Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Airstrikes on population centers (Score 1) 334

It's the fact that rather than bombing Daesh, they're bombing groups opposed to Daesh, in order to prop up the failing government

On this I consider Putin to be an order of magnitude smarter than all the US presidents and western leaders put together.

At least he understands that if they bomb away only IS, the next jihad group down there will take up their flag and continue the same shit.

You can dislike Assad all you want, and I certainly don't know enough about the guy and his politics to have an informed opinion, but AFAIK he didn't burn people alive in cages and put it on YouTube. He certainly seems like the least of a dozen evils.

The chain of causality seems really simple from an outside. The US went to Iraq to fuck over Hussein, and in doing so they strengthened Al Qaida, which at that time was not a big force in that area. When they went back to bomb out Al Qaida, the IS rose out of the rubble. I frankly don't want to see what will come after IS if this trend continues.

When what you're doing isn't working, you should try something else. Putin bombing all the islamistic fuckers seems like a reasonable approach. I don't see how you can speak about "moderate" islamists when they all share the same religious policy of "kill all infidels" and they mostly disagree about whether or not to rape them beforehand or whether stoning or throwing off a building is the proper method of execution. Calling any of them "moderate" because they take your money to bend whichever way you want like a cheap prostitute is among the most cynical political opportunisms. Nobody in the White House or the Pentagon can be stupid enough to not understand they will turn against the US the next moment.

Comment Re:In other news (Score 1) 334

Now THAT was real carnage


Sorry, you guys are just too soft-hearted for actual war if you call the US part in WW2 a "real carnage".

The USSR lost around 10 million soldiers in WW.
Germany lost about 5 million.
China lost 3.5 million.

The USA lost 0.4 million.

The real carnage in WW2 was on the eastern front and in China. For the Germans, the battle of Stalingrad alone cost them as many casualties (at least half a million, possibly up to 800,000) than the entire western front. 80% of the German casualties are thanks to the Russians.

And yes, the USAF bombed some German cities to rubble. But even so, German civilians fled the Red Army towards the west, not the other way around. If you've ever read stories about the siege of Leningrad from the Russian perspective, you know why. I know them. My girlfriend is from St. Petersburg as it is known today. After I've heard her tell WW2 stories from russian perspective, I laugh about US war movies. Omaha Beach: 2000 casualties. The horror. That would have been a quiet day in Stalingrad, where four times as many people died every day for five months straight.

That is what real carnage looks like.
Stalingrad had a population of 400,000 before the war. After the German 6th Army was destroyed, an official census counted 1,500 residents. Pictures from Stalingrad look worse than pictures from Hiroshima. That is real carnage.

Comment Re:Brave polling, but in real life? (Score 1) 80

Now this isn't fair and we should have legal protection against officials for even asking the question,

Here in Germany, there are certain questions that by law are not permissible to be asked in certain contexts. However, of course it happens anyway. So by legal precedent after a few court cases, the current legal situation is that if you are asked such an inappropriate question, you have a legal right to lie.

The primary example is pregnancy. Employers are not allowed to ask a woman if she is currently pregnant or plans to become pregnant soon during job interviews. But if they do, she can lie. Usually, if you lie in a job interview and are found out, you can be terminated for it. But for this one, nope, can't, because you were excercising your right to lie in response to an illegal question.

Comment Re:"... only if we're married or similarly situate (Score 1) 80

My first thought when I saw the poll options was "if you share passwords with your spouse, put your nerd card into the box near the exit and leave".

I was married happily for a decade, but never shared passwords. There's one hundred ways to give your spouse access (normal or emergency) to your data for emergencies without handing out passwords. Encryption keys are about the only thing you might have to share, because we don't have many non-theoretical multi-key-encryption systems around. But passwords? What for if I can set up groups and permissions nicely?

Comment distress passwords (Score 1) 80

I so much wish that more software would support distress passwords at all.

It should be mandatory for all OS to include this feature, because this is the first password that thugs will encounter. Please, Apple, give me one password that will kill all processes, shut down the system with Filevault properly in place and reset all system passwords to, say, a very, very long complex master password that nobody can remember so when I got it at system install, I wrote it down and put it into a safe.

Yes, my local security service can still get that safe and beat the combination out of me (or get a warrant for the bank), but some random foreign border agent can't.

Comment Re:GOOD GRIEF! (Score 1) 394

It depends a lot on which juice you buy. As I drink a lot of juice, I'm checking labels before buying one I don't know yet, and you usually have a good choice. Once you understand that there are different quality levels of juice and how to discern them, you can avoid the crap that is basically coke with fruit flavor.

Comment Re:The Big Soda loves the decline (Score 1) 394

Because people are idiots, true.

At home, you can bottle your own water. Or drink it straight from the faucet. If you're worried about what's in there, there are filter devices and they are reasonably cheap (I use one mostly because calcium carbonate isn't good for the tea cooker).

For the road, you can bottle water at home, or sometimes buy a bottle. Why not? Yeah, someone makes a profit, but I have something clean to drink, in many holiday locations that's a luxury. And it's better than giving someone a profit for spoiling your health. And there is much more potential for competition, including locally sourced products.

Comment Re:No, drinking soda != smoking (Score 2) 394


I'm a militant anti-smoker. I hate it, I avoid places that still allow smoking, and if they do so in break of current anti-smoking legislation, I bring them to the attention of authorities. I've never had a smoking GF and crossed off many potential candidates from the list because of their addiction.

All that said, you can smoke all you want, for all I care, and slowly kill yourself, if you find a way to do it without affecting anyone else who didn't consent to being gassed.

Drinking soda might be unhealthy, but it's not smelly, it doesn't turn people into nervous wrecks if they haven't had one for a day and it doesn't force itself on people around you. I can't tell if someone drank a coke in a room when I come in one hour later. I can tell if someone smoked in their car even if they stopped half a year ago and gave it a very solid cleansing. I can smell if one person is smoking somewhere in the same room in a public space. If you know anything about biology, you understand that if you can smell it, it means toxic levels are reached and the stink is your bodies way of telling you to get the hell out of there.

Drinking soda isn't the "new smoking". The two things are not even on the same level.

Comment Re:weakly disguised hit-piece (Score 5, Interesting) 295

Well, she was outfoxed.

The PJB-100, the first disk-based MP3 player, was in my hands in 1999 - a full two years before the iPod. HP owned fundamental patents that could have taxed each unit that Apple sold - but seemed to be entirely unaware of that ownership.

Instead, they paid Apple to resell their own inventions. Brilliant!

So yeah, she just totally sucked.

Comment Re:Just makes them look even more guilty (Score 1) 319

Actually, why don't we impose the corporate death penalty on VW and its parent company, Porsche?

As much as the outrage is justified, I think there are companies much higher on that list. But yes, why don't we at least have a corporate death penalty? Just its existence would help a lot.

Of course, that sort of thing is never going to happen in Germany, because the Piechs are politically well connected wealthy industrialists, the unions are extremely powerful, and the state has had its fingers in VW management too.

Sadly, yes. But that is not just true of VW and Germany, it is true of almost every multinational corporation.

The unions are "extremely powerful"? Wow, that's news and I lived all my life in Germany. No, they are not, unless you compare it to the ultra-capitalist USA which for all practical purposes doesn't even have unions.

Besides, if the death penalty is done in a proper way, the unions would not even object. Look, if you kill a corporation you have to ask yourself what to do with all its assets. If you revoke the charter, who owns everything? The shareholders? Uh, no? Because if you do it that way, a lot of the deterence goes away. One idea I've read about is to take the corporation away from its owners and turn it into a collective, owned by its workers.

Executive and judicial branches without politicians: that's roughly the system that existed under Bismarck, under Marxism, and under fascism.

In which fantasy parallel reality? I said less power, not higher concentration of power by putting it into fewer hands.

What I meant with "less politicians" and "less power" was that the government should implement the will of the people, not have a will of its own. As long as they are public servants and administrators, it doesn't matter how big or small the government is. The problem is not the size in square feet or employees, but the amount of power they wield.

the only political ideas you recognized are the totalitarian ideas you have been raised with.

You have no idea how I was raised, you're just making an ad hominem argument to cover up that you have no content to argue with. Free hint: When you argue with a german and you want to attack how he was raised, make sure you know first if he was raised in East or in West Germany. It's a very big difference, still noticeable today, 25 years after the reunification.

Going the speed of light is bad for your age.