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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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:Not gonna happen (Score 1) 383

by cowwoc2001 (#49404667) Attached to: Why the Framework Nuclear Agreement With Iran Is Good For Both Sides

The only reason Iran is helping against ISIS is because of a decades-old Sunny vs Shi'a conflict. ISIS is Sunny and Iran is Shi'a. Iran is ISIS for Shi'a in every sense of the word: aspiration for world domination, use of torture and extreme violence both on its own people and its enemies, funding and carrying out of terrorism. The list goes on.

The only difference is that Iran has ICBMs capable of hitting half of the globe (hello Europe, soon hello US) and are now attempting to arm them with nuclear warheads. ISIS is 1/100th the threat by comparison.

Comment: Re:If no deal, then Iran *will* get nukes (Score 1) 383

by cowwoc2001 (#49404621) Attached to: Why the Framework Nuclear Agreement With Iran Is Good For Both Sides

Wrong.

The West has sufficient military capability to bomb their nuclear weapons program back to the stone age. What is currently missing is the political willpower to do so.

This is more of a reflection on our system's short-term focus than it is about what is morally the right thing to do.

The danger with Iran is not *only* its nuclear weapons program, it is their multi-decade history of funding and carrying out terrorist actions across the globe in order to spread their political reach. If you think such a regime could be trusted to honor a deal (which does not even restrict them from continuing such terrorist actions) and give them an Internationally-approved nuclear weapons program in 10 years then I strongly disagree.

Comment: Re:I've got this (Score 1) 400

by cowwoc2001 (#49018381) Attached to: An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos

When did Goebbels create a slashdot account?

Life is full of moments where you piss people off. The difference between you and me is I that don't give a shit about hurting the feelings of people who openly call for the death of Westerns like myself.

Freedom of Speech is not unlimited. It does not cover shouting fire in a crowded theater. It does not give you the right to incite violence against an identifiable group of people. ISIS is doing plenty of that and as such their videos should be censored.

Comment: Re:I've got this (Score 1) 400

by cowwoc2001 (#49015673) Attached to: An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos

Wrong.

Censoring ISIS recruiting videos is very clearly not in favor of ISIS and the only freedom it removes is one's freedom to get brainwashed by Muslim extremists.

There is no slippery slope here. Ban all videos put out by an organization called ISIS that feature executions. Who (that was care about) would be harmed by this action?

Comment: Re:Why do people want them down? (Score 1) 400

by cowwoc2001 (#49015131) Attached to: An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos

Nonsense.

If these videos did not have an impact, ISIS (and other extremist groups) would not put them up. Do you honestly think that tens of thousands of Westerners would be flocking to ISIS if they had never heard of them?

There are plenty of young people looking for meaning in life, and they believe that ISIS will enable them to do so. Granted, if ISIS's propaganda wasn't around, they'd find something else. But I am willing to bet that whatever else they end up doing will be less destructive than beheading, raping and burning civilians alive.

Comment: Re:I've got this (Score 3, Insightful) 400

by cowwoc2001 (#49015111) Attached to: An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos

An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos

Freedom of speech.

There done. Issue solved. Next?

Nonsense.

Freedom of Speech for own own citizens is one thing. Freedom of Speech for people who are unquestionably trying to wipe out our citizens is another matter. One of the very first thing you do during a war is take out the enemy's communication capabilities. This is no different.

What is gained by enabling them to spread their propaganda? Why fight a battle with our hands tied behind our backs?

Comment: Re:Blocking is counter productive (Score 2) 176

Blocking child pornography will mean that the general audience will not be aware of its existence, hence they will not put pressure on politicians to end child abuse. Blocking child porn is counter productive, that's a fact. This I say as one of the founders of www.meldpunt.org and www.inhope.org.

Such nonsense. There are plenty of TV shows and news that discuss child porn (e.g. Law and Order: Special Victims Unit). You don't need to see it online in order to understand how harmful it can be for victims. There is absolutely no good reason to allow people to spread these videos. Imagine if your brother or sister was unfortunate enough to end up in these videos.

Comment: Re:A problem of trust (Score 1) 284

by cowwoc2001 (#48165779) Attached to: FBI Director Continues His Campaign Against Encryption

In an ideal world, individuals would use encryption that would protect their privacy from the run-of-the-mill attacker but not from the government.

Governments abused countless innocents throughout history. Trusting the government is foolish; one should always be cautious of what they do or say, but not mindlessly so.

In this case, it's not an issue of a lack of trust; this man's position is fundamentally ridiculous and privacy would be important even in an "ideal world" where the government was full of perfect beings.

That's fine so long as you understand the tradeoff you are advocating.

It will likely involve an increased amount of crime, terrorism and money spent on resources to tackle the aforementioned problems. I don't know how much of an increase we're talking about.

On the flip side, it will be harder for the government to snoop on its citizens. Again, I'm not sure how much harder it'll actually be.

Personally, I'd rather risk some unwanted government snooping (there will always be some bad apples) compared to the risk of crime and terrorism groups gained a foothold. The former is a potential attacker. The latter is a guaranteed attacker. The former provides some form of transparency. The latter provides none.

I don't believe that you can have it both ways. I see this as choosing the lesser evil.

Comment: A problem of trust (Score 1) 284

by cowwoc2001 (#48163831) Attached to: FBI Director Continues His Campaign Against Encryption

In an ideal world, individuals would use encryption that would protect their privacy from the run-of-the-mill attacker but not from the government.

The public backlash to such a model is the result of people not trusting their government (and by extension the police).

Tackle the lack of trust and these problems go away. This is a social problem, not a technical one.

Comment: Let's just ahead, shall we? (Score -1) 70

by cowwoc2001 (#48116567) Attached to: Antiperspirants Could Contribute to Particulate Pollution

This just in: Human beings contribute to global warming by breathing. UN officials have set out strict breathing quotas. Anyone surpassing these limits will be persecuted by the International Criminal Court.

I've got another one for those of you trying to lose weight: if it tastes good, it must be bad for you. Just put it down. If it tastes bad, it's probably good for you. Eat more!

Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek.

Working...