and to do that, we need to fight disinformation and far-right propaganda on social media.
Nope. I mean it’s not wrong to do that, but it would be mistaken to see that as anything but a flanking measure: You can’t fight affect with cognition. We need real-world policy which alleviates people’s anxieties.
A hypothetical Maltese jet could take care of it, yes.
Malta isn’t part of NATO but I’d guess they have an air policing deal with Italy in one way or the other.
The Commission already has an instance and the ECJ also has an instance. I didn’t find one for the parliament, they might not even want to have one but instead leave it to the parties. A parliament instance would amount to the EP president policing parliamentarian’s speech not just inside parliament but also outside of it, kinda iffy.
It wasn’t necessary for previous cases: The SRP (NSDAP successor) and KPD (run by the KGB, laid siege to parliament) had no political hand-wringing attached to them, legally they were also pretty much open and shut cases. Banning the NPD was never politically contentious, but needed some work for the legal part so it took a while for proceedings to be opened.
That is: It’s not necessarily a long and arduous process.
The reason it’s such a slog with the AfD is because it didn’t start out as a Nazi party – it slowly, over multiple internal putsches, turned into one. It got normalised, simply by people becoming accustomed to its presence, at about the same speed at which it radicalised. Had it started out with the programme it has now it would have long since been banhammered.
Oh, well, add piracy to the list.
If the support was for Jewish safety or the safety of Israel as a state they would work for it to return into its 1967 borders and start making ammends to all the people they wronged.
That’s pretty much the German position: The annexations and settlements outside of 1967 Israel are illegal.
Jews that are dissenting the German state ideology get repressed in Germany.
It’s more complicated than that because those people aren’t dissenting from the German position, see the link above. They’re just being way more blunt about it. More correct would be “Jews who are dissenting from whatever the Jüdische Allgemeine writes”, i.e. Zionist apologia. I think the technical term for the political situation is “clusterfuck”.
It’s a pickle. The unwavering support is for Israel and its existence, not for the fascist regime or the genocide. Germany sent multiple sternly worded letters regarding the latter.
*Mögest du von einem Schwertfisch gefickt werden.
Konjunktiv I, and “bei” would be appropriate for “by candlelight” or “at the bakery”, but not “by some agent”. “vom Bäcker” – you’re getting fucked by the baker, "beim Bäcker’ – you’re getting fucked at the bakery. Dative in both cases.
Politically, yes. When it comes to law, no. It’s certainly convenient to have a 1000 page report to file as evidence but as far as opening proceedings is concerned the only requirement is that you’re the government, have a majority in parliament, or a majority among states.
The applicable law is Article 21 GG:
Political parties shall participate in the formation of the political will of the people. They may be freely established. Their internal organisation must conform to democratic principles. They must publicly account for their assets and for the sources and use of their funds.
Parties that, by reason of their aims or the behaviour of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany shall be unconstitutional.
Parties that, by reason of their aims or the behaviour of their adherents, are oriented towards an undermining or abolition of the free democratic basic order or an endangerment of the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany shall be excluded from state financing. If such exclusion is determined, any favourable fiscal treatment of these parties and of payments made to those parties shall cease.
The Federal Constitutional Court shall rule on the question of unconstitutionality within the meaning of paragraph (2) of this Article and on exclusion from state financing within the meaning of paragraph (3).
Details shall be regulated by federal laws.
Key point here is “seek to undermine or abolish the free and democratic basic order”, quoth the BVerfG:
The free democratic basic order can be defined as an order which excludes any form of tyranny or arbitrariness and represents a governmental system under a rule of law, based upon self-determination of the people as expressed by the will of the existing majority and upon freedom and equality. The fundamental principles of this order include at least: respect for the human rights given concrete form in the Basic Law, in particular for the right of a person to life and free development; popular sovereignty; separation of powers; responsibility of government; lawfulness of administration; independence of the judiciary; the multi-party principle; and equality of opportunities for all political parties.
It’s their own definition so push come to shove they’re going to add to it. Overall though the lines aren’t new and haven’t shifted, that’s a quote from a judgement from 1952.
Paragraph 3 is new, that has been introduced after banning the NPD (now “Die Heimat”) failed not because they would not be opposed to the free and democratic order, but because they were judged to be too impotent to do anything about it. Previously banned parties include the NSDAP, not under this law but by the allies, then the SRP as it was a successor of the NSDAP, and then the KPD not for being communist but for being run by the KGB and laying siege to parliament. Bans of the FAP and NL failed because the BVerfG said they’re not parties so they were banned as associations, instead. Last case is the NPD, the first attempt failed because the state had so many moles inside that the court saw itself unable to distinguish between state and party actions, the second as already said because they’re yes, hateful assclowns, but also pathetic. They’ve been excluded from state funds for six years, the case will have to be judged anew in 2030.
A crawler is a data processing machine, nothing more. therefor you are disrupting dataprocessing through data. If you think its not thats ok too.
Nah it’s definitely disrupting data processing, even though at a very low-key level – you’re not causing any data to become invalid or such. It’s the intent to harm the operator that’s the linchpin: “Jemandem einen Nachteil zufügen”. “Jemand” needs to be a person, natural or legal. And by stopping a crawler you don’t want to inflict a disadvantage on the operator you want to, at most, stop them from gaining an advantage. “Inflict disadvantage” and “prevent advantage” are two different things.
I would still advise to contact your lawyer in germany if you are thinking about hosting a zipbomb
Good idea, but as already said before: First, you should contact a sysadmin. Who will tell you it’s a stupid idea.
The intent is to get rid of crawlers which are disrupting the operation of your servers. That’s not intent of doing harm to the crawler’s operator, or their business. It’s analogous to telling a hawker to fuck off: Polite, no, but them being able to profit off you is not your responsibly, you do not have to accede to that. And intent to harm the ISP is even less reasonable to assume.
cant find the primary source anymore https://netzpolitik.org/2012/berec-studie-dpi-bei-vielen-providern-bereits-im-einsatz/
That’s out of date anyway. How about this one. DPI is limited to OSI level 5 and only allowed to resolve network issues – and a crawler crashing is not a network issue.
Countering Animator with Blender, that’s brutal. For at least some stuff Blender is also the better Illustrator.
Casting concrete requires building formwork to cast the concrete into. For any standardised shape constructing the formwork is easy: Just assemble it from the parts you have. Straight sections? The most common case. Rounded corners? As long as you’re fine with “should be round” and don’t require some very specific radius, those are probably also at hand. A gargoyle? Well that’s not an easy form to produce but once you have it, you can cast 1000 gargoyles.
Where 3d printing comes in is places where you have a shape that’s literally or nearly unique, where building the formwork would be a PITA. In all other cases, the traditional method is quicker and cheaper.
Also interesting is stuff like solar sintering plain sand.
It also needs crowd sourced legal assistance
Basically any union in Germany has access to an army of lawyers, your dues double as legal insurance covering anything related to work and welfare.
Meanwhile, in reality, the EU funds lemmy’s development.
One refers to an indefinite and generic group, and it’s not a “they/them” in the sense that one does not exclude oneself from that group (it’s generic, after all). I guess universal quantification is close in meaning.
It’s a thing specific to English, or I guess Indo-European languages in general. All languages have first, second, and third person anything beyond that is non-standard. E.g. Finnish has a 0th person, “Infer who is meant from context”.
Germany did two things wrong, they learned an overly specific lesson “never again should Germans do something this horrible to Jews” rather than “never again should any group or individual do something this horrible to any other group or individual”
Nope, we’re very much aware of the distinction. The first foreign deployment of the Bundeswehr was based on the latter.
The AfD surge is about the other parties’ structural inability to deal with the actual issues people face, in particular economic uncertainty. Feelings of political powerlessness. It’s accelerationist shit.
because it’s arguably a fourth person pronoun.
Even if you consider it a pronoun, which you’d then also have to do with “class” in “Class, please open the book at page 14”, it’s still second person plural. Arguments against “class” and chat" being a pronoun include that they’re nouns, I think that’s rather convincing.
Fourth person would be “One does not simply walk into Mordor”. “One does not address the fourth person”. I guess people got it mixed up with the 4th wall that’s why the confusion exists.
You know what also doesn’t make sense? Not boiling chicken in milk. I can guarantee you that’s not the milk of the chicken’s mother. The “don’t boil a young goat in the milk of its mother” thing at least has a proper interpretation in the sense of “there were some people who did that and God came and God said ‘yo that’s nasty, stop it’”. Something about not using sacrifice as an opportunity to practice transgression.
In the end I think scripture is just a tool for Jews to have something to argue about endlessly.