Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Remember this (Score 1) 506

>So in your opinion terrorists get a pass on murdering civilians because they have a justifiable grievance?

Where do you draw the line between terrorist and freedom fighter ? As it happened the ANC won in South Africa and did so with the full support of the entire international community including the USA.

Are you not a freedom fighter rather than a terrorist if what you are fighting against is a brutal regime that denies you any human rights whatsoever and have removed any and all legal forms of protest ?

Do I agree with targeting civilians ? No - but the reality is America has killed more civilians in Iraq (and that's just the accidental ones) than the ANC in their entire 30 year campaign.

I would argue that the form their armed struggle took actually prevented their revolt from turning into a full-scale civil war, which would have killed far more people (including many more civilian collateral casualties) - and probably have made it impossible to reach the peaceful negotiated settlement we ultimately did.
Was it a good thing ? No. Was it justified ? Maybe. Was it the least harmful among a lot of bad choices ? Yes.

Comment Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll (Score 1) 358

If you were referring only to the "share intelligence" bit - then yes, I know. I am sure I didn't intend THAT line to be speculative.
If you mean the whole idea - if you have proof that they do I would not be surprised but I haven't seen any conclusive claims to this effect. But then, i'm neither American nor British - I live in a small country in Africa. I cannot be expected to read EVERY American headline.

Comment Re:Remember this (Score 2) 506

So pretty much the same stuff that Allied soldiers from the US did in Europe and Japan during World War 2 ?
And again in Nicaragua and Vietnam and Korea and Brazil and ... oh before 9/11 you had deposed 53 different democratically elected governments and replaced them with puppet dictators in various parts of the world and there has yet to be a single war where American soldiers did not make themselves guilty of crimes like rape. Nothing special about you on the latter part- you put a boatload of young boys together, give them guns and fill them with macho-bravado and extreme "do not dare to have a brain" discipline - you will BREED at least a few mad-ass rapist and cold-blooded killers in the process - every military does.

Since 9/11 you made a refreshing change from the past, just to be different, and to show how much feminism has advanced your society - you had soldiers both male and female committing torture and sexual assault against MALE prisoners of war in places like Abu Ghraib.

Sorry pal - but while there is a LOT wrong with the Saudis and there was plenty wrong with Satan Hussain - you'll do a lot better if you focus on stuff that your own actually do BETTER.

Seriously - you saying that is like if me (a South African white who lived through the 1980's) start complaining because the ANC used to bomb restaurants and ignore the fact that they only started doing that because the NP government liked to arrest anybody who spoke against the apartheid policies and most of those arrested were tortured and killed in prison (which rather removed the desirability of peaceful protest).

It's like pointing out the Church street bomb and forgetting about Steve Biko.

The real simple truth: fundamentalism in all forms is a grave evil: this INCLUDES the fundamentalism of honor, duty and discipline hammered in by EVERY military force ever.

There's no such thing as an honorable army - the very concept is a contradiction in terms - such a thing does not and CANNOT ever exist. The best you ever get in wars is where one REGIME is so evil that whatever atrocities your army commits on the way to destroying theirs and the regime could be considered an acceptable loss because the other side would be so much WORSE if they win. That's what you had in such extremely rare cases as World War 2.

Of course they TELL you that about EVERY war, but in all but the rarest of cases - it's just not true.

In the entire 20th century Carter was your ONLY president who didn't find an excuse to bomb SOMEBODY. That's ONE - in a hundred years !

Comment Re:Privacy concerns now outweigh terrorism in poll (Score 0) 358

Here's the way I would do it if I was them - and I would be surprised if they didn't. I'm simplifying a bit but include the pieces like "without a court order" and such for yourself.

MI6 isn't allowed to spy on British citizens.
The NSA isn't allowed to spy on Americans.
But Britain and America are allies.
So MI6 let's the NSA spy in Britain and looks the other way.
The NSA lets MI6 spy in America and looks the other way.
Afterwards, like good allies, they "share intelligence" and now MI6 has all the surveillance data the NSA gathered in Britain, and the NSA has everything MI6 gathered in the USA.

Repeat for all US allies (and any other government they can strong-arm).

Result: massive world-wide surveillance of all citizens in virtually all countries -all without a single agency every breaking the "do not spy on your own citizens" rules if they have them.

Comment Re:Linux's Biggest Threat is Human Engineering (Score 1) 252

I won't deny that it happens in some places, but it certainly doesn't happen here. In fact we take those default settings and hard-code them to make this even less likely.
We even have a bootscript that locks root on every reboot, and another hook in our build-scripts to relock it everytime you build our code, basically - even if people unlock it, it won't be unlocked for long - and if somebody changes that, well git blame means it won't be a secret...

Comment Re:Linux's Biggest Threat is Human Engineering (Score 1) 252

Most desktop Linux distros (the kind most coders who run it use) no longer HAVE a root account enabled, it's generally locked by default, and you would have to forceably go and set one to use it.

I can't speak for other people but I have only ever done this in very specific scenarios on my machine where I CANNOT use sudo (i.e. I want to move my /home to a new larger hard drive - this means I need to be able to unmount it - which means my normal account cannot be logged int)... considering it's "sudo passwd root", move mountpoint, remount, passwd -l root, exit or I have to "THE HORROR" reboot my machine after updating fstab ... yeah, I consider that an acceptable risk.

Comment Re: A name for PETA (Score 4, Informative) 590

From the original huffington post article we find, among other things, a quote by a veterinarian who handed them a mother cat and her kittens who were perfectly healthy. The PETA representatives said they would be "easy to adopt" and the vet was wanting to find them homes as they were in perfect condition.

The PETA guys killed them in their van mere moments after telling that blatant lie.

Isn't it odd that every other shelter organisation around has far fewer euthanizations and far more adoptions than PETA's shelters do ? That most of them keep animals for several months before considering euthansia while PETA animals rarely make 14 days - even if they are in perfect health ?

That animals coming to PETA with diseases which other shelters routinely treat and cure and then adopt the animals are simply left to die untreated ? Like Parvovirus - average survival rate among infected animals at shelters: 90%, survival rate at PETA shelters: 0%.

Slashdot Top Deals

I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky

Working...