the invasion of Japan, as the estimated casualties approached 1 million Americans, and nearly all the Japanese.
Its easy to look back in hindsight and say how it is, but back then things were different. The fire bombing raids on Japan already killed hundreds of thousands, and General Groves opposed the nuke [nuclearfiles.org] because he felt that "the effect would not be sufficiently distinct from our regular air force [bombing] program."
Estimates of damage were approximated at 1/10 to 1/2 of the actual damage, not counting subsequent radiation damage.
I suppose if they knew the actual damage that could have been caused, they could have dropped the bomb on somewhere unpopulated after warning the Japanese that they'd use it on their cities if they didn't surrender. The Japanese already were wanting an end to the war as seen by the resignation of Prime Minister Koiso and his cabinet. If the US hadn't demanded unconditional surrender, the war may well have ended earlier and without the use of nukes at all.
Estimates of casualties due to the bombs were 200,000 people. During the fighting, that's about 2 months worth of lives lost. However, the firebombing of Tokyo cost roughly 100,000 lives, so the nuke was effectively more a psychological weapon than one used to kill (otherwise the conventional bombing raids would have had the same effect)
Which is nothing compared to the war crimes the Japanese themselves managed to commit.
War crimes committed by the Japanese armed forces do not justify war crimes committed by the US. It's a very bad road to travel. These sorts of justifications for war crimes suddenly look far less attractive when the situation is reversed. Many of the military top brass considered the bombings to be unnecessary and also a heinous act.
e.g.
During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude...
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
- Admiral William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
The atomic weapons used on Japan saved millions and millions of lives, and prevented even greater Japanese atrocities. Indeed, we still have purple hearts left over today from the supply ordered before the invasion of Japan, as the estimated casualties approached 1 million Americans, and nearly all the Japanese.
With Russia entering the war against Japan, they were already going to surrender pretty soon and the US knew it. The US military casualty estimates were originally nowhere near the 1 million level. The figures were being inflated in an attempt to justify the atomic bombings. However, even if the casualty estimates were right, it still does not justify the bombings. If it's ok for the US to murder several hundred thousand civilians in order to keep its own military casualties down, then it's also ok for anyone else. Would you accept Russia nuking Georgian cities in a future conflict in order to save the lives of Russian soldiers? If an enemy used similar tactics in order to cut down its military casualties, there would be virtually no-one arguing that it was justified (other than in the enemy country).
War crimes committed by the Japanese armed forces do not justify war crimes committed by the US. It's a very bad road to travel.
True. Unfortunately, I get the impression from the arguments about this that people alive today simply don't realize/remember what the true nature of WWII was. It was the first, and last, example of "industrialized total war". The nature of industrialization, and the fact that all the belligerents had shifted their entire economies to 100% war production, meant that the city populations became "valid" targets, in the reasoning of the time, because they were manning the factories producing war material, and "100% war production" meant all factories were involved in the war effort in some way, so they were all valid targets.
By today's standards its a war crime, of course, but then again, today's standards didn't exist back then, and after 6-12 years of total war and industrial-scale mass slaughter, what is now considered unthinkable, was unfortunately seen merely as "routine" then. Nor did it help that other side had themselves already done these kinds of acts against us, earlier in the war.
The only useful lesson to learn from this, is that any war that is allowed to go on for too long, will end up dehumanizing all of its belligerants, allowing them to do things they otherwise never would have considered, and the Isreali-Palestinian conflict is a prime example of this (with both sides routinely found guilty of war crimes and atrocities).
With Russia entering the war against Japan, they were already going to surrender pretty soon and the US knew it.
Actually, not only did we NOT know this for a fact, but neither did the Japanese. Emperor Hirohito did not actually act until immediately after August 9, when the 2nd bomb was dropped *and* the USSR declared war. 5 days later there was a coup by some in Japan's Army against their own Emperor which was an unthinkable act in their society at the time. So surrender, regardless of conditions, was clearly not agreed upon by all in Japan's elite, with extremists in their Army even prepared to take violent action against their own "divine" emperor, rather than surrender.
That there were those among our leadership convinced that they would, just shows how little we understood the Japanese mindset, even after years of fighting them. The only thing we "knew" with any degree of certainty was that there were elements within Japan's elite ready to "talk about" surrender. Of course we knew in 1943 the exact same thing about Germany (opposition to Hitler, recognition that the war was lost, willingness to surrender), yet the war went on another 2 years...
The US military casualty estimates were originally nowhere near the 1 million level. The figures were being inflated in an attempt to justify the atomic bombings.
