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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: before the 10-year ban on Iran ... is lifted (Score 1) 97

I don't think you must listen to the Iranian leaders much.

If they manage to erase Israel from the pages of history do you think you'll survive the process? What about your people?

It appears that both Iran and al Qaeda believe in what is referred to as "involuntary martyrdom". The Israelis? Not so much.

Comment Re:GoT (Score 1) 97

That is some Game of Thrones level of hypocrisy right there.

You will be far better informed, and probably wiser, if you watch these instead of or in addition to GoT. This is where most of Europe was, and where the world was heading. It can still head in that direction, and that is far, far, far more linkely than the imaginary peace and love of a Star Trek world.

The Soviet Story
A Portrait of Stalin: Secret Police

The Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, North Korea, Cambodia, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Viet Nam, much of Africa and other places were in the grip of this sort of madness. Should you bother to watch the above maybe you will contemplate how you would be fair to them, and how you would survive?

Comment Re:NK and Iran (Score 1) 97

And Iran would still have it's democratically elected leader instead of enduring the Shah for 38 years.

You're mistaken. Iran had no democracy when the Shah was restored to power. The Prime Minister had dissolved parliament, faked an election, and was ruling by decree. The Prime Minister also refused the traditional check on the power of a PM in a constitutional monarchy, the right of the monarch to dismiss the Prime Minister. No, you are quite mistaken. Iran's government was overthrown before the counter-coup that restore the Shah to power, and he reconstituted the government.

The Mullahs have been far more brutal than the Shah was. You should factor both of these factors into your thinking.

Comment Re:Maintaining status quo... (Score 1) 97

When a country has nuclear weapons, the US stops meddling in its internal affairs and begins to treat it as an equal.

So your thinking is that the USSR/Russia, UK, US, and China didn't/don't meddle with each other?

You think India, Pakistan, and China (with a little help from North Korea) will be an "island of stability" and peace, and a lack of meddling? Has North Korea grown more peaceful since obtaining nuclear weapons? (Maybe they'll demonstrate their commitment to peace the next time they launch missiles OVER Japan.)

You want to be "equal" with North Korea, a country that has starved millions of its people that it could have fed, did didn't, diverting food aid to the military? (A minor slice of the military budget would have fed them as well.) A country that puts three generations of a family in prison camps that kill large percentages of their inmates put there for such crimes as telling a joke about the Glorious Leader, or maybe not cheering enthusiastically enough for the increase in chocolate ration from 25g to 15g?

You think it was good to be "equal" with Stalin's Soviet Union, that only a few years previously killed 7,000,000 Ukrainians by confiscating their food and starving them to death for not being enthusiastic about the Soviet government? The Soviet Union killed far more people than Nazi Germany (after helping the Nazis invade Poland, and prepare for war against the rest of Europe). The Soviet government that spread its tentacles across the world, even controlling many in the US?

You want to be "equal" with Iran, an genocidal genuine theocracy* that wants to be the leader of the Islamic world as a competitor to al Qaeda, has missiles that will reach Europe now, and warhead designs just waiting for fissionable material? A country that makes no secret about its genocidal desires against Israel, and longs to destroy your own country even while it fosters the cult of the suicide bomber?

Might I suggest you may have a pathological desire for "equality" and probably a warped view of the US?

Might I suggest you watch this some time? What do you want to be equal to?

*Not the rhetorical or pretend kind that some people want to claim about the US

Comment Re: Gift Horse (Score 1) 313

Oh wait! A Congressman can make all of the speeches he wants, even on the floor of Congress, and it doesn't constitute government policy. You might notice that Congressmen are not policy makers in the Executive branch. POLICY MAKER. Like President, Secretary of State, Attorney General, etc. Policy makers decide, they order. Members of the Legislature make speeches, occasionally vote, and rarely get some meaningful law passed. Constitutionally they can't even target an individual by name in a law.

All that constitutes is hot air, nothing more. It isn't a threat to Assange. It is just opinions. That's it.

Trying to spin that into an actual something is rubbish.

Comment Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut (Score 1) 289

Hillary's servers were not totally secure, but were they more or less secure than the State Dept's servers?

Not relevant.

Is there anyone who cares about this issue that didn't already hate Hillary for other reasons?

You mean like anyone interested in good government?

Boondoggles and misconduct are party agnostic and should be opposed regardless of source.

Comment Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut (Score 1) 289

The key question that you are ignoring isn't the use of a non-government server by a government official, but rather, "What was it used for, and in what context?"

There are functions expected of members of an administration that aren't legal to perform on government servers, such as partisan political activity. That is a perfectly legitimate reason to use a non-government server.

Hillary co-mingled personal matters with political matters with official duties of a Ministerial nature, and had state secrets mixed in with her mail. That is wildly inappropriate. It is almost unbelievable that any person of Hillary's education and general exposure to government would do that. Almost.

Odd that you don't seem aware or interested in any of that.

I'm also pretty sure that most "fox fans" don't think Hillary is "literally" Hitler. Most of them probably have a very good idea who Hitler is, and aren't likely to toy with slinging that name around.

Comment Re: Gift Horse (Score 1) 313

That is only related to the war against the international terrorist jihadist group al Qaida being waged by the US.

Are you suggesting that Assange is affiliated with al Qaeda? Do you have any proof of that? Or do you have proof that it is being used for handling ordinary criminal justice matters, which is what Assange would fall into ... if the US even had a warrant out for him (which it doesn't).

Comment Re: Gift Horse (Score 1) 313

oh wait, that involves terrorism. I'm pretty sure all of those examples do. Assange isn't accused of terrorism.

Do you have some examples that don't involve terrorism? Or are you claiming that Assange is involved with terrorism?

Or are you trying to muddy the water with irrelevant information?

Silly me, we know what is going on. Assange isn't at risk. Your reference if BS in regard to Assange.

All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.