Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid? (Score 2, Interesting) 133

Infringing upon copyrights is not harmful. It is the current state of copyright law that is harmful in reality. Violating copyrights by file sharing pretty much always helps small artists and may or may not lower revenue for large artists. Diminishing an entitlement granted to some is not harmful.

I know it's nitpicky but its' hard to have honest discussions on this topic and it's one of my pet peeves. Nothing against you, I am just having a digital outburst.

Comment Not trolling. (Score 1) 193

The problem for companies is that they might have lost track of what patents cover a given product, or might have forgotten to update packaging to remove numbers of patents that had expired.

I see no reason to claim this is trolling as the article does (yeah i read it, find the guy that patented RTFA and have him sue me). Marking a product with a patent number is a claim not that you will sue someone for producing a similar item, but a claim that you clearly have legal grounds to do so. Marking a product with an irrelevant patent number then is essentially extortion (i'm unsure if the term 'extortion' can apply to pressuring one into inaction. If there is a more appropriate term, let me know please). Any company putting a patent number on a product has a responsibility to make sure their claim is valid. Not updating packaging perfectly on time should certainly be a more forgivable offense, but totally forgetting what patents cover your products is just unacceptable. How many seperate patents or products could any given company have? I realize the number could get quite high, but nothing a simple database even such as SQlite can't handle. Patents are a legal construct designed to give an innovator a monopoly long enough to capitalize on innovations. I don't know why it would ever need to even be said explicitly but if you are unsure, don't make claims that have legal implications.

The real trolls here are the companies putting false numbers on products.

Comment Re:Defense? (Score 1) 368

The tactics the Soviets used were more dangerous that all the money and guns the US ever threw at anything. Go watch his videos. You have no idea what you are poo-pooing. It's not about guns and money, it's about dissolving the fabric of a society from the inside over a generation or two before you create a crisis and move in. The soviets not only had offensive plans, they were enacting them. The Soviets were invading South Vietnam and South Korea, using the northern counterparts to each to provide the muscle. The Soviets were attempting to conquer the world with a poison ideology. Why? Because that's what they did. The Soviet Union was 1984's Eurasia, but they had no Oceania to prevent their expanse.

I'm not saying the United States never backed the wrong people or got involved with something we should have avoided altogether. I am not denying that evil was done by our government and military. But the evil done by the Soviet regime far out-weighs that, and even the fact that the US supported the Tzar's cannot negate this imbalance. Further, the potential for evil the soviets represented post WWII adds even to the rest. They were a massive threat to the world, far greater than we were.

By the time Russian tanks rolled into the capital of a newly conquered nation, that nation had been under invasion for at least a full generation. Soviet expansion worked in the following way: The KGB would send agents to bribe or persuade educators, politicians, media personalities, anyone of influence to spread socialist propaganda. Any who refuse, any idealists who really believe din a socialist or any who vocally oppose soviet ideals are carefully noted and tracked over 15 or 20 years. The idealists because they will oppose the realities of the socialism that will come, the rest because they opposed it from the start and will continue to do so. Any opportunity is taken to devolve political discourse into shouting matches is taken. This is not hard as people have strong tendencies towards it anyway. Once things have progressed far enough, a crisis is instigated and soviet forces roll in welcomed as saviors while simultaneously rounding up and executing everyone on their list as they are all potential dissidents or insurgents. This is gone into in much greater detail in the interview and lecture given by Yuri Bezmenov. This is essentially how North Vietnam became communist, how can you say that the Soviets had no hostile intentions. I'd say that is pretty damned hostile. It is in this light that I say the Soviets always represented a greater danger in the world than the United States did.

This is not revisionist. This is information to the contrary and it doesn't even come from US intelligence. It comes from one of the men who did it. He was a KGB station cheif in India. This has been publicly available for at least 25 years now.

I repeat: The evil perpetrated by the Soviets outweighs the evil perpetrated by the United States, but I will not speculate on the narrowness of the margin.

As far as faked intelligence, David Kay, the very man who finally said Iraq likely did not have WMD's said also that invading Iraq was the proper course of action because Hussein had weapons programs ready to be started up on short notice. Also I cannot find a record of David Kay admitting Iraq likely did not have WMD's before the invasion. What was found would be consistent with Saddam hastily moving stockpiles over the border into Syria. It cannot be disputed that we still do not know conclusively whether or not Iraq had any stockpiles of chemical weapons. Even if the circumstantial evidence indicates he did not, Saddam still had the pieces to start weapons programs as soon as the UN stopped looking for them. US soldiers found executed nuclear scientists at various places around Iraq. The only reason I can think of to kill nuclear scientists is that if captured, they would confirm the pretense upon which your country had been invaded.

I can understand the points you make, but more arms, defense spending and a more belligerent foreign policy still did not make the US more dangerous than the USSR. There is a whole side to the history of this issue that has been ignored. Money and guns simply do not settle the issue.

There has been this meme going around that the evil United States has been just ruining the day for all the other countries of the world, if it weren't for the US we'd have a utopia. It's just not true.

Comment Re:Defense? (Score 2, Insightful) 368

Dude, look at a map of Russia, and then look at a map of the USSR. All of those countries that are the difference between the two had their governments overthrown by the Soviets and literally thousands of people executed in a single night in a wash-rinse-repeat cycle all through Europe. Go watch the Yuri Bezmenov videos and remember while you watch them that he was one of the people orchestrating the process. With all of the bad things the US has done, the Soviets were always more dangerous.

Comment Re:Arm your citizens... (Score 1) 368

Hell, the rounds are almost more expensive than the drones you'd be shooting down. Taken into consideration how many rounds it might take to actually hit an RC plane with a rifle it might actually cost more.

I can see a new round for the m203 grenade launcher (or any grenade launcher) with a proximity fuse, much like those developed in WWII to shoot down Japanese planes.

Comment Re:Defense? (Score 1) 368

Actually, the Korean, Vietnam and all the cold war related skirmishes are related to defense. The soviets were actively engaged in subverting governments and taking them over and we were the great big prize target for them. When you picture the scenario i describe and think to yourself "there is no way the threat the soviets posed to us was that sinister and involved," know that in fact i was that sinister and convoluted and involved. The soviets were truly trying to take over the world in such a manner that if one understood it they would no longer believe in any way that the US had ever made any attempt to do the same.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan are related to defense as well. Iraqi intelligence has been giving aid to Al Qaeda since the early 90's as they have waged a war against us. The Afghanistan Taliban gave them safe haven from which to plan and conduct this war. Is that enough reason to go to war? That's were the debate starts, but to say that there has been no provocation on any level since WWII is naive. Though i can see claiming that since a lot of it has not been direct provocation it doesn't count, but i would disagree on that point.

Since the end of World War II the US has faced some form of constant threat. Whether or not these threats have been severe enough to warrant the actions we have taken is a separate discussion, but the threats have been there. Those parties that have threatened us have always tried to conduct themselves in such a way that they could always claim any retaliation was unwarranted.

All in all, I think we should have given up Global Super Power status when the soviets fell. It's just not worth it anymore, but I think we were needed while they were standing.

We should stop bothering with foreign entanglements, but there are a lot of people who aren't going to like the fact that that would mean no help for Darfur, or Haiti, no more aid like we gave after the tsunami.

Iraq-Al Qaeda stuff:

Soviet stuff:
Yuri Bezmenov was one of the guys doing it until he defected. There is also a series of 7 videos where he gives a university lecture and goes into detail on this process. He is wearing a powder blue blazer in that series.

I know people want to believe the US is some big bad boogey man ruining the lives of innocent foreigners, and we have done some really nasty things. But if you look back at all of the nations that have been the big superpower through history, the US really does set the gold standard for benevolence in global politics.

Slashdot Top Deals

"You can't get very far in this world without your dossier being there first." -- Arthur Miller