Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Let's get real (Score 1) 227

I think in terms of total probability, the US is more likely to launch a nuclear strike on DPRK than it is to invade and fight a ground war there.

DPRK is armed to the teeth with conventional weapons and has had 60 years to dig in deep, making a conventional ground assault extremely painful. Not that the US couldn't *win* such a fight should it choose to dedicate the resources, but it would be extremely resource and manpower intensive.

And for what possible gain? No appreciable natural resources, a civilian refugee crisis of epic proportions, a diplomatic shitshow with China and Russia, both of which would use a US commitment to pursue every bit of mischief they are capable of and a price tag in the trillions. Not to mention the global economic ding from the likely destruction Seoul and the disruption to a not-insignificant part of the global supply chain.

Kim's nuclear ambitions are equally ridiculous. They're decades away from any kind of reliable and effective long-range nuclear weapons program and even when they get to the point where they have a half-assed accurate ICBM that can deliver a half-assed effective nuclear weapon, what are they going to do? Any serious *attempt* at using it or even believably threatening to use it, faces the existential threat of a US retaliation that would annihilate them, something that not even the USSR at its peak could avoid, either.

Which is all a great and pretty accurate assessment of why all of us should selfishly leave the North Korean state alone. The humanitarian plight of North Korean
civilians is just so much collateral damage that we will accept, and more importantly not talk about. The multi-generational dictatorship run as a slave state will continue to leave about 25 million people living under a crime family that runs things like an Egyptian Pharaoh. Complete with worshipping the past, present and future rulers as deities. the only meaningful difference is that instead of a national effort to build pyramids, they are being driven to build nuclear weapons and rockets to deliver them globally. Ignoring the humanitarian catastrophe for the last decades has just made it worse, the future will too.

Comment Re:Heartbleed (Score 1) 286

The same way it is caught in Linux. The updates go through evaluation. If a source of updates with REALLY bad/improper updates - it gets banned. And no more updates from the bad source.

My my heart bleeds for your ignorance. Plenty of major security flaws have gone undiscovered and unnoticed in open source projects for long time frames. Simply saying we can trust changes by guys Putin hired because "open source" is naive in the extreme.

Comment Re:"Free as in Freedom" (Score 1) 286

For Putin's government, I would say an OS designed to serve Putin's interest is probably a better alternative for Putin - and that's what we're discussing.

No, the grand parent stated:
Hopefully Russian computer scientists will focus on either making ReactOS a usable replacement (better for us in the West trying to dump Windows)

So a Putin sponsored ReactOS is declared as a better option for the West to move to from Windows. It is absurd, and it was duly and accurately called out as stupidity. Stupidty that got rated +5 insightfull no less.

ReactOS is open source. If Russia contributes to it, it helps everybody in the world that can access the source. The fact that it helps Putin does not mean it cannot help other people.

Of course, if Putin wanted to, the Russian government could make a closed-source fork of ReactOS, but that's obviously not what I was hoping for--hence why I started the statement with "hopefully".

Because "open source" and "full source audit for security holes both accidental and deliberate" are synonymous? If you've got a code base of hundreds of thousands of lines, and Putin's employees add a bunch of features and fixes that comprise 10s of thousands of lines, how exactly do you tell the good from the bad? Sure, some bad stuff can eventually get caught. Sure, it's easier to catch than with closed source. Let's not pretend though that KGB agents are beyond trying to hide problems in plain sight that they can exploit.

Comment Re:Let's get real (Score 2) 227

My point was to correct the possible perception you or anyone else has about "tiny" nukes being something the DPRK has, or would be able to use in any offensive capability. Your casual use of the technology has the potential of inflate the fear mongering, especially next statements about "nuclear or thermonuclear warheads" and lack of mention of "cost" for any of those things. The 3rd world economy of the DPRK, and tyrannical government, mean that they do not have the budge or manpower for any meaningful development of WMDs like nukes.

In your eagerness to stop the fear mongering you badly understate North Korea's capability. Sure, they can barely feed their people. 20 years ago guys like you declared the same things, that the North's economy and tyranny made scientific accomplishments like nukes and rockets impossible. Since then they've detonated nukes(plural) and launched satellites(plural again). I'm not sure where you've set the bar for 'meaningful' but the North has made succeeded in building nuclear weapons and launching rockets around the world. Refining and improving that is well within their ability, they just need the time. I can only interpret your level of meaningful to mean that they can't reasonably develop a large enough arsenal to match existing nuclear powers. Given how brutal, cruel and tyrannical the Godkings inheriting North Korea are, that's small comfort.

