Apparently a *lot* of people on Slashdot are completely fooled by the CCP propaganda.
And some of them are CCP propaganda, using multiple "sockpuppets" to both post and moderate.
Decades earlier — during Vietnam war — USSR was financing all of "peace" movements in the West in particular, while attacking the "Capitalist way of life" in general. It'd be quite foolish for China to not be doing the same now. Even more foolish would be for us to not realize, that they do.
The less of it the better because quantity of life works against quality of life, see third world fecundity if in doubt.
Then We The People need (or have needed) to become post-newspaper, indeed post-any-sort-of-centralized-media, since all centralizations are pressure points for coercion and compromise.
Make Usenet Great Again? There is No Cab-NO CARRIER
A Washington Post reader has sued the Jeff Bezos-owned newspaper, accusing it of spying on its own subscribers to jack up their subscription prices.
Chelsea Blink’s class action complaint alleges that The Post began "covertly harvesting" data from its subscribers' phones, computers and tablets after the billionaire Amazon founder bought it for $250 million in 2013.
The Post then aggregated and analyzed the "deeply personal information" to "weaponize" it and maximize profits, according to the 28-page lawsuit filed in Superior Court in Washington, D.C.
"The more loyal a reader became, the more data The Post could gather to estimate how much more that person might tolerate paying at renewal," the court filing says. "Rather than rewarding loyalty, The Post’s system converted Subscribers’ engagement into leverage against them. Longtime Subscribers would end up paying more than new customers simply because the company knew more about them."
Blink's lawsuit, first reported by Mediaite, accuses The Post of violating local consumer protection law through its alleged "unfair and deceptive acts."
you sir, are blind, war is never good
What an utterly naive interpretation of world history you have. I can assure you, if you'd been a Jew being rounded up for extermination in WW2 you'd have a different opinion. Likewise, if you were Chinese or Korean being subjugated by Imperial Japan, you'd have a different perspective. There is such a thing as a "just war" even though you somehow ignore the concept. It's usually when your opponent starts the war and is hell bent on eradicating you and your way of life.
Alas, you sit there in perfect safety and comfort, passing judgement on those who sacrificed fa more than you can ever imagine so you could impugn their sacrifices.
For now, people can worry about what type of weapons to use and whether or not certain types should be banned.
But in the future, all the debates will be about will be "how do we pick just the right grid squares in which to Kill All Humans?"
Banned for who? And who's going to enforce this ban?
You have to remember any treaty (a) must have signatories that agree to follow it and (b) there must be a method of enforcement. If you lack either of these two conditions, the treaty has no effect.
The first Rotarian was the first man to call John the Baptist "Jack." -- H.L. Mencken
