Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:J.Kimmel show kid says "Kill everyone in China! (Score 1) 519

US will most likely stay the hell out of that three way fight and let them figure a way out on their own, at most offering diplomatic assistance and assurances that any kind of claims on currently undisputed territories would be met with force.

This is true only as long as Japan and China don't start actually shooting at each other.

The possible outcomes:
1. Japan and China decide to let this die down (possible)
2. They work something out politically.
3. There is a skirmish of some sort, plane gets shot down a fish boat sinks. (this is where things get interesting/scary)
      a. Big political shit storm and something gets worked out.
      b. The US sends in 1 or more carrier groups to patrol the disputed waters. ( this is the preamble to WIII, baring any last minute miracles)

Comment Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score 1) 519

like Saddam Hussein because, you know, he was a US puppet, wasn't he. .

Saddam Hussein wasn't a "US" puppet, why do you think we took him out? You don't actually believe the drivel about "weapons of mass destruction" or "saving the Iraqis from tyranny" Do you?

Bush took Iraq out for two reasons, because Hussein wouldn't be HIS puppet and so Bush could funnel millions to he friends in "war industries".

Comment Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score 1) 519

It depends on who your definition of "victor" is. The countries involved in the wars no longer win (financially).

BUT, the greedy bastards pulling the strings sure the hell do. The US lost the Iraq war money wise, but Bush's cronies in Halliburton and others made billions.

 
DRM

RMS Urges W3C To Reject On Principle DRM In HTML5 320

Posted by timothy from the one-of-those-has-4-letters-and-a-number dept.
gnujoshua writes "In a new article, GNU Project founder Richard M. Stallman speaks out against the proposal to include hooks for DRM in HTML5. While others have been making similar arguments, RMS strikes home the point that while companies can still push Web DRM themselves, the stance taken by the W3C is still — both practically and politically — vitally important: '[...] the W3C cannot prevent companies from grafting DRM onto HTML. They do this through nonfree plug-ins such as Flash, and with nonfree Javascript code, thus showing that we need control over the Javascript code we run and over the C code we run. However, where the W3C stands is tremendously important for the battle to eliminate DRM. On a practical level, standardizing DRM would make it more convenient, in a very shallow sense. This could influence people who think only of short-term convenience to think of DRM as acceptable, which could in turn encourage more sites to use DRM. On the political level, making room for DRM in the specifications of the World Wide Web would constitute an endorsement in principle of DRM by the W3C. Standardization by the W3C could facilitate DRM that is harder for users to break than DRM implemented in Javascript code. If the DRM is implemented in the operating system, this could result in distribution of works that can't be played at all on a free operating system such as GNU/Linux.'"

Slashdot Top Deals

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

Close