[citation needed]
This claim has been made before, but without proof of intent. An equally (or more) plausible reason is that the estimates kept going up as we got intel back from Japan about how they were preparing their *entire* population to "fight to the death". Nor was this without its own supporting evidence, try reading about what US troops encountered during the Okinawa campaign, which had a large component of native Japanese civilians. The suicidal fanaticism exhibited by the Japanese only escalated during '44-'45, rather than decrease, clearly not an indication of a people ready to surrender, and in fact it looked increasingly to the US, as evidence that perhaps an invasion of their homeland would in fact be horrifically bloody for both sides.
However, even if the casualty estimates were right, it still does not justify the bombings.
Unfortunately, in the cruel calculus of total war, it made perfect sense, since the more casualties your country takes as the fighting drags on, the less *value* you see in the lives of the enemy. Sadly,
According to the original article [ustr.gov], this is a routine annual report listing who we are happy with or unhappy with concerning copyright and such. There's also no mention of DMCA. Evidently, countries come and go off these lists all the time. It's just a way for the USA to communicate what it does and doesn't like about other countries behavior. It's called diplomacy. How does anyone get "blacklist" out of this?
By the way, it mentions that North Korea was taken off the bad-boy list. Does anyone really think North Korea instituted a DMCA-like law?
Finally an article on Slashdot where a librarian can weigh in with professional knowledge. I don't think enough people realize the mini-war going on in the publishing industry and how those vulture are trying to bleed everyone dry. I am a college librarian at a major university in Manhattan. Today I had to attend a meeting about copyright compliance. It seems that publishers are no longer satisfied with overcharging for every textbook and then overcharging again when a "new" edition (almost identical version except for a new graph or intro) comes out the very next year. Now they would like us to purchase a new copyright compliance software that will allow them to monitor (through the middlemen in the software company) how many times we upload any part of any published material and how many times the students access each pdf or document, and then charge us for every use even thought we have already purchased the book and been using that same material for years. Its nuts. Fair use and common long standing practices by many academic libraries used to mean to us that we could put up 10% of any published document and not have to worry. And i know the diligent followers of Slashdot are not surprised but this type of thuggish shake down. But its almost criminal the nerve these jackals have to try to penny pinch and financially gouge the very universities that are their life blood in this struggling market. Very rarely does a librarian threaten to burn books, but it would be a better use of em that paying those publishing bastards another cent.
Yep. I teach physics at a community college. The school seems all too ready to accept propaganda from the publishers. At one of our yearly convocation breakfasts, they passed out a little booklet about copyright to all the faculty. The booklet was written by a publishing industry association, and you'd better believe that the words "fair use" occurred absolutely nowhere inside.
Most college professors don't know how many high-quality free books there are to choose from -- see my sig. I use free books in all my courses. I just had an interesting talk with an econ professor at my school who has just adopted a free book put out by flatworldknowledge.com.
One thing I see in the halls of the faculty offices that's really scary is that the textbook reps are pushing electronic books like crazy -- but these books are apparently distributed with DRM, on a rental basis, so that as soon as the student stops paying, the book stops working.
Not going to happen. What might happen instead is the usual mix of embargoes, paper resolutions, backroom deals and "diplomacy", but outright war? You're kidding yourself.
Pretty much the only times a modern nation will go to war is when it thinks it can win. Meaning against an opponent who hasn't the economic or military wherewithal to stand up and make the invader hurt. Hell, even in Iraq, the actual hurt being done to the US forces is being done by civilian insurgents, not an actual military.
Name me one ground war since WWII that was fought between two developed nations that were anywhere near on equal footing. You can't. Even stuff like the Falklands war hardly qualifies as a "ground war", while 'Nam and Korea were the US against tiny nations that had bigger powers backing them by proxy. Do you really think that will change? Or that copyright will be the motive if it does?
All the countries that the US opposes on the copyright issue are either first world nations or military powers in their own right. The little backwaters that it could actually clobber haven't the economic or political capital to make a copyright war worthwhile for the corporations that would promote such a measure. You really think the US is prepared for a ground war with Russia? How about Sweden? China? Canada? Please.
Artists definitely deserve their dues when it comes to creative artwork... but when their work generates revenue for 70+ years after it's creation for a corporation and not the artist, there's something seriously wrong.
lies lies (Score:5, Funny)
The USA bully another country? Never..
What will they do if we dont adopt the evil DMCA? Steal our lunch money? With the 10Trillion+ deficit over there you'll need it.
Re:lies lies (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>The USA bully another country? Never..
New face in the highest office.
Same old shit.
Parent
The Who sang it best. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Who sang it best. (Score:5, Funny)
You are stealing the Who's lyrics! You must be from Canada...
Parent
Re:lies lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:lies lies (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:lies lies (Score:5, Informative)
>>>Yes, because he has an innate knowledge of every single thing the government is doing
Nope he doesn't, but he knew that he appointed 3 of RIAA's top lawyers to the executive branch. And now we're seeing the consequences of that, and yes Obama is responsible.
Parent
Re:lies lies (Score:5, Informative)
Ooops. He's appointing them faster than I can keep up. Apparently there are now 5 RIAA lackeys....er, lawyers on Obama's executive branch. Plus a new copyright czar! Yay.
The content industry, including the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, are applauding President Barack Obama's appointments of at least five RIAA lawyers to the Justice Department. They urged him to continue the trend.
"The hallmarks of your administration's appointees have been competence, substantive expertise, and a commitment to your administration's agenda," the Copyright Alliance, a group of three-plus dozen content owners, wrote the president Monday (.pdf). "We have every confidence these hallmarks will be demonstrated in your future IP policy appointments."
The communication was also in response to a letter the copyleft, represented by about two dozen public interest groups, sent Obama three weeks ago. That missive urged the president to stop tapping RIAA insiders to his administration. That letter by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge and others fell on deaf ears.
I think we all must be duped. When Obama said he was bringing change, he actually meant collecting spare change to help pay-off his burgeoning deficit, not that he was going to listen to the People.
Parent
Re:lies lies (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we all must be duped. When Obama said he was bringing change, he actually meant collecting spare change to help pay-off his burgeoning deficit, not that he was going to listen to the People.
The mistake of many people dissing Obama now is that, when he said "change", they automatically presumed that it is going to involve their pet issues first. On Slashdot, this tends to be FOSS and copyright issues. In practice, though, when speaking of "People" as a whole, those issues aren't even on most people's radar, so it was pretty silly to believe that Obama would do something specifically about them.
Parent
Re:lies lies (Score:4, Interesting)
Surely he has done something about those specific issues. The wrong thing maybe, but undeniably (and regrettably) something.
Parent
Re:lies lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Well to be fair, he did change from bowing to Big Oil to bowing to Big Media, as many expected him to do anyway.
Parent
Re:lies lies (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope he doesn't, but he knew that he appointed 3 of RIAA's top lawyers to the executive branch. And now we're seeing the consequences of that, and yes Obama is responsible.
You know, one thing I've noticed about legal professionals is that they tend to be absolutely loyal to the highest bidder. Which means that when they switch employers, they switch loyalties. And they don't report to Hollywood any more.
I'm not saying they'll necessarily change their attitudes towards the MAFIAA but that it's no longer personally necessary to them to push their old agenda. They report to the chief executive now. My point? Where they used to work may be a flawed predictor for what they're going to do. To turn a phrase on its head, in this case "causation isn't correlation" and to think otherwise would likely impinge upon ad hominem.
To be charitable, we need to give them a chance to repent their misspent youth. And if they don't, I suggest we stone them in a cobblestoned street.
Parent
Re:lies lies (Score:5, Informative)
Yes it was. Look up the "Project for a New American Century." 9/11 is what gave them the political capital needed to go forward with the "regime change" they had been clamoring for since the 90s.
Parent
Re:lies lies (Score:5, Interesting)
The US Dollar is backed by the world's largest prison system, the IRS, and nuclear weapons.
Think about it before laughing.
Parent
Re:lies lies (Score:5, Informative)
You want the IMF website [imf.org].
Or take a look at these [cnbc.com] 2 articles. We're all stuffed. - and the 2nd [creditloan.com] uses 2007 figures!
Imagine what happens if #1 in the 1st link defaults on its debts.
Parent
Re:lies lies (Score:5, Interesting)
Suddenly, Canada's 50% of gdp looks positively cheery.
At rates we were going before the child-like and ignorant Conservatives decided to follow the Americans into the pit of despair and debt, it was going to take only 50 years to pay off the debt at current rates(before accounting for inflation).
Parent
Re:lies lies (Score:5, Interesting)
I could create a budget to pay-off the United States debt in 5 maybe 10 years time. The only problem is that my budget would involve moving SSI from an "everyone's eligible" system to a "only poor are eligible" system, and none of the voters would want to hear that. Plus my budget would cut military spending to near-zero, and the military-industrial complex doesn't want that either.
I'd likely end-up assassinated. But if the U.S. ever wants to get out of debt, there is no other way except to cut spending. The alternative, hyperinflation of the dollar until you need 10,000 dollars to buy a loaf of bread, is too horrible to contemplate. The only good solution is to sacrifice.
Oh well.
For once I'm glad the U.S. is in 15th place. Normally when we fall behind nations like Norway or Sweden on the internet speeds, I think that's bad, but in this case I'm glad we carry less debt than they do. (By the way, I thought the European Union forbids deficit spending of its member states?)
Parent
Re:lies lies (Score:4, Insightful)
Off the top of my head, I'd say that the big changes would be:
1. Russia will get boisterous and attempt to take on some of its smaller satellites.
2. China will make a move for Taiwan, and might get more aggressive with Japan/Korea.
3. At some point, someone will attack Israel.
4. Um...
5. Nope, that's about it.
Number 1 has been happening on and off anyway. I just think that with no threat of U.S. intervention, Russia might throw caution to the wind and go a bit nuts on that front.
China taking Taiwan is kind of predictable, too. Japan and Korea might follow.
Israel is obvious. Someone will see a moment of what they think is weakness, and try to walk in and be an Islamic hero. I'd say that they'll have their arse handed to them on a plate, unless they're remarkably successful, in which case their arse will become a glowing cinder. No country in the world has the will to use its Nukes in self defence like Israel has...
But because it's a religious thing, someone will be dumb enough to try it at some point. Sad, but true.
The absence of the U.S. might just make them a little more eager about it though.
But here's the thing that most Americans don't seem to understand...
NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE U.S. ANYMORE. The U.S. HAS BECOME FAR LESS RELEVANT.
If the U.S. dismantled its military, it wouldn't affect much. The only countries it would really affect are Russia, China and Israel. By extension, it will affect the ex-USSR states, Taiwan, Japan, Korea and whoever's dumb enough to attack Israel.
However, I must ask why you think the U.S. should completely dismantle its military. It's just not necessary.
The U.S. could make huge savings just by admitting that the cold war ended years ago, and that state vs state war is going to be skirmish at best - especially if they keep their ICBMs.
The U.S. has carrier fleets that they're afraid to deploy against pirates, because they know that a speedboat loaded with explosives can take out one of their destroyers.
The U.S. has hordes of tanks that take forever to deploy, require huge supply lines, and yet can be taken out from a rooftop with an RPG.
The U.S. has aircraft that are truly fantastic, amazing bits of kit - but that are hugely expensive and not much more effective than their immediate (much cheaper) competition.
The U.S. military-industrial complex is throwing money away fighting a war that ended two decades ago. What's needed now is helicopter carrier fleets - smaller, faster, more agile. More Marines and more transport and support for them.
More unmanned aircraft and ground support aircraft (like the old A-10 and the AC-130).
Also badly needed is strong military field engineering, with a civilian eye. No U.S. field base should leave an area without giving every nearby village better water supplies, a prefabbed school building, and a courtesy lick of paint. Hearts and minds will secure the bases just as well, if not better, than barbed wire and watchtowers.
And the U.S. needs a "Missile Shield" to protect itself like I need a six-barrelled rotary cannon with laser sights to protect me from flies in the summer.
You could cut the U.S. military budget in half, embark on a major restructuring project, and within five years America would have a far more effective military force than it has right now.
Because right now, if the U.S. was attacked, it wouldn't be able to defend itself. That was proved on September 11th, 2001. The leader of the group that made that attack is still not captured. The senior leadership of that group is hardly dented. The group has made huge territorial gains in Pakistan because of the U.S.'s military ability to handle it. And that group is recruiting more people every day.
Dismantling the military isn't necessary. But realising that the USSR has been dead and buried for almost 20 years would be a nice first step to making it cost effective...
Parent
Re:lies lies (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine what happens if #1 in the 1st link defaults on its debts.
Ireland? Umm.. We stop celebrating St. Patrick's Day? I give up, what?
Parent
Re:lies lies (Score:5, Funny)
No, the IRS doesn't really collect taxes.
They are a mechanism to put the fear of gawd into people "voluntarily" paying their taxes.
If people do not pay their taxes, they get at least two, but maybe up to four involuntary things:
A) Fine(s) (not voluntary)
B) Interest (not voluntary)
C) If adjudicated, jail (also, not voluntary) and possibly
D) Be appointed as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury (since only one person can serve this post at a time, good luck on getting this option).
Parent
Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, there's nothing here. Countries will always try to vilify other countries in order to satisfy their own interests. The Axis of Evil is a pretty good example.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
SURPRISE!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not think there is anything surprising about that conclusion that the entire thing is an attempt to force other countries into "compliance"
Re:SURPRISE!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Just once I'd like to see the European Union Parliament issue a joint resolution to the White House:
"Fuck off."
Just to see what would happen.
Parent
Re:SURPRISE!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I hear that air superiority went quite well for you at Pearl Harbour in World War II and in Vietnam where you were sent running with your tail between your legs after suffering thousands of casualties. Very successful in Korea too I notice, I mean, North Korea is a nice friendly nation now thanks to America's success their right? What about Somalia too in the 90s, that went really well right? Or wait, you were sent running their too.
How's that air superiority going in Afghanistan and Iraq by the way where your soldiers get slaughtered by men in cloth dresses with rifles that are about 35 years old and about as accurate as a blind man with a water pistol? I hear your air superiority worked great over New York on 9/11 also!
It's funny, because when it comes to wars, the US hasn't really actually won that many in the last century. About all it's won was the Pacific campaign of World War II but even that was only because the Russians covered it's arse in defeating Germany and because it had vast amounts of allied support to the West of Japan in China and from the South from Australia etc.
In fact, what wars has the US won by itself in the last century? I'm not sure it's actually won any, even in the first Iraq war it needed massive amounts of allied support. That's a stark contrast to European nations like say, Britain that unilaterally sent the Argentinians running back home in the Falklands for example.
The US has far and away the biggest military in the world, but it can't win wars because it doesn't have a single general capable of anything loosely resembling tactics and because it's soldiers can't fight for shit. That's before you even get started on their poor engineering abilities in the field and their inability to win the required hearts and minds of the civilian population which has time and time again left them running from the battlefield with many dead and their tails between their legs.
The problem is, the only thing Americans ever manage to actually shoot are each other or their allies.
Parent
Re:SURPRISE!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow.
I'm to blame for the presidents I did not elect.
I'm to blame for the wars I did not fight in.
I'm to blame for the economic policies I disagree with.
I'm to blame for the economic expansionism I don't want to be happening.
I'm to blame for the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned my grandparents and parents about.
I'm to blame for most of the wealth being in the hands of the smallest population demographic.
I'm to blame?
I'm an Average American.
I don't like the way things are. I believe that we proved once before that it took a Revolution to attempt to make things right, and that is what it is going to take to make it right again. Of course, what was a good idea to start with, is now a set of rules that are argued to be needed, just because they are there. Sometimes it is incredible how ardently a rule is argued to be needed, and the strength of the argument is based on how OLD the rule is.
The 2nd Amendment (IE a change to that Constitution so many people wave around and say should not be changed) protects the people with the right to bear arms crap. I'm sorry. That Amendment was put in when there was no police force, no army, a need to shoot your dinner before you ate it, and an occasional need to shoot the indigenous people when they got upset at our invasion. Thus, the need to protect every citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Times have changed. We don't need the 2nd amendment any more.
The 16 amendment brings taxes into bear. We started the country because we were being taxed without being represented. This is why there was no Income Tax before the 16th amendment. Now, once again, we are not being represented for our taxes. That means there is legal precedent to support a revolution.
The 18th amendment dealt with prohibition. Taking away Alcohol from the people. The 21st amendment proved that NONE of these amendments are sacred, and any or all could be repealed... in the repealing of the 18th amendment.
Did you know that with a cell phone, every citizen could now potentially vote on every issue? This means we do not even NEED a Congress anymore. The creation of our Constitutional Republic here (it's not a democracy) was done because at the time it was impossible for each Citizen to represent himself (women couldn't vote then). Now, this is not the case. It IS possible for each citizen to represent him or herself, and vote. I'm not saying it WOULD work immediately, I am saying that it is POSSIBLE now. Does this mean that Congress will be dissolved? Absolutely not.
What I don't like, is how people outside the US of A blame me. I'm held accountable for the actions of my government, when the ability to change my government was removed from my hands long before I was ever born. The only option I have available to me, is to join in a revolution. There would never be enough people to be able to make the changes necessary within the system. The Patriot act is already in place. Now, anyone who opposes the government enough, can be whisked away as a "terrorist". But it is still all MY FAULT! If I travel, I'll get shit on, because I'm an American. That pisses me off. Not because my government is great, but because the person giving me shit (aka, the parent I am replying to) is too fucking stupid to see that the problems my government is causing, have nothing to do with me. I am not making policy, I am not enforcing policy. I am not even agreeing with policy. But if I speak up, I get ignored. If I get too loud to ignore, I'll be put away.
You do not blame the cashier at the corner store, if the potato chips are stale (or just taste bad). You do not blame the cashier at the corner store if the "thing" you just bought there breaks. People still do though. People are ignorant, and they lash out at the most available target. The easier the target is to hit, the more likely they will try to hit it. it gives them some satisfaction knowing they had a person and a face to vent at, and they never stop to
Parent
Re:SURPRISE!! (Score:4, Informative)
The 16 amendment brings taxes into bear. We started the country because we were being taxed without being represented. This is why there was no Income Tax before the 16th amendment. Now, once again, we are not being represented for our taxes. That means there is legal precedent to support a revolution.
Last I checked, elected representatives are the ones who approve increases in taxes.
So which taxes are you talking about where "we are not being represented"??
/And AFAIK, income taxes became permanent because sales taxes were regressive and government wanted to redistribute the burden
Parent
Re:SURPRISE!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Has there ever been a successful revolution with weapons? Even the Americans who like to brag about their revolution never got one shot off within 3000 miles of the capital, though they did succeed in separating. The French revolution led to a reign of terror. The first English revolution led to having a Lord Protector instead of a King. The Russian revolution led to the USSR.