The reality is that if Seoul wasn't housing 10million people within range of North Korean artillery, NATO probably would have removed the Kim dynasty generations ago. All the hand wringing is watching a very nasty family growing more and more powerful while we fear the cost of their removal too much to contemplate it.

Comment Re:"Free as in Freedom" (Score 2) 286

For Putin's government, I would say an OS designed to serve Putin's interest is probably a better alternative for Putin - and that's what we're discussing.

No, the grand parent stated:
Hopefully Russian computer scientists will focus on either making ReactOS a usable replacement (better for us in the West trying to dump Windows)

So a Putin sponsored ReactOS is declared as a better option for the West to move to from Windows. It is absurd, and it was duly and accurately called out as stupidity. Stupidty that got rated +5 insightfull no less.

Comment Windows bashing (Score 1) 286

Any government interested in keeping its data and secrets safe but runs Windows is likely populated by imbeciles.

Hopefully Russian computer scientists will focus on either making ReactOS a usable replacement (better for us in the West trying to dump Windows), or making their own Linux distro (I suggest they call it... Kremlinux), which will likely be better for them in the long run.

It's funny because Microsoft is evil.

Seriously though, a government running Windows must be run by imbeciles, but a Kremlin doctored version of ReactOS or Linux would be better? Pot meet kettle my friend.

I get Windows is not the right tool for everything, but neither is it the wrong tool for everything. I don't really see a government ban on Windows across the board makes any sense. Nobody in gov will ever run MS Office, nothing in gov will every be developed in .NET, and all to protect from what exactly? Hidden back doors? Viruses? Depending on what level of data you are securing there are other answers that sometimes make more sense. Even within the CIA, if you have your super secret documents buried in bunker on a Windows AD server with the room cut off from external networks and inside a faraday cage and anyone working goes there physically, you are as safe as running Linux or anything else. Neither is Linux immeasurably superior and secure if you want to connect your server room to the internet while keeping super sensitive data on it.

Sometimes the blind prejudiced hatred for all things MS on here still just confuses me. If you work with computers you aught to know a bit better than stupid knee jerk HS level MS bad jokes.

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 350

Meanwhile, I never said NONE of them would rejoin the fight against the US, i said they'd disappear into the caves (with the implication that they would rejoin their movements).

It's easy enough to pull the quote, you said:

They'll be under surveillance and won't so much as fart in our direction, or they'll disappear into a cave somewhere and never be seen again... either way: fine.

Declaring they won't so much as fart in our direction seems pretty close to saying NONE of them would rejoin the fight. Almost certainly not 30% of them.

And you would use that to justify keeping the other 70% in prison forever? Really? How sick are you?

I never said anything about what to do with them, I simply refuted your claim about them holding in farts upon release...What I said was ridiculous... Yeah, that's a good summary there.

You make the argument that if they aren't an existential threat then they aren't any threat at all what so ever and should be released unconditionally. That is ridiculous.

The reality is they are prisoners of war that were mostly fighting for none state entities that insist their war is eternal. Interpretations of the Geneva Convention and international law are murky here. Treatment and holding of POWs depends upon how their 'nation' was conducting itself. Release typically isn't dictated and is assumed to be at end of hostilities, which kind sucks for you if you were fighting a holy war to the end of eternity.

But hey, you've decided it's simply a matter of release everyone. Might as well not even bring them back to a prison. In the future upon capturing an enemy soldier maybe our troops should give the detainee some rations, a weapon, ammo and send them on their way. I mean if your going to go to the extreme exaggerated misrepresentation of positions, so can I, right?

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 350

The government might have to prove their charges in a court of law? My god, how evil that idea is. Clearly they must be bad guys if its claimed they are so.

I can't shake this feeling that this complicated issue isn't as simple as your single sentence declaration.

The question standing is what is the correct response to non-state actors committing acts of war, and not just once or twice but able to sustain a concerted war effort? The bad actors in this case are not citizens in the state they are attacking in America and Europe. The nations they are based out of are unable or unwilling to extradite them. The typical civilian courts are entirely incapable of addressing such a situation. The collection of evidence after proper warrants being served and an orderly arrest by uniformed officers complete with reading miranda rights is not possible.

What response do you think is correct or best when faced with sustained war acts from non-state entities? The notion of going to war in return and treating those captured as POWs, and more over POWs of an army that refused to abide by the Geneva convention reflects reality, uncomfortable as that may be.

