Anyone tried an e-reader?

[pErvinalia]

sigh.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh.. well I see. Shall I call you Herodotus then, or is Larry your name?

Is there anything there about the war crimes of the U.S.? I mean like the fallout of the firebombing of Tokyo that killed 100,000 civilians. Not as eyecatching as Nagasaki or Hiroshima, but still nice and deadly.

83,000 civilians. Embarrassingly, we didn't score the magic 100,000 number. But we did keep trying.

They started it. We finished it. End of story. War crime, shmore crime. Don't bomb us, and we won't fuck you up.

The Japanese government made the decision to spread the war industries out into general population's homes. The war industries were targeted and taken out.

[Jason]

Oh.. well I see. Shall I call you Herodotus then, or is Larry your name?

Is there anything there about the war crimes of the U.S.? I mean like the fallout of the firebombing of Tokyo that killed 100,000 civilians. Not as eyecatching as Nagasaki or Hiroshima, but still nice and deadly.

83,000 civilians. Embarrassingly, we didn't score the magic 100,000 number. But we did keep trying.

They started it. We finished it. End of story. War crime, shmore crime. Don't bomb us, and we won't fuck you up.

That was the general sentiment expressed at the time - great celebration and a feeling of just revenge delivered, brutish vengeance satiated for a time. It's rather revealing that the death of some estimated 100,000 civilians (83,000 by Gawdzilla's count) should be viewed as just for the deaths of 2,400 servicemen at Pearl Harbor.

Wikipedia has this neat little chart, one column is titled "Civilian deaths due to military activity and crimes against humanity" - care to take a guess at the figures?

United States: 1,700
Japan: 500,000-1,000,000

What kind of morality are you possessed of that tells you it's acceptable to kill 294-588 civilians for every one of yours killed (and I rather suspect Japan had very little to do with the killing of very many U.S. civilians).. anyway this is seriously OT.

[Jason]

Oh.. well I see. Shall I call you Herodotus then, or is Larry your name?

Is there anything there about the war crimes of the U.S.? I mean like the fallout of the firebombing of Tokyo that killed 100,000 civilians. Not as eyecatching as Nagasaki or Hiroshima, but still nice and deadly.

83,000 civilians. Embarrassingly, we didn't score the magic 100,000 number. But we did keep trying.

They started it. We finished it. End of story. War crime, shmore crime. Don't bomb us, and we won't fuck you up.

The Japanese government made the decision to spread the war industries out into general population's homes. The war industries were targeted and taken out.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You can roll your eyes, I'll take that as sure sign you've never been in a war.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh.. well I see. Shall I call you Herodotus then, or is Larry your name?

Is there anything there about the war crimes of the U.S.? I mean like the fallout of the firebombing of Tokyo that killed 100,000 civilians. Not as eyecatching as Nagasaki or Hiroshima, but still nice and deadly.

83,000 civilians. Embarrassingly, we didn't score the magic 100,000 number. But we did keep trying.

They started it. We finished it. End of story. War crime, shmore crime. Don't bomb us, and we won't fuck you up.

That was the general sentiment expressed at the time - great celebration and a feeling of just revenge delivered, brutish vengeance satiated for a time. It's rather revealing that the death of some estimated 100,000 civilians (83,000 by Gawdzilla's count) should be viewed as just for the deaths of 2,400 servicemen at Pearl Harbor.

Wikipedia has this neat little chart, one column is titled "Civilian deaths due to military activity and crimes against humanity" - care to take a guess at the figures?

United States: 1,700
Japan: 500,000-1,000,000

What kind of morality are you possessed of that tells you it's acceptable to kill 294-588 civilians for every one of yours killed (and I rather suspect Japan had very little to do with the killing of very many U.S. civilians).. anyway this is seriously OT.

