[...] "And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.
"But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to—to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait.
"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.
"And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. [...]
PSA if you are worried about link parameters giving away where you came from, you should really be worried about HTTP Referrer headers, which are of course turned on by default in most browsers. Be advised turning them off may break some (parts of) certain websites, but most still work fine in my experience.
In Firefox go to about:config page and set network.http.sendRefererHeader to 0.
There are rights and responsibilities associated with a proprietary model… and IMO you (and your permissive government) should not be overriding those rights for your own short-sighted benefit.
Kind of sounds like you misunderstood the initiative to be honest. This only affects games which have been abandoned by the developer, the proprietary model stays perfectly intact as long as you actually keep selling your games.
Not familiar enough with this particular project to know, but a quick glance at the commit log shows some overlap in commit authors, so I guess there is at least some level of sharing happening, probably just not through merges.
But being familiar with this kind of project in general, the branches will probably never be fully merged even in the future, just doesn't make much sense because they are server software targeting very different versions of a game client. There are also two other branches, but they "only" diverged by like one or two thousand commits so far.
Meh, essentially it's just writing "Telecommunicationsourcesurveillance" as a single word without the spaces to indicate it's a singular thing being referred to (in this case the concept of directly listening on the source device before encryption happens). Might seem weird I guess, but you get used to it pretty quickly.
Well I for one (not GP) am actually quite glad that it is literally illegal to publicly display here in Germany, especially with the current political climate going on here and elsewhere. You want to just out yourself as a Nazi? Okay, off to prison you go. That's good. AFAIK there are exemptions for temples and such, e.g. for artistic uses like Games, some Wolfenstein games replaced swastikas in the German release because nobody was sure if that's legal.
I don't think it is actually illegal to display in any country that has a lot of people using it religiously, but yeah it's a sad fact that it still has to be illegal in so many places such a long time later.
Well now you lost me entirely. All I wanted to say was that the Geneva Convention is (part of) international law.
Or in other words: Geneva Convention ⊊ International Law.
Hence my confusion about your confusion.
Here’s a big UN document about what Israel can and cannot do under international law…
TL;DR.
Again, I wasn't agreeing with OP above, I was just pointing out that GC I Article 21 is applicable in Gaza since Israel is a signatory and thus Israel has to follow it (at least de jure if not de facto). This is the case even when Palestine isn't a signatory to GC I because of Article 2.
I don't quite follow, the Geneva Convention is international law. All international law is essentially just contracts between nation states, and the GC is one of those.
Wrong again, this is Protocol I which Israel isn't a signatory to. What I linked is Convention I which Israel is a signatory to.
And this also has nothing to do with the claim you made even if they were, you claimed the Convention doesn't apply to occupying forces when it explicitly states that it does apply.
Also note that I'm not saying Israel did abide by it (doubt it honestly) just that they are subject to it.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
This particular Russian attack seems to have been retaliatory in nature, because right before it Ukraine attacked Russian territory including Moscow with hundreds of drones at the same time.
I figure the logic of escalation here is something like "If Ukraine can already make massive strikes on Moscow with self produced drones there isn't much sense in keeping up the range restrictions on NATO equipment anymore".
Well acquisition of power through military means was a Roman tradition since Sullas march on Rome in 88 BCE though, so technically they have just as much of a claim as Charlemagne, the HRE, and the Tzars. A better one even since they actually conquered "new Rome" and its people and held it. What matters though is that they did claim the title of Caesar just as the other self-proclaimed successors of Rome did.
Excerpt from the book They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 by Milton Mayer. Longer excerpt available here.