Most of the successful revolutions where the government was overthrown have been mostly non-violent, from the Glorious Revolution of the late 1600's (where the first Bill of Rights, 1689 came from) through to the overthrowing of the communists of eastern Europe.
Parent
Re:SURPRISE!! (Score:4, Funny)
Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter in which, unusually, they said: "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply". The response consisted, in part, of the following: "[We] would therefore be grateful if you could inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off".
Parent
Re:SURPRISE!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, repeat until people realise that the corporates have been stealing from them (theft of the public domain), and come to the conclusion that Copyright Law is now no longer a deal that the people are willing to enter into, and thus just take back by rampant piracy. At which point copyright laws are completely useless and unenforceable as you've just criminalised most of your population, which is pretty much a yardstick of a bad and unworkable law.
Parent
Hm, wonder why (Score:5, Insightful)
*Well, perhaps open hardware is the wrong word, but basically hardware that if off-the-shelf, contains very little proprietary components and can be easily studied/modified.
Re:Hm, wonder why (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do we see so many (innovative and clone) products from China? Because they don't have the stupidities of US patent and copyright laws.
It's interesting to note that we did the exact same thing in the 1800s with any and all technology that we could manage to get our hands on during our industrial revolution phase.
Parent
Re:Hm, wonder why (Score:5, Interesting)
China has a system of blatantly stealing known technology too (see the Redberry, and Chery motors). They have no rules regarding foreign products, and in fact are encouraged to rip off what happens overseas by the govt. So I don't think that using China as an example of "innovation" is appropriate.
Simple rules to allow artists and creators to make a living off of being artists aren't bad things. I'm perfectly fine with a musician being ticked that someone's jacking their music, writings, or whatever.
In fact, if the RIAA and MPAA actually operated within those confines, I'm sure we'd have nowhere near the issue that we have now. The problem I have with the copyright lobby is that they've become a lobby. They don't value add, and they employ methods of enforcement that should be illegal. If they understood that their business model needs changing, and were willing to work *with* the markets instead of *against* the people, I'd see them as quite good and helpful.
Sadly, their impression of embracing technology involves wiretapping, and not using the wire to sell and distribute.
Now, onto your iPhone example - I think that you should concentrate elsewhere. In Japan, the iPhone is nothing special. They have excellent cutting edge phones, but from what I've gathered they do tend to be a little less reliable software wise. The features they have make the iPhone rather pedestrian (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/02/why-the-iphone/). In the case of the US, we do have a massive phone market, with a lot of competition, and decent product lines. It's not amazing by any stretch, but we have very solid phones, and they're engineered for reliability since that seems to be more important to the market here. Make no mistake, there's a lot of choice in the US.
Parent
Re:Hm, wonder why (Score:5, Informative)
China has a system of blatantly stealing known technology too (see the Redberry, and Chery motors). They have no rules regarding foreign products, and in fact are encouraged to rip off what happens overseas by the govt. So I don't think that using China as an example of "innovation" is appropriate.
So this is different from Germany or the U.S. in the 19th century, or Japan in the 1950ies, or Taiwan in the 1980ies exactly how?
Every country that has managed to close up to the technology leaders of its time has used the same tactics.
Parent
Re:Hm, wonder why (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a fine balance imo. China is like Geocities. There is a lot of shit coming out China for every geniune innovation.
The same could be said for any market, thats why we have reviews, if every game was as good as *insert favorite game here, as to not start a flamewar* then there wouldn't be a need for game reviews. Same thing for books, etc.
The nice thing about China though is, everything is cheap and unhampered by corporations. For example, if they manage to get Bluetooth in there, they aren't going to disable tethering, etc. like what the phone monopolies in the USA make vendors do. You similarly are going to get cheap, unlocked phones. Most people's phones (especially 20-somes and teenagers) don't have a long life. For example, a phone accidentally dropped in a cup of coffee is probably going to be dead no matter if it was a top of the line phone from Nokia or Samsung or if it was a generic Chinese crap phone. So quality really doesn't matter, and the cloned phones have enough features that people need in a dumbphone (SMS, calls, sometimes a touchscreen or full keyboard, camera, etc) while not costing $300 unlocked.
While we do need the freedom to improve upon things we also need protection from companies making shoddy knock-offs
Sure, but that already happens in America, if we simply enforce trademark and weak copyright you don't get deceived that the cheap phone you bought was an iPhone, but there will be cheap iPhone-like phones available. Everyone wins. (And if you don't think that the iPhone is already cloned, it already is by most cell phone vendors here in the USA, the difference is you pay $400 for the rip off rather then $100)
Parent
Does the US Get It Yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
We seem to continue operating under the false assumption that we are still the biggest dog on the block.
