Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment The only sensible approach - a encrypted key chain (Score 1) 288

The perception of website owners that I HAVE to remember their password just shows overblown feeling of self-importance for site owners.

The only sensible approach - completely random passwords, generated by some tool and stored in a key chain with good one master password.

Idea that user somehow would remember password for each site he uses is simply stupid. The number of passwords can easily go up to a hundred. And if all sites start insisting on changing them once in 3 days users will likely go insane.

And be damned those site owners who make it very difficult for browser to insert saved password. And the worst I've seen so far is Home Deport's credit services (owned by city bank, I presume).

And yes, I know, passwords are used not only on websites. Nevertherless - in ideal world user just plugs in his encrypted key chain and uses it to access everything he needs with one password. Well, maybe two - personal and work.

Comment Re:Politcs vs. Science (Score 1) 291

Well, defending from 'invasion' is not exactly expression of political opinion.

I'm fairly sure that if "well armed and ruthlessness" US (or Russian, for that matter) soldiers put their foot on, say, Iran soil there will be armed response, no matter how fertile.

I do not have many friends in Crimea, but as far as I can hear this is hardly viewed as a forceful annexation by majority of citizens there. So yes, polls may be biased, but not that biased. And yes, people may be afraid to defend themselves - but this goes to a certain point. And this point clearly have not been reached. So far majority of people living there is not against joining Russia.

OTOH I'm very curious were 'ruthlessness' of Russian army is coming from? I didn't quite follow US propaganda, so must have missed something...

Comment Re:Politcs vs. Science (Score 1) 291

2) I already went over this in my previous post: Two wrongs does not make a right. Okay, so you believe that the US steamrolled Iraq. Fine. That means that the US should allow Russia to steamroll Ukraine to "even the score"? Bullshit. In that case, there is no country in the world that is free from guilt. Literally every country in the world has at one point colonized another, attacked another unprovoked, massacred certain ethnic groups, etc. You could then go back to to the invasion of Iraq and say that it is hypocritical for Russia to criticize the US because of what the Russians did in the Chechen War.

Well, Chechen is a Russian territory, so again, non of US business. And yes, the whole topic started because Russians didn't stop working with NASA when US committed stuff in Iraq.

I'm saying that before US (or EU) have the moral right to criticize Russia for its actions they should show how they have changed to prevent actions they've themselves made in the past. Otherwise it's like thieve criticizing other thieve: yes, stealing is wrong, but is a thieve the right person to tell anybody that?

Comment Re:Politcs vs. Science (Score 2) 291

This is false. The reason there's no US troops in Iraq today is that the democratically elected Iraqi government wouldn't agree to a status of forces agreement with us. Status of forces agreements are pretty standard, the US has agreements with every country that we have troops in, especially our allies like Germany and Japan. The Iraqi government decided they didn't want to agree to a SOFA, so we left. If the Iraqi government were our puppets, we would have pressured them into agreeing to the SOFA.

Sounds naive. US left Iraq because no powerful US corporation was interested enough in staying. Probably because there is not much to gain there anymore. Or because Iraq government is controlled well enough without military presence. The goal is not a military presence, the goal is to get rich. Military is just a tool.

That's different. bin Laden was hiding out in Afghanistan and launched terrorist attacks against the United States. The Taliban was supporting him, both before and after the 9/11 attacks. If you go around committing acts of war, you can expect a military response.

In other views the reason to invade Afghanistan was Afghanistan Oil Pipeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline).
OTOH, can fact that country doesn't extradite a criminal be a reason for invasion? What's next: invading Ecuador for Assange and Russia for Snowden?

Actually, the United States was in Vietnam at the request of the South Vietnamese government, who wanted our help repelling the North Vietnamese army, who had invaded South Vietnam in violation of a UN order. So yes, the US was asked to intervene in Vietnam.

Democratically elected president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych use asked Russia to use force in Ukraine (not in exact this words, but fairly close), after he had to flee Ukraine. People of Crimea have had a referendum and by vast majority decided to join Russian Federation. The whole 'annex' thing happened without shots and with much celebration in Crimea. So yes, Russia was very much asked to come to Crimea.

US (and EU), on the other hand, openly supports and funds people who using force overthrown democratically elected government in Ukraine - and those people have never been elected. Clear invasion in Ukraine's internal business. Just like Iraq - we will tell you whom you can democratically choose from.

I'm not defending Putin's actions. I'm just saying that US is as bad and is leading by example. And overall it's not that people are bad, it's the structure of life, law of the nature.

Comment Re:Politcs vs. Science (Score 1) 291

90+% and the fact that Crimeans are not fighting suggests that that is quite unanimous. And people in Iraq were fighting with US, weren't they?

And since when unambitious vote of DELEGATES is equal to unanimous opinion of people in those states?

My main point is that those sanctions are just hypocrisy. "Yes, we've done that. But you are not allowed to!" type of stance.

Comment Re:Politcs vs. Science (Score 1) 291

And couple of more things about Crimea that everybody seem to be conveniently forgetting.

Russia didn't just 'annexed' it. There was a referendum and citizens of Crimea voted to join Russia. There may be different points of view on legitimacy of that vote - my same applies on elections help in Iraq while under US invasion.

And secondly - I do not really see Crimeans fighting against Russian invasion. No attacks on Russian solders, no IEDs on the roads. At least not yet. But still - compare that to Iraq. How many civilians were lost in Iraq war? How many US soldiers?

Russian approach seems more humane, I'd say :).

Comment Re:Politcs vs. Science (Score 5, Insightful) 291

Well. I hardly can imagine free elections with a gun pointed to ones head (figuratively speaking). Not to mention that US propaganda machine was running at full steam there. There is no way those elections were not influenced by US. They very much were. So US got what US wanted (oil, I presume) and left, fair enough.

Now in Ukraine: there was an elected government that was overthrown by armed riots. ELECTED president fled to Russia and asked Putin for protection - this is his official position. And US comes in and helps those armed rioters who stared whole thing on the first place. Notice: those rioters were not elected. They are just convenient for US to mess with Russia.

Disclaimer: I'm Russian myself, although I currently live on North America.

But in my view Russian actions in Crimea are no better or worse then US actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or many other numerous places were US soldier had set his foot, many times uninvited. It's true that US didn't annex those territories - but that's just it didn't make much sense to officially annex them. Imagine 'state of Iraq' as a part of US - this just would not have worked. Mainly for cultural and language reasons. If people in Iraq spoke English Iraq would have been US state by now. And people in Crimea speak Russian and are actually ethnic Russians in their majority.

Note: I do not say that Putin is good. My point is that Putin is no more evil than any US president. And that's just how world works - larger countries control smaller countries, in one way or another. And nobody is free.

And all that hysteria how Putin is new Hitler is just good job in US propaganda. As well how 'Putin brings freedom to oppressed Crimeans' is a Russian propaganda.

Comment Re:Politcs vs. Science (Score 4, Insightful) 291

Iraq is it's own sovereign country, we didn't keep even a runway or military base there, but left when the elected government of the country told us to leave.

This is very much a matter of opinion. US had left when people in Iraq had elected government US wanted. Does this make Iraq a sovereign country? I think not. Iraq is pretty much controlled by US. As well as all NATO countries, especially east European ones. BTW, did anybody invited US into Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam? So yeah, look at yourself first and mind your own business - and your business has nothing to do with east Europe. US has much more imperial ambitions than any other country.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...