You've got your numbers wrong. The Japanese are morally responsible for the death of every American serviceman, and every British serviceman, and for the deaths of prisoners of war horribly treated and starved. They are responsible for the Rape of Nanking, the massacre and subjugation of Phillipinos, for aggressive invasion of dozens of islands and nations, and for the enslavement of Koreans. We fought alongside China, Korea, Britain and other countries against a nation hell-bent on global domination, and subjugation of peoples everywhere. It was not merely 1700 in Pearl Harbor that suffered as a result of Japan.

And, of course, the destruction of the manufacturing base of the Japanese war machine, together with the desire to have Japan surrender without the need for massive casualties in a sea/ground invasion of Honshu that justified various actions.

[Coito ergo sum]

You can roll your eyes, I'll take that as sure sign you've never been in a war.

Proportionality is invariably pontificated from an easy chair...

[Geoff]

Oh.. well I see. Shall I call you Herodotus then, or is Larry your name?

Is there anything there about the war crimes of the U.S.? I mean like the fallout of the firebombing of Tokyo that killed 100,000 civilians. Not as eyecatching as Nagasaki or Hiroshima, but still nice and deadly.

83,000 civilians. Embarrassingly, we didn't score the magic 100,000 number. But we did keep trying.

They started it. We finished it. End of story. War crime, shmore crime. Don't bomb us, and we won't fuck you up.

That was the general sentiment expressed at the time - great celebration and a feeling of just revenge delivered, brutish vengeance satiated for a time. It's rather revealing that the death of some estimated 100,000 civilians (83,000 by Gawdzilla's count) should be viewed as just for the deaths of 2,400 servicemen at Pearl Harbor.

Wikipedia has this neat little chart, one column is titled "Civilian deaths due to military activity and crimes against humanity" - care to take a guess at the figures?

United States: 1,700
Japan: 500,000-1,000,000

What kind of morality are you possessed of that tells you it's acceptable to kill 294-588 civilians for every one of yours killed (and I rather suspect Japan had very little to do with the killing of very many U.S. civilians).. anyway this is seriously OT.

That's nothing to do with relative moralities, simply capabilites. Japan simply did not have the ability to target the US mainland (apart from the abortive "balloon bombs").

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You can roll your eyes, I'll take that as sure sign you've never been in a war.

Proportionality is invariably pontificated from an easy chair...

Given your absurd reasoning above, which C.E.S. easily dissected, I see your qualification for Pontiff easily meet the criteria.

[Coito ergo sum]

fyi - I was referring to him, not you.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

fyi - I was referring to him, not you.

Oops. my apologies. Bad miss-reading on my part.

[Jason]

Well biased redactionists are certainly entitled to their opinions. Sadly Project Gutenburg gives them a venue to voice them with some semblance of veracity. Anywho.. this thread is about e-readers.

I think e-readers are swell. I've wanted one for a long time, but I've been turned off by the high price. The 'Nook' sounds appealing at $99, provided it can handle pdf files with embedded images - such as technical manuals and textbooks.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well biased redactionists are certainly entitled to their opinions. Sadly Project Gutenburg gives them a venue to voice them with some semblance of veracity. Anywho.. this thread is about e-readers.

I think e-readers are swell. I've wanted one for a long time, but I've been turned off by the high price. The 'Nook' sounds appealing at $99, provided it can handle pdf files with embedded images - such as technical manuals and textbooks.

You can ask Ayaan about that, she has a Nook.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well biased redactionists are certainly entitled to their opinions. Sadly Project Gutenburg gives them a venue to voice them with some semblance of veracity. Anywho.. this thread is about e-readers.

I think e-readers are swell. I've wanted one for a long time, but I've been turned off by the high price. The 'Nook' sounds appealing at $99, provided it can handle pdf files with embedded images - such as technical manuals and textbooks.

I've never had a problem with .pdfs. The images will, of course, be black and white in e-ink, unless you get the Nook Color, which basically a tablet.

The new Nook is $139, and looks like it has full touch screen capability. I am thinking of getting it.