Slashdot Mirror


Gary Kasparov Arrested Over Political Fight

geddes writes "World chess champion turned opposition leader Gary Kasparov was arrested this morning while leading an march through Moscow in opposition to Russian President Vladamir Putin. Kasporov is a leader of the 'Other Russia' coalition which has been banned by the government from appearing on TV, and had been denied a marching permit. From the New York Times: 'Essentially barred from access to television, members of Other Russia have embraced street protests as the only platform to voice their opposition ahead of parliamentary elections in December and presidential elections next March. Early this month, Mr. Kasyanov's and Mr. Kasparov's Web sites were blocked, though it was unclear by whom.' Kasparov was later released from detention, though he was still fined for participating in the event."

306 of 427 comments (clear)

  1. ches mate... by vasanth · · Score: 1, Funny

    ohh boy he's been chek mated..

    1. Re:ches mate... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you meant "Czechmated".

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:ches mate... by slashbob22 · · Score: 1, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, Czechs mate you!

      Hold on, I think those Russians are onto something.

      --
      Proof by very large bribes. QED.
    3. Re:ches mate... by TheoMurpse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't understand why this is funny -- I mean, it's a play on words, sure. Do that many Slashdotters think Czech was ever part of the USSR? It wasn't. Beyond that, Kasparov was born in Azerbaijan, which is nowhere near Czech. Also, for the mods: his name is Garry. With two arrs.

    4. Re:ches mate... by miscz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Prague Spring, Polish People's Republic wasn't part of USSR either but we helped beating Czechoslovakia into submisission. Don't forget about Warsaw Pact and other means that Russia used or is using to make it's neighbours obedient, even today. I will be trolled into oblivion but whatever.

    5. Re:ches mate... by TheoMurpse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't deny that Czech has had close ties with Russia in the past. What I was confused by was basically what happened between A (editor), B (GGP), and C (mods):

      A: Dude from Russia
      B: Czech joke!
      C: LOL!!!!!MODMODMODMODMOD

      I mean, there's no denying that New York and Texas have a relationship as well, but you don't see this being funny (well, pretend it'd be funny on its merits):
      -What's a Texan's favorite broadway show?
      -New York, New York!
      -LOL!!!

    6. Re:ches mate... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why this is funny -- I mean, it's a play on words, sure.

      There you go.

      Besides, Pilsner's Urquell is a damn fine Czech beer, and just may have had something to do with the apparent lack of subtlety in my remark.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    7. Re:ches mate... by jb.cancer · · Score: 1

      you mean he has 2 arse!!!

    8. Re:ches mate... by eneville · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why this is funny -- I mean, it's a play on words, sure. Do that many Slashdotters think Czech was ever part of the USSR? It wasn't. Beyond that, Kasparov was born in Azerbaijan, which is nowhere near Czech. Also, for the mods: his name is Garry. With two arrs. You mean p's of course... :-) damned lame filter wouldn't let me use the correct characters... shame...
    9. Re:ches mate... by c_forq · · Score: 1

      I mean, there's no denying that New York and Texas have a relationship as well, but you don't see this being funny (well, pretend it'd be funny on its merits): -What's a Texan's favorite broadway show? -New York, New York! -LOL!!!
      You must not be from the US. As a person from the US I see this all the time (well, not your exact case but many like it). Mostly due to people not realizing how massive and diverse the US is.
      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    10. Re:ches mate... by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      You must not be from the US.
      Native Texan ;)

      Mostly due to people not realizing how massive and diverse the US is.
      So hopefully my analogy should have worked with you because you are aware of the silliness of thinking TX==NY.

      Likewise Czech==(USSR|Russia|Azerbaijan) is a silly proposition, which is why I took exception to the czech mate joke. If we'd been talking about someone from Czech, it would have been well played, but it seemed to me that some people got their geography really wrong, both the OP of the joke, and the subsequent mods.
  2. Re-use of old term by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    It's interesting that the people in charge of Russia now could be reasonably charged as "counter-revolutionaries" who thwart the will of the people. If I recall, the punishment for that used to be being sent to the Gulag.

    1. Re:Re-use of old term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Advancing? Bullshit. They are just catching up by stealing the technologies from the Western world and then playing with their currency exchange rates to maximize their profit. If they were advancing at the speed of light then you would assume that there would have been some major scientific and technological breakthroughs that came from China in the last 10 or so years, right? You know, something on the order of the Internet, the cellphone, the transistor, the Big Bang theory, plate tectonics, DNA, etc. Start naming some.

      The heavy handed leadership just means that the government is run by something similar to the Mafia. It doesn't mean that it is the right way to rule.

    2. Re:Re-use of old term by aurispector · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the oodles of dirt cheap labor. They have literally hundreds of millions of people who think getting paid a few dollars a day for factory labor is fantastic-and for them it IS fantastic when compared to raising chickens and rice on a farm in the middle of nowhere. I think the only real reason India lags behind china is BECAUSE they have democratic institutions.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    3. Re:Re-use of old term by cyphercell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Geez, China's relative growth is not a product of totalitarianism. It's the result of a Capitalist experiment conducted by Britain concerning a territory of theirs known as Hong Kong. Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997, currently Hong Kong is still a business world mecca. Mainland China is stuck somewhere between a poverty stricken totalitarian sh*thole and something of a socialist capitalism, essentially torn between business and oldworld governance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong#Economy

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    4. Re:Re-use of old term by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      He writes subjectively that enslaving people has improved China's welfare. Yes it is a lie and he offered nothing to support his claims. Maybe this doesn't justify a -1 troll but we don't really have a -1 wtf? do we?

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    5. Re:Re-use of old term by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      But there is something to be said about having a heavy hand ruling.

      How does someone turn out like this? You think he was mistreated as a child?
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Re-use of old term by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      I would presume though, that in the context of a Russian political leader being disallowed from campaigning, that yes his post was completely trollish.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    7. Re:Re-use of old term by Kreplock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Russians may have cheap labor, but that's only because a decent living and viable middle class is being denied them. Russia now has less than half the population of the old Soviet Union - less than 150 million and falling. So there they sit, on the greatest mass of land and resources of any nation with a population that barely bests that of Japan. Their greedy, self-serving Kremlin masters steal anything of value, triggering a tremendous brain-drain, withering the army, and rusting the navy. They are surrounded by energy-hungry nations and remain slaves to the classic Russian Paranoia handed down through the centuries. And, as usual, no matter who's running the place they always employ ham-fisted diplomacy and civil oppression. They still have respectable infrastructure and an somewhat educated workforce to draw upon. Russia could be mighty, wealthy, and successful. Oh well.

    8. Re:Re-use of old term by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How do you think the U.S. advanced so rapidly during the Industrial Revolution? It wasn't because they did a lot of innovating themselves - they stole a LOT of technology from Europe, over Europe's protests (with lots of outrage about "intellectual property theft").

      Now China is doing the same thing the U.S. (and the rest of the Western countries), with pretty much the same we-cant-compete! whining from the "victim" countries. Funny how that works out.

    9. Re:Re-use of old term by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "There is no bureaucracy to get in the way."

      You have been mislead, China has had a large bureaucracy for the past 2000yrs regardless of who was running the show.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    10. Re:Re-use of old term by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Take a look at Russian infrastructure and then come back and talk about advancing at the speed of light. Russia is going backwards, back to the autocracy that has been present since the time of the Czars. The only thing keeping Russia afloat right now are energy prices. It is the farthest thing from the Chinese economic boom that I can imagine. Arresting people and shipping them off to Siberia is still a treasured right of the rulers. I suggest Kasparov catch the first flight out of Russia and let the country slide back into its old ways. He's waging a hopeless battle, and if he continues, he'll end up in Siberia himself. Let's remember this is a country that has never had a problem punishing its intellectuals.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re:Re-use of old term by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If I recall, the punishment for that used to be being sent to the Gulag.

      Thanks to global warming, the Gulag is a happening place. Now they send you into the deseart.

    12. Re:Re-use of old term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Like what? Give some examples. With no proof why should anyone believe you?

    13. Re:Re-use of old term by narzy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      there are times in life I wish I had mod points and this is one of them. I'm a big fan of the Russian culture, I find it facinating but the Russian government IMO just can't be trusted. Russia is a country inundated with organized crime and instead of stomping it out the Russian leaders ride the mafia all the way to power. It's sad to see such potential go to waste. During the space race Russia truly did innovate in the beginning giving us yanks one hell of a run for our money until they just couldn't keep up and had to start stealing technology from the US. Unfortunately for the former USSR communism is fundamentally flawed.

    14. Re:Re-use of old term by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have to agree, I can't think of any examples, and yet the post gets modded +4 informative...either everyone else on Slashdot knows of hundreds of examples or /. is becoming very liberal in it's US bashing w/out evidence...

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    15. Re:Re-use of old term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh my, is this for real? The first US patent granted was for making potash. Now, dont you think there was prior art? Read up on the history of engines, trains, cars, electricity, chemistry, drugs....

    16. Re:Re-use of old term by iamplasma · · Score: 5, Informative

      Okay, how about Samuel Slater, who took an apprenticeship in a British factory, memorised the workings of the machines. In evasion of British laws limiting the distribution the details of such inventions, he disguised himself as a farmhand to leave the country with the knowledge, which he used to set up factories in America, earning himself fame and wealth, despite basically being an IP thief. Whatever one thinks of patents and the draconian IP laws applicable to such inventions, he was let in on a trade secret, and used deception to succeed in stealing that secret.

      So anyway, there's an example, no need to accuse people of making things up. Can we go back to the US-bashing now we have evidence?

    17. Re:Re-use of old term by rts008 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't use modpoints to 'further your opinion', they are meant to further increase CONSTRUCTIVE discussion, not as a means to 'slap down your opponents'.

      As a side note, I happen to basically agree with both you and Kreplock, however my uneasy feeling has a root in the 150 million statistic without citing any sources.
      I do not question the accuracy of that number (not the issue for my concern here) Kreplock uses, only the fact that no sources were offered + your ability to 'jump on the bandwagon' with modpoints without ANY objective viewpoint for the discussion.

      When (if!) you actually get modpoints to 'play' with, read the moderator's guidelines....an obvious link to these will be provided to you if you ever get the mod points.

      If you've already been granted modpoints, then DO check out that moderator's guidelines link that is displayed when you click on that 'You have Moderator Points' link.

      P.S. Kreplock...you just got in the crossfire- sorry! :)
                narzy...modpoints aren't WMD, they're meant to further reasonable discussion, not as 'smack down' device.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    18. Re:Re-use of old term by LKM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Argument: "Lots of people stole stuff."
      Counter-Argument: "You're wrong: Persons A, B and C did not steal stuff."

      Do you see the logical fallacy in your arugment?

    19. Re:Re-use of old term by Drantin · · Score: 1

      meh, a British guy decided to make money selling British secrets in America... How exactly did the Americans steal them again?

      --
      Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
    20. Re:Re-use of old term by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      US didn't respect European patents. This was a major dispute in the 19th century. England had patented many new industrial machines, and the US was the one place where these machines could be used without paying royalties.

      Giving concrete examples would be silly, since it is more or less everything: Machines, factory designs, steam engines, locomotives, etc.

    21. Re:Re-use of old term by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Americans didn't exists in the 19th century. You were some british guy or some german guy..

    22. Re:Re-use of old term by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      1) Sorry, but marking things that you think are insightful or interesting is exactly what using modpoints is for. Just because you don't think it's either, doesn't actually invalidate his opinion at all.

      2) I don't see how modding up is a smack-down device - modding down is, but seeing as he basically agreed with Kreplock I assume that's not what he was intending to do.

      3) You need to chill out :) It's a website, not the end of the world.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    23. Re:Re-use of old term by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Brain drain from Russia almost stopped. As a person who frequently travels between States and Russia and talks to the Russian speaking IT community, very few people leave Moscow for US. There is may be small brain drain from provinces, but they never had significant brain power compared to Moscow and St Petersburg. When talking about RUssian economy, Russian brain power, Russian finance, Russian politics, it is only Moscow and St. Petersburg (and the latter is only because of the strong "piter" ties of current president).

      Moscow is a very vibrant and interesting place to live for people who like big cities. In US may be only New York could be a match to the vibrancy of Moscow, but it is a bleak copy of Moscow's intensity of life and abundance of entertainment for people who need that.

      Former Moscovites actually are returning back to Russia to pursue an "interesting" life. To each its own.

      Brain drain from Russia is a fiction. Everybody who objectively had better chance off abroad left long time ago. Situation had stablized.

      New generation double-hates US (for right and wrong reasons), except very few liberals, like Novodvorskaya.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    24. Re:Re-use of old term by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      No bureaucracy? What China are you talking about?

    25. Re:Re-use of old term by infidel13 · · Score: 1

      Isn't that just the sad truth - throughout history, Russia has been a great could-have-been. The country has vast deposits of natural resources, the largest amount of land of any country in the world, and a reputation for brilliance in engineering and critical thinking, to mention just a few assets. But time and time again, its oppressive government, in incarnations ranging from the czars to the Soviet Union to Vladimir Putin, continues to plunder and steal until there is barely anything left for the people. Russia's past is truly one of history's great tragedies.

      --
      quia potentia mens mentis
    26. Re:Re-use of old term by Cupid · · Score: 1

      China's growth is not purely the result of Hong Kong, that is like saying that the entire growth of the USA is entirely down to New York - both act as financial centres, but do not produce goods for export. Part of the reason for China's amazing growth is in fact its totalitarianism, when the government wants to do something and has its mind set on it, it always gets its own way. If it wants to build a dam to provide hydro electric power then it will moves 100,000s of people so that it can. If it wants access to Zambias natural resources then it will send Chinese convicts to build roads there . Totalitarian governments can achieve amazing things, like the pyramids in egypt or like the temples in South America, because they can do absolutely anything they want. Whilst a top down strategy means that there are situations where resources are wasted amazingly, like in the old USSR when Shoe Factories only made a single size because they did not have to respond to public demands, a country like China, that was and is so relatively backward can make huge strides in growth even whilst wasting resources on a massive scale. This is especially true when the country has so much in terms of manpower.

    27. Re:Re-use of old term by BgJonson79 · · Score: 1

      I was wondering the same thing...

      But hey, it's America bashing, a license to make your own karma.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    28. Re:Re-use of old term by Kreplock · · Score: 1
      I guess I could have included a link on the population, but I felt that data is particularly accessible. The CIA World Factbook lists Russia's population at: 142,893,540 (July 2006 est.)

      https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos /rs.html

      It'd be nice to annotate my other statements with sources but to do it nicely would require more time and effort than I can justify for an internet forum post I wrote in passing.

      Someone else did disagree with my brain drain comment; for that I'll just say that when I worked for a major chemical company in R&D a couple years ago there were more Russians than any other foreign nationality, and speaking with them is my basis for the statement, NOT an independent study.

    29. Re:Re-use of old term by Kreplock · · Score: 1

      No, the argument was that America's rapid advancement during the industrial revolution was due to stealing technology from Europe, so a listing of several home-grown technologies that heavily contributed to US advancement is a fine response. A reasonable defense of the US-stole-it's-way-to-the-top premise might be to list instances of stolen technology on par with the home-grown list. I'll add Andrew Carnegie, who quickly outpaced the British steel barons in technology and efficiency, to AC's list.

    30. Re:Re-use of old term by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In 2002, according to the official census, Russia had 145,166,731 inhabitants. The growth rate has been steadily negative since then - it's -157,000 (-0.39%) in 2006 alone. Wikipedia has a decently sourced article on the subject for those who want details.

    31. Re:Re-use of old term by LKM · · Score: 1

      Obviously, "stealing" implies something that already existed. Listing a number of new inventions (which were, if premise holds true, based on stolen ideas) does not contradict the given premise.

    32. Re:Re-use of old term by Brickwall · · Score: 1

      Um, Hong Kong has a population of about 7 million. There's a little city a bit farther north with a population of 20 million, and a reputation as the most dynamic business city in China; you might have heard of it: Shanghai.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    33. Re:Re-use of old term by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      I would not call selling oil being a parasite...

    34. Re:Re-use of old term by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Argument: "Lots of people stole stuff." Counter-Argument: "You're wrong: Persons A, B and C did not steal stuff."

      Do you see the logical fallacy in your arugment? There is no logical fallacy because of at least two reason: 1) the IP argument is that not any one should steal IP-- the argument is not logical but legal/moral. 2) Even logically speaking, "Lots of people" does not imply "all of people".
    35. Re:Re-use of old term by LKM · · Score: 1

      Even logically speaking, "Lots of people" does not imply "all of people".

      Dude. That's what I said.

    36. Re:Re-use of old term by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Ok then, I didn't get it.

    37. Re:Re-use of old term by Kreplock · · Score: 1
      The premise has yet to be supported and as such requires no refutation. Someone stated a position and someone else scraped up an example. This falls painfully short. Perhaps anyone who subscribes to the original position merely feels it makes sense.

      The counter argument is not so much a contradiction (there's pitifully little to contradict) as it is a counter proposal. Various examples which had well-documented, long-lasting effects leading to unprecedented growth of the 19th century economy have been supplied. Anyone who maintains a white-knuckled grip on the stolen technology premise has been free to point out how the listed phenomenon were, in fact, stolen.

      In the end I am confident the honest researcher will find the US neither "stole" it's way toward the forefront nor devised it's own path. We invented neither trains nor automobiles, but Yankee ingenuity during that time was outstanding for a New World backwater, certainly worthy of inclusion among their European counterparts.

      The casual charge of technology thief is rife with bias and laziness.

    38. Re:Re-use of old term by ErroneousBee · · Score: 1

      Colt took existing designs and improved them.

      McCormick appears to have been beaten to it by the Romans.

      Singer. Nope (ignoring minor inventions).

      Whitney. OK, but considering that Europe was inventing nitroglycerine and the computer at this time, yet another mechanical agricultural device is hardly revolutionary.

      John Fitch stole his idea from English and French inventors.

      Oliver Evans invented yet another 'tool driven with steam'. Very much in the current mould of 'Something that exists, only on a computer' kind of "invention" that goes on today.

      Edwin Drake. Poland had a well and refinery 4 years earlier.

      And lets not forget the stealing of:

      • The rocket (german)
      • Supersonic flight (british)
      • lighbulb (swann)
      • pretty much everything else except the internet.

      But dont worry. The Romans were much the same. Everything was stolen from the Greeks, Carthage or someone else.

      --
      **TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
    39. Re:Re-use of old term by LKM · · Score: 1

      The casual charge of technology thief is rife with bias and laziness.

      And claiming that there was no theft is the same, but doubly so :-)

      Honestly, claiming that Americans did not "steal" ideas and knowledge from Europe is somewhere between absurd and preposterous. Of course they did steal those things. They didn't start from zero. Somebody mentioned Samuel Slater, the US did not respect European patents, and there are probably countless other examples of ideas which originated in Europe and where then "stolen" by the USA.

      I don't think there's anything wrong with stealing ideas. That's what you're supposed to do. Steal the damn ideas and improve upon them. That's how humanity has always progressed. Patents hurt those nations which respect them. So, frankly, I don't see why you're so defensive about it.

    40. Re:Re-use of old term by Kreplock · · Score: 1

      Now this is just getting silly. At what point is something "new" instead of "stolen"? Let's look at rockets, for example. Rocketry had military applications for at least a century before the creation of greater Germany, I've seen a 19th century painting of British forces using crude rockets on the battlefield. One could say the Chinese invented rocketry because they had the first fireworks. Did the Americans "steal" their way to the moon from the Chinese? Liquid fueled rocketry was pioneered by Robert Goddard, a US professor. His work was widely published and the Germans relied heavily on it. Tsiolkovsky's ideas preceded Goddard, it is unclear what details Goddard had access to (if any), and Goddard was the first to implement these ideas.

    41. Re:Re-use of old term by Kreplock · · Score: 1

      And claiming that there was no theft is the same, but doubly so :-) Come off it, nobody is making that claim. You direct your comment at me, but I certainly didn't say that.

      The original claim was the US "stole" it's way forward, the counter-point stated US inventors powered our industrial revolution, and I finally suggested reality is a respectable somewhere in between. Don't be putting words in my mouth.

    42. Re:Re-use of old term by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      Shanghai and Hong Kong have had a recent rivalry over which city is to be the economic center of China. The city had a GDP per capita of ¥55,153 (ca. US$ 7,116) in 2006, ranked no. 1 among all 659 Chinese cities. Hong Kong on the other hand, possessed an unparalleled GDP of ¥310,021 (ca. US$ 37,400).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai#Economy_and_ demographics

      Hong Kong GDP $ 36,500 2006 est.

      https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rank order/2004rank.html

      Look at that CIA link again. The US comes in tenth in the world, Hong Kong by itself comes in 15th. Hong Kong is the 800lb gorrilla of the business world (sorry bill). Talk all you want about the efficiency of a totalitarian government, but do not discount the benefits of unbridled capitalism in China's overall success.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    43. Re:Re-use of old term by narzy · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points I was going to mod the parent up, I agree w/ what he said.

    44. Re:Re-use of old term by rts008 · · Score: 1

      I also agree- with both of you.
      But simply agreeing with someone isn't usually the best (or even good) reason for giving mod points.
      I've been guilty of it myself, that's why this one got my attention.

      Honestly not trying to pick a fight here! As I said, I happen to agree with both of you.

      Also, I stand better informed now: it would seem his 150 million is about right, as several replies have cited about the same number from several sources.

      I'll STFU now; still on freindly terms? Peace? :-)

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  3. Sorry, couldn't resist ... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 4, Funny

    Early this month, Mr. Kasyanov's and Mr. Kasparov's Web sites were blocked, though it was unclear by whom.' Kasparov was later released from detention, though he was still fined for participating in the event."
    So now it's Kasparaov's move.
    --
    The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    1. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by mobby_6kl · · Score: 4, Funny

      My guess is he might use the Queen's Gambit, but with those ruskies you never know. Plus, Pootin just might also overreact to moves like that.

    2. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 3, Funny

      Regarding your sig ... there are over 200 million cars in the US which, together, are "equivalent to 80 Bin Ladens" in terms of carnage. Therefore, any single car like mine is roughly 80/200,000,000 or 0.0000004 Bin Ladens.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    3. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The source or cause of the fatality is not really relevent to the point. Think about it this way. Compare the amount of money spent on cancer ir aids research by the government to amount spent fighting terrorism. How many americans (not including solders in Iraq) die each year because of each of those? Think about it statistically. How are you most likely to die? Terrorist attack, auto accident, choking on a piece of food, or cancer? How much money is spent on prevention of each of those items listed? FUD is powerful. We think of the non terrorism items less because they happen on an individual basis or one at a time and not to a group at one time. Basically spreading out the problem over time and geographical areas therefore causing no one person to feel the overall effects as a collective group would feel. No large groups of people are affected by any one individual case.

    4. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by holdenholden · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bin Ladens? I don't understand these units. What is it in Libraries of Congress or football fields?

    5. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah, but you ignore the derivative. Since 1968 the US State Department has been keeping track of the number of deaths caused by terrorism (http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-terrorism ) Note, the annual rate has tripled since then. Contrast that with the rate of traffic deaths, which has actually gone down over the same period ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_Traf fic_Safety_Administration The rate of traffic deaths has dropped 16% in the US from 1979 to 2002. If we extrapolate the two trends, inevitably a crossover happens. When will more Americans die from terrorism in any given year than die on America's highways? I believe we will see that occur in our lifetime.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    6. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by cyphercell · · Score: 4, Informative

      When will more Americans die from terrorism in any given year than die on America's highways? I believe we will see that occur in our lifetime.

      Terrorist Incidents > by Region Range: 01/01/1968 - 04/14/2007
      North America Incidents:588 Injuries:4344 Fatalities:3568
      Middle East / Persian Gulf Incidents:13788 Injuries:52063 Fatalities:25859
      Global TOTAL Incidents:32904 Injuries:114327 Fatalities:49379

      http://www.tkb.org/IncidentRegionModule.jsp

      The U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has released preliminary projections on motor vehicle traffic crash fatalities and injuries during 2005. According to a preliminary report, 43,200 died on the nation's highways in 2005, up from 42,636 in 2004. Injuries dropped from 2.79 million in 2004 to 2.68 million in 2005, a decline of 4.1 percent.

      http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=6195


      What the hell are you talking about? If you'll look above global terrorism in the past 39 years, barely passes the number of deaths caused by cars in 2005 in the US alone. There are better sources for information than wikipedia. You're wrong, you're just wrong.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    7. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      PWND!!11 :)

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    8. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by CnlPepper · · Score: 1

      Why imagine? Its called the US government.... :P :)

      CnlPepper, prepare yourself for trolldom....

    9. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by packeteer · · Score: 1

      Most likely Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch Defense (D32). He is pretty fond of that one. Although interestingly Kasparov's best game ever was a king's pawn opening.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    10. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      Do you understand derivatives? Rate of change? Which would you say is accelerating faster - American deaths by terrorism or American deaths by auto accidents? This is not complicated.

      PWND

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    11. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by orzetto · · Score: 1

      Ah, but you ignore the derivative. [...] When will more Americans die from terrorism in any given year than die on America's highways? I believe we will see that occur in our lifetime.

      Who cares about the derivative, the point is how many people die. You are extrapolating trends, which is something that cannot be done as carelessly as you are doing now.

      For instance, 3000 American civilians were killed by terrorism in 2001. No one in 2002. Does it mean that by now terrorism kills -15,000 Americans every year (i.e. resuscitates 15,000 because of the negative sign)?

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    12. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      If we assume that a typical bin (that's garbage can for American readers) is about 100 litres (~26.4 US gallons), and that a laden bin is 95% full, then a bin laden is about 95 litres / 25 US gallons. To pick a football (that's soccer for American readers) stadium whose volume I can easily find on the Web, the new Wembley stadium has a bowl volume of 1,139,100 cubic metres. Therefore a bin laden is about 1/12,000,000 of a football stadium. HTH.

    13. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by KingEomer · · Score: 1

      Do you understand second derivatives, and possibly local minima/maxima? Do you understand statistics? At the current rate of acceleration for Terrorism deaths, it'll be a while before they catch up; it's quite a stretch to generalize this trend that far. Your extrapolation seems flawed.

      PWND

    14. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      it'll be a while before they catch up
      I never said it would happen imminently. I merely stated that I believed I would see the cross-over in my lifetime. It is painfully obvious to me that terrorism has dramatically expanded with no sign of abatement during my years on this planet. Conversely, cars have been getting safer. Do you really think it is a stretch to extrapolate these two trends?
      As further support for my argument, I will mention that I often read (especially in these parts) about how the Bush administration's actions in the MidEast only inflame the terrorists and serve as "recruiting posters" for creating an even larger and more hateful generation of terrorists. If this is indeed true then my extrapolation would seem to be a slam dunk. Perhaps you believe Bush's war is slowing down terrorism?

      PS. What does the second derivative have to do with your argument? If anything the second derivative further supports my claims as terrorism is accelerating (the 2nd derivative is positive) whereas the 2nd derivative regarding automobile safety is most definitely negative.
      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    15. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by billcopc · · Score: 1

      If someone dies of terrorism while stuck in traffic, where do they get counted ? 1/2 each ? Or does terrorism always win ?

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    16. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      Who cares about the derivative, the point is how many people die. You are extrapolating trends, which is something that cannot be done as carelessly as you are doing now.
      First of all, it's all about the trends. People who ignore trends are fools. Do you really deny that terrorism has become much more rampant and deadly in the last 40 years? Do you seriously see it stopping or slowing down in the coming decades? Isn't it obvious this trend is not going to change anytime soon? In the 60's 1 or 2 people would die in a terrorist act (Achilles Laurel). In the 70s it was 10s of people (Munich). In the 80s it was 100s (Lockerbie). Then in the 90s/00s it became 1000s. And all it would take is one dirty bomb to kill hundreds of thousands. Do you think the terrorists would refrain from using such a weapon given the opportunity? Do you really believe we can stop them? We ignore trends at our own peril. That is why everyone is so worked up about a 1 degree increase in the earth's average temperature. People are extrapolating that trend to predict death, pestilence, famine, and vanishing species. Are they being foolish?

