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


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 example (Score 2) 85

Uber is actually a good example of what's going wrong with the world: They are openly criminal and it works. It's Al Capone all over again. Everyone knows what they are doing, but they're too slippery to be nailed.

Same with the tax evasion of multinational cooperation, wars based on invented bullshit, election frauds done almost openly (like in Turkey), and so on.

Minority Report may have been on to something: The legal system working after the fact, and with a delay often measured in years, does not deter criminals. If you can take over a country, or become a billionaire, the threat that ten years from now they might file charges which your $1000/h lawyers will then simply drag through the courts for twenty years - well, that is not a very threatening thing especially for people trained to think primarily about next quarter.

Comment Re:criminals (Score 1) 755

The Pentagon wants money, Hollywood wants to make movies.

If you think this is primarily about money, you need to stop smoking that shit man, it's bad for your brain. Every, literally (not figuratively) *every* article that described the relationship between Hollywood and the Pentagon points out the PR, recruitment and image benefits for the Pentagon long before the monetary aspect, which seems to about cover the costs and thats it.

Yes, there are kooks who will develop conspiracy theories about anything,


So why are your evening news full of news about Syria, and when is the last time they mentioned Jemen?

t's a statement of reality that much of the world recognises that Russia is the biggest threat to world peace right now as demonstrated through real actual seizure of sovereign foreign territory - I was against the 2003 Iraq war, but at least there was never a plan to seize it permanently and claim it as actual American soil.

As the Iraqi if the difference matters much for them. Oh wait, a lot of them are dead.

You need to stop restricting yourself to pro-Russian propaganda like RT, when that propaganda is such a tiny minority of the global media landscape.

I actually watched RT maybe 3 times in my life. I am grateful to the plurality of media in the western world because most of my information about how the echo chamber works (long before that word was popular) I got from there. And if you really think the mainstream media, you know, the one that 95% of the people watch and draw their opinions from, is completely unbiased, independent and presents all points of view and all newsworthy news, then I'll end this discussion here because it's pointless to discuss with deluded people.

Comment Re:criminals (Score 1) 755

Given that this is the premise of your whole argument and is demonstrably untrue then I don't know what the point in responding to the rest is.

It is not the premise of everything, and cutting the argument short with another cheap trick is dishonest.

Are you really suggesting the US, UK, Europe et. al. have a secret great firewall like China, and have the same lack of plurality of media?

I suggested nothing of the kind. Western propaganda is fundamentally different and much less obvious than Chinese or Russian propaganda. For example, almost every Hollywood action movie portraits the US military in generally good terms (even if there are individual villains), and quite often they are the ones who save the world. The Pentagon, meanwhile, supports such movies generously with vehicles, equipment and other support. Coincidence?

There are literally books about how the western propaganda system works, who is connected to whom how, who owns the media and why, for examples, there are wars and genocides that you don't find on the evening news even though the body count far exceeds other wars that do get reported.

Now stop the russiophobic bullshit talk to a person who's not telling you that Russia is right, but that you should worry about being lied to by your own media before you worry about other countries telling lies to their people.

Comment Re:criminals (Score 2) 755

Why are the West the bad guys for intervening against a war criminal, but Russia isn't a bad guy even though it's also carrying out war crimes by bombing civilian populations, by annexing sovereign foreign territory (Crimea), by shooting down an airliner full of civilians over the sovereign territory of a nation it is attacking, and by backing a war criminal?

Because we are the subject to propaganda no less than anyone else in the world. Let's dissect that statement:

"bad guy" is not a term likely to be found in any law book. So you are making a moral argument, but I was making a legal one.

Then you are mixing Syrian and Crimea as if they were the same thing. While western propaganda links them, there's no legal connection between the two.

Bombing of civilian populations is done by all sides in Syria, they all claim that they target military targets (or "terrorists") and that civilian casualties are unfortunate collateral damage. Whom you choose to believe and whom you call liars is an entirely political choice.

Shooting down an airliner is again Crimea, unless you are referring to SA 1812, which was shot down by the Ukrainian Air Force with 78 civilians on board (no survivors). Or maybe to Iran Air 655, shot down by the US with 290 civilian casualties. The unfortunate fact is that even if it was Russia that shot down MH17, a conclusion the international investigation did not make (they say russian missile system, probably operated by the rebels) - civilian airliners get shot down in war zones, and over the years everyone made that fatal mistake, including the US.

Backing a war criminal? Where is the investigation and conviction? Is Erdogan in Turkey any less of one, and the west is backing him? What about Saudi Arabia, the wests stronges ally in the region, whose government is comparable to the fucking Taliban? And wasn't Saddam Hussein backed by the west for decades, even after it was absolutely clear he is using poison gas in the Iraq-Iran war? Funny how being a war criminal only counts if you're inconvient to current politics.

Your final list is very nicely cut. It excludes such things as unprovoked invasions or bombings, which the west is a hundredfold guilty of, or the "temporary" (we are speaking years and decades) occupation of territory, all of which are illegal under international law. It ignores all the military interventions done on simiarly bullshit grounds, or even based on pure fabrications (Iraqs WMD). Nice parlour trick. You have a nice multi-color cake on the table, but you cut out only the white parts and then claim the whole cake was white. You really think that only 12-year olds read /. who don't immediately see through that trick?

Your "self-hatred" argument I left for last. This is censorship par excellence. By putting negatively connotated labels on criticism, you silence it. Chapter one in, ironically, the Nazi book on propaganda. This is literally the first thing they did - labelling things according to their perspective. This allows you to frame the entire discussion in your mindset.

But have you ever given a thought to the fact that the whole binary approach could be wrong? That in these questions maybe there is not one good and one bad guy? This is the real world, not a Hollywood movie! There can be two bad guys. Or three, or five. Or mixed guys - good intentions, bad methods. Or mixed intentions. Someone (forgot who, damn it) once said "Nobody is the villain in their own life story." and in the same way that Bush or Obama or Trump will be able to explain to you why everything they do is right and proper, I'm sure Putin can do the same. Or Assad. Or even these ISIS fanatics. And if you really listen, you would find that their argument is sound. It will be subjective, one-sided and leave out many facts and nuances, but it makes sense to them. And that is why we are in this mess, because everyone thinks they are right, not because bad guys enjoy being bad just for the sake of it. Not a Hollywood movie.

"But, but, but..." I hear you say. Now you want to rattle off the list of war crimes done by the other side. Completely oblivious to the fact that such lists exist about the USA or the west in general as well. I'm sure a reader in Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya or Vietnam, has his own perspective on the benevolence of western military forces. "But, but, but... Vietnam (and the many war crimes committed there by US forces) was decades ago!" you want to say. Well, Abu Ghraib wasn't, so there's no reason to believe something has so fundamentally changed that if there were another war like Vietnam, the same things wouldn't happen again.

But that doesn't make the USA the "bad guy" nor does it make anyone else the good guys. Pointing out the evil in one person does not make another person magically less evil. In these conflicts there are no good guys. A war to end wars is the most insane idea of them all, and everyone who says anything like that after The Great War should get a slap in the face by each and every one of the millions who needlessly died in the trenches.

Once you stop believing the (western) propaganda, you see that none of this is about any moral highground. There's a dozen conflicts in the world right now where a US or NATO intervention would be just as justified as it is in Syria, or as it was in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. - but you need to search the Internet to even find out what they are. Because they don't have oil, they are not important for geostrategic interests or they don't affect any political friends. War is done for reasons, and if you really think those reasons include any humanitarian motivations, you need to see a shrink.

Comment Re:criminals (Score 2) 755

The International Red Cross agrees with my assessment, now calling the Syrian war an international armed conflict.

At this time, it is still unclear what exactly happened. The UN wants an investigation, the Russians claim that an islamist bomb factory was hit, causing the poison gas explosion, neither side can be believed because they are all far from independent.

What we do know is that Turkey is trying since 2013 to make the USA cross the red line, and has been caught selling poison gas (the same, interestingly, Sarin) to Syrian islamists before. Erdogan was the first to point fingers, and he has a massive internal politics reason to increase tensions, with his upcoming referendum likely going the wrong (for him) way. So a false flag operation is possible as well.

If you think false flag operations are a myth, never forget that WW2 was started by one.

Comment Re:criminals (Score 1) 755

When you spend almost 10 times as much on the military as your opponent, you better be vastly superior or you'd be the laughing stock of the world.

The issue is not whether or not the USA would win such an engagement. The issue is that Russia is an ally of Syria and their presence is covered by international law. The US is not, and their attack is an act of war, in breach of international law.

So Syria is now not in a civil war, but in an actual war. It could declare the airspace a war zone and ask Russia to guard it with the S-400, and they could legally shoot down whoever they want shot down. Maybe they'll succeed, maybe not, but they would be justified in doing it. Of course nobody in the west would care, we'd get fed enough propaganda to not think about the fact that we have become, once again, the bad guys, and the only people not seing it is us.

Comment criminals (Score 1) 755

adding that Thursday's strike was the "first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country's civil war began six years ago."

It is also an act of war and a military attack on a foreign country. Not that the USA ever cared about that, but if you wanted to give Russia a perfect excuse to activate it's S-400 on US airplanes, you just did.

Comment shoppers (Score 1) 467

The result in recent months has been a high-stakes race to the bottom between Walmart and Amazon that seems great for shoppers, but has consumer packaged goods brands feeling the pressure.

It's never good for shoppers. Prices will drop, but it is highly unlikely the difference comes out of the pockets of the CEOs or the shareholder profits. It will come out of quality, safety, worker sales or worker numbers, all of which sooner or later cycles back to the disadvantage of the shopper.

Comment Re:truth and lies (Score 1) 374

You don't understand the argument you are using by yourself.

"I don't believe it" is a blanket statement, and the belief of the author is the only statement made.

"I don't believe it, because ..." is a phrase giving a reason to an argument. The "I don't believe" could be cut out with no loss of content.

In this case: The job market being good is the argument, not my belief in company behaviour. As I said, if you are in IS, are willing to relocate to Germany, especially if you're a woman, contact me because I can prove you wrong right away, I have jobs to fill.

Comment truth and lies (Score 1) 374

Truth and lies are often neighbours.

True, there are less women working in Information Security.

False, it has anything to do with discrimination. In fact, the job market right now is so good that I cannot for the life of me believe any company would turn down a woman or risk making her not take the offer by paying her less. Right now I know of several customers who are dying to hire qualified IS people (if you're anywhere in central Europe and/or willing to relocate, contact me).

Neighbourhood: Several studies about the alleged "gender pay gap" already revealed that the actual causes of the gap is that, statistically speaking, women have less years of experience at the same age, more gaps in their careers and CVs, and negotiate worse. Some of that may be gender-related, but it's not the same as crying "discrimination".

Whenever I am leading a team, I personally am happy to have a good mix of men and women, it tends to give the broadest perspective and the best results. But if you have an imbalance, you should look for the underlying reasons, not just paint a buzzword over it.

Comment Re:Go ahead MPAA...convey your "damage" (Score 1) 244

Unfortunately, it is the big stars that pull the crowds, so if the movie industry hurts, they will be the last to feel the pressure. The paychecks of regular workers will be cut first, as always.

If people would stop to ideolize people whose job is basically to stand in a place and deliver a few words of pre-written dialog, and instead focus on the guys who write the script, setup up the beautiful locations, create the props and costumes, etc. etc.

But of course that's as crazy as expecting that we'd actually admire the designers and engineers instead of the CEO...

Comment oh yes! (Score 1) 1001

So true, so true.

I once failed a phone interview because I couldn't use Google to look up some helpful side info, not the answers directly, just clarifying information. I immediately thought "what a bullshit. Unless you're studying for a test, you don't have this detail in your head, you pull it up as you need it."

I look up functions and parameters all the time. Half of the time I kind of remember them, but look them up to make sure - it's faster to spend 30 seconds checking than finding a fixing a mistake later on.

I would flat out refuse to do riddles and bullshit tests today. I would ask them if they want someone who is good at memorising trivia or someone who can actually solve real-world problems and if it involved a few Google searches, what exactly is their problem with that?

When I studied, we were allowed a full formulary during math tests. The professor once said, and I agree for 100%, that unless you understand the math, the formula won't do you any good. The skill is not in memorising the formulas, it's in applying them, and knowing which one to use in which situation.

Slashdot Top Deals

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.