Because then you know it doesn't work. Would you put some faith in the healing effect of something labeled "sugar pills"?
Where the hell do you get your history "knowledge" from?
Where does that "US invests in Germany" story come from? The US propped its economy up for another ten years with the money flowing in from Europe and the shit hit the fan a decade belatedly, but investment certainly was not the name of the game of the time. The money was mostly used to fund the bubble that popped in 1929 because there was simply nobody abroad that could actually serve as a demand for all the junk the US pumped out (in case this sounds familiar, well, history repeats itself).
But that was not even the main reason for the rise of the national socialists. The economy crisis itself (that started pretty much right after the war in Germany and most of the rest of Europe to a lesser degree) was even a minor reason. The main reason was the feeling of unfair treatment and the thirst for revenge.
George Clemeceau was the driving force behind the "crippling" of Germany. His idea was that a Germany that cannot wage war will secure France's eastern border. So his goal for the peace between Germany and France after WW1 was to ruin Germany. On the outside, that plan is solid: A country with no money, no political power and no military power is no threat.
What he didn't take into account was that a country that you abuse to the point of breaking will resist this treatment. Especially when the general feeling is that this treatment is not deserved.
The first reason for this was the front line at the end of WW1. When you look at the front line between Germany and France, you will notice that by the time the armistice was called, the front line was actually well within the territory of France. From the point of view of a German soldier, there was no obvious reason that they lost. Hell, we won territory! We ain't the losers here! And certainly not losers that deserve to be crippled in such a way!
Well, you also should take into account that a century ago, waging war was not an "evil" thing. War was, quite literally, just politics with other means. And it was seen as such. Wars also never had that kind of dimension before. War was something where two countries fight, after a while they settle, some territory changes hands and everyone moves on. That's what wars were like 'til then. The idea that wars end governments was pretty new then. But this just as a side note.
The army still standing rather deep in enemy territory when the armistice was signed and the "unfair" treatment by the French quickly led to the Dolchstosslegende, the myth that the German army was not really beaten but that it was assassinated by a stab in the back by
Combine this now with a peace that doesn't aim at peace but at crippling the country losing the battle and you probably find out why this is a breeding ground for radical ideologies. And we learned our lesson here. Any country you try to neutralize by ruining it will do anything to shake off those shackles. No matter the cost.
To be clear: in your post you didn't mention Sweden, or the pirate party, or escrow.
Because Stallman's call for legal restrictions in the face of copyright being weakened was only an example based on following the philosophy of the Free Software Definition. Once you accept that being given access to source code is a "freedom", Stallman's position with regards to escrow naturally follows. That's why I say words and meanings matter, and fight against Orwellian propaganda.
There's nothing new here, except the explicit quote from Stallman which backs up what I had alluded to earlier. The only thing new is that you're removing the crust from your eyes and letting go of your narrow focus on GPL in a copyright world. Perhaps, in this new light, you'd like to re-read the thread and pay attention to what I did say, and not what you wanted to argue against.
said fuck it and bought some LED ones as they last much longer than even the long life incandescent ones and are brighter than the regular incandescent ones
Yup, way too bright. As a driver caught in those lights, I hate the new LED headlights.
sorry, i forgot the source
they can rule against them in an international tribunal
The Philippines' attempt to haul China to an international tribunal is a problem because it is invoking the very compulsory jurisdiction which China has disavowed since 2006. But even if the Philippine attempt to arbitrate fails, any marshaled argument can subsist, and that case may be fielded in other venues. If a military engagement were to ensue, the same case could be brought to the United Nations Security Council -- the principal repository of enforcement powers under the UN system. A state can be found to be in violation of a substantive legal norm even without a coercive or compulsory judgment in a given venue, provided, of course, that there is truth to the argument supporting a violation, and that it is acknowledged by an alternative venue.
While China is disavowing the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) against the Philippines, it is expressly invoking UNCLOS provisions in its claims against Japan -- so it wants to have its cake and eat it, too. In 2009, China submitted a claim over the Senkaku Islands (which, like Scarborough Shoal and the Spratlys, are believed to be fuel rich) and turned to UNCLOS rules in defining and delineating its continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone, again within the meaning of UNCLOS. There is some international legal doctrine supporting the view that a state's acts in one place can be used as an admission and adversely bind that State in another set of circumstances.
a legal claim against china won't make the han imperialists move, but the ruling will stay dormant
then, after any sort of conflict in the future where china loses, china is going to lose these islands in the peace treaty
this is an interesting, informative, and comprehensive post
If it is a strawman, you provided it. it shouldn't be this hard to find out what you are arguing.
It isn't hard, you just refused to accept it and insisted on your narrow argument based on the GPL and existing copyright, despite the fact that I repeatedly told you otherwise.
But certainly in your extract here, he is not arguing for any particular laws or losses of freedom, only stating the conditions required to preserve freedom for all people.
He says, further in the article:
"So what would be the effect of terminating this program's copyright after 5 years? This would not require the developer to release source code, and presumably most will never do so. [..] So I proposed that the Pirate Party platform require proprietary software's source code to be put in escrow when the binaries are released. The escrowed source code would then be released in the public domain after 5 years." (bold mine)