Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:No one should be blamed for the spread of virus (Score 1) 151

I made an exception to a general principle.

The general principle is that you're an awful human being if you infect other people with a disease because it's inconvenient for you to call out of work or to change your travel plans. People do it all the time and they deserve to hear that.

Comment No one should be blamed for the spread of viruses (Score 5, Insightful) 151

Bullshit. Your responsibility is to self-quarantine until you are sure that you aren't infectious. Otherwise, you're culpable for the people you infect. That jerk who comes to work with an active flu and infects the whole place should have to suffer with ten consecutive flus for that.

The only special pass in this case is that the HIV infected people of the 1970s and 80s had no idea they were sick.

Comment I purposely switched to a Unicomp (Score 1) 203

I have a jerkoff near me that is grunting and breathing like Darth Vader all day. Then you see him outside smoking like a chimney. So I brought in the keyboard and have been torturing him with it for months now.

I also walk by his cube and release SBD farts as much as I can manage.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 897

In essence, I would agree with you, except for the Communist belief that they are on the leading edge of a societal wave that will dominate the world. This found expression in the (insert number here) Internationals at first. When the Soviets gave up on that methodology in the late 1930s, it became more popular to support insurgencies around the world. There were brushfire wars going on all over the world from the 1950s through the early 1990s that were at least partially instigated by the Soviet Union.

You only know about the famous ones - Korea, Afghanistan and Vietnam. Perhaps Cuba. But you don't know so much about Nicaragua, El Salvador, Angola, Malaysia...the list goes on for a long time. So I give you a link with at least outline information about them.

I hope you'll take this opportunity to educate yourself about Soviet aggression.

Comment To be fair... (Score 1) 897

The American bases were planted during an UNwanted occupation post-WWII. I am not sure that the Germans have entirely "accepted" the idea of foreign bases on their soil, even today. It may have been beneficial during the Cold War but post-1991, I don't see why they would want them anymore. I say that having been to at least one of those bases.

That said, Poland and Hungary asked for what they got.

Comment Re:No, they didn't. (Score 4, Interesting) 897

"Wipe out" is indeed what it would do.

Let's imagine this is a MIRV with 15 separate warheads, totaling 50 megatons, total (maybe). Let's imagine the targets are the following British cities: London, Bristol, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Birmingham, Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinborough, with the larger ones receiving two warheads.

Britain would basically cease to exist as a nation. So much damage would be done the economy would be non-functional. All the transport links in the country flow through those now destroyed cities, and that infrastructure would be destroyed. Every single piece of modern electronics in the country and in neighbouring countries that was not EMP hardened would no longer work, and everything (especially the transportation system) depends on all this stuff working. The prevailing south west winds would ensure that enough fallout would end up on surrounding areas adding to the casualties, and areas with nearby nuclear power stations would receive a lot of extra fallout. Just feeding the survivors with a barely functioning transportation system would be a logistical nightmare - ground transportation would be difficult thanks most of the major road and rail routes having been destroyed. Injured survivors would be left to fend for themselves - the entire capacity of the health service would be overwhelmed with the casualties of just one of the bombs. The electricity grid would be destroyed, even to the undamaged areas, it would be years before power was restored.

The survivors themselves, many of them would be suffering PTSD in the years afterwards, and virtually everyone will have lost friends and family and probably most of what they own in the attacks. What survived wouldn't be Britain, it would be a grotesque almost zombie like Britain with at best third world conditions for decades following.

Just because there are survivors and some land left untouched doesn't mean the country is effectively destroyed.

Comment Re: Hmm (Score 1) 897

> You think Russia is going to bother bombing North Dakota?

Yes, absolutely North Dakota would be bombed, because that's where a bunch of American missile silos are, and Minot AFB. North Dakota might not exactly be carpet bombed but it would be the recipient of more and larger weapons than you might think.

> A nuclear war would be horrifying but it wouldn't wipe out all life on earth

No, but human life afterwards wouldn't be much fun for generations, and even after the planet had recovered, would be like pre-industrial times. A nuclear winter caused by an all out exchange would be deeply unpleasant and finish off most of the survivors. Industrial society would unlikely ever restart, given the lack of people and lack of easy to mine resources (to get much of the resources we use now requires an already existing high technology base, that would no longer exist after a catastrophic exchange of nuclear weapons).

Comment Re:Hillary is a mass killer (Score 1) 183

Excusing Hillary or Obama or GWB or Clinton I's behavior in any way is reprehensible. Clinton didn't have to launch missiles at an aspirin factory, GWB didn't have to invade Iraq, there was no clear and present danger, and Obama didn't have to launch missiles into Yemen a few days ago (same same).

Clinton is another in a long line of murdering scumbags who play fast and loose with both American and foreign lives. If someone could elucidate why we have a national interest in these places sufficient to get our sons and daughters killed, then i'd be on board, but no one can. These wars are pointless dick waving attempts to retain hegemony and deflect domestic criticism.

So yes, I don't want any of the internationalists at all. I want a nice stolid isolationist.

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep the number of passes in a compiler to a minimum. -- D. Gries