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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Huh? (Score 2) 220

by DamnOregonian (#49080217) Attached to: Obama Says He's 'A Strong Believer In Strong Encryption'
I can't say I really care about his womanizing. Or any politicians. My concepts of sexual "morality" differ pretty seriously from the mainstream, which I consider to be utterly illogical. When you say "no longer matters", I say "should never have mattered". Sure he was a hypocrite, being he was a Pastor, but I think most Christians are hypocrites struggling with cognitive dissonance over their god-given rules and human nature/reality.

Comment: Re:Yes (Score 1) 716

by DamnOregonian (#49034389) Attached to: Is Modern Linux Becoming Too Complex?

Well, that's not really true. I mean, look at what I'm asking for WRT libvirt. There's a facility already present in the system for doing what they're doing, and they simply ignore it, with consequences for users. And what's more, the facility works really well for what they're doing with it, which they're doing very poorly.

What you mean, is that there are already many facilities present in many systems for doing what they're doing. We don't all use debian (/etc/interfaces? holy crap.) w/o NetworkManager anymore. You blame libvirt for trying to handle the actual problem in a fashion that causes the least amount of headache for the majority of users across disparate systems. That's silly.

Comment: Re:Not horrific for Americans (Score 1) 645

Where do we draw the line? I'm not sure, it's hard to quantify exactly but I'd want to weight it heavily towards being pretty darn sure of hitting valid targets almost exclusively.

I understand the pragmatic need to accept collateral damage. But ISIS is an insurrection style force. Like any rebellion rising from the ranks of the populace- you CANNOT bomb it into submission. You will only strengthen its numbers. Collateral damage maybe nearly impossible to eliminate, but in a war against a popular uprising (ISIS is recruited from among the populace of the area- and outside of its area, populations that belong to the very groups it's fighting) you simply have to eliminate it. The longer it goes on, the more recruiting power every collateral kill has. Unless we're ready to just firebomb the entire fucking place into oblivion, we've got to do it the ugly way. Go in with people and catch the bad guys.

I don't think we created it

You're right- that was incorrect wording from me.
More accurately, we gave an ideology the fuel it needed to become a real problem.
We gave them their Great Satan. There's way too much blood on our hands.

Comment: Re:Even Fox gets it right sometimes (Score 2) 645

You're an idiot if you think that matters to the people this organization recruits.

Furthermore, I'd argue children in their homes aren't civilians who wandered into a combat zone.

We can argue all day who is more immoral, but the fact is, we're acting like the British Empire trying to put down an annoying insurrection of restless natives. Hitting them with the heavy hand of someone who is convinced in their own superiority, moral righteousness, and not afraid to use overwhelming force. These things may work against a country, but they won't work against small organizations that recruit the wronged that WE are wronging.

The only thing going our way at this point, is that they may finally end up pissing off enough of their own recruiting source that their insurrection gets stamped out by the massive reserves of manpower surrounding them.

Comment: Re:Not horrific for Americans (Score 1) 645

As with many things context matters.

Agreed- 100%.

Did the launching forces know that there were civilians on site before ordering the strike?

Of course. If not 100%, I have no doubt they were in the modeled outcome.

If so, what ratio of collateral damage was expected?

One that fell within the range of "acceptable", I imagine.

There is no such thing as a sanitary war where no civilians are ever harmed, that is especially true in cases of asymmetric warfare like that of the U.S. vs. Islamic Terrorists.

Can't argue that.

This is made even more complicated as the opposing force routinely uses civilians as shields knowing that we are reluctant to cause civilian casualties.

Not relevant to the example above, at all. But again, that they do that can't be argued.

This is a clear violation of the laws of war.

That's pretty rich, coming from us.

I'm bitching less about the morality of it (my opinion is clearly that it is wrong), but the sheer stupidity of it. We're fighting an ideology that is created by our actions. It would be like trying to fight the American Revolution by quartering Continental soldiers in private homes and taxing them without representation. It's stupidity. There's no doubt that what we are doing, is in some part, originated from a sense of trying to do right (ignoring any corrupting influences), but we're still Doing It Wrong (TM). What's the right way? I don't know. But this isn't it. We have to stop killing those innocents. We have to stop creating those grieving fathers and brothers. This isn't a symmetrical war where we're trying to stamp out morale- you can't stamp out the morale of people with a well-earned vendetta against you.

Comment: Re:Summary of the video clip (Score 2) 645

You seem like a really reasonable guy.
These people are evil, sick fucks. There's no doubt about it. But you should put what they do in the context of what is done to them. First thing to look at- the bombed out building.
Then that.

I want these guys stomped out of existence as much as the next guy, but I'm pretty goddamn sure we're doing *nothing* but making more of them with every father that sees his child's destroyed remains in a bombing campaign against those people. I'm sure this dynamic has existed long enough that they're figured it out and actively WANT us to bomb them to some extent.

That being said, do we just let them win? Of course not. But we HAVE to find a way to fight them without creating more of them. Doing so is the very definition of fucking stupid.

Comment: Re:Not horrific for Americans (Score 2) 645

You are right that the deliberateness of the act can definitely be contrasted to the indifference in the American counterpart, which would be firing missiles into houses full of people to kill a single guy, watching from a remotely piloted armed surveillance platform as they burned, with not a single picture of the charred bodies of children appearing on American media sources.

These people are fucking savages, but I don't believe our top brass in the defense-intelligence structure are any better. We're just a little more worried about being re-elected.

Comment: Re:Yes. It serves a crucial purpose. (Score 1) 645

You are right- there is a difference. But that difference becomes muddy to the father or brother of a murdered child. If I were a psychotic religious nutjob that wanted to spread my ideology across a fertile landscape, all I'd need to do is troll the government (or people out to stop me) into creating enough sentiment against itself. At that point, it doesn't even fucking matter why they were doing it. All that matters is the blood of innocents is on their hands, and people will take up arms against them. They will rally to any fucking flag that waves high enough.

"It's when they say 2 + 2 = 5 that I begin to argue." -- Eric Pepke