      You are also falling into a common trap in citing the lack of substantial US terrorism deaths since 9/11. BTW, many people use this same factoid to *prove* that the war in Iraq is succeeding in combatting terrorism. Do you subscribe to that line of reasoning? Using that "logic" I could just as easily cite the unusually cold April to disprove the global warming projections. But no, climate change is a macro-trend. And the ascension of terrorism is also a macro-trend. You cannot predict with any certainty how many will die in any given year. However, you can be confident that many will die over the course of a decade. And based on the growth of terrorism over the last 40 years, you can also confidently say that many more will die of terrorism in the next 10 years than died in the preceeding 10 years.
      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    17. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      Nothing accelerates forever, which is the assumption you're making here. You can calculate the acceleration effects of gravity on an apple out to infinity (well technically the speed of light), but in the real world that apple eventually hits something.

      Now let's forget all of that and look at your rate of change. If deaths by terrorism has tripled in the past 39 years we could confer that these deaths increase 100% every 13 years. The number of deaths for the last 13 years is 3167, in 2020 it will be 6334, in 2033 it will be 12668. 2046 it will be 25336, in 2059 it will be 50,672 for the past 13 years and I will be 80 years old well above the average age for an American male.

      Secretary of Transportation Andrew H. Card Jr. says the final figures for 1992 show the lowest vehicle fatality total in 30 years at 39,500, and an all-time low based on miles driven.

      http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3165/is _n4_v29/ai_13787851

      The increase in auto accidents between 1992 and 2005 is 8.6%. Suggesting that the yearly auto fatalities will rise (slowly) from 43,200/year on up. Essentially, if fatal auto incidents between 2046 and 2059 are less than 50,000, you're more likely a prophet than a mathematician. Assuming we still drive something that resembles cars.

      Finally, if you're using derivatives and rates of change for your investments stop, unless you're a budding economist. Your investments are far better off placed in straddled/diversified positions. Use derivatives for say the auto market in general then invest broadly in Ford, GMC, Nissan and others. For midrange investments (6mo-10years) buy both puts and calls and base your investments on retracements and corrections or invest in the money markets.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    18. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      Assuming we still drive something that resembles cars.
      You got me! I actually am assuming transportation will change dramatically in the coming decades, so yes, I am expecting auto-related deaths to fall rather dramatically. But I also expect terrorism to continue growing, unfortunately. To me, then, my statement is completely obvious and it surprises me that people will argue the point so vociferously.

      As regards the rate of change, in another post I noted that terrorism-caused deaths in any given incident actually seem to be going up by a factor of 10 each decade (1s in the 60s, 10s in the 70s, 100s in the 80s, 1000s in the 90s/00s). If that trend continues we can expect the next big terrorist act to kill 10s of thousands, and the decade after that 100s of thousands and then we will unfortunately have seen my prediction come true. I really hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am.
      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    19. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      Forgive me for not sharing your pessimism.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    20. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by tgd · · Score: 1

      Could be worse, he could go hunting with Dick Cheney.

    21. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist ... by mink · · Score: 1

      How do we compare Bin Ladens to Rhode Island?

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  4. He just got... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Castled by the police.

    Get it? Eh? Because the prison cell is like... Oh gosh.

  5. So... by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is there another side to this story? IS there a valid reason for the TV ban? Is it even a TV ban? And so on.

    I have long ago learned that slashdot stories and summaries have enough bias in them to drown half the world in so thats why I'm asking.

    1. Re:So... by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      IS there a valid reason for the TV ban?

      Can you actually think of any reasons that *would* be valid? I know I can't...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    2. Re:So... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      From what I can figure the opposition stepped out of it's official "free speech zone" (located in Kasparov's basement).

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:So... by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      The most obviosu one would be some form of general political restrictions on TV akin to those imposed in parts of the US on candidate's TV time. Second of all would be, as someone mentioned, that parts of this group or the groups advocate positions or perform actions that are "illegal" (ie: akin to the German block of anything Nazi related or the anti-hate speech laws of other nations). In relation to the last part it needs to be noted that many Europeans would probably find US tv bans on nudity to be beyond absurd.

      The story only says they are "virtually banned" and doesn't explain further which either means there are valid reasons (but telling them wouldn't get you a slashdot link) or this isn't an official ban (ie: no one wants to air this group for fear of pissing of someone in power).

    4. Re:So... by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Of course it is all down to political and social philosophy. As Americans, we generally believe that "men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Then, based on that, we all got together and said that we wanted to (among other things) protect certain other rights, such as the freedom of the press. So, we might just as well have not protected freedom of the press, and it would not have run into major conflict with our fundamental political philosophy.

      Perhaps the Russian people did the same. If 96% of the Russian population said that they wanted to block this group from television access, then a typical American political philosophy (which endorses democracy and populism) would have to say "well, ok then, they'd better block it". That would be a valid reason.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    5. Re:So... by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IIRC all media outlets are owned or controlled by Putin, he can pretty much say what gets aired and what not.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    6. Re:So... by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Is there another side to this story? IS there a valid reason for the TV ban? Is it even a TV ban? And so on.
      That's what upsets me so much. From what I've read, there isn't a valid reason, and it's pure politics. What upsets me is that Putin had the potential to be THE AWESOMEST WORLD LEADER EVER.

      OK, he looks kinda like the new Bond, used to work for the KGB, comes from a modest upbringing, has an acerbic wit, kisses boys on the stomach, and HAS A SIXTH-DEGREE BLACK BELT in judo.

      Our president hauls brush and bumbles over words. The Russian president is well known for his sweeping hip throw and rips on America's VP.

      I think we should start a list of "world leaders I wouldn't want to fuck with in a dark alley." Putin is on the list. Who else?
    7. Re:So... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Only one TV channel in Russia had a report about the demonstration so far (might've missed something though, but it was noticeably absent from either of the government-run channels).

  6. Obvious comment by sodas · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia... Uhm... Wait a minute here.

    1. Re:Obvious comment by TempeTerra · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ooh! ooh!

      In Soviet Russia, the KING captures KASPAROV!

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    2. Re:Obvious comment by FarHat · · Score: 3, Funny

      in soviet russia, your mates check you.

      --
      At the intersection of computation and biology.
    3. Re:Obvious comment by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

      This is /., most people here don't know what a "mate" is...

  7. The fine was quite small, by apathy+maybe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    but that doesn't excuse it. It was apparently about AUD50 (from the ABC.

    Anyway, this is just another example of how legitimate protests are squashed by authorities. If Putin and Co continue to suppress the opposition, I wonder if Mr Berezovsky will carry out his threat to have a "Russian Revolution"?

    Meh, and you wonder why some of the old people want the Soviet Union back.

    --
    I wank in the shower.
    1. Re:The fine was quite small, by secolactico · · Score: 1

      Meh, and you wonder why some of the old people want the Soviet Union back.

      It might bring some good Tom Clancy novels.

      --
      No sig
    2. Re:The fine was quite small, by Original+Replica · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "this is just another example of how legitimate protests are squashed by authorities. "

      The US is only one or two steps behind in this. I've seen protesters that wanted to be infront of the UN herded into "first amendment zones" six blocks away out of sight of TV cameras and delegates. Things like flash-mobbing don't work because the cops have double agents in most politically active organizations. So how are the common people supposed to be heard, about a specific issue?

      " I wonder if Mr Berezovsky will carry out his threat to have a "Russian Revolution"?

      What else can people do to actually change a corrupt system? Voting is only an answer when you candidates with a real interest in change, like that will ever happen...

      --
      We are all just people.
    3. Re:The fine was quite small, by heinousjay · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since the protesters are typically a vocal minority whose tactics include property destruction and disrupting the lives of people who don't agree, I say turn the hoses on em.

      I say this as a former victim of a job in downtown DC, so I know what it's like to get caught in the whirlwind. There's nothing peaceful about some hippie flinging a brick through the Starbucks where you're trying to get a coffee because he doesn't like milk.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    4. Re:The fine was quite small, by Rubinhood · · Score: 1

      Putin, if being an autocrat...
      Putin's tactics may be somewhat questionable...


      Putin may be the BEST dictator ever, but by introducing (rather, continuing) the leadership style that he does, he's gonna make it MUCH worse for your* country when another political leader comes to the scene.

      (*You are Russian, aren't you?)

    5. Re:The fine was quite small, by MrNixon · · Score: 1

      Don't think so, otherwise he would know that Putin's not up for re-election (he's already had two terms, and that's the maximum under the current constitution.

    6. Re:The fine was quite small, by Original+Replica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Putin is truely popular because of his faith in Russia, and Kasparov is not, why won't Putin let Kasparov be heard and shouted down by the people? Let Putin's rule stand on it own merit, not propped up by police enforcement.

      --
      We are all just people.
    7. Re:The fine was quite small, by tftp · · Score: 1
      Yes, that's an option. But it has its dangers too - each society has people who will share his (or anyone's) ideas, for free or for money. These followers can create plenty of social unrest, and they can be seen larger than they are. Do you want crowds of unruly people marching the streets and demanding that the government gives them money and power - just because they demand louder? When you cut your hand, do you just wait for your body to fight the infection "naturally", or you go to a doctor and he gives you antibiotics?

      Gary is just bitter that he is not in power but other people are. Gary wants power, he wanted it all his life, he is born to be a politician. Even when he was wearing the chess crown he spent too much time in chess politics and too little time playing. And eventually this obsession brought him down. He still wants more than he is worth, and he has precious little to sell to people. Putin gave Russia stability, he paid all foreign debts and made the rouble a player on international markets, he resolved the Chechen problem, he has strong and respectable foreign policy, his government is also stable and consistent ... what else is there to ask for? And then Gary comes up with a proposal to throw this all out and give him the reins (and be taken for a wild ride.)

      IMO, pure democracy is that type of society which gives the preferential treatment to its own enemies. That's a fact. In a democracy you can gather a crowd and preach evils of democracy. That is one reason why democracies don't stay around, they migrate into more stable forms, where you have a free speech right only if your speech is either harmless or beneficial to the society at large. But who will judge your speech? Currently governments do that, and most of them (if not all) are ill-equipped for such a decision.

    8. Re:The fine was quite small, by mink · · Score: 1

      "There's nothing peaceful about some hippie flinging a brick through the Starbucks where you're trying to get a coffee because he doesn't like milk."

      That's not a hippie, that's someone who is Lactose Intollerant!

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    9. Re:The fine was quite small, by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Your view is warped. There are plenty of societies around where you are free to speak out against the goverment. America has had free speech for a long time. It's leaders have always been criticised by the citizens and media. It's not 100% perfect, but it's pretty damn free.

  8. In Soviet Russia by Quzak · · Score: 1, Redundant

    In Soviet Russia, chess play you.
    In Soviet Russia, Russia Soviet you.
    In Soviet Russia, democracy votes for you.
    In Soviet Russia, Error (String not found in database.)

    --
    Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
    1. Re:In Soviet Russia by electricon · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, check mates you!!

    2. Re:In Soviet Russia by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1
      No.



      The error message was an interpretation of "Error" displayed on a 7-segment display of handheld calculators. Some of those calculators used an autocode stack-based programming language with operations represented as 2-3 cyrillic letters or symbols.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  9. You have to say this for the Russians by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    their political system may be awful mess, but it goddamn cool that being a chess champion there makes you a national hero too big for the government to mess with lightly.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just think how long Deep Blue would be locked up by the NSA marching against Bush&Co.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    2. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Informative

      Reality to the Reality-Based Community: You don't get arrested in the US for peacefully marching against Bush.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    3. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      That's precisely *because* of the political system. The USSR sunk absurd amounts of money into "intellectually prestigious" pursuits, such as chess, for propaganda purposes. Chess players received huge amounts of state funding, in contrast to their Western counterparts, who were funded by the private sector. That's the reason (not to downplay their educational system) for the slew of great chess players from Russia.

    4. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Excuse me??? What reality are you in?

      --
      What?
    5. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by v1 · · Score: 1

      no, in the US you get declared an "enemy combatant" and then you just disappear.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    6. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by kharchenko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You will get arrested if you don't have a permit. It's a great excuse authorities anywhere can leverage. Remember "freedom cage" - a designated protest zone at last GOP convention? Guess what happened when you tried to gather outside of the designated zone?

    7. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      They clashed briefly with police clad in riot gear...A couple of protesters threw bottles before the presidential limousine arrived, and one hurled an egg that landed near the motorcade...


      A reality where peaceful protesting doesn't include hard, glass projectiles and violence.
      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    8. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Double agents. Police provocation. Believe what you wish.

      --
      What?
    9. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      >no, in the US you get declared an "enemy combatant" and then you just disappear.

      I don't like the current (soon to be outgoing) administration either, but distortions don't help anything. The Dept. of
      Homeland Security is not the Stasi, the CIA is not the KGB, and you cannot name one person who has been declared an "enemy combatant" and disappeared, except for those who were arrested on a battlefield where they could have been summarily executed instead. I don't approve of any of it, but distorting the truth doesn't help our opposition to the situation in reality.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    10. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by Evets · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cindy Sheehan getting arrested for wearing an anti-war t-shirt was a pretty good example of how in the US, our basic assumed freedoms are not exactly what they appear.

      I've watched plenty of people get arrested for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

      I don't want to make this a Dem vs. Rep thing, being a worthless leader is hardly a party specific character trait. Most of the absurd arrests are from an overzealous idiot somewhere relatively low on the totem pole, but violations of the basic rights we were all told we have in elementary school happen on a daily basis all over the country and it is rare that those violations are addressed in any meaningful manner.

    11. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how the "Reality Based Community" insists on living in a fantasy world.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    12. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Okay, then, if you can name someone who was designated an enemy combatant and disappeared, please do.
      Everyone I know of with that designation was captured on a battlefield. Granted, I realize that we *created* that battlefield, but still, you want me to accept the premise that the US is right now a police state.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    13. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      A couple of protesters threw bottles before the presidential limousine arrived, and one hurled an egg that landed near the motorcade...

      I do not call that a "peaceful" protest. The fact that you do frightens me.

