Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:lol, Rand sucking up to the dorks (Score 2) 202

The internet existed in 1983, and was spreading quickly in 1986. Computer crime has existed since at least the 1960s. How could you imagine that hostile foreign governments and other bad actors didn't obain Top Secret US intelligence information via Snowden since it was published in newspapers while the US is engaged in armed conflict and confronting various threats to NATO and other allies?

Comment: Re:Amazing... (Score 2) 202

Being genuinely "anti-war" during a period of international strife isn't necessarily a wise position. Had the North capitulated to the demands of the South, would the US still be a nation with slavery? Where would the world be today if FDR had been anti-war and shrugged off the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor? Much of the British population was so opposed to war that it delayed Britains rearmament prior to WW2, which almost brought it to ruin. Had the Nazis met resistance in remilitarizing the Rhineland it might very well have prevented much grief later. More than one foreign leader has made the mistake of believing the US response would be weak if the US was attacked, including the Japanese and Bin Laden. Being weak in a world of predators such as them invites attack. It is generally a good thing to avoid war if possible, but not every war is avoidable.

Comment: Re:Amazing... (Score 1) 202

serious Republican contender? I don't think any of them could be considered as serious.

You don't? That's funny .... having served as a state governor is generally considered a strong qualification for running for president, and a number of the Republicans either in or considering entering the race have served as such.

Do you think nobody is a serious candidate? Or is it just the Republican side you think is "lacking"? Or is it your views that are unserious?

+ - Assange Talk Causes Judges Across The UK To Boycott/Walk Out Of Legal Conference->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: The Commonwealth Law Conference in Glasgow was subjected to walk outs and boycott once it became known that Julian Assange was to appear by video link from the Ecuadorian embassy to give a talk at the conference. The Guardian reports that, "Judges from Scotland, England and Wales and the UK supreme court had agreed to speak at or chair other sessions but withdrew – in some cases after arriving at the conference centre– when they found out about Assange’s appearance. Among those to boycott the conference were the most senior judge in Scotland, Lord Gill, and two judges on the supreme court, Lord Neuberger and Lord Hodge. A spokesperson for the Judicial Office for Scotland said: “The conference programme was changed to include Mr Assange’s participation at short notice and without consultation. Mr Assange is, as a matter of law, currently a fugitive from justice, and it would therefore not be appropriate for judges to be addressed by him. “Under these circumstances, the lord president, Lord Gill, and the other Scottish judicial officeholders in attendance have withdrawn from the conference.” A spokesman for the UK supreme court added: “Lord Neuberger and Lord Hodge share the concerns expressed by Lord Gill and his fellow senior Scottish judges ... “As a result of this unfortunate development, they trust that delegates will understand their decision to withdraw from the conference. ...” A spokesman for judiciary of England and Wales said: “The lord chief justice shares the concerns expressed by Lord Gill and Lord Neuberger ... He agreed with the position taken by both, and the judges of England and Wales also withdrew from the conference. ...”"
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:A bit off topic (Score 1) 299

If the "quote" actually occurred there should be a source for it, and none is noted. On the other hand it appears to be a popular quote on various fringe web sites that are likely more open to fabrications, especially if they tend to demonstrate some sort of conspiracy involving Germany, Jews, and Churchill.

It seems highly likely that "quote" is spurious given the strange wording, the false contents, and the lack of any specific attribution. If you doubt it yourself it makes no sense to post it.

Comment: Re:A bit off topic (Score 1) 299

Here is the text of the speach that Winston Churchill gave at Fultun. The phrases you show as being attrributed to Churchill don't appear there, nor do they appear to be Churchill's words, nor do they fit with history. That doesn't seem to be a genuine quote.

The second attribution also seems highly unlikely.

Comment: Re: better idea (Score 1) 166

by cold fjord (#49506717) Attached to: UN To Debate Lethal Autonomous Weapons

The Taliban never had any intention of handing over Bin Laden. Al Qaida was integrated into the Taliban government. The Taliban had previously shown they wouldn't negotiate in good faith when the US tried to extradite Bin Landen following his indictment in the US after the Africa embassy bombings and Cole attack.

9/11 was an act of war consistent with Bin Laden's declaration of war against America in the 1990s. The Taliban though they would just ride out the storm and ignored the ultimatum. It was a bad choice.

Do you reall think that the Taliban would have handed him over? Just curious.

Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb