FunnyJunk lawyer to subpoena Twitter, Ars Technica(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
FunnyJunk lawyer to subpoena Twitter, Ars Technica
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/doubling-down-funnyjunk-lawyer-to-subpoena-ars-twitter/
96 comments
A more general lesson out of here: sunk costs are sunk, and Martingale strategy never pays off (it only pays back, and even then – if you're lucky).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost
Actually, the Martingale system does pay off if you have unlimited resources. However casinos artificially create limited resources by setting table limits.
Table limits exist to segregate gamblers based on betting patterns, except where set by law. A pit boss will almost always allow you to place a bet over the limit if you clear it with him first and, if not, will direct you to the nearest table with higher limits.
They allow this precisely because the Martingale system does NOT pay off,
They allow this precisely because the Martingale system does NOT pay off,
From wikipedia:
"It is therefore a good example of a Taleb distribution – the gambler usually wins a small net reward, thus appearing to have a sound strategy. However, the gambler's expected value does indeed remain zero because the small probability that he will suffer a catastrophic loss exactly balances with his expected gain."
"It is therefore a good example of a Taleb distribution – the gambler usually wins a small net reward, thus appearing to have a sound strategy. However, the gambler's expected value does indeed remain zero because the small probability that he will suffer a catastrophic loss exactly balances with his expected gain."
The quote is out of context: In case of infinite reserve (and infinite time to place your bets ;)), there are no catastrophic losses which would stop you from betting again.
The problem with always doubling your wager is that the exponential growth will eventually reach any finite limit in case of a run of 'bad luck'. Without limit, that's not an issue and you'll only lose when you never win any bet, which 'almost surely' won't happen.
The problem with always doubling your wager is that the exponential growth will eventually reach any finite limit in case of a run of 'bad luck'. Without limit, that's not an issue and you'll only lose when you never win any bet, which 'almost surely' won't happen.
Correct, I skimmed the Wikipedia article too quickly. It is a neutral outcome.
The definition of losing in gambling is running out of resources. If you stipulate infinite resources, you're stipulating that you can't lose. In which case, clearly, you have a much better chance of winning.
There are two mistakes in your reasoning.
First, according to your definition of losing, gambling away 99% of your life savings would not count as a loss. A better definition would be: having fewer resources at the end of an act of gambling than you had before the act.
Second, you have assumed that infinite comes in only one size. To see the error in that, consider these infinite sets: {1,2,3,...} and {2,4,6,...}. The first set contains all counting numbers and the second set contains only even counting numbers. Both sets are infinite, but the second set is only half the size.
With these corrections in mind, it should become clear that you can start with infinite resources, lose half of your resources and therefore lose at gambling, but still walk away with infinite resources.
First, according to your definition of losing, gambling away 99% of your life savings would not count as a loss. A better definition would be: having fewer resources at the end of an act of gambling than you had before the act.
Second, you have assumed that infinite comes in only one size. To see the error in that, consider these infinite sets: {1,2,3,...} and {2,4,6,...}. The first set contains all counting numbers and the second set contains only even counting numbers. Both sets are infinite, but the second set is only half the size.
With these corrections in mind, it should become clear that you can start with infinite resources, lose half of your resources and therefore lose at gambling, but still walk away with infinite resources.
As cbr pointed out, the two sets are equinumerous (y_n = 2 * x_n puts them into 1:1 correspondence). As long as you gamble a finite number of times, and your losses are finite, you will always have exactly as much money as you started with, if you started with infinite money. Since there is no such thing as infinite money, this model is only a practical approximation when your losses are greatly dwarfed by your starting capital.
I should have been more careful in choosing my words. I agree that {1,2,3,...} and {2,4,6,...} are both countably infinite and have the cardinality aleph-0. When I said they are not the same size, I did not mean to invoke the idea of set cardinality. Rather, I was thinking more in terms of set difference: if set A contains all the elements of B and set A contains other elements also, then set A is bigger than set B.
With that said, the reasoning that you two are employing seems mysterious. In my way of thinking, the cardinality of a set of dollar bills and the quantity of dollars are not the same thing. If you start with $20 and lose $20, then you lost $20, and likewise, if you start with an infinite quantity of dollars and lose $20, then you lost $20. Whether the set of dollars before and after gambling have the same cardinality is quite beside the point: $20 never equals $0, so you were $20 richer before you gambled and $20 less rich after you gambled.