After effectively skewering the financial system, starting a couple wars, and heaven knows what else we still expect to be taken so seriously.
I recognize we still have the most bombs, but when or country acts like a petulant child it's still tough to be serious about it. It isn't leading the world, it isn't change. It's thinly veiled fascism.
Re:Does the US Get It Yet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Does the US Get It Yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you have that backwards. It's the encroachment of business into government that's the problem.
Parent
Re:Does the US Get It Yet? (Score:5, Informative)
we managed to commit some of the most terrible crimes against humanity via the atomic bombs
Which is nothing compared to the war crimes the Japanese themselves managed to commit. The Japanese engaged in mass killings of civilians, numbering between 3-10 million during the war. In addition, the Japanese conducted experiments not unlike those performed by Mendle under Unit 731, which was accused of both vivisection and cannibalism. They also used banned toxic gasses on the Chinese, tortured and executed prisoners, cannibalized allied prisoners, employed sex slaves and serial rape, and ran forced labor camps which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.
The atomic weapons used on Japan saved millions and millions of lives, and prevented even greater Japanese atrocities. Indeed, we still have purple hearts left over today from the supply ordered before the invasion of Japan, as the estimated casualties approached 1 million Americans, and nearly all the Japanese.
Parent
Re:Does the US Get It Yet? (Score:4, Informative)
Its easy to look back in hindsight and say how it is, but back then things were different. The fire bombing raids on Japan already killed hundreds of thousands, and General Groves opposed the nuke [nuclearfiles.org] because he felt that "the effect would not be sufficiently distinct from our regular air force [bombing] program."
Estimates of damage were approximated at 1/10 to 1/2 of the actual damage, not counting subsequent radiation damage.
I suppose if they knew the actual damage that could have been caused, they could have dropped the bomb on somewhere unpopulated after warning the Japanese that they'd use it on their cities if they didn't surrender. The Japanese already were wanting an end to the war as seen by the resignation of Prime Minister Koiso and his cabinet. If the US hadn't demanded unconditional surrender, the war may well have ended earlier and without the use of nukes at all.
Estimates of casualties due to the bombs were 200,000 people. During the fighting, that's about 2 months worth of lives lost. However, the firebombing of Tokyo cost roughly 100,000 lives, so the nuke was effectively more a psychological weapon than one used to kill (otherwise the conventional bombing raids would have had the same effect)
Parent
Re:Does the US Get It Yet? (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is nothing compared to the war crimes the Japanese themselves managed to commit.
War crimes committed by the Japanese armed forces do not justify war crimes committed by the US. It's a very bad road to travel. These sorts of justifications for war crimes suddenly look far less attractive when the situation is reversed. Many of the military top brass considered the bombings to be unnecessary and also a heinous act.
e.g.
During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude...
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
- Admiral William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
The atomic weapons used on Japan saved millions and millions of lives, and prevented even greater Japanese atrocities. Indeed, we still have purple hearts left over today from the supply ordered before the invasion of Japan, as the estimated casualties approached 1 million Americans, and nearly all the Japanese.
With Russia entering the war against Japan, they were already going to surrender pretty soon and the US knew it. The US military casualty estimates were originally nowhere near the 1 million level. The figures were being inflated in an attempt to justify the atomic bombings. However, even if the casualty estimates were right, it still does not justify the bombings. If it's ok for the US to murder several hundred thousand civilians in order to keep its own military casualties down, then it's also ok for anyone else. Would you accept Russia nuking Georgian cities in a future conflict in order to save the lives of Russian soldiers? If an enemy used similar tactics in order to cut down its military casualties, there would be virtually no-one arguing that it was justified (other than in the enemy country).
Parent
Re:Does the US Get It Yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
War crimes committed by the Japanese armed forces do not justify war crimes committed by the US. It's a very bad road to travel.
True. Unfortunately, I get the impression from the arguments about this that people alive today simply don't realize/remember what the true nature of WWII was. It was the first, and last, example of "industrialized total war". The nature of industrialization, and the fact that all the belligerents had shifted their entire economies to 100% war production, meant that the city populations became "valid" targets, in the reasoning of the time, because they were manning the factories producing war material, and "100% war production" meant all factories were involved in the war effort in some way, so they were all valid targets.
By today's standards its a war crime, of course, but then again, today's standards didn't exist back then, and after 6-12 years of total war and industrial-scale mass slaughter, what is now considered unthinkable, was unfortunately seen merely as "routine" then. Nor did it help that other side had themselves already done these kinds of acts against us, earlier in the war.
The only useful lesson to learn from this, is that any war that is allowed to go on for too long, will end up dehumanizing all of its belligerants, allowing them to do things they otherwise never would have considered, and the Isreali-Palestinian conflict is a prime example of this (with both sides routinely found guilty of war crimes and atrocities).
