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


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:Neglect is more likely (Score 1) 100

Nearly right. The "South Vietnamese" government was an illegal and illegitimate device conjured up by Washington to justify its violent intervention. There was a nation called Vietnam. After international talks, an election was scheduled for Vietnam. Washington decided that the Communists were certain to win the election, so it engineered a "rebellion" by a newly-invented entity called "South Vietnam". Insofar as it ever existed, South Vietnam must have seceded from Vietnam, just as Washington maintains

That's a very good summary.

Comment Re:Exactly (Score 1) 194

Hmmmm. That's kinda interesting. For anyone paying attention, three people (or at least one person and two cowards who may be people) all said essentially the same thing but in different ways with different tones and highlighting different details. -1 Troll, -1, +4 informative. Salesmanship, diplomatic tact, and a dose of political correctness makes all the world of a difference.

Comment Re:Here's the actual problem, (Score 1) 190

First off, whatever label used will eventually be a slur or co-opted. Welcome to the treadmill. Language sucks. If you're trying to steer it though, you should at least offer your preferred alternative. The alt-right / right / conservatives / republicans have it just as bad.

Second, I'm not sure you should jump to the conclusion that any idiotic statement on our side of the fence must be some false-flag trolling operation. Both camps are HUGE and we both have our fair share of idiots. Unless we call them out and self-police a little, then the idiots will flock to us and we'll be as bad as those TEA partiers. Some people will simply fight anything and everything suggested by Trump. And that's dangerous. ISIS is really deplorable. They should not be defended even tangentially.

Really, it ought to be:

First they came for the muslims, and you agreed because they look like ISIS. Next they will come for you, and all your bootlicking nazi buddies will turn against you.

This issue here though? With the visas for those from "ISIS controlled territory"? For the uninformed, that's fancy-talk for "Syrian refugees". And of course those people should be investigated. The newsworthy bit is that it calls out social media. Like what the hell is a "social media check"? If someone's friend posts to their cat-picture-post on facebook with "durka muhamed jihad", and a search tool hits that, is that it? Check failed? Entry denied?

Slashdot Top Deals

You can observe a lot just by watching. -- Yogi Berra