> That doesn't work in real life. In order to know what level of force is necessary, one has to have a perfect knowledge of the opposition. That isn't possible, so you always respond with more force than you think in necessary - overengineering the carnage.
That's exactly the kind of thinking that leads to global nuclear annihilation, and when that consequence became clear, intelligent people finally realized how wrong it is.
But your argument is wrong anyhow. Either you're trying to end the war, or you're not. If you are, you try all avenues, including negotiation. If you don't try negotiation, you aren't trying to end the war, you're trying to prolong it. The US leadership knew they couldn't lose at that point, so they weren't trying to end it.
> The what if game is pretty boring.
It sure is when you lose right away, due to the US never trying to negotiate. Earlier you said that it was "risky" to do so. How?
And It doesn't matter that we don't know what would have happened if the US had attempted negotiations with Japan. It only matters that they never did.
I'll make this simple. The only justification for the fire bombings and nuclear bombings that has any possible merit is that they were necessary to end the war. However, the US never even tried to negotiate, nor did they try to communicate to the Japanese that they would be willing to allow the Emperor to remain nominally in power. They could have used that to end the war far sooner.
So how could the bombings possibly be necessary to end the war when the war might have been ended by other means? I'm sure you'll say that that wouldn't have worked, but how would you know? The lack of any attempt shows that the US wasn't interested in ending the war: they wanted revenge, and therefore the bombings were not justified.
Mind you, there's a downside to that. An FBI that can infiltrate and dismantle the KKK at will can do the same to any legitimate movement for change, like Occupy, etc.
Except that Japan repeatedly tried to make peace before the atomic bombings, and if the US hadn't been so determined that it be an unconditional surrender and been willing to negotiate, they could have ended the war before that, without any need to even think about invasion. So it was an evil slaughter.
What did they change, if you don't mind my asking? I've been using it for two seasons now, and haven't noticed anything too annoying, although I have been in public leagues only so far.
But Github here is in the position where they are the only external party that could do something about this, because the code is hosted on their site.
> ... Im sure many people don't want GitHub to start arbitrarily banning projects because of a random set of beliefs they have
It wouldn't be unprecedented and it wouldn't be arbitrary. Google Code, for instance, only allows open source projects to be hosted with them. From what I can tell about Github, they allow any license. Doesn't mean that they can't change that policy.
Sure, it's easier to do nothing. But they alone could do something. And Facebook will get the goodwill they want from this without much kickback because nobody does anything.
It's not about punishment. It's not: oh, you did something bad, you need to be punished for it. It's that it shouldn't be easy, and doing it in person makes sure of that. That's all it is. And it sounds a lot like you're rationalizing your desire to avoid that situation by telling yourself that it would be better for the employee, as though you won't let yourself consider the idea that it's all about it being easier for you.
Downvotes? Really? Github could make a stand here and disallow licenses that evil and self-serving. With this license, anybody who even uses this software can't challenge any patents of Facebook's. If Github said no, this is wrong, they would set an example for everyone else and single this out as the terrible license it is.
The point that all your detractors seem to be getting at, that you won't let yourself understand, is that you should do it in person so that it is hard for you to do it. You will never be able to pretend that you aren't doing a great deal of harm to another human being if you have to actually face them and see it.
It seems pretty counterproductive for Google to penalize the linked-to website for this, because they don't necessarily have any control over the links. This means that now a good strategy would be to make a bunch of spam links to your competitors' websites and have their rankings go down through no fault of their own. While that would be less effective than having your own go up, it's still useful.
What Google should do is make the links have no effect at all, thus preventing this abuse.
It's entirely possible that a lot of people don't know what -CURRENT really means if they're new to FreeBSD. They could be on 10.1 and think that that means that they're on -CURRENT, and thus affected by this bug, but they're not.
That's exactly the kind of thinking that leads to global nuclear annihilation, and when that consequence became clear, intelligent people finally realized how wrong it is.
But your argument is wrong anyhow. Either you're trying to end the war, or you're not. If you are, you try all avenues, including negotiation. If you don't try negotiation, you aren't trying to end the war, you're trying to prolong it. The US leadership knew they couldn't lose at that point, so they weren't trying to end it.
> The what if game is pretty boring.
It sure is when you lose right away, due to the US never trying to negotiate. Earlier you said that it was "risky" to do so. How?
And It doesn't matter that we don't know what would have happened if the US had attempted negotiations with Japan. It only matters that they never did.