With Russia entering the war against Japan, they were already going to surrender pretty soon and the US knew it.
Actually, not only did we NOT know this for a fact, but neither did the Japanese. Emperor Hirohito did not actually act until immediately after August 9, when the 2nd bomb was dropped *and* the USSR declared war. 5 days later there was a coup by some in Japan's Army against their own Emperor which was an unthinkable act in their society at the time. So surrender, regardless of conditions, was clearly not agreed upon by all in Japan's elite, with extremists in their Army even prepared to take violent action against their own "divine" emperor, rather than surrender.
That there were those among our leadership convinced that they would, just shows how little we understood the Japanese mindset, even after years of fighting them. The only thing we "knew" with any degree of certainty was that there were elements within Japan's elite ready to "talk about" surrender. Of course we knew in 1943 the exact same thing about Germany (opposition to Hitler, recognition that the war was lost, willingness to surrender), yet the war went on another 2 years...
The US military casualty estimates were originally nowhere near the 1 million level. The figures were being inflated in an attempt to justify the atomic bombings.
[citation needed]
This claim has been made before, but without proof of intent. An equally (or more) plausible reason is that the estimates kept going up as we got intel back from Japan about how they were preparing their *entire* population to "fight to the death". Nor was this without its own supporting evidence, try reading about what US troops encountered during the Okinawa campaign, which had a large component of native Japanese civilians. The suicidal fanaticism exhibited by the Japanese only escalated during '44-'45, rather than decrease, clearly not an indication of a people ready to surrender, and in fact it looked increasingly to the US, as evidence that perhaps an invasion of their homeland would in fact be horrifically bloody for both sides.
However, even if the casualty estimates were right, it still does not justify the bombings.
Unfortunately, in the cruel calculus of total war, it made perfect sense, since the more casualties your country takes as the fighting drags on, the less *value* you see in the lives of the enemy. Sadly,
Parent
Re:Does the US Get It Yet? (Score:4, Funny)
And when you let him out of the corner at age 27 all was well?
Parent
Blacklist? (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the original article [ustr.gov], this is a routine annual report listing who we are happy with or unhappy with concerning copyright and such. There's also no mention of DMCA. Evidently, countries come and go off these lists all the time. It's just a way for the USA to communicate what it does and doesn't like about other countries behavior. It's called diplomacy. How does anyone get "blacklist" out of this?
By the way, it mentions that North Korea was taken off the bad-boy list. Does anyone really think North Korea instituted a DMCA-like law?
Copyright issue is a scam (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Copyright issue is a scam (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep. I teach physics at a community college. The school seems all too ready to accept propaganda from the publishers. At one of our yearly convocation breakfasts, they passed out a little booklet about copyright to all the faculty. The booklet was written by a publishing industry association, and you'd better believe that the words "fair use" occurred absolutely nowhere inside.
Most college professors don't know how many high-quality free books there are to choose from -- see my sig. I use free books in all my courses. I just had an interesting talk with an econ professor at my school who has just adopted a free book put out by flatworldknowledge.com.
One thing I see in the halls of the faculty offices that's really scary is that the textbook reps are pushing electronic books like crazy -- but these books are apparently distributed with DRM, on a rental basis, so that as soon as the student stops paying, the book stops working.
Parent
Warez scene raids (Score:5, Informative)
I'm waiting for the first ground war based solely on copyright.
You mean like Operation Fastlink [wikipedia.org] and other raids on the warez scene?
Parent
Re:Wait for it (Score:5, Informative)
You mean the 6th century Battle of Cul Dreimhne in Ireland, where the anti-copyright forces of St. Columcille won and 11000 men died?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columba#Early_life_in_Ireland [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Wait for it (Score:4, Interesting)
Not going to happen. What might happen instead is the usual mix of embargoes, paper resolutions, backroom deals and "diplomacy", but outright war? You're kidding yourself.
Pretty much the only times a modern nation will go to war is when it thinks it can win. Meaning against an opponent who hasn't the economic or military wherewithal to stand up and make the invader hurt. Hell, even in Iraq, the actual hurt being done to the US forces is being done by civilian insurgents, not an actual military.
Name me one ground war since WWII that was fought between two developed nations that were anywhere near on equal footing. You can't. Even stuff like the Falklands war hardly qualifies as a "ground war", while 'Nam and Korea were the US against tiny nations that had bigger powers backing them by proxy. Do you really think that will change? Or that copyright will be the motive if it does?
All the countries that the US opposes on the copyright issue are either first world nations or military powers in their own right. The little backwaters that it could actually clobber haven't the economic or political capital to make a copyright war worthwhile for the corporations that would promote such a measure. You really think the US is prepared for a ground war with Russia? How about Sweden? China? Canada? Please.
Parent
Re:I speak for all of Slashdot when I say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent