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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:ask yourself *why* and do the right thing (Score 2) 294

I've been involved in setting up ITIL processes for several organiztions and agree 100% with the above. The main benefit of a change process and a CAB is that you can get an overall picture of all incoming changes, compare it to the available resources and prioritize based on fact instead on who screams the loudest. Hope you have a compentent change manager who can keep that focus and avoid greasing the squeaky wheels.
If the CAB starts micromanaging they will self-destruct.
After you get your standard changes approved, just make sure that the CAB is aware of the time you spend on doing them. CABs tend to forget that any work they're not actively involved in approving needs time to get done.

Comment Re:very understandable (Score 1) 784

I don't disagree with you, but I fail to see what your point is.
As I said, the communist witch hunt was irrational and some of the forms it took would be ridiculous to the point of hilarity if it hadn't led to a lot of suffering.
I still think it is a simplification to say that the fear of communism in the 50s was totally irrational or that it was a local U.S. phenomenon.

Comment Re:very understandable (Score 1) 784

Go back and tell that to the retards in 1950. This particular retard knows all this already and doesn't need to be told. If you get your blood pressure down to the point where your eyes are in your head you can read my other comments and see that for yourself.
If you want to blame me for the fact that some people equated "communism" with "the enemy" 60 years ago, go right ahead.
To put this into some perspective for you: I was personally listed as a potential security risk by the Swedish security service and the military counterpart, just because some of my family members had been outspoken revolutionary communists in the 50s and 60s. I had also worked actively with an anti-apartheid group that had ties to ANC, which didn't help my case. It caused me some problems during my military service and later on when I applied for an job at the Swedish National Police Board.
Do I think that this fair? No. Do I think it is rational to believe that communism is some kind of hereditary disease? No. Do I think that it was necessary to have and keep that register for 30 years? No. But I still understand why that register was created. Some people were actually discussing armed revolt in the name of communism, and some of my relatives were among them. I know the reason why they thought a revolution could be necessary and their reasoning was completely rational. The rationale for the security service trying to stop an armed revolt is equally valid to me. This does not mean that any of them were right, but who says you can't do something wrong for completely rational reasons?
So, even if the effects are irrational, it doesn't mean that the cause automatically is.

Comment Re:very understandable (Score 1) 784

> in the political context of the early 1950:s, fear of communism was not considered irrational. How rational was the fear of UNESCO?

I have absolutely no idea. I don't think I've ever read any accounts of UNESCO tanks on the streets of Budapest or Prague, though. ;)
Seriously: You're reading too much into what I wrote, and I'm beginning to regret writing it. Just because some people take McCarthy out of his political context doesn't mean that he was right, nor does it justify the witch-hunt, prove that everything a government does is rational, mean that the U.S. was right and everybody else was wrong or any other tangent you'd like to follow.

Comment Re:very understandable (Score 2) 784

Ok. I'll grant you that I wasn't exactly crystal clear in what I wrote.
I never claimed that McCarthyism as defined by the wikipedia page is rational. I only tried to say that fear of communism wasn't considered irrational in many countries during the 1950s. People using McCarthy as an example today often forget that context.
I have read a fair share of literature about McCarthy, HUAC and similar activities in other countries, and I can assure you that I see no justification for the resulting witch-hunts.
The rationality of repeating such a well-documented political horror is another thing entirely...

Comment Re:very understandable (Score 1) 784

>Thanks for proving that non-americans are idiots, too.
You're welcome.

>>Communism was a real threat to non-communist countries all over the world
>No it wasn't.
Sorry. I should have said "... was perceived as a real threat..."

>And capitalism was a real threat to all non-capitalistic countries all over the world. It works both ways.
Yes. I can't see that anything I said contradicts that.

>> and the U.S. was not the only nation to take extreme measures to defend themselves against it.
>Yes it was.
Counter example from my home country, Sweden: "The IB affair". Need more?

>It was irrational. End of.
Your opinion.

Comment Re:very understandable (Score 3, Insightful) 784

McCarthyism: 1950-1956
War on Terror: 2001-

Your rant is fifty years off.
I'm not justifying anything or claiming that any government was right. I just said that in the political context of the early 1950:s, fear of communism was not considered irrational.
Today many people seem to have forgotten that before the 1970s, many countries supported the U.S. anti-communist agenda. Many of the same countries are now more or less opposed to the current U.S. foreign policy.
So, aim that flamer at someone who actually disagrees with you, OK?

Comment Re:very understandable (Score 2, Insightful) 784

A minor nitpick from an external, non-American observer:
What McCarthy & co did was wrong and too much, but not necessarily irrational. Communism was a real threat to non-communist countries all over the world, and the U.S. was not the only nation to take extreme measures to defend themselves against it.
In hindsight we know that the treat probably wasn't as big as it was perceived back then, and that the "defense" did more harm than good in many cases, but at the time they did not know this. So: Maybe "misinformed" but not "irrational".

Comment Re:This award is a big fail (Score 1) 83

Of course you're right.
I was sarcastic in both directions. The organizations responsible for the Nobel prize are not known to be overly flexible, and I thought it was funny to think that they would update the award because of a protest at the ceremonies, especially in comparison to the excellent points made by Lawrence_Bird in the first post.
I fail at snark. Sorry!

Slashdot Top Deals

1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.