Comment Hugs for everyone! (Score 1) 350

The short version: Don't want to worry about terrorism ? Quit bombing shit.

That's right, because if history teaches us anything, it is that refusing to ever use military forces leads to peace...

Well, either that or violent military repression at the hands of those that ARE willing to use it, I think you an I maybe confuse those two lessons sometimes...

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 350

They will be given the right to stand trial, PUBLIC trial, where the reasons why they are being detained and how we know that information will be subject to the standard rules of evidence used in criminal court. Likely the evidence will not meet the requirements of our legal system and get thrown out, which will set them free.

That is what SHOULD happen. They are not criminals, they are not POWs. They should be deported and set free.

I REALLY don't care how "bad" the government tells us they are, nor even how bad they really actually are.

We cannot simply take prisoners and hold them forever. And its not like they really pose a threat. Not a serious one anyway, certainly nothing existential, or even substantial. They'll be under surveillance and won't so much as fart in our direction, or they'll disappear into a cave somewhere and never be seen again... either way: fine.

If they personally orchestrate the fall of the United States, well, then: you were right, we should have held them. But we both know that's ridiculous.

There are far greater threats in the world then those guys.

...They'll be under surveillance and won't so much as fart in our direction...

As many as 30 percent of the nearly 600 released Gitmo inmates started fighting again. "Ridiculous" was the right word, you just used it wrong.

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 350

Yes, the military has prisons where they put their own. However, that's legally a totally different situation from an enemy combatant taken on the battle field. If you put the Gitmo detainees on American soil, they will demand due process as non-military personnel and would likely get it. If you run these cases though out civilian legal system, they are going to walk free.

So, let me get this straight: you're upset that the American justice system would work as designed, which would lead to a result you don't like. Did I get that right? Okay, in that case, I'll respond in the most patriotic way I know how:


Funny how the parent directly defended your argument, in advance, and you still choose to cut that context out just to fit your narrative. Parent also noted:
The military is NOT a law enforcing agency (except for the Coast Guard) and it is this way for a very good reason. They do not collect evidence legally when they are dealing with enemy combatants. They have the legal ability to capture, detain and kill combatants within the rules of war, which are totally different than the rules dealing with criminal prosecutions. And this is how it should be.

The prisoners in Gitmo were primarily captured in war zones. Miranda rights, warrants, and all manner of other requirements for due process have no place there. Yes, I know the bleeding heart majority don't like that reality. If you can't do any better than ignoring those facts and barelling on as though they don't exist and ignoring that somebody pointed it out to you then you are a part of the problem. What to do with the Girmo prisoners isn't as simple as just put them in civilian prison in America. It isn't as simple as just leave them there or just send them home. It's complicated and ignoring basic facts like that they were captured while actively trying to kill Americans does not lead to a better answer.

Comment Re:Saddam and his alternatives (Score 1) 36

The ouster of Saddam was justified on the grounds that he was supporting terrorism
I don't feel bound to the Bush admins pathetic efforts at defending its actions in Iraq. I even vehemently agree with how grossly ignorant the push for the invasion and ham fisted bungling of the occupation afterwards were.
Saddam had committed genocide on multiple occasions, all signatories to convention on genocide were obligated to act to prevent that, or failing that to punish those responsible. Grounds enough right there for removal of Saddam's regime.
Saddam had violated the NPT, grounds enough to be removed long ago but nobody but Israel did anything by blowing up the reactor the French sold him.
Saddam had repeatedly used chemical weapons on his neighbours and his own people, grounds enough for his removal.
Saddam had repeatedly invaded and taken over his neighbouring countries, grounds enough for his removal.

That the world had failed to have the will to do so doesn't change things. That Bush decided not lay these as the heart of his justifications doesn't suddenly change any of these facts, it just makes Bush case weak and easy to poke full of holes. My reasons for declaring Saddams removal was a good thing depends not one whit on how well or poorly Bush made or failed to make his case.

I have to insist that the isolationist argument of it is ok to ignore genocide and other gross abuses of human rights because it is far away is morally bankrupt. If Iraq had been split into Kurdish, Shia and Sunni partitions most this could probably have been mitigated, but Bush sent in an administrator that knew nothing about Iraq a full week to get himself up to speed before he was on the ground. Unsurprisingly he did a terrifically bad job. Even with that, a post Saddam mostly controlled by Iran and pseudo independent Kurdish people is still a big improvement. It still nowhere near as good as we could have hoped, but bumbling buffoonery can only improve so much over a brutal repressive dictator. An improvement though is absolutely still what it is. The 60% of Iraqis that are Shia sleep better now than before, the 20% that are Kurdish sleep better. If the remaining 20% of Sunni Iraqis are now still living in chaos and facing horrors like ISIL that is still a step from having 80% of Iraqis terrorized versus 20%. Still very much a bad situation, but IMHO less bad than the Saddam era.

Comment Re:Perpetuating the lie (Score 1) 36

"...that sparked deadly protests across the Muslim world."
Bullshit. Those who repeat this lie are the diehard Clinton supporters who do not possess a shred of intellectual honesty.

I never knew that Al Jazeera was among the diehard Clinton supporters.

From the Arab backed media outlets timeline linked above, dozens of people died and hundreds more were injured in the protests. That is the definition of deadly protests so I've not a clue were you are coming from save complete and total ignorance.

Comment Re:Your local recruiter thanks you! (Score 1) 36

And they know that it's better to have a corrupt-as-hell extortionist scumbag military in charge, and at least maintaining a status quo peace, than to take their chances with an Arab-Spring type popular radical government that might easily stumble into a regional nuclear war and possibly set off WWIII.

Learning are they? Slowly, but yes... who would've thought that encouraging the overthrow of a sovereign nation might backfire?

It's difficult to argue that Iraq (and Syria) wouldn't be better off today with Saddam's Sunnis still in power.

Ignorant knee jerk stupidity.

Learning? Bush entrenched that standard with his cowboy speech declaring you are either with us or against us. Before troops where deployed to Afghanistan let alone Iraq. The express purpose was to declare to Musharaf that America was no longer willing to tolerate Pakistan playing nice and cozy with Islamic jihadists like Al Qaida and the Taliban. Of course, in diplomacy it wasn't advisable for the president of the United States to publicly call out the leader of Pakistan for essentially supporting and partnering with such guys, hence his public speech that didn't name any names. Be certain that in back channels though the message was made very clear that America was going to be invading Afghanistan, and the question of whether that included Pakistan as well rested with whether Pakistan opted to change sides and help out or not.

That bit though is more understandable to miss. If you don't follow Pakistani news and recent events mainstream media has been more than happy to leave out the underlying reality. Even as Bin Laden is invariably found living happily a mile away from the Officer Training Academy Musharaf himself graduated from...

It's difficult to argue that Iraq (and Syria) wouldn't be better off today with Saddam's Sunnis still in power.

Again, I'm guessing before the invasion you couldn't find Iraq on a map and more over, since then have refused to bother studying Iraqi history in any, shape or form prior to 2001.

Why don't we take a quick gander at the track record of Saddam's Sunni's while in power.
The Iran-Iraq war, more than a million dead and seeing the most extensive deployment of chemical weapons since they were banned after WW1.
The Al-Anfal campaign, the genocide of 100,000 Iraqi Kurds including again more chemical weapon attacks. The cake goes to Saddam's brother though for incorporating the execution of all breeding age Kurdish men and systematic rape of women with the intended goal of impregnating them with half-arab children. The goal being to very extensive breed the Kurdish people out of existence.
The 1991 extermination of Shia Iraqi's leaving an estimated quarter million dead.

And those are just the absolutely overt crimes of the regime. The daily systemic repression and suppression of any dissent with similarly brutal murder and collective punishment was the norm under Saddam's Sunni's.

Hell, even Saddam's first day 'on the job' is good indicator. Having killed off all opposition parties and consolidated his own parties control of Iraq, Saddam held a grand meeting of his own party. He then brought an obviously and visibily tortured man and gravely announced that there were traitors in the room with them. The tortured man then began naming the names of 'consipirators' and one by one they were dragged up to the front as the room began to panic pledge their allegiance and loyalty to Saddam, surely they were not a traitor. Once Saddam had his chosen people brought up, he turned to the remaining members and did one better than the Stalin playbook he'd been running from so far. He declared that outside there were guns and the traitors were to be executed. The people to execute them would be everyone in the audience not already chosen as a 'traitor', thus sealing them all to his crime.

Saddam was a monster rarely rivalled in history and a statement like It's difficult to argue that Iraq (and Syria) wouldn't be better off today with Saddam's Sunnis still in power. is so ignorant it boggles the mind.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." -- Peter da Silva (at the National Academy of Sciencies, 1965, in a particularly vivid fantasy)