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:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 841

by cold fjord (#49351773) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

Who do you think were the biggest opponents against civil rights issues for non-whites during the mid 20th century?

National Socialists, Fascists, and assorted white supremicists. Whom were you thinking it was?

The same rhetoric about gay marriage was espoused back then, only it was targeting interracial marriage. Verses from the bible were even used to justify it as a "sin".

Acutally no, it wasn't "rhetoric about gay marriage." It was rhetoric about interratial marriage. You should also know (in case you don't) that many African Americans take offense at that comparrison.

So called "gay marriage" is its own topic.

Christians, on the whole, have probably come to accept the idea that non-whites should be treated equally under the law, but that wasn't the majority opinion back in the 40's or earlier.

Where do you think the abolitionist (anti-slavery) movement came from, and when? It was from the Christian church, and well before the 1940s.

You seem to be confusing the positions held by a minor portion of some American churches with that of Christianity world-wide. That isn't a good assumption.

In 50 years it's not inconceivable to imagine that the majority of Christians will accept that gay and bisexual people should be treated the same as straight people.

They are. God loves people that engage in homosexuality or bisexuality and offers them the same forgiveness of sins in Christ as anybody else.

Comment: Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded (Score 1) 225

by cold fjord (#49342127) Attached to: How Nuclear Weapon Modernization Undercuts Disarmament

No, but the reality was before you went into Iraq in 2003, against any sensible facts, and despite evidence that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

The reality is that you must not have paid any attention to the discussions about Iraq to post that nonsense. The US didn't claim that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. What it did claim, and quite accurately, was that Iraq was involved in actively supporting terrorism. Your "sensible facts" are nonsense as well. Saddam's Iraq had a well documented history of aggression, use of WMDs, crimes against humanity, and all manner of other crimes.

... your own government had people talking about how the oil you'd get from Iraq would pay for the war because they'd be so grateful. How did that work out for you?

It wasn't a driver of policy, and a minor point. I can see why it so consumes you.

And, further, how many places has America utterly failed to act when there was no oil?

You mean like Vietnam, Korea, Germany, Italy, Japan, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Afghanistan, Cuba? The US isn't responsible for doing whatever your whims are, and not every problem in the world is one the US can or should address. But it does make a useful if dishonest club for you as you damn the US when it does act and when it doesn't.

America ignores what's happening in Africa because there's no oil for the most part.

You mean like the billions of dollars in aid the US has given to fight the AIDs crisis in Africa? Or the assistance the US is giving to support resistance against various terrorist factions? Could you remind me, isn't Libya in Africa? How did apartheid come to an end?

And yet claims loudly they must intercede in the middle east out of principle and on humanitarian grounds.

Much to your distress. Is Saddam still gassing entire villages? No? Why not?

Has it occurred to you that the much vaunted "principles" America claims before going to war are entirely dependent on oil and/or your own economic benefit, and that your claims to do this out of a sense of right and wrong is bullshit?

We've already seen that your claim about oil is bullshit, and the "economic benefit" is as well. That would seem to leave you totally baffled why the US has gone to war.

Because it certainly has to the rest of the world.

You aren't the rest of the world.

Comment: Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded (Score 1) 225

by cold fjord (#49341915) Attached to: How Nuclear Weapon Modernization Undercuts Disarmament

Your post manages to get things almost entirely wrong.

The Iraqis got their chemical weapons from the US for use against Iran.

No, they didn't. The Iraqis manufactured their own chemical weapons although early on they cooperated with Egypt. Any country with a chemical industry, the ability to make dyes and insecticides, can manufacture chemical weapons.

The US still hasn't destroyed their own CBW program products (though they do occasionally retire old unstable chemical weapons, as they've done recently.)

The US has been in the process of destroying its chemical munitions for decades. There was a lot of them and its a slow process to render them safely destoryed. The ones that still exist require careful handling as they are often corroded or unstable.

And both the US and Russians still have their hoards of smallpox, pretending they need to keep them to develop vaccines in case the other side uses theirs to attack, even though cowpox ("vaccinia") is good enough for a vaccine and not good enough for a weapon.

Various pox related diseases still exists in nature, and various countries have illegal biological weapons programs thought to include small pox. A Soviet defector even indicated that the Soviet Union had been manufacturing small pox for use as a strategic attack weapon. What makes you think that cowpox is a good starting point to create vaccines effective against modern genetically engineered strains, unknown strains, or related diseases as have recently been seen in the country of Georgia?

Comment: Re:Interesting double edge sword there. (Score 1) 336

by cold fjord (#49304861) Attached to: German Vice Chancellor: the US Threatened Us Over Snowden

But it hardly seems like a smart idea to allow a country we value to be destabilized over one man.

Agreed. But for some reason for you that doesn't resolve to the Germans should not have been considering an offer of asylum. That is a serious misjudgment. Also, should we take it from your statement that the Germans don't value the US?

What affects the one, affects us all.

Agreed. And that is why it is puzzling that the Germans would be intrested in helping to create damage to the intelligence services that as you imply they rely on.

If Germany became destabilized due to our childish antics, it wouldn't end well.

You're confused about whose actions constitute "childish antics." That would have been the Germans had they gone through with it despite the serious damage occurring on many levels.

Your entire chain of reasoning on this is faulty.

Worst case, nuclear power plants would be pilfered.

And yet nobody worries about this when Snowden provides information accessible by terrorists that is needed to avoid surveillance. Curious, isn't it?

Do you have any words of caution for the Germans over their ill-considered idea of offering Snowden asylum?

Comment: Re:Can't have it both ways (Score 1) 336

by cold fjord (#49304577) Attached to: German Vice Chancellor: the US Threatened Us Over Snowden

i doubt it as they were bugging the german prime ministers phone calls.

Who wasn't bugging the German Prime Minister's phone calls? Or, as the register puts it:

Angela Merkel's phone was being listened in on by FIVE foreign powers

If your spooks aren't tapping Merkel, you should fire them really

Comment: Re:I see a problem here and it isn't Snowden/Germa (Score -1, Flamebait) 336

by cold fjord (#49301769) Attached to: German Vice Chancellor: the US Threatened Us Over Snowden

What hope do they have against actual terrorists with an IQ over 90? Or lone wolves who communicate with exactly nobody?

My assessment of all these laws is that they are there to protect vested interests.

Your assessment is useless. It apparently isn't even infomed by anything so pedestian as Canadian newspapers that have carried many stories on people being arrested for involvement in terrorism. I have no idea how you could make such an enormous cognitive error. Its as if you are in a room with a mouse and an elephant, claim there is no elephant, but damn(!) that mouse is a problem!

Comment: Re:This is the cost incurred for outsourcing defen (Score 1, Informative) 336

by cold fjord (#49301383) Attached to: German Vice Chancellor: the US Threatened Us Over Snowden

Defense from who, exactly?

Russia still occupies (formerly?) German territory that it annexed and stationed military units in (including nuclear weapons). Maybe you've heard that they are invading neighboring countrries again, taking their territory, and annexing it? There are many European countries threatened by Russian aggression in this regard.

Russia had made repeated threats involving use of nuclear weapons. Maybe you missed that Puting just stated his willingness to brandish nuclear weapons in order to annex Crimea?

From imaginary retro-communist threat, or some "terrorists" that US themselves funded and created?

I'm pretty sure that the Russians aren't either imaginary or "retro-communists." And the "terrorists" of concern aren't "terrorists," they are terrorists. The US didn't fund or create them.

I hope you're actually good at your job.

Comment: Re:Gotta love the irony... (Score 1) 216

by cold fjord (#49289473) Attached to: France Will Block Web Sites That Promote Terrorism

I don't think there's anyone alive who is in a position to form an unbiased judgment of whether a terrorist site, a porn site or Charlie Hebdo is more offensive. Offense, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder.

You've got the question wrong. It isn't a question of "is terrorism more offensive", but rather, "does the site advocate terrorism?" That is a simple and fairly objective task in many cases.

Comment: Re:Streisand effect anyone? (Score 1) 135

by cold fjord (#49257903) Attached to: Wikipedia Entries On NYPD Violence Get Some Edits From Headquarters

Since I realize that in the Western hemisphere there are a number of nations that have referred to themselves as "united states," and you claim to be in the "united states," I have to ask: Have you ever actually been to the United States of America, the one immediately south of Canada? The totality of the substance of your comments would seem to indicate the answer is "No" and that your only familiarity with it comes from the most lurid tales from a fringe left weekly.

To communicate is the beginning of understanding. -- AT&T