      As for your other link, "Anti-Bush protester sues HPD officers over arrest in 2004", I'm not finding any information other than what's in his lawsuit claim. It's a case of "he said" with not even a "she said" from the other side. That I'm only finding the same rehashed quotes on online three years later tells me that there's not much to this story. Of course, the Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory tells us that these means he's been shipped off to Gitmo...

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    14. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      You don't know who provoked the violence. The authorities have a great interest in discrediting any protest movement. Looks like you swallow up whatever they say. Whatever. Feel free to google. I'm sure you will find a better link to dismiss as propaganda. Maybe this is a tiny bit more to your liking. Only in America does arresting protesters and journalists seem to be legitimate. Everybody else is violating their rights. I'm sure there's no convincing you to vote for somebody else if Bush could run again. As I posted before, you are shown the warning label, yet you still drink out of the bottle of Drano without a care in the world about the consequences, to the point of disparaging those who dare show you the label.

      --
      What?
    15. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by johansalk · · Score: 1

      Umm, not just that. The difference is mostly cultural, not just political. See, in those countries Chess is, and always has been, for centuries and centuries, an admirable pursuit, for both nobility and common folks. In the Anglo-Saxon countries though, an interest in chess is considered a geeky and an undesirable attribute in an individual. Go to a cafe in those countries, even a poor-class cafe, you'll see a lot of chess and backgammon boards available for patrons to use. Really, I'm not kidding. You drink your tea or coffee and have a game of chess or backgammon. Everyone plays it in such countries, and hence everyone knows it and follows it. Not just Russia, but many other countries.

    16. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by jtcm · · Score: 5, Informative

      You don't get arrested in the US for peacefully marching against Bush.

      Actually, you might get arrested for peacefully protesting against Bush.

      From the link:

      • Kalamazoo, Michigan - ... When the protester refused to enter the protest zone, but insisted on standing where other people had been allowed to gather, he was arrested. ...
      • St. Louis, Missouri - ... Two protesters carrying signs critical of the President's policy on Iraq were ordered into a "protest zone" approximately one-quarter mile away, a location completely out of sight of the building. When the protesters refused, they were arrested. ...
      • Neville Island, Pennsylvania - ... But when retired steelworker Bill Neel refused to enter the protest zone and insisted on being allowed to stand where the President's supporters were standing, he was arrested for disorderly conduct and detained until the President had departed. ...
      • Columbia, South Carolina - ... When Bursey insisted on being allowed to remain where other members of the public stood, he was arrested on state and federal criminal charges. ...
      --
      @ASP.NET's parent-teacher meeting: "Little Johnny.NET is very bright, but he doesn't play well with others."
    17. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by asninn · · Score: 1

      Oh, really?

      And this is just one example I got from Google after five seconds (the time it took to type "peaceful anti-bush protesters arrested" into the search box), too.

      --
      butter the donkey
    18. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I find it very noteworthy that the country which prided itself of being "the land of the free" is now bolstering about being just a little bit better than Russia in the freedom department.

      That's a reality check for you.

    19. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by fishbowl · · Score: 1



      "What about the concept of disappeared do you not get. It's not that your family doesn't know that you have disappeared. It's the removal from society without a hearing."

      You know someone who has been imprisoned without a hearing, or waiving the right to a hearing? You need to give a name and specific circumstances if you're making this claim.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    20. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      They clashed briefly with police clad in riot gear...A couple of protesters threw bottles before the presidential limousine arrived, and one hurled an egg that landed near the motorcade... A reality where peaceful protesting doesn't include hard, glass projectiles and violence. What about eggs? Are eggs allowed?
    21. Re:You have to say this for the Russians by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      No. You don't have the right to throw anything at anybody. Especially during a riot when tensions are high. Throwing stuff in a riot is functionally equivalent to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. The crowd does what it does, but if someone throws an egg, someone else might think it's ok to throw a rock, then someone else might throw a bigger rock, then maybe the guy with the molitov will see his opportunity to sneak it in under the hail of small rocks.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  10. Big surprise by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    Just about anywhere in the world when you are denied a permit for a march or other assembly and do it anyway, you get arrested.

    In the US this has happened with KKK and Nazi groups. I suspect it would happen to a Young Repuplicans march if they were (a) denied a permit and (b) marched anyway.

    1. Re:Big surprise by apathy+maybe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In lots of places, even if you are denied a permit, you are still allowed to protest. And if you don't do anything besides not move on when told to ... Well you can't be legally arrested. (I believe this is the case in all of Australia, but at least NSW and Tasmania.)

      That doesn't stop you being arrested however. Charged. Forced to fly across the country to one court date. Forced to get a lawyer. Get charged with other charges because the cops are trying to blackmail you into pleading guilty to a "lesser" charge (traffic charge for example). Refuse to bow to blackmail. Fly across the country again the day before the court date. Get rung up by your lawyer and told that all charges have been dropper.

      Can you guess that I'm bitter? The fact is, in more civilised countries, you are allowed to demonstrate and protest. And so long as you don't break other laws (such as smashing shit up), then you are not breaking any laws. And thus the police have no right to arrest you. But as I've mentioned before, there are shitloads of examples where they will. (In the case above, that was me. I was "being annoying" according to one police officer who told another couple to arrest me.)

      --
      I wank in the shower.
    2. Re:Big surprise by alphamugwump · · Score: 1

      My aunt's boyfriend's niece (yeah, I know this is sort of hearsay) was supposedly held without charge for 3 days in a warehouse. Not only were they nonviolent (just typical hippies in organic clothes waving signs), she wasn't even one of the protesters.

      My mother is friends with a certain elderly female author, who happens to be on the do-not-fly list. Of course, she has no clue why she's on there, and they won't tell her why.

      So, yeah. They only let you have your rights if they want to. It isn't terribly new, but it does happen.

    3. Re:Big surprise by asninn · · Score: 1

      You've got a good point, and I think there really needs to be an equivalent of anti-SLAPP legislation for these things. Shouldn't a police officer who arrests and/or charges someone when he knows that the charges are phony be subject to disciplinary punishment (at the very least) for it?

      It'd be difficult to get things right, of course; proving that the charges were really made against better knowledge, with the intent to disrupt legal political speech and protesting, would be quite tough, and going after those at the top of the chain of command who ultimately ordered these things would be even tougher, but I think it would be a good symbolic gesture to enact a law against this, nevertheless.

      At the very least, it would show people that the government is taking these things seriously (well, or pretending to take these things seriously, if you want to be paranoid).

      --
      butter the donkey
  11. Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by shaitand · · Score: 4, Informative

    We like to think we have freedom of speech and a peaceful protest like this wouldn't be broken up here. That is false. In Russia they require permits and his permit was denied. He and some other protesters were arrested for marching without a permit.

    Most don't know that here in the US you are required to have a permit also, just as they did in Russia they can refuse to grant your permit will try to silence your protest and just happened in Russia. If you March anyway you WILL be arrested for trying to exercise your free speech.

    1. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Informative
      Most don't know that here in the US you are required to have a permit also

      Sure, but "We don't like what you have to say" is not, by itself, sufficient grounds to deny one.

    2. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but we're different! It's not like the United States ever tried to punish a world renowned chess grand master for doing something the government disagreed with politically.

    3. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by Nethead · · Score: 3, Funny

      I know, I was working in a data center that was surrounded by the Seattle WTO events.

      Really officer: I'm not a radical longhair, I'm a UNIX longhair!

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    4. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Sure, but "We don't like what you have to say" is not, by itself, sufficient grounds to deny one.

      Yes, I'm sure that's technically the case... as I'm sure that's technically the case in Russia, too.

    5. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      ure, but "We don't like what you have to say" is not, by itself, sufficient grounds to deny one.


      but they can fish up any excuse they like to give to the judges (who likely support their political position), who will happily look the other way.

      not to mention the fact that court proceedings are expensive, so this procedure by its very nature discriminates not only against unpopular speech, but the poor as well.
      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    6. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      in the US you are required to have a permit also

      This is because demonstrators like to disrupt traffic (which nobody enjoys) and rock-throwing nutbars tend to gravitate to this type of thing.

      Are you saying that large groups should be able to wander around pissing everyone else off? Should the cops just eff off and go find "real criminals"?

    7. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      You may be required to apply for a permit to protest in the U.S., and there is no guarantee that you will get one from a given municipality. Often you will have to agree to stay inside a "First Amendment Zone" set up as a chain link fenced-in area in some place where nobody sees you except homeless people who can't vote.

      The zoning is not applied evenly across the political spectrum; pro-government activists are allowed to line streets along motorcades.

    8. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      If you March anyway you WILL be arrested for trying to exercise your free speech.

      You'll be arrested for marching without a permit, stopping traffic (a criminal offense), loitering on government land, breaking windows, torching cars, other vandalism, assaulting police officers and each other, and littering. Pretending that your demonstration is legitimate doesn't allow you to commit criminal and civic offenses, though many protesters like to pretend otherwise. "We're angry that our hand-outs aren't big enough, so we're going to block traffic!" IMHO, the cops are far too lenient with these goons.

    9. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by spike2131 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but here we have Free Speech Zones. If you go to a Free Speech Zone, you can say anything you want. How cool is that?

      --
      SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
    10. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by fm6 · · Score: 1

      We like to think we have freedom of speech and a peaceful protest like this wouldn't be broken up here. That is false. In Russia they require permits and his permit was denied. He and some other protesters were arrested for marching without a permit. I think you'll find that it's a lot harder to get a permit to hold an anti-government protest march in Russia than it is here. You'll also find that what the government gets away with calling "an anti-government protest march" is whole lot broader in Russia than here.

      It's not that we're that much friendlier to dissent than Russia (though we are). It's simply that there are more safeguards here. Somewhat eroded, alas, but still better than Russia's.
    11. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you March anyway you WILL be arrested for trying to exercise your free speech.

      You won't be arrested for your free speech, you will be arrested for blocking traffic, and/or blocking access to buldings. You're free to peacefully march along public access pedestrian sidewalks and in public access parks, so long as you don't restrict others rights to do the same, and don't violate any loitering ordinances.

      In short, you may need permits for certain deeds, but never for words.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    12. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      and by "blocking access to buildings" and "violating loitering laws" they mean merely standing there and passively voicing your opinion.

      never mind the guy standing next to your group in the suit with the briefcase eating his bagel who was left alone while violating those same loitering laws.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    13. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by stinerman · · Score: 1

      Its really quite simple. If the group wants to use the street in such a way that will cause traffic problems, they need to get a permit. That way traffic can be rerouted and notices can be posted that Main St. will be closed. If they don't use the street, there is no need for a permit. Sidewalks are fine. Similarly, if pedestrian traffic is affected, they should need a permit.

      If they have no permit and the demonstrators are causing traffic problems, start arresting them for jaywalking. Charter some buses and send them off to the pokey.

    14. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Often you will have to agree to stay inside a "First Amendment Zone" [wikipedia.org] set up as a chain link fenced-in area in some place where nobody sees you except homeless people who can't vote.

      So either you're homeless or their protest worked better than you think it did... In fact, I don't know *anybody* who doesn't know about that protest.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    15. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with that, it makes sense. Others will feign mental or emotional or constitutional damage. "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!"

      "I didn't know you were called Dennis."

    16. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      but they can fish up any excuse they like to give to the judges (who likely support their political position), who will happily look the other way.

      I'm as cyncial as the next guy, but that's not always the case. When I was growing up I remember a Nazi group wanting to march in Skokie, IL, a city with a heavily Jewish population, many of them Holocaust survivors. Here's a summary of those events.

    17. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      More than snide innuendo is needed here. You'll have to cite a few good examples where it wasn't sufficient here in the US.

    18. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Dude with the bagel wasn't part of an organized group gathering that wouldn't disperse.

    19. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      >Most don't know that here in the US you are required to have a permit also

      Fundamentally at odds with any authority by which such a permit could be denied, granted or even sought, is this:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    20. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Violence and destruction are criminal offenses, blocking traffic is a criminal offense. Therefore there is no legitimate reason to require a permit to protest. What is the purpose of the permit, simply to add another charge to the list if someone committing violence or blocking roadways is protesting while they are doing it?

    21. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Well said. Violence and destruction are criminal offenses, blocking traffic is a criminal offense. Therefore there is no legitimate reason to require a permit to protest. What is the purpose of the permit, simply to add another charge to the list if someone committing violence or blocking roadways is protesting while they are doing it?

      Others keep mentioning things protesters could do or that a protest can cover heinous actions, they ignore that those actions are not assembling and voicing a potentially unpopular opinion and that is the only thing a permit restricts. All the other things a large upset group of people might do are illegal whether you are protesting or not.

    22. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

      That's why a protest doesn't do anything, you need a riot.

    23. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by zobier · · Score: 1

      by Nethead (1563)
      http://left-wing.org/
      I know, I was working in a data center that was surrounded by the Seattle WTO events.

      Really officer: I'm not a radical longhair, I'm a UNIX longhair! That's ironic judging by your website address.
      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
    24. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by Nethead · · Score: 1

      What's more ironic is that this ex-hippie is doing what little I can to help a retired four-star General stop the US from going to war with Iran, at least until we've tried talking to them.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    25. Re:Lets not get holier than thou here in the US by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      I'm not here to prove anything. I'm simply saying that, just because a law is on the books which requires the government to execute procedures a certain way, doesn't mean it actually will. One might cite, say, recent wiretapping events as a good example of the government's willingness to work around it's own rules when it sees fit.

  12. Unsurprising by vertigoCiel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Putin has Russia locked down almost as tight as Stalin. Only, instead of killing people, he just chases them out of the country, or locks them up. Remember how one political dissident's lawyer recieved death threats, and fled to Amsterdam? Yeah, guess who ordered the death threats. Hint: It's not Yeltsin. He owns most of the TV and media outlets - he can clean up his mess by making it a non story. I wish Kasparov was only the first example of Putin's ironhold grip on political discussion.

    1. Re:Unsurprising by idesofmarch · · Score: 1

      You, sir, have no idea what you are talking about. Putin is a hardliner and his measures to stifle the free press rightly deserve criticism, but this is nothing like it was during Stalin's regime. Stalin killed 20 million Russians and was a paranoid maniac. Putin is not even running for re-election.

    2. Re:Unsurprising by vertigoCiel · · Score: 1

      Yet, the state of free press is nearly equatable in terms of relative freedom to criticize the government. I never said Putin was a mass-murderer on the scale of Stalin: his method of silencing dissidents is much different. The fact remains that Putin stifles freedom of press, even freedom of speech, in a manner that recalls Stalin.

    3. Re:Unsurprising by Supercooldude · · Score: 1

      The impression I get from my Russian friends is that in Putin's Russia you are free to do pretty much anything you want as long as it does not involve criticizing the government. So for those 99% of Russians who do not care about politics, it's just as much a free country as the US is (maybe more).

    4. Re:Unsurprising by vishbar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Only, instead of killing people, he just chases them out of the country, or locks them up.

      Errrrr....do you know who Anna Politkovskaya, Ivan Safronov, or Alexander Litvinenko are?

      Putin kills. Maybe not as much as Stalin, but if you are a "big fish" against Putin...expect retaliation.

      --
      Ride the skies
    5. Re:Unsurprising by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's reminiscent of Stalin so much as it's reminiscent of how the Czarist government worked during the 19th and early 20th century. I think Putin is much more in the Czarist mold than in the Stalinistic one.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Unsurprising by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Stalin attempted to push the 'reset' button on a whole country, killing off all unapproved intellectuals (including former allies from within the Communist party itself) in an attempt to grind the entire populace into the 'raw materials' to rebuild the entire country by a central plan. He attempted to wipe out anybody who wasn't a blank slate that could be imprinted with the pattern to become a new 'model' Soviet citizen. Mao attempted the same thing, as did Pol Pot.

      It is ludicrous when people make comparisons of current Russian politicians to Stalin.

    7. Re:Unsurprising by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Stalin killed 20 million Russians and was a paranoid maniac.

      Stalin was paranoid, but he killed up to 2 millions of people, not 20. Those ridiculously inflated figures exist because US propaganda wanted to make him look worse than Hitler. For the same reason the number of Hitler's victims is usually replaced with only number of Holocaust victims, what is not the same considering that WWII in Europe with its tens of millions dead was entirely his "project".

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    8. Re:Unsurprising by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      And I suppose, you have some kind of proof that it was Putin who is responsible for killing those people, who were thoroughly discredited long before those murders, and presented no threat to Putin or his government.

      Speaking of which, I have one great suggestion for anti-Putin opposition to increase their credibility by orders of magnitude -- stop taking money from Berezovsky.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  13. in related news by mincognito · · Score: 4, Funny

    kasparov blames team of ibm scientists for masterminding his capture.

  14. That's it! by iamacat · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I recently got US citizenship and was debating on what to do with by Russian passport. But, I have no desire to be in any way associated with a dictatorship. I guess I will be returning it shortly, with a note describing why.

    1. Re:That's it! by idesofmarch · · Score: 1

      How about you just return it politely, comrade?

    2. Re:That's it! by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Why should I be polite to someone who voluntarily represents a repressive regime?

    3. Re:That's it! by schon · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have no desire to be in any way associated with a dictatorship. I thought you just said you got a US citizenship?

      (Go ahead and mod me down - prove Republicans have no sense of humor.) :)
    4. Re:That's it! by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Go ahead and mod me down - prove Republicans have no sense of humor

      Well, they don't have a dictatorship for sure, although Republicans+Democrats do constitute a ROWM (Rich old white male) aristocracy. Aristocracy is better than dictatorship, because majority of any group is not insane and can oust total nutcases or keep their power in check. Care to suggest a country that combines democracy, freedom (to disagree with majority), compassion (helping decent people get over hard times), responsibility (global warming...) and liberal immigration policy?

    5. Re:That's it! by zoftie · · Score: 1

      You can start doing business with russia, having dual citizaship is wild card in some sorts of jobs.

    6. Re:That's it! by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Well, I am not much of a martyr. I already escaped one regime and its associated mandatory military service. It seems the least I can do is kind of bark at them from safe distance under a small risk that I can not flee to Canada if things go really bad here. If enough Russian expatriates renounce their citizenship and explain why they are doing it, it's one way to send a message.

    7. Re:That's it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Care to suggest a country that combines democracy, freedom (to disagree with majority), compassion (helping decent people get over hard times), responsibility (global warming...) and liberal immigration policy? How 'bout Canada?
    8. Re:That's it! by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Sell it on eBay.

      I have personally purchased several Soviet-era Communist Party Membership cards (booklets, really). They are interesting historical relics, and it's cool to have something that it would have been abolutely forbidden and illegal to have acquired back in the day.

    9. Re:That's it! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Become a RFE/RL "journalist" -- they will still be able to call you "Russian".

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  15. Personally by rolfwind · · Score: 1

    I always thought that this practice violated the Right of Assembly part of the Constitution.

    I feel the same about Free Speech Zones...

    1. Re:Personally by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I always thought that this practice violated the Right of Assembly part of the Constitution.

      In the US it's supposedly up to judicial review. Restrictions on assemblies are only suppose to be based on safety considerations and excessive disturbance of daily activities, such as commerce. Generally if it causes safety problems, they are to suggest other areas and make "reasonable" accomidations. Otherwise, we'd have really F'd traffic everytime zealots got pissed. Whether Kasparov was given altnerative areas or not, I don't know.

    2. Re:Personally by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Otherwise, we'd have really F'd traffic everytime zealots got pissed.


      OMG.. you mean people would actually SEE and/or NOTICE the protestors in the streets, and possibly be educated and recruited to their cause?!

      perish the thought!
      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    3. Re:Personally by Khaed · · Score: 1

      Or they'd be pissed off that they were late for work/lunch/picking the kids up because a bunch of dumbasses with signs were blocking the street.

      You have the right to free speech, but not to fuck up my day with it.

    4. Re:Personally by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      OMG.. you mean people would actually SEE and/or NOTICE the protestors in the streets, and possibly be educated and recruited to their cause?!

      Blocking traffic is a criminal offense. Of course, you could always break into people's houses and verbally assault them with your views on how you deserve bigger hand-outs. You're entitled to commit that criminal offense too, right?

    5. Re:Personally by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      You're calling Nationalist Socialists right-wing?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    6. Re:Personally by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Every marching protester is always a lefty.

      Anti-abortion marchers and some anti-gay religious groups are known to regularly protest.

    7. Re:Personally by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      yes, they are the most extreme of right wing. right wing is defined as reactionary, and aimed at the prevention of and reversal of change...the restoration of as much of the "old way of doing things" as possible. in this case, it means putting certain minorities in the place they were before those pesky liberals and their civil rights movement.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    8. Re:Personally by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      You need to read a history book if you really think you are being clever.

    9. Re:Personally by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      I agree with neither but typically those groups' protests do not involve breaking stuff and inviting chaos and mayhem. The lefties often do, that's part of their operating system.

      They justify/condone this as "freedom of speech" because of their self-created perpetual underdog status.

      It's cool to be against the man and to fight against the machine. That's why the recruiters go after disaffected youth who often have malleable minds and a lot of natural rebellion already built into their makeup/mindset. This makes them easy to recruit - no doubt the same approach (albeit in a more extreme case) is used to create suicide bombers.

      Having said that, there appears to be less suicide bombings in the news lately. Have they run out of lunatics or has the leadership finally figured out that that is not good PR?

    10. Re:Personally by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      You have a distorted understanding of National Socialism.

      They do not advocate 'putting minorities in their place,' they advocate exterminating or deporting them. And National Socialism as practiced in Europe in the 1930s and 40s was self-depicted as scientific and 'progressive.' The propaganda was all about establishing a modern new state, overcoming historical burdens and social vermin, etc.

      You're muddling it all up with reactionary conservatism, which is a completely different thing.

      But if that's the worldview that pleases you more, have at it.

    11. Re:Personally by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of history books. Really, the history of the conflicts of the last century are only now really being properly written. Lots of source material to work with, but there have been a lot of bitter partisans bending the truth.

      A lot of 'truth' about the Soviet Union leaked out in a short period after the fall of Communism when journalists were allowed into the state archives. That door is now slammed shut, but enough got out to answer a LOT of questions.

      Obviously the Soviets were our allies in WWII, and a huge concerted effort was made to erase the 'Socialism' word from 'National Socialism.' There were strong soviet allies in the west who helped make sure it was so. Not really a conspiracy, just a good media campaign.

    12. Re:Personally by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      And National Socialism as practiced in Europe in the 1930s and 40s was self-depicted as scientific and 'progressive.'
      and the ID movement also portray themselves as "scientific and progressive".
      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    13. Re:Personally by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Did you sleep through the sixties. Lefties and violence is just as associated as Righ-wing and violence. That is to say a very weak link. Not every anti-abortionist will murder a abortion doc, not every hippie is a rioter. Your assumptions are assinine and not based in any reality that i have seen.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    14. Re:Personally by zenkonami · · Score: 1


      "I agree with neither but typically those groups' protests do not involve breaking stuff and inviting chaos and mayhem. The lefties often do, that's part of their operating system."

      The occasional murder of an abortion doctor not withstanding...

      --

      Do You Experiment?
    15. Re:Personally by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      You get points in my book for at least attempting to spell "asinine". Perhaps I was under the mistaken impression that I was talking about recent events, not stuff that happened almost fifty years ago (not to imply that what happened then was unimportant).

      You're right about hippies and anti-abortionists, but you present a one or a zero. Reality is shades of grey.

      If you can take me to task for "not remembering the sixties" it's fair game for me to point out your apparent forgetfulness of lefty-type demonstrations in the recent past that have featured violence and general anarchy.

    16. Re:Personally by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      What's your point? That homicidal, overly-religious, unbalanced people sometimes DO march in the streets and like to cause chaos for everyone else?

    17. Re:Personally by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess my view of the world is mind-bogglingly stupid and I have a demented view of reality. Thanks for your time, it's been interesting.

    18. Re:Personally by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Exactly, violence and destruction are criminal offenses, blocking traffic is a criminal offense. Therefore there is no legitimate reason to require a permit to protest. What is the purpose of the permit, simply to add another charge to the list if someone committing violence or blocking roadways is protesting while they are doing it?

    19. Re:Personally by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. You keep trying to characterize your opponents in these discussions according to your personal stereotype of what said opponents 'must be.' You're yelling into the air at what you imagine your opponents must oppose.

      WTF would I care one way or the other what said 'ID movement' says or does? There are demagogues all over the place who claim to be 'scientific and progressive.'

      Was the point in your comment to change the topic, because you really can't argue against the fact that the National Socialists in Germany represented a branch of socialism?

      Really, you need to think through what you type. Don't tilt at windmills, dude. It makes you look ridiculous.

    20. Re:Personally by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      You're calling Nationalist Socialists right-wing? Let me fix this for you: it's called national-socialism, and, yes, it is right-wing.
    21. Re:Personally by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Obviously the Soviets were our allies in WWII, and a huge concerted effort was made to erase the 'Socialism' word from 'National Socialism.' There were strong soviet allies in the west who helped make sure it was so. Not really a conspiracy, just a good media campaign. Let me try to deconfuse you a bit: communism, socialism and national-socialism are three different things...
  16. *cough* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Pretty much what happened in 2004 in New York at the RNC.

    *cough*

    1. Re:*cough* by Khaed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As opposed to the Free Speech Zones outside the DNC in 2004? I saw the RNC protests, they were a whole lot more "free" to protest than anyone at the DNC.

      *cough* *cough*

    2. Re:*cough* by Guuge · · Score: 1

      Actually, protesters at the RNC were arrested and detained. Were you really unaware of that little fact?

    3. Re:*cough* by Khaed · · Score: 1

      There were tens of thousands of protestors. And the NYPD isn't exactly known for being a kinder, gentler police force; outside of the LAPD I can't think of a police force I'd trust less. Most of it seems to be the NYPD once again being overzealous*, not some effort by Republicans to sweep things up. Had the DNC been in NYC, I imagine it would have been just as bad.

      It just irritates me that people always point to the RNC situation like it's the only time free speech is trampled. There were people marching in the streets in NYC with large boxes representing coffins. Nothing like that was allowed to go on at the DNC -- they were all coralled into the "Free Speech Zone."

      I'm not excusing what happened at the RNC, in any way, just pointing out that it's not the only time a major party shit all over free speech rights at a major convention.

      (and if I were either party, I'd avoid NYC like the plague for my convention, but that's just me)

      *Let's not forget how many unarmed black men the NYPD have shot, usually multiple times, sometimes dozens of times.

  17. Hmm by althea19 · · Score: 1

    On one hand it is suprising that Russia would want to arrest such a famous person for such a trivial political act. On the other hand, totalitarianism knows no friends..

    1. Re:Hmm by pla · · Score: 1

      On one hand it is suprising that Russia would want to arrest such a famous person for such a trivial political act.

      Although Kasparov has fame from a rather unusual source, do you really think the same thing doesn't happen here in the US?



      On the other hand, totalitarianism knows no friends..

      If you protest without permission, you can expect to spend the night in the county lock-up (or worse, but at least the rich n' famous can take some comfort in the difficulty of "rendering" celebrities).

    2. Re:Hmm by russotto · · Score: 1

      He was only arrested (and released) precisely because he's so famous. Had he been some nobody, he'd probably have been arrested and vanished.

    3. Re:Hmm by althea19 · · Score: 1

      Although Kasparov has fame from a rather unusual source, do you really think the same thing doesn't happen here in the US? I don't really know. I do know that protesters get arrested, just not sure if the conditions are exactly the same. Would he get arrested for the exact same thing in the US? Maybe not. But, I'm sure all sorts of protesters have been arrested for all sorts of things in the US. I guess its pretty obvious that Russia doesn't have a monopoly on totalitarianism, it occurs in North America in varying degrees also.
  18. Re:Denied permit.. Broke the law by pescadero · · Score: 1

    And this is news, why?
    If enough people would be interested to hear about something, then it's news. Personally I was interested. But sorry that we are boring you!

  19. Re:No ban (think Michael Moore). No permit == fine by toolbar · · Score: 1

    Oh great, so you want a guy who denies that the holocaust happened as your leader?

  20. sometimes even with a permit. by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    there was a huge protest against a G8 meeting in florida (around '02 i think).

    they had flawless preparation, including all permits.

    the pro-globalist heavyweights who controlled the area simply had cops trample them anyway, declaring them "anarchist agitators" to the media, which loyally parroted their excuse to the rest of the nation, quickly burying any potential public outrage at the new police state of florida.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  21. Democracy is Receding by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Francis Fukuyama was wrong. So wrong.

    Liberal Democracy isn't the only ideology still remaining after the fall of the Soviet system. Neo-Facism and the cult of the leader in Russia. The One Party State in China. Theocracies in the Middle East. Tin Pot dictators ruling their roosts all across the third world. Even the "liberated" countries of eastern europe are falling back into authoritarianism.

    And faced with this, what are liberal democratic societies doing? They're evolving into not-so-liberal democracies with human rights taking second place to "security" and profit. Once again, the US leads the way and the rest of the western world follows. I'd like to be more optimistic, but somedays I truely feel that the great democratic experiment is doomed to be a slow and ignominious failure.

    Apathy is not the cause of democracy's downfall. The sad reality is that a great many people simply to not agree with our free society, with our rule of law or with our casteless social structure. These people are your friends, your neighbours and coworkers, and secretly they support presidents like Putin, and laws that ban street rallies and protests. They're simply waiting for the time when it becomes acceptable to voice those opinions once more. That time may be closer than you think.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Democracy is Receding by earthforce_1 · · Score: 3, Insightful


      Not so secretly, I long for a libertarian to lower taxes, and leave me and everybody else the f*ck alone to live their lives as they see fit. Sadly, the very sort of people who are attracted to and ultimately end up in positions of power are those who won't leave you alone, and insist on bending you to their will.

      --
      My rights don't need management.
  22. disgusting by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

    yes, this is slashdot... and people are suposed to have a sense of humor about things...

    but given the state of the world i am really disturbed by jokes on this particular topic.

    can anyone from a former soviet republic wade in and give us some ground-level perspective on what this means to them?

    from my perspective it is kinda like michael jordan being arrested for protesting detentions in guantanamo.

    regards.

    p.s. i do understand that permits are necessary to march. i also understand that a viable ruling party can tolerate reasonble dissention.

    1. Re:disgusting by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      but given the state of the world i am really disturbed by jokes on this particular topic.

      Hey, if you can't joke about an autocratic dictatorship that covers one fifth of the world's landmass, what can you joke about? What really pisses me off, though, is the general lameness of the jokes.

  23. Re:This seems to lack some minor details... by rlwhite · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the last years of Boris Yeltsin's presidency, Russians began to realize that their post-Soviet capitalistic reforms had been too much too fast, leaving the economy in even worse shambles than before, and allowing the rise of the Russian mafia from the chaos. Yeltsin decided it was time to slow down reforms and let people catch up, so he turned to a little known St. Petersburg political aide with a growing reputation for efficiency to be his last prime minister and implement the slow down. That man was ex-KGB agent Vladimir Putin.

    Putin slowed down the capitalistic reforms, and then some. He returned some major companies to state-control, including most of the media. The economy is much improved during his tenure. He revived the secret police en masse. When a major oil tycoon decided to form a political party to challenge Putin, the tycoon was arrested on mafia-related charges, and his company was taken over by the state. Similar things have happened to a number of major political opponents. The court system has lost much of its veneer of independence from the executive branch. Putin is well-known for cronyism and a preference for Soviet-style rule. The Bush administration and others have publicly chastised Putin for hurting democracy. In fact, it wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect him of close ties to major players in the mafia, though impossible to prove. Right now the favorite to succeed Putin appears to be one of his former KGB associates who is now one of his top deputies. If you want specific charges that opponents have leveled against Putin, read anything by Anna Politkovskaya, such as Putin's Russia. Just be aware she has a strong anti-Putin bias (which may be why she was murdered).

    Kasparov is just one of the latest to attempt an anti-Putin political movement. Obviously Kasparov could expect a meager fine for holding a public demonstration in a spot where he didn't have a permit. The subtext is much more interesting. Pro-Kremlin youth gathering where he expected to protest? Was it really arranged before Kasparov's? I doubt it, especially the way this exact same excuse is being used repeatedly across multiple cities. Who knows; it's hard to be sure what's going on in Russia under Putin.

  24. Forgeting leters in a name looks unprofesional by blubadger · · Score: 1

    It's GARRY Kasparov.

  25. Re:Slashdot shouldn't publish this... by Nazlfrag · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Q: Why is this on slashdot?

    A: Because, Kasparov is a nerd!

  26. Well, for starters... by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    being able to shut down the opposition of its freedom of speech in a country is worth of newsspace.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  27. Re:Denied permit.. Broke the law by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

    i am not interested in your comment so much as your sig... as a lincoln fiend i am curious to know exactly how you believe j.w. booth was acting as a patriot... ushering.sleeps@gmail.com please reply/

  28. Re:Kasparov tries the Moscow Gambit... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is exactly the point Kasparov has been trying to make. An important part of playing chess is understanding how to assess your own strength impartially. Kasparov fully understands he is playing from a weak position (he said so on BBC Radio last week). Let's hope he can use this knowledge to do better than others who might rush in foolhardily thinking they are in a psoition of strength.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  29. Re:Denied permit.. Broke the law by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Granted no. Guaranteed, yes. ( there is a slight difference there )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  30. Someone like Kasparov by csmithers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Vladimir Putin has enjoyed almost rock star like popularity in Russia for his nearly 2 terms now. In fact, several years ago, there was a chart topping single called "Someone like Putin" that was the rage throughout the country (someone that won't leave me, etc, etc). It seems to me that if someone comes along to challenge him, it will take someone of equal or greater popularity to pull it off (someone like Kasparov). Also, I don't really know why, but Russians (at least in Russia), seem to crave a heavy handed goverment, and Putin is more than willing to give it to them. Unfortunately, we really don't understand this phenomenon in the west.

    1. Re:Someone like Kasparov by zoftie · · Score: 1

      I am half canadian, half russian and I sort of know what the heavy handedness is. Its just like that, and you have to live in it to see it. You can't really understand it. Either you know it or you don't :-) Its like going to mars. Being oxygen breathing animal you can't breathe whatever there is there. It think thats is very much like it. Same way I cringe when I see russianisms from russian immigrants here. They have hard time adapting.
      I think it comes from unadulterated honesty, something is avoided in west more often then not.

    2. Re:Someone like Kasparov by csmithers · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree with you. Another thing ... we here in the US think that in Russia there is no freedom at all. That is simply not true. Russians at the moment have almost as much freedom in day to day affairs as we do (but you can and do get stopped for all sorts of document checks, etc, which don't happen here. In the US, these would be unreasonable searches). It's difficult to determine where the freedom stops, however, because you might not know who is really in authority.

    3. Re:Someone like Kasparov by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Also, I don't really know why, but Russians (at least in Russia), seem to crave a heavy handed goverment, and Putin is more than willing to give it to them. Unfortunately, we really don't understand this phenomenon in the west.
      Some of us here in Russia don't understand this phenomenon either, you know... *sigh*
    4. Re:Someone like Kasparov by zoftie · · Score: 1

      I can sort of understand how it works, sort of like a deeper net. Because russia is composed of so many peoples, people who don't have documents, might be up to no good. As often they may be. In moscow, there is passport regime, you have to have passport on you at all times. Kind of odd.

      In japan it is even stricter, you have to have your Id and document where you live to get, bus pass, an internet account, a phone number, really to do anything worthwhile. And the police there always stop gaijin to verify documents, and question you and if you don't have documents they arrest you.
      And thats one of the least violent countries in the world.

    5. Re:Someone like Kasparov by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      I don't really know why, but [they] seem to crave a heavy handed goverment... Unfortunately, we really don't understand this phenomenon in the west. Russia has had their share of terrorist attacks, reprisals, reprisal attacks and Tough New Laws, crackdowns, etc, etc. Like us with our PATRIOT Act, wiretapping, threats against journalists, etc. Unfortunately, we should understand the situation all to well - it is much the same as ours, and both governments have lost the credibility to point this out about the other.

  31. Re:Denied permit.. Broke the law by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    He gave his life in an act of protecting his country, which by definition gives him the right to be called a patriot.

    Now, one can debate all day long if he was misguided or not, but his actions are what i speak of.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  32. new tag: inputinistrussia by davidwr · · Score: 1

    New non-joke tag: inputinistrussia

    In Putinist Russia, government censors YOU!

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  33. The new "Evil Empire" by JesseJackson · · Score: 1

    Russia has been sliding back into its Soviet era doctrine more and more in the past 8 years. While I don't blame the current administration I feel that Putin and his "retro-commie" allies have taken advantage of Americas leadership in the war on terror to begin building themselves up as a world superpower again. Aligning with nations such as Iran, which are at odds with the West, are giving Russia some bargaining chips on the world stage. Unfortunately the Putin regime must use strong armed, Stalinist tactics to achieve its goals with little media interference.

    It is a frightened scenario that the West will wake up one day and find an aggressive bear on our steps again.

  34. Re:Denied permit.. Broke the law by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

    the e-mail i posted is a throw-away... i would be interested in continuing this conversation privately, and you can use that e-mail if you would like to do so.

    in my opinion there is no difference between booth and a suicide bomber who dies for something they don't understand.

    regards.

  35. Gary Kasparov is the Russian Martin Luther King? by reporter · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Like Martin Luther King of a prior generation, Gary Kasparov leads a peaceful demonstration. Then, the Russian authorities pounce on him, arrest him, and drag him to be booked at the police station.

    The Russian stormtroopers then club some of the demonstators. When we see the phalanx of Russian special-forces police numbering nearly 9000 (outnumbering the demonstrators by 6 to 1), we are reminded of the American police and their dogs as they nearly mauled the civil-rights demonstrators of the 1960s.

    Yet, one difference still exists between King and Kasparov. An assassin's bullet felled King. What will happen to Kasparov? Will he end in the same fate.

  36. IMHO, these goons are too lenient with your stuff. by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Informative

    people like you need to move to china or iran where "those damned people who want rights" will be put in their place.

    honestly, IMHO you can go get violently soddomized for your blanket, trollish comments.

    the vast majority of protests are perfectly civil until cops come in and instigate violence.

    i have plenty of access to videos of cops throwing the first blow, then running around beating people in attempts to confiscate their cameras and prevent the documentation of their fascist behavior.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  37. Rig electronic voting... by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

    Why don't they just quietly rig an electronic voting system.... it's been successful before without people revolting?!

  38. Re:That's why the US is a laughing stock. by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
    But the need to obtain a permit to march just goes to show how those claims are naught but a facade.

    The permit gives you *extra* privileges. Being denied one doesn't mean you're not allow to, say, go to the park and start speaking. A large gathering of people puts an unfair burden on everybody else. But because society recognizes value in these things it is willing to grant temporary license to create that burden.

  39. Re:So let me get this straight... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
    Someone participates in an illegal march, and is arrested by the lawful authorities. How is this a bad thing? Why is this news?

    Because of questions about the first part. If the group is being systematically censored, then it's the "illegal" part that makes it news.

  40. News photographs from the event by biohack · · Score: 3, Informative

    Part of the story is the other participants in the opposition movement. Despite his apparent popularity in the West, Kasparov's participation alone probably would not have caused the permits to be denied.

    A gallery of news photos from the event may help to understand the story better. I am not going to try explaining the backgrounds of all the opposition groups, but one of them is called "national-bolsheviks" and even a quick glance at their symbols may suggest that the West would not want the leaders of this movement to rule in Russia. Some "national-bolshevik" events have turned violent in the past, so the Russian Federal and Moscow City governments may have a legitimate security concern when considering the location and type of these events.

    In this case, the authorities actually did allow the opposition meeting on one of squares in Moscow, but not the preceding march starting from a different square. So there was no total ban, but the opposition did not get everything they wanted. The response of Western governments to the anti-globalization marches may be a reasonable analogy. I am not saying that there is no concern over democracy in Russia in general, but in this specific event both sides have contributed to the outcome.

    For those who cannot read the captions in Russian, these are pictures of Kasparov from the march.

    1. Re:News photographs from the event by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      A gallery of news photos from the event may help to understand the story better. I am not going to try explaining the backgrounds of all the opposition groups, but one of them is called "national-bolsheviks" and even a quick glance at their symbols may suggest that the West would not want the leaders of this movement to rule in Russia. Some "national-bolshevik" events have turned violent in the past, so the Russian Federal and Moscow City governments may have a legitimate security concern when considering the location and type of these events.
      You conveniently forget to note that National Bolsheviks are only one party in the present anti-Putin coalition, which includes pretty much everyone from the USSR-nostalgic communists to liberal democrats dreaming of Westenized Russia. What more, there is nothing "bolshevik" and very little "nationalist" in the present-day NBP - after its leader Eduard Limonov has backed the liberal opposition in the days of the Khodorkovsky affair, the hard-liners left the party. As it is, it's essentially a unitarian / democratic socialist party.

      In this case, the authorities actually did allow the opposition meeting on one of squares in Moscow, but not the preceding march starting from a different square. So there was no total ban, but the opposition did not get everything they wanted. The response of Western governments to the anti-globalization marches may be a reasonable analogy.
      Absolutely not. The response is not to the marshes themselves, but to the vandalism that occurs during them. There was none in this case - it was a peaceful demonstration beaten up by police forces (including special units) and the army. The whole thing about them being allowed to meet but not marsh, while officially true, turned out to be bullshit as well - young men who looked like potential participants were picked by the police right as they left the metro, before they could even reach the square where they could, presumably, legitimately protest. A few people who came to join the march from other cities were detained right at the rairoad stations as they arrived.

      You might want to watch the video - a report on a Russian TV station (as far as I know, the only one that even mentioned the whole thing). It's more telling than the pictures, even if you can't understand Russian. Here's another one (not normally available in Russia), though that one is hardly impartial. Still worth watching for the pictures, though. Also, here are a few more photos, made by a participant, that show just how many forces were involved in quelling this. Note the army trucks with people in the uniform inside on the photo with McDonalds.

  41. Re:Kasparov tries the Moscow Gambit... by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

    Kasparov fully understands he is playing from a weak position (he said so on BBC Radio last week).

    Weak position? Are you kidding? He has fame and money. So "Other Russia" is banned from appearing on TV, huh? Kasparov getting arrested, even if for an extremely short time, gets them much more exposure than they could have possibly gotten on TV.

    You think people would give the story more than a passing glance if random russian guy had been arrested during a protest? There'd be 5 minutes about it on the 11:00 news, and you wouldn't hear about it again. And the random guy would probably not have been released so soon. But Gary Kasparov arrested for voicing his political views? This isn't going away.

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  42. kasperov the moonbat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting


    Fascinating.

    "Kasparov is a supporter of Anatoly Fomenko's New Chronology." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov

    "Fomenko asserts that all of ancient history (including the history of Greece, Rome, and Egypt) is just a reflection of events that occurred in the Middle Ages and that all of Chinese and Arab history are fabrications of 17th and 18th century Jesuits. He also claims that Jesus lived in the 11th century A.D. and that the Trojan war and the Crusades were the same historical event. He claims that Genghis Khan and the Mongols were actually Russians." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Timofeevich_F omenko

    http://reddit.com/info/1hx93/comments/c1hyds

    1. Re:kasperov the moonbat by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Ad hominem and irrelevant. Please put down the Fox News Channel and put your hands over your head.

  43. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Kasparov is worth listening to. He's been publishing op-eds about Russian politics for a couple years now, and they are quite interesting. The ones I've read were in the Wall Street Journal, but I'm sure he's been contributing to other papers too. I'd suggest checking a few of his pieces out to judge for yourself if he's got anything to say, rather than dismissing his opinions out of hand just because he's something of a nerd-celebrity.

  44. permits and such by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    In Russia they require permits and his permit was denied.Most don't know that here in the US you are required to have a permit also, just as they did in Russia they can refuse to grant your permit will try to silence your protest and just happened in Russia. If you March anyway you WILL be arrested for trying to exercise your free speech.

    First off, if you read the news stories, they requested a permit for one area, were told no, and were given one for a different area. Moving along...

    Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. You do not have an unlimited or unrestrained right to free speech; see "libel" in your dictionary for an excellent example. Permits are required here too in almost any city or town of reasonable size, for two reasons.

    Number one, protests usually lead to trouble, if they are of any size. People doing the protesting cause trouble. Or people tag along and take advantage of the anonymity of a crowd, to cause trouble. Or people who don't like the protesters cause trouble. Or the crowd by simple virtue of its size or density causes trouble with no specific fault. Say, someone lights a flag on fire, someone says "fire!", panic ensues, and you get people killed by trampling. Large crowds are very dangerous, because they have no intelligence: they have "mob mentality."

    Number two, the city/town government wants a heads up so they can prepare, and see if you have any idea what you're doing, and if you don't, try to steer you into doing the right thing. Are you expecting 10 people, or 1000 arriving via busses? "Do you have a place for those busses to go? Do they need to have extra cops on traffic detail? Do they need to have a couple of ambulances nearby? Has your group caused trouble in other towns/cities? Is your message liable to inspire counter-protest? What are the counter-protesters like? Will they get nasty, even if you don't? Where are your people staying for the night? How are they eating? Where will they go when nature calls? Are you going to pick up all the trash you leave behind, or will we have to get the park department to pull overtime? Are you going to destroy the park's grass because of all the foot traffic, ruining it for everyone else?

    Number two is important because more often than not, protesters only see their vision, and don't think through details, logistics, or the implications and consequences their actions have on the rest of society.

    For example, most cities have very little patience for protesters clogging up major centers, where the effect will cause traffic throughout the city. That has a real impact on commerce, but also police, fire, and medical services for people that have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you don't like G8, NAFTA, green beans, Jewish Nazis, Yogi Bear, or whatever. The guy having a heart attack 10 blocks away just wants to get to the hospital, and his rights are just as important as yours. If a traffic jam prevents groceries from getting to market, and the market can't sell to the lunchtime crowd picking up stuff for dinner- well, maybe things are tight and the lost income means johnny the stockboy needs to be let go. What about his rights?

    According to the Associated Press story:

    Organizers sought permission to gather on Pushkin Square, a traditional site for protests, but city officials rejected the request. Instead, they approved Turgenev Square, about a mile east and away from the city's commercial and cultural hub. Organizers refused to cancel plans for the Pushkin Square rally and protesters started to arrive before 11 a.m. Police began seizing them a few at a time.

    Some trouble broke out when protesters charged a line of riot police. Riot police responded, and the crowd broke up. A journalist was injured, riot police treated him.

    Eventually the crowd of protesters melted into side streets, a

  45. How about crypto hash attacks? by Mathinker · · Score: 1

    A Chinese group lead by Xiaoyun Wang is currently leading, I'd say, the rest of the world in the crypanalysis of hash functions.

    Their work has lead the NIST to start working on starting a process similar to AES, but this time for hash functions.

  46. Re:Putin... by MajorBlunder · · Score: 4, Informative

    And they need land and resources.
    You must be kidding. Saying that Russia is in need of land and resources is like saying that China is facing a manpower shortage. Even accounting for the percentage of the country covered in permafrost, they have more usable land than any other country in the world. And as for their natural resources, they are hardly hurting there either.

    --

    "I'm making perfect sense, you're just not keeping up."

  47. Re:IMHO, these goons are too lenient with your stu by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

    In my personal experience, there are always a few adventurists in the crowd at that sort of 'protest.' All the cops have to do is show up visibly, and the adventurists go all off at them and provoke a struggle.

    Put up or shut up with your 'videos.'

  48. New Hitler in the midst by ryty · · Score: 1

    Dare I say it?

    --
    if you were me, you'd think the same way
  49. Re:IMHO, these goons are too lenient with your stu by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    then you arrest the adventurists, not shut down the protest or require permits.

    at many sports events there are similar "adventurists". they get drunk and routy, then throw beer at players or other spectators and start fights. do they arrest everyone around that guy? no. do they require permits from everyone who wants to play street footbal or street hockey? no, they arrest the troublemaker and go away.

    put up or shut up with your "adventurists". (and no.. major news channels dont count for this, you need to have on the ground first hand video of "adventurists" instigating things)

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  50. ok... how about second amendment zones too then! by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    the organized group was guaranteed a right by the constitution, they shouldnt have to disperse.

    id love to see the reaction of people like you if democrats instituted "second amendment zones" which were the ONLY places where gun possession was allowed.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  51. Re:Putin... by chef_raekwon · · Score: 1

    get a clue. Putin strips all rights from all individuals in Russia. He controls the media, and therefore, all outcomes of elections. This means no democracy. No democracy means that everything soldiers from Western nations fought and died for, would be null and void. And in all honesty, if you think Putin is good for you -- pack your bags and move to Russia. When you haven't any food to eat, or you feel powerless because you can't climb the corporate ladder, make sure you keep your mouth shut -- cause you may end up dead.

    but then again, maybe you're just trolling, and i took the bait.

    --
    We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
  52. Re:Putin... by darkwhite · · Score: 1, Troll

    You are so intellectually weak it boggles the mind. In fact, you exemplify the intellectual weakness that allows Putin to continue pushing Russia into being the feeble-minded, authoritarian state it has always taken all too much comfort in.

    Putin's authoritarian rule has almost nothing to do with the need to strengthen Russia's foreign stance, stabilize its economy, or purge corruption. The Russian government as it currently stands is incompatible with an open society. If you think that the ability to openly criticize the government or run in elections is not vital for Russia's well being or future stability and prosperity, or that it is somehow contingent on the weaselly excuses you present, I have nothing but disgust for you.

    You're one of the countless Russian sheep, directed by the sovok-trained bureaucrats to smother the few Russians who understand the value of free thought and open society. Wake up.

    --

    [an error occurred while processing this directive]
  53. Traffic blocking. Commies? Grow up, it's fascism. by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The U.S. has been at war with the socialist bogeyman since Marx published. I don't need to say too much how much the Gilded Age wealthy used their newspapers and their government influence to convince people that labor laws = unions = communism = anarchy = slavery = the end of the world. Those men were the among the worst slavers in history. They should have felt right at home.

    After the Revolution in Russia, the entire myth building machine went into batshit insane mode. We spend untold trillions of dollars and who knows how many billions of hours of people's lives fighting the Commie Devil. Certainly millions were slaughtered -- we killed a million alone in Vietnam. Now we have the Terrorist Menace, and they are sticking us for trillions more and killing hundreds of thousands in the name of security, and even invoke the democracy meme again, tho it really doesn't apply. The last of the Commie war is still being fought against a dirt poor Cuba which would be a damned sight less poor if we hadn't embargoed it for half a century.

    Russia wasn't the almighty military enemy the commie warriors said it was. The story of how the Pentagon and the CIA were pummeled into line, despite evidence they knew about that said they were far weaker and poorer than the civilian warriors demanded they see it, still remains to be told. It's a story Americans will not listen to. We had our first Iraq over sixty years ago.

    Soooo. Soviet Union fell, turned into a hell on earth controlled by crime syndicates. We were fine with that! At least we can do business with the guy who cuts a prostitute up for holding back. So Putin has golden plumbing *on his airplane*. That's capitalism, by definition better than anything.

    Now we have a fascist state rising from the criminal state. We're still okay with that. Putin has a good soul, Bush saw it in his eyes. A little polonium and a few reporters with their brains splattered in front of their homes is just the stuff of hard politics. Cheney probably smirks when he hears about that.

    They could strip people to the bone with boiling oil, and we'd STILL think they were better than them commies. As a matter of fact, they ARE boiling people's skin off with vats of oil. We don't care.

    Vonnegut said that what we see today is the rise to power of psychopathic personalities. People like them because they are decisive. But, they are decisive because they don't care about the repercussions of their decisions. Putin is strong, and Russians like strong men, as Hendrick Smith wrote. I'd like to point out that PP leaders also require a large population of PPs who don't care either. Without masses of people with no moral sense, PPs can't keep power.

    As long as unions are illegal and we can do business with someone, we don't fuck with them. Rule by kleptocrats. I'd rather have a socialist neighbor who spends all their money on health care and full employment than a hypermilitary power ruled by psychopaths. But we're so fixated on our century and a half of war (on the behalf of the very wealthy who created the war in fear of change in their power) on commies, unions and suchlike that we will support a thousand mirrorshaded mass murderers who will sell us bananas at near cost than a socialist who wants to spread the wealth. The mountain of bodies we have dedicated to the god of money must be a thousand feet tall.

    Russia's core problem with "freedom" and "democracy" was that they were Russians. What they do to the weak is part of their culture, not about Marxism. communism was our bogeyman, not theirs, as we see clearly now. They have a fascist soul, and it doesn't matter how the paychecks are cut -- it's about power. But we loves us some businessmen. We don't want democracy, we want money, we want gas pipelines, we want cheap labor. We are looking straight into the face of pure evil and laughing as it beats the democrats in the streets of Russia. Fuck those losers, they were blocking traffic. Party on.

  54. Russia is a threat to others by coder111 · · Score: 1

    NATO is threatening Russia? NATO fighters in Baltic states?

    After Russia has occupied Baltic states TWICE, and performed GENOCIDE in there, there should be some darn NATO fighters in there and more.

    If you are a people who cannot live in freedom without some strong handed Czar, that would be fine with me. Except most Russian Czars like to go to war, and they screw up their neighbors real bad. Its much harder to go to war with proper democracy. And if you don't go to open war, you meddle with affairs of other countries with KGB.

    The sad thing is, USA, the paragon of freedom and democracy, turns out not to be much better. Only they do world domination much better, with profits and Coca-Cola and movies for everyone. And almost everyone loves it.

    We need a new form of government real bad. Democracy collapses into consumerism and corporation rule quite quickly, which destroys freedom of thought and free market. So it doesn't work as it is supposed to. And others are worse.

    --Coder

  55. IBM cheated! by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    IBM had a team active and working on the computer during the chess game, the exact details of their actions I wasn't able to find other than to know over a dozen engineers were tinkering with the computer during the game. IBM took the good news and ran with it never again having the GUTS to a rematch with fair preconditions; largely because they fear losing. It is like 'winning' a Turing Test; just winning it once doesn't really prove anything (as has been shown already.)

    A fair match wouldn't involve a team of humans, who essentially are helping the computer 'think' thru the game. Besides, the computer shouldn't be able to use brute force to aid its low intelligence because its beside the whole point. It shouldn't require any help other than I/O. Simply for the fact its the only way to prove its not just some calculator to aid ibm employees to victory.

    Not relevant, but rather than mod you down I decided to forgo my moderator power and reply.

  56. that's true, you cant name someone who disappear- by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    and you cannot name one person who has been declared an "enemy combatant" and disappeared


    exactly, they disappeared; their acquaintances and relatives dont know what the heck happened to them.

    oh the irony.
    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  57. Re:Kasparov tries the Moscow Gambit... by miscz · · Score: 1

    It didn't help Mikhail Khodorkovsky, if Putin wants you dead, or make your life hell, he'll do it. Then he'll announce on TV that's he's doing fantastic job. We'll hear about Kasparov/Khodorkovsky here, but don't count on Putin's media.

  58. DAMN YOU BEAT ME TO IT! by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    How 'bout Canada?


    every year i think about going there, but i wonder how reputable my school would be over there compared to the US.
    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  59. I recall a quote from my best friend: by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    "Yeah, the experiment failed, can we rejoin britain now?"

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  60. Re:This seems to lack some minor details... by asninn · · Score: 1

    The Bush administration and others have publicly chastised Putin for hurting democracy.

    Bush also has had this to say about Putin, though:

    "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul. He's a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country and I appreciate very much the frank dialogue and that's the beginning of a very constructive relationship."

    As reported by the Beeb in 2001...

    --
    butter the donkey
  61. Curious by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

    the organized group was guaranteed a right by the constitution, they shouldnt have to disperse. id love to see the reaction of people like you if democrats instituted "second amendment zones" which were the ONLY places where gun possession was allowed.

    I'm not sure I follow... But, I'm actually interested in where you're going with this, would you mind elaborating? Maybe it's just really early and I'm not reading between the lines right, or maybe there aren't any lines to read between.

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    1. Re:Curious by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      all these people are supporting the idea of requiring a permit to excercise what is supposed to be guaranteed regardless of what the federal or state governments want.. freedom of speech.

      they also seem to believe in the idea that politicians and authorities should be allowed to use this permit process to require adherence to "free speech zones".. which are generally placed in obscure locations so far from intended target of the protest or the media it renders the protest useless.

      Their excuse is that the protestors either "disrupt" certain areas or some of them get overzealous and end up committing crimes.

      With this in mind, im suggesting the same type of abridgements to the right to bear arms. specifically, make it completely illegal in the vast majority of areas, especially the areas they would be most relevant, such as bad neighborhoods, and in your own home. After all, people who bear arms are the ones who tend to get overzealous and commit crimes, or "disrupt" certain areas by drawing, showing, or discharging their weapons.

      I find it interesting that right wing pundits will use this excuse for protests, but will refuse it credence with the second amendment.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    2. Re:Curious by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      The freedom of the protesters stops when it curtails the freedom of everybody else. Really really really believing you're right doesn't mean you get to enforce that view on other people by disrupting their lives.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    3. Re:Curious by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      and explain to me how assembling peacefully disrupts their lives, other than giving them a bunch of yelling people to walk by.

      and here's a thought. if theyre doing something to prompt a bunch of people to abandon their lives for hours on end and yell at them, and they dont like the yelling, they could change what theyre doing to say.. stop disenfranchising that group?

      there's a reason why the freedom to peacefully assemble was guaranteed in the bill of rights, and thats because many people would want to shut them up rather than actually addresse their grievances.

      if you are allowed to arrest protestors or confine them to "free speech zones" so obscured their voices don't carry to you or the media, that right is no longer protected.

      so there's less order.. and that's the whole point. if you dont like the inconvenience of people gathering in crowds to complain about you to all who will listen, then you either need to change or ignore them (and explain why to the public at large before youre run out on a rail), you should not have a right to call in the stazi to shut them up in a free society.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    4. Re:Curious by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that mobs of people yelling and carrying on is a foundation of our democracy?

      I bet you would have been popular in Indiana, in the 1920's, when the Ku Klux Klan were very powerful.

      Likewise, I am waiting for you to issue praise to those huge gatherings of roused up people in Germany in the late 30's.

      Get off it, man. Mob rule isn't the way forward. Tell your rent-a-mob to take the bus to work instead.

    5. Re:Curious by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      more like issue praise to the huge crowds of people who at the same time were demanding labor reforms, such as the 40 hour work week.

      praise to the huge crowds of women demanding sufferage, and to the huge crowds of black people demanding equal rights.

      i'd like to point out that not only did those black people march in public, they did such "crazy" things as illegally walk into white lunch counters!

      funny how selective you are, and you did not answer my question regarding second amendment zones. if you only look at the negative side of free speech, surely you hold the same standard to the right to bear arms, and would support banning guns in any and all relevant applications, such as police work.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  62. Hopefully not! by LKM · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the Russian people did the same. If 96% of the Russian population said that they wanted to block this group from television access, then a typical American political philosophy (which endorses democracy and populism) would have to say "well, ok then, they'd better block it". That would be a valid reason.

    Hopefully, a typical American political philosophy would not say that. Banning a specific group from appearing on TV due to a majority vote seems to be dictatorship by the majority. The usual way would be to go through legislation. You would make a law which governs what can appear on TV. Then, the group in question would be tested by the rules in the law, and if it is found that the group can not appear on TV, it would have the option to contest that in front of a court.

    1. Re:Hopefully not! by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      I suppose we have reached the question of which is more fundamental to an American political philosophy: rule by the people, or rule for the people. Our "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is a bit dangerous, because sometimes rule by the people is not rule for the people and vice versa. If 96% of the population wants to do something which hurts a tiny minority, and the government does not do it, then you've broken rule by the people. If the government does do whatever action it is, then you've broken rule for the people.

      Rule by the people does not guarantee rule for the people. You've hit the nail on the head by calling it dictatorship by the majority. I agree that this is a Bad Thing, but is it better or worse than a benevolent dictatorship by oligarchy (which is what you essentially have when say Congress overrides the majority will of the people for the common good).

      We try to balance things out with our "Checks and Balances", but it is not and never has been perfectly clear quite where that balance ought to best lie.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    2. Re:Hopefully not! by LKM · · Score: 1

      Rule by the people does not guarantee rule for the people. You've hit the nail on the head by calling it dictatorship by the majority. I agree that this is a Bad Thing, but is it better or worse than a benevolent dictatorship by oligarchy (which is what you essentially have when say Congress overrides the majority will of the people for the common good).

      Well, that seems like an awfully harsh way to put it :-)

      In a constitutional state, there are rules governing what each branch of the government can do. The people are essentially part of a branch of the government (usually - and in this example - the legislative branch). Thus, they are limited in their power. That the Congress or a court can legally override a majority vote doesn't turn the government into an oligarchy. In the end, these officials were - directly or indirectly - elected by the people, and they're doing the job the people told them to do, even if that job includes limiting the people's power.

      Other than that, I agree with your post.

  63. Re:Putin... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
    Russia has to defend itself from China nearby, as it is still growing. And they need land and resources.

    You must be kidding. Saying that Russia is in need of land and resources is like saying that China is facing a manpower shortage.

    It's an ambiguous construction, but I think the 'they' who need land and resources is China, which would give Russia good reason to want to defend itself.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  64. It makes sense now by gr8dude · · Score: 1

    Things become crystal clear, especially after the purchase of IBM by a Russian company was officially announced.

    Requirements: knowledge of Russian; IT-oriented sense of humour.

  65. Libertarianism has an achialles heel too by FreeUser · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not so secretly, I long for a libertarian to lower taxes, and leave me and everybody else the f*ck alone to live their lives as they see fit. Sadly, the very sort of people who are attracted to and ultimately end up in positions of power are those who won't leave you alone, and insist on bending you to their will.

    While I agree with much of what the Libertarians say with regard to less government restrictions on individual freedoms and lower taxes, they also advocate less government regulation of industry (in fact, they advocate virtual no restriction on corporate behaviour). This poses a problem and is their achialles heel: unregulated capitalsim tends to evolve into corporate fascism, as the 19th century proved very dramatically (c.f. child labour, private police murders of early union organisers, etc.).

    Having a weak democratically elected government, and undemocratic corporatism running rampent is a sure recipe for the very authoritarianism you and I both decry. The only difference is that the dictators will come from captains of industry and private armies, rather than politicians and publicly funded armies.

    What we need is a hybrid of Libertarianism and social liberalism, where indivudual freedom is held sacrosanct, but corporations are treated as governance bodies and required to submit to the same constitutional limitations on their treatment of human beings just as political governance bodies (i.e. the "government"). Alas, I see no one advocating such a thing--which leaves a gaping political hole in the landscape where a non-dystopian future might lie.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:Libertarianism has an achialles heel too by Trinn · · Score: 1

      You would find yourself at home, I would think, among at least some forward thinking, humanistic Liberal groups, not all of them have an irrational fear of humanity, in fact most are a lot more sensible than that. Of course you have to be alright with human rights issues such as GLBT freedoms (especially). Now I agree there are some anti-personal-freedom Liberals (specifically, some hyper-environmentalists (though let me state that I'm in favor of more sensible energy policy and reducing carbon use), and some of the political-correctness nonsense), but in general personal freedom these days is held up by the liberals almost as much as the libertarians. Of course you also have to be ok with non-libertarian things like nationalized health care, etc., specifically, the whole humanistic approach -- people are more important than corporations/profits, coupled with the understanding that progress can be very humanistic (sorry guys but I can't get close to the whole tear-it-all-down approach)

      Either way, I want to state [aol]Me too![/aol] and say that this sort of thing would be great, and it even works to some extent in other countries (at least pieces of it)

      Anyhow, enough rambling, not even sure if I made a point here.

    2. Re:Libertarianism has an achialles heel too by FreeUser · · Score: 1

      You would find yourself at home, I would think, among at least some forward thinking, humanistic Liberal groups

      I think you're right, although as you point out, some of these groups ascribe to politically-correct dogmas that are themselves as detestable as some of the (US political party) libertarian and (US political party) republican dogmas.

      Of course you also have to be ok with non-libertarian things like nationalized health care, etc., specifically, the whole humanistic approach

      Not only am I ok with nationalised healthcare, I live in a country where it is practised and can tell you it is no less efficient than the private healthcare system I was used to in the US. This includes waiting times, which were actually worse in Chicago under my PPO as they are in Europe.

      So I am very much on the same wavelength as you on all of these issues. Indeed, you sum it up best:

      people are more important than corporations/profits and progress can be very humanistic (and often is).

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  66. Re:This seems to lack some minor details... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Adding to this: opposition is as unpopular as it was in Soviet times. The population of Russia en masse is still politically very inactive.

    I hate Putin, but he is good for Russia, THAT Russia that I hate - stubborn backward country of angry people that dream of world domination.

    The Putin's model of Russia is relatively stable, all the mish-mash opposition: liberals, neofaschists, Russian nationalists, the right wing European style "Movement against Illegal Immigration", communists - all foam on the surface of the deep pond that Russian political life is.

    Real power will always belong to the mafia. It was nobles in the times of the Tsarist Russia, bolsheviks in the times of Lenin, nomenklature in the times of Khruschev and Brezhnev, secret service in times of Putin. Notable exceptions are powerless times between Feb and Oct of 1917, times of Stalin when he was The Party, The Secret Service, The most absolute monarch in the history of Russia and again powerless times of Eltsyn.

    People in Russia live happier under autocratic regimes, because they are not used to it. Russia never reached the level of prosperity and independence and/or other contitions enough to form necessary foundation of the Western time democracy.

    Live Russia alone. Harsh weather, historically bad business habits won't give a chance for Russia to be a serious competitor of the US or West.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  67. Re:That's why the US is a laughing stock. by vertinox · · Score: 1
    A large gathering of people puts an unfair burden on everybody else. But because society recognizes value in these things it is willing to grant temporary license to create that burden.

    I've always seen a problem with this because the First Amendment specifically says:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


    Since in SCOTUS they have declared that the constitution applies to local and sate governments. Having to get a permit not only violates the spirit of the amendment, but clearly is almost impossible to interpret any other way.

    Sure it causes a strain on society, but the text specifically says as long as they stay peaceful the government has no authority to say if they can gather at all in the first place.

    Of course... This is still being fought in the courts by the ACLU (like them or not), but we will have to see on the matter. Although, I suppose its it understandable when other nations repress protests, but in the US is it a shame because it is one of the few specifics in the Bill of Rights that is fairly clear on the matter.
    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  68. Thats a country run by mafia for you : by unity100 · · Score: 1

    Early this month, Mr. Kasyanov's and Mr. Kasparov's Web sites were blocked, though it was unclear by whom.'

    by dillydally fairies of course, who could it be.
  69. Re:Grow up, it's fascism by nephridium · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The very fact that Franco rose to power and established his fascist government at the very same time the neighboring countries were liberated is a huge indicator that fascism wasn't that much of a problem for the western governments/elites than the threat of a social revolution posed.

    While after Europe was rid of the plague of German fascism the socialists/workers in Spain struggled against their own fascist dictator, who was backed by the usual suspects (i.e. a bigger part of the military and the old 'elite') and ignored by all of the allied governments who were just too busy celebrating their "victory" over fascism. If the fighting in WWII had really been for the sake of protecting democracy and fighting fascism the very fact of Franco, being an overt authoritarian fascist ruler, should have made him an enemy, not "neutral"!

    This concept was continued by the new superpower to rise after WWII, the US. And there is ample evidence in the events that happened ever since and the situation at this very moment that the socialist movement was seen as a far greater problem than fascism ever was. Just have a look at the history of the countries of Indochina, Iran, Iraq and a host of South American countries during the "Cold" War. You'll see time and again that democratically elected socialist governments were violently disposed followed by an authoritarian/fascist corrupt governments with the support of the US military/intelligence.

    --


    And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
  70. He better bring a Geiger counter by arcite · · Score: 1
    to his next chess match...someone could "switch" the pieces if you know what I mean...

    And by that I mean switch those wooden pieces for "radioactive pieces"...

  71. Re:Gary Kasparov is the Russian Martin Luther King by Xyrus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "What will happen to Kasparov? Will he end in the same fate?"

    Polonium.

    ~X~

    --
    ~X~
  72. Re:Traffic blocking. Commies? Grow up, it's fascis by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Russia's core problem with "freedom" and "democracy" was that they were Russians.
    What about those people who came to the marsh, even though they knew the present turn of events was more than likely? They aren't Russians?
  73. Re:Putin... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    I am just saying that Russia is a very different country. You can't apply american liberty & capitalism (if that still exists) in Russia.
    Why not? What's wrong with freedom and liberty, and why should it be denied to Russians in particular? Because they're different?

    Overall, though, a good go through the propaganda fed to Russian citizens today from all the government-run TV channels, newspapers etc. You Westerners reading this might want to take a closer look, particularly at the statement that "West is still very unfriendly toward russia, and thats why you see rennovation of nuclear stock pile". It might explain a lot to you, especially those who still remember the Cold War days.

  74. Re:Traffic blocking. Commies? Grow up, it's fascis by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

    Your words have much truth in them. I wish it were not so but it is. The hypocrisy you describe is why people who see all the BS surrounding them are disillusioned with politics.

  75. As I type this from Baghdad... by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 1

    As I type this from "Camp Victory"(oh the irony), Baghdad, Iraq I have to wonder if the current administration is capable of managing any country where we defeated the standing government and were responsible for managing that country afterwards.

    Russia would probably be run by opposing mafia and a corrupt government, and all the while more and more soldiers are committed to the country under the guise of "winning the war on terror."

    I wonder how Vietnam would have worked out, if we actually won there. I suppose W and Co. weren't in charge then though, so maybe it would've worked out

  76. Lost in translation? by biohack · · Score: 1

    I think that you're missing the point of my post. The original question in this thread was about the other side of the story. I gave basically a summary of the official story, which was not included in TFA or widely discussed in the US/European media. In my experience, lenta.ru is relatively neutral in their coverage, hence the choice of their image gallery.

    The basic problem in discussing details of Russian political issