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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Re:Americans...why ? (Score 0, Troll) 171

I haven't found that to be true. In many other countries, often referred to as more "civilized" ones, people argue that the government should have a monopoly on the use of force.

And you know what? That's OK. We Americans will come over and bail you out of your next holocaust, attempted genocide, continent-wide war, or other large-scale human rights atrocity, the same way we've bailed you out of your previous ones. If history is any guide, you'll end up better off than you were before you started all the shit, and at our expense.

Comment Re:Because the CIA is evil. (Score 1) 291

Don't be a fool.

Right back at you.

No one cared about Saddam's chemical weapons until it turned out he was never even close to having nuclear ones. The U.S. went into Iraq (for the second time) on the promise that Saddam Hussein had or would soon have a nuclear weapon and that he was likely to use it against the United States or one of it's allies. The information to justify this claim came from a single source, a drug-addicted Iraqi defector who basically said whatever his handlers wanted as long as kept him supplied with booze and drugs. This information was deliberately fed to intelligence agencies of several different countries to create the appearance of multiple sources.

The false pretences were nuclear, when the claims proved too absurdly wrong, the story changed to be chemical weapons, instead. Which Saddam didn't have either since he had long ago used the ones that the United States had provided to him.

Comment Re:Snowden unquestionably hurt the intel community (Score 1) 291

There is a book on the subject that details how Snowden negatively impacted US intelligence.

He certainly "negatively impacted" US intelligence, though it's a lot like how a police officer "negatively impacted" the criminal he just arrested. The US intelligence agencies did all the harm to themselves, and when you were made aware of their criminal activities, you chose to blame the messenger and the not the criminals.

Comment Re: Easy solution (Score 1) 471

A spokesperson for the ACB told me today that publications which contain offensive depictions or descriptions of persons who are or appear to be persons under the age of 18 (whether they are engaged in sexual activity or not) must be classified RC. They said the Board classifies publications on a case by case basis, in accordance with the Guidelines for the Classification of Publications, the Code and the Classification Act and that the Publications Guidelines do not specify breast size.

Rather than "debunking" anything, this quote reflects a situation that's even worse. If the model "appears to be" under 18, that's apparently enough to impose prior restraint. A standard based on bra size could at least be enforced objectively, but how do you appeal a decision of an unelected, unaccountable censorship board on no grounds other than "She looks 18 to me?"

Comment Re:Yeah, I've worked with a few of those (Score 1) 492

Yes, I'm pretty sure that the correlation is the other way than the headline.

Based on what evidence?

That would-be terrorists are more likely to become engineers, in part to get the necessary skills to make the "tools of the trade".

Seems like a slow and expensive way to learn how to make a bomb.

Comment Re: Time to change my job description.... (Score 1) 492

That is true, but stupid people often think that anyone wearing a turban is Islamic. Seriously.

As a side note, It's interesting to see that Gamergate's war against "corruption in the games media" now extends to fabricating evidence to slander their critics. I guess Gamergaters really are dedicated to showing us all who the truly dishonest people are...

Real programs don't eat cache.