With that said, the reasoning that you two are employing seems mysterious. In my way of thinking, the cardinality of a set of dollar bills and the quantity of dollars are not the same thing. If you start with $20 and lose $20, then you lost $20, and likewise, if you start with an infinite quantity of dollars and lose $20, then you lost $20. Whether the set of dollars before and after gambling have the same cardinality is quite beside the point: $20 never equals $0, so you were $20 richer before you gambled and $20 less rich after you gambled.
> When I said they are not the same size, I did not mean
to invoke the idea of set cardinality.
> if set A contains all the elements of B and set A
contains other elements also, then set A is bigger than
set B
> In my way of thinking, the cardinality of a set of
dollar bills and the quantity of dollars are not the
same thing.
> if you start with an infinite quantity of dollars
and lose $20, then you lost $20
> Whether the set of dollars before and after gambling
have the same cardinality is quite beside the point: $20
never equals $0, so you were $20 richer before you
gambled and $20 less rich after you gambled.
Likewise, although you can measure the value of the difference between the set of money you had before and the set of money you have after, as long as that difference is finite, it has no bearing on your infinite total value. In fact, depending on how you do it, you can lose an infinite amount of money and still have an infinite amount left (the difference between {1, 2, 3, ...} and {2, 4, 6, ...} is {1, 3, 5, ...} and all three of these sets are equinumerous).
Infinity is not an intuitive concept.
I disagree with your claim that "[the set of integers] is bigger than [the set of even numbers]." They have the same cardinality, and I'm not sure how else you can reasonably define "bigger" or "size" for infinite sets. If you prefer to treat it like real money, you can buy just as much with {1, 2, 3,...} dollars, and {21, 22, 23, ...} dollars (after you lost $20). Or, from another direction, you could go to a currency exchange and do a real life bijection, trading 20 -> 1, 21 -> 2, 23 -> 3, and so on. Either way, it makes sense to say you have the same amount of money. "Makes sense," since we're talking about an abstraction that doesn't exist.
If mathematically, the sets are the same size, and practically, in terms of buying power, the bankrolls are the same size, I'm not sure how we can reach an abstraction in either perspective where one is "less" than the other.
(The question of walking away is sort of ill-formed for the original Martingale discussion -- since the point there was that you'd stay at the table until you won a spin.)
Interestingly this brings up another simple flaw in the "infinite resources" caveat. When you do finally win a spin, you'll still have aleph-null dollars -- you won't have actually won anything. So the only condition under which the martingale works -- when you can't lose -- is one under which you can't win either. Unless your goal is not to increase your purchasing/gaming power but to break the casino, as in an "Ocean's N" film.
If mathematically, the sets are the same size, and practically, in terms of buying power, the bankrolls are the same size, I'm not sure how we can reach an abstraction in either perspective where one is "less" than the other.
(The question of walking away is sort of ill-formed for the original Martingale discussion -- since the point there was that you'd stay at the table until you won a spin.)
Interestingly this brings up another simple flaw in the "infinite resources" caveat. When you do finally win a spin, you'll still have aleph-null dollars -- you won't have actually won anything. So the only condition under which the martingale works -- when you can't lose -- is one under which you can't win either. Unless your goal is not to increase your purchasing/gaming power but to break the casino, as in an "Ocean's N" film.
While there are larger and smaller infinite sets the two sets you give are the same size. They are both countably infinite. A way to see this is that for every element in the set of even positive integers there is a corresponding positive integer and vice versa.
All math is abstraction, and you need to make sure it applies to the current case. In this case it doesn't: infinite resources don't exist.
All math is abstraction, and you need to make sure it applies to the current case. In this case it doesn't: infinite resources don't exist.
> Martingale strategy never pays off
It did for me. I used it at the roulette wheel on my last trip to Vegas. I knew the strategy's critical flaw, but thought I would try it for a while. I went up over a $900 and quit for the evening. The next day, I quickly dropped $200 and stopped. I know it was just luck (and I won't be buying Lanai with the proceeds), but you did say never pays off, practically forcing me to be the contrariaHN.
It did for me. I used it at the roulette wheel on my last trip to Vegas. I knew the strategy's critical flaw, but thought I would try it for a while. I went up over a $900 and quit for the evening. The next day, I quickly dropped $200 and stopped. I know it was just luck (and I won't be buying Lanai with the proceeds), but you did say never pays off, practically forcing me to be the contrariaHN.
Should/can Funny Junk fire Carreon at this point for his foolish behavior? If they do so, how much does Carreon's own cases depend on his relationship with Funny Junk, and what are the consequences? If I were FJ I would be pretty pissed, because Carreon is using FJ's case for his own personal benefit, and in so doing is dragging his client's name into a potential second shitstorm above and beyond the first one they already signed up for. I'm curious how that relationship will pan out, and what alternatives are available to each party.
Yeah, you can (just about) always fire your lawyer. The right to have the lawyer of your choosing -- or not -- is pretty fundamental. If they're working on a contingency ("I get X% of anything we recover"), you'll have to pay them a fair hourly rate for the work they've already done.
(Incidentally, this makes it pretty tough to hold lawyers to non-compete agreements, because their clients have a right to keep working with them even if they switch firms.)
Now, whether FunnyJunk likes or doesn't like the publicity this is bringing them is a separate question. You got me on that one.
(Incidentally, this makes it pretty tough to hold lawyers to non-compete agreements, because their clients have a right to keep working with them even if they switch firms.)
Now, whether FunnyJunk likes or doesn't like the publicity this is bringing them is a separate question. You got me on that one.
And even more hilarious if FunkyJunk sues him for tarnishing their site's reputation by acting like an idiot on their behalf.
Funny Junk has already exhibited foolish behaviour. What makes you think they aren't egging him on?
I think Matthew Inman put it best: "It's interesting to watch a man with his dick in a hornet's nest try to solve the problem by tossing his balls in as well."
[deleted]
I can fully guarantee this is going the Jack Thompson route, and he'll continue to waste court time, money and patience up until a judge finally goes "License to law, revoked" and kicks him out. He's got himself stuck in an infinite loop where each time something happens he feels more and more obliged to beef up the threat.
I'd be willing to put money against that.
Both Thompson and Carreon (FJ's lawyer) appear to be delusional about the merits of the causes they're putting in front of the court.
But Thompson also appears to be delusional about reality and his role in it: he submitted repeated filings to the court that were laden with cartoons, images, pictures of people he believed were persecuting him, and tirades against the court itself. He did that after being repeatedly warned by the court not to deliver more filings. He did that while one of his previous filings was currently being considered; instead of waiting for a response for the court, he continued to send them additional filings. Here, I'll just let the Florida Supreme Court describe it:
Both Thompson and Carreon (FJ's lawyer) appear to be delusional about the merits of the causes they're putting in front of the court.
But Thompson also appears to be delusional about reality and his role in it: he submitted repeated filings to the court that were laden with cartoons, images, pictures of people he believed were persecuting him, and tirades against the court itself. He did that after being repeatedly warned by the court not to deliver more filings. He did that while one of his previous filings was currently being considered; instead of waiting for a response for the court, he continued to send them additional filings. Here, I'll just let the Florida Supreme Court describe it:
Thompson has submitted over fifty filings directly with this Court, all of
which have either been forwarded to the referee, dismissed, or denied.
Additionally, Thompson’s most recent filings are repetitive, frivolous, and, like his
earlier ones, insulting to the Court. One of Thompson’s recent filings contains
what Thompson refers to as a “children’s picture book for adults” that rehashes his
previous arguments in illustrated form which he states was necessary due to “the
Court’s inability to comprehend” his arguments. Between the text of the motion,
Thompson pasted images depicting swastikas, kangaroos in court, a reproduced
dollar bill, cartoon squirrels, Paul Simon, Paul Newman, Ray Charles, a handprint
with the word "SLAP!" written under it, Bar Governor Benedict P. Kuehne, a
baby, Ed Bradley, Jack Nicholson, Justice Clarence Thomas, Julius Caesar, keys,
and a house of cards, and the motion concludes with a photograph of the
cover of Thompson’s book, Out of Harm's Way.
Very true, but Thompson at first wasn't all out crazy like a bag of snakes at first. It was as the situation spiralled we got the full crazy.
When a comment of yours is marked dead, that's typically not an invitation to immediately make the same comment verbatim.
When a comment has clearly been double posted by accident that's not an invitation to make a snarky comment.
You get "dead" on a dupe submit (happens periodically with me - not sure why) - not just down voting.
Huh, I didn't know that. Thanks.
I have had it happen when hitting the reply button gives you "expired link". If you refresh the page, then post, you will notice that the first post actually took, and the second one is marked dead.
While I'm on the side of TheOatMeal on this one, I wouldn't be so quick to defend someone signing up as @Charles_Carreon on Twitter. That person impersonated the lawyer during a very sensitive time and negatively changed public view, even if later Twitter suspended the account. It's not parody, it's impersonation.
I can't create a fake account 'pg[invisible-unicode-character]' here and start posting things like "I wish dhouston would just sell Dropbox to Apple already." That's not acceptable, regardless of whether the person being impersonated is loved or hated by all.
I can't create a fake account 'pg[invisible-unicode-character]' here and start posting things like "I wish dhouston would just sell Dropbox to Apple already." That's not acceptable, regardless of whether the person being impersonated is loved or hated by all.
I've been following this case on Popehat and Lowering The Bar (two excellent legal blogs) and both have been at pains, in every post, to plead with the Internet to stop fucking with Carreon and FJ: the Internet pranks are, regardless of how Carreon appears to be reacting to them, making Carreon's actual goals easier to obtain.
The consensus seems to be that Carreon has less than no case, and may in fact be setting himself up for significant reprisals from the courts... except to the extent that douchey Internet pranksters build a case for him by breaking the law themselves.
The consensus seems to be that Carreon has less than no case, and may in fact be setting himself up for significant reprisals from the courts... except to the extent that douchey Internet pranksters build a case for him by breaking the law themselves.
But are such people breaking the law? To my knowledge, being a douchebag on the internet is not a crime (nor do I think it should be). Could you perhaps point me to one of those posts that explain this in more detail?
If being a douchebag involves defamation, then yes, you can be sued in civil court. This is all going under civil action, not criminal court (big difference).
Remember, broadly speaking, defamation is just undertaking some action that gives some entity a negative image. Before you go nuts on that, yes, truth is a defense against defamation (ie: it is not defamation if it is true). At which point parody becomes defamation is something of a grey line, which Carreon will try his hardest to use.
If Carreon can paint the image in court that the internet is after him, it would probably help him make his case that the fake twitter account is defamation, not mere parody. After all, context matters.
Remember, broadly speaking, defamation is just undertaking some action that gives some entity a negative image. Before you go nuts on that, yes, truth is a defense against defamation (ie: it is not defamation if it is true). At which point parody becomes defamation is something of a grey line, which Carreon will try his hardest to use.
If Carreon can paint the image in court that the internet is after him, it would probably help him make his case that the fake twitter account is defamation, not mere parody. After all, context matters.
Be a douchebag if you must, but don't break the law doing it, is the point.
At some point it can become harassment, which is a crime.
That is an excellent point. I know it will be next to impossible, but the best tactic at this point is to ignore him and not rise to the "threat".
He's decided to blindly start swinging. While it is certainly possible that he will not hit anything regardless of the community reaction, the minimal probability of success will be such a pain-in-the-ass that it is not worth it.
He's decided to blindly start swinging. While it is certainly possible that he will not hit anything regardless of the community reaction, the minimal probability of success will be such a pain-in-the-ass that it is not worth it.
I don't quite get the logic here: "Random people you have no control over acted like assholes (in a possibly illegal fashion), therefore you lose your lawsuit and are an asshole loser in the eyes of the law." How does that work?
The idea is simply that Carreon's current complaints are almost utterly meritless, but if he's hacked or unlawfully slandered, his claims actually do have merit; even if they won't in the end be held against Matthew Inman, it'll still be a drag on everyone to sort them out.
Maybe not so much legally, but in any other way it might not work so well. It only takes someone to summarise the course of events as "Inman incites mob to exact revenge on audacious lawyer", and suddenly Carreon is the victim.
Of course, the mob's lust for blood achieves nothing but self preservation, and even if the claims are baseless, we're observing each day the consequences of its actions; mostly in the form of Carreon building up his case with ostensibly supportive evidence, and dragging other websites into the fray who had no involvement except to allow people to comment.
But, I dunno, I'm not the greatest advocate of internet vigilantism.
Of course, the mob's lust for blood achieves nothing but self preservation, and even if the claims are baseless, we're observing each day the consequences of its actions; mostly in the form of Carreon building up his case with ostensibly supportive evidence, and dragging other websites into the fray who had no involvement except to allow people to comment.
But, I dunno, I'm not the greatest advocate of internet vigilantism.
I agree it doesn't make any sense, but the fact of the matter is that even judges commit the fallacy of guilt by association, without being aware of it. If hundreds of assholes and a dozen criminals support you, then that makes it seem more likely that you are an asshole or a criminal. Statistically that is probably even correct, even though it's still guilt-by-association in an individual case.
> If hundreds of assholes and a dozen criminals support
> you, then that makes it seem more likely that you are
> an asshole or a criminal.
Of course, it's impossible to stop anonymous individuals from the Internet from fucking with someone once they're riled up, and I'm pretty sure everyone involved in this knows that. Indeed, The Oatmeal appears to be relying on this as a tactic.
The Oatmeal appears to be relying on this as a tactic
I'm not sure why you feel this is the case. They've been careful to redact Carreon's contact info from the document's they've published and they've been saying things like "And to anyone else who is reading this: it goes without saying, but stop harassing Carreon. Be lawful and civil in your interactions with him."
I'm not sure why you feel this is the case. They've been careful to redact Carreon's contact info from the document's they've published and they've been saying things like "And to anyone else who is reading this: it goes without saying, but stop harassing Carreon. Be lawful and civil in your interactions with him."
If Matthew Inman wrote anything with the specific intention of goading anonymous Internet users into committing torts or crimes against Carreon, then Inman could have real problems.
I don't believe at all that that's Inman's intent.
I don't believe at all that that's Inman's intent.
Everything The Oatmeal wrote is still available[1][2][3], and I didn't see any suggestions that users attack or otherwise harass Carreon or FunnyJunk. In fact, the owner of Funny Junk sent a direct message to all users of the site asking them to "contact" Inman "any way [they could]".
1. http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk 2. http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk2 3. http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk_letter
1. http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk 2. http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk2 3. http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk_letter
Just in case I've been unclear, I think I agree with you: I don't think Inman ever intended for the Internet to unlawfully mess with Carreon.
The Oatmeal most definitely is NOT relying on this as a tactic. I don't know why you would say otherwise.
But doesn't Twitter have a "verified" badge for real-world people whose identities have been verified?
I thought it went without saying that Twitter handles, above all newly-created ones, were fake unless they had that additional badge.
I thought it went without saying that Twitter handles, above all newly-created ones, were fake unless they had that additional badge.
No, only for a small subset of people and all chosen at Twitter's discretion (they don't take suggestions).
I believe they also have some stipulations on if you're being impersonated they might verify you.
According to the article on Ars Technica, the lawyer sent copies of his ID to Twitter to verify he was being impersonated and the account was suspended.
Twitter requires no ID to create an account. The account could have been Carreon in so much as Twitter knows. Even Facebook, which requires your "real name", has no idea if you are who you say you are.
> While I'm on the side of TheOatMeal on this one, I wouldn't be so quick to defend someone signing up as @Charles_Carreon on Twitter. That person impersonated the lawyer during a very sensitive time and negatively changed public view, even if later Twitter suspended the account. It's not parody, it's impersonation.
And the person that created the account was from Sweden.
Carreon is going to have a fun time getting him into court in the US for a civil case.
And the person that created the account was from Sweden.
Carreon is going to have a fun time getting him into court in the US for a civil case.
Apparently most of what he was doing was just linking to CC's press interviews. According to TFA, at least.
You just need one line to change public opinion. I myself fell for the following line when I saw it last week:
> "You sir, are a dumbass. I am doing what any sane individual would do."
I saw it linked somewhere, briefly glanced at it, thought "wow, this guy's not fit to be anyone's lawyer", and moved on. I didn't have time or desire to dig into it to find out if it was really him or not. This article has managed to salvage some of that but I doubt everyone who saw the impersonated tweet will learn about the truth.
It's really no different from being labelled "Arrested for XYZ" by the media and then being proven 100% guilt-free. Even if the media redacts the stories or posts new information, the damage is already done in most cases.
> "You sir, are a dumbass. I am doing what any sane individual would do."
I saw it linked somewhere, briefly glanced at it, thought "wow, this guy's not fit to be anyone's lawyer", and moved on. I didn't have time or desire to dig into it to find out if it was really him or not. This article has managed to salvage some of that but I doubt everyone who saw the impersonated tweet will learn about the truth.
It's really no different from being labelled "Arrested for XYZ" by the media and then being proven 100% guilt-free. Even if the media redacts the stories or posts new information, the damage is already done in most cases.
> I saw it linked somewhere, briefly glanced at it, thought "wow, this guy's not fit to be anyone's lawyer", and moved on.
In fairness, the real guy's public statements have had the same effect. I'm not sure a parody account can really be said to have affected the guy's reputation, it's already about as tanked as can be.
In fairness, the real guy's public statements have had the same effect. I'm not sure a parody account can really be said to have affected the guy's reputation, it's already about as tanked as can be.
"It might not have seemed very dehumanizing when Walt Disney made Japanese people look silly with buck teeth and big glasses who could not pronounce their 'R's or their 'L's," he said. "But it was dehumanizing, and the purpose was to direct evil intentions against them, which ultimately resulted in the only nuclear holocaust that ever occurred in the history of humanity. I don't think Truman would have ever done that if we hadn't so dehumanized the enemy. When you dehumanize someone, that is the first step to inciting people."
Ha. He claims that Disney was the reason the U.S. dropped the nuclear bombs. Interesting analogy.
Ha. He claims that Disney was the reason the U.S. dropped the nuclear bombs. Interesting analogy.
read more carefully, he uses disney as an example, but then he says _we_ (americans) have dehumanized the enemy.
While i find this completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, he may have a bit of a point on that.
While i find this completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, he may have a bit of a point on that.
Every war time country dehumanizes their enemies. If we portrayed the Taliban or Vietcong as freedom fighters saving children from American boots or the Nazis portrayed the Jews as hardworking members of society, the surrounding events would have been much different.
That said, I'm quite certain Disney's cartoons had absolutely nothing... NOTHING... to do with HST's decision to drop the bombs. Furthermore, the poor analogy has an obscure correlation at best with the current lawsuit.
That said, I'm quite certain Disney's cartoons had absolutely nothing... NOTHING... to do with HST's decision to drop the bombs. Furthermore, the poor analogy has an obscure correlation at best with the current lawsuit.
Anecdotally, I seem to remember reading that HST loved the movie Dumbo, so he probably was a pretty big Disney fanboy. Regardless, the L/R phonetic collision in CJK languages as portrayed in movies probably wasn't the main reason for building and dropping the bomb.
Probably more to do with the sheer grisly nature of the Solomon Islands and Papau New Guinea campaigns, and a desire not to repeat it.
Probably more to do with the sheer grisly nature of the Solomon Islands and Papau New Guinea campaigns, and a desire not to repeat it.
I've spent a lot of time learning about the decision to dropping atomic bombs on Japan, and it is quite nuanced. I'm still not 100% sure if it was the correct course of action, given the information available at the time.
First, any attempt at an invasion of mainland Japan would have likely resulted in horrendous casualties for both sides - and it is almost certain that civilian casualties would have been substantially higher in the event of an invasion.
To counter that point, it is unlikely that an invasion would have been required to secure a surrender, and American insistence on unconditional surrender was a factor in prolonging the war with Japan.
Third, there is at least some merit to the idea that dropping the bombs wasn't just meant to scare the Japanese - it was also meant to demonstrate their power to the USSR.
Incidentally, it is pretty clear that Truman and other Allied leaders saw the Japanese as being sub-human in some ways[1]. How much of this came from societal factors and how much of it came from experiences of the absolutely brutal Pacific campaign battles is debatable, but it is certainly unfair to lay it all at the feet of Disney.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings...
First, any attempt at an invasion of mainland Japan would have likely resulted in horrendous casualties for both sides - and it is almost certain that civilian casualties would have been substantially higher in the event of an invasion.
To counter that point, it is unlikely that an invasion would have been required to secure a surrender, and American insistence on unconditional surrender was a factor in prolonging the war with Japan.
Third, there is at least some merit to the idea that dropping the bombs wasn't just meant to scare the Japanese - it was also meant to demonstrate their power to the USSR.
Incidentally, it is pretty clear that Truman and other Allied leaders saw the Japanese as being sub-human in some ways[1]. How much of this came from societal factors and how much of it came from experiences of the absolutely brutal Pacific campaign battles is debatable, but it is certainly unfair to lay it all at the feet of Disney.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings...
Third, there is at least some merit to the idea that dropping the bombs wasn't just meant to scare the Japanese - it was also meant to demonstrate their power to the USSR.
Absolutely. It's possible that the invasion of Japan that was prevented by the bombings was not going to be the one that most people think of. I've always felt the atomic bombings had more to do with sending a message to Stalin than with sending one to Hirohito. At the close of WWII, the Russians were making some very ominous moves in Japan's direction.
Was it worth 200,000+ lives to keep Japan from spending the next several decades as a Soviet satellite state? Very possibly... but I wasn't there, and the people who were sacrificed certainly didn't get a chance to make their views known.
Absolutely. It's possible that the invasion of Japan that was prevented by the bombings was not going to be the one that most people think of. I've always felt the atomic bombings had more to do with sending a message to Stalin than with sending one to Hirohito. At the close of WWII, the Russians were making some very ominous moves in Japan's direction.
Was it worth 200,000+ lives to keep Japan from spending the next several decades as a Soviet satellite state? Very possibly... but I wasn't there, and the people who were sacrificed certainly didn't get a chance to make their views known.
I found "Touched by Fire: The Land War in the South Pacific" to be a compelling read on the Solomon's Campaign.
War is hell, don't go setting up shop there.
Incidentally, it wasn't just the Americans that had a dehumanized view of the Japanese during WWII, the Koreans, Chinese, Australians, and just about anyone else who ended up under their boot thought so as well; mainly because they treated just about everyone else as inferior.
Glad we can all get along decades later, of course.
War is hell, don't go setting up shop there.
Incidentally, it wasn't just the Americans that had a dehumanized view of the Japanese during WWII, the Koreans, Chinese, Australians, and just about anyone else who ended up under their boot thought so as well; mainly because they treated just about everyone else as inferior.
Glad we can all get along decades later, of course.
> I've spent a lot of time learning about the decision
> to dropping atomic bombs on Japan, and it is quite
> nuanced.
> which ultimately resulted in the only nuclear holocaust that ever occurred in the history of humanity
... which, in turn, prevented us from blockading Japan to starve them out a bit in preparation for a massive beach-head assault on the Home Islands, which would likely have been the most massive loss of life in conventional warfare in the history of the human race, and could well have ended the Japanese as a distinct culture and ethnicity.
If you're going to make a point, by all means make it; don't imply the opposite of what you intend.
... which, in turn, prevented us from blockading Japan to starve them out a bit in preparation for a massive beach-head assault on the Home Islands, which would likely have been the most massive loss of life in conventional warfare in the history of the human race, and could well have ended the Japanese as a distinct culture and ethnicity.
If you're going to make a point, by all means make it; don't imply the opposite of what you intend.
After the fact, we know that they were about to surrender anyways. Had we avoided the bomb, there would have been no beach-head assault.
Wait.... did Carreon just try to blame the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Walt Disney?
He was saying that dehumanising speech contributed to it. And he's somewhat correct. The funny thing is that he is equating what's happening to him to the nuclear holocausts with his serious face on.
It's been overlooked a little, but in the article they juxtapose him saying "I always speak respectfully and never use even soft curse words" with his actual website with parodies using exactly what he says he doesn't.
It's been overlooked a little, but in the article they juxtapose him saying "I always speak respectfully and never use even soft curse words" with his actual website with parodies using exactly what he says he doesn't.
It's possible he didn't write any of that material on that website.
It is indeed possible, but whether he wrote it or not is a bit irrelevant given that he claims he wrote it - the page has 'by Charles Carreon' just above the 'tits and rice' graphic.
http://www.american-buddha.com/poet.condoleeza.htm#CONDOLEEZ...
http://www.american-buddha.com/poet.condoleeza.htm#CONDOLEEZ...
collect
[deleted]
As to who the person was, Carreon had some ideas: it was someone "incited by Inman, or in the alternative and on information and belief, Inman himself."
EDIT: Formatting.
carreon v. the internet. mr carreon is clearly intent on leaving his mark on the history of internet.
a skid mark, perhaps, but mark no less.
a skid mark, perhaps, but mark no less.
Lets try to ruin lives over imaginary internet points!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayres_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayres_law
Fixed link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law
(Your link really doesn't lead anywhere useful. Try it.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law
(Your link really doesn't lead anywhere useful. Try it.)
I wonder how hard it would be to make mediawiki automatically redirect in cases like this.
From what I've heard of mediawiki's code.. probably very. Oh well.
From what I've heard of mediawiki's code.. probably very. Oh well.
Not hard at all:
#REDIRECT [[Sayre's law]]
#REDIRECT [[Sayre's law]]
Well of course. Somebody has done that now for that page it seems, but the general problem still exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinsons_Law_of_Triviality
The idea would be to make mediawiki itself automatically preform reasonable redirects when pages don't exist.
The idea would be to make mediawiki itself automatically preform reasonable redirects when pages don't exist.
It doesn't even need to redirect - it could just automatically include some search results if the page doesn't exist.
>The idea would be to make mediawiki itself automatically preform reasonable redirects when pages don't exist.
Mediawiki does do it automatically, it's called having many thousands of users.
Mediawiki does do it automatically, it's called having many thousands of users.
The Wikimedia Foundation wiki's might have that many uses, but I'd say most installations of mediawiki do not.
Thanks, to old to fix. I'll have to be more vigilant.
I think it's really important to point out that Inman never directed his attack toward Carreon personally, it was all directed toward the letter, which FunnyJunk is responsible for. The only point of the blog post that is directed personally towards Carreon is in the beginning.
>The owner of FunnyJunk hired Charles Carreon, a lawyer who became famous in the 90s after successfully litigating sex.com. Charles does a bit of modeling too, apparently.
>The owner of FunnyJunk hired Charles Carreon, a lawyer who became famous in the 90s after successfully litigating sex.com. Charles does a bit of modeling too, apparently.
Not sure where this is going. Isn't there a law that persecutes lawyers wanting to abuse the law for personal gain?
Those who fail to learn from the Streisand Effect [1] are doomed to repeat it.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
I wonder how this will reflect on FunnyJunk in the future.
People that use FunnyJunk may not care. It was already full of non attributed, obviously stolen content, but some people still patronized it. In fact it seems as though many people passionately defended it at various times!
The internet crowds might cheer you on when you grab content without attribution, but being litigious is pitchforks and torches to you, especially when it is against freedom of expression on the internet.
[deleted]
Carreon is in on it, and is just intentionally creating some buzz to drum up donations to some worthy causes. Well played.
Ooh, and the plot thickens! Just when I thought there could be no happy ending to this story!
[deleted]
[deleted]
In a sense, like the manager above, Mr. Carreon has thrown himself personally into a fight that was not his fight but that of his client. He has made it personal and now finds himself suing in spray-gun fashion hoping to hit the nearest target connected with the events, whether the law supports him strongly, feebly, or perhaps not at all - all the while standing forth in a public spotlight that magnifies his every action whether good, bad, or indifferent. There is no winning for him in that situation, whatever the merits of his claims.
The most valuable asset of a lawyer is his reputation. I won't presume to tell Mr. Carreon how best to defend his but, whatever else he does, he needs to be very careful not to exacerbate a situation that already is very difficult for him. Whatever wrong may have been done to him, the solution does not lie in a lawsuit of the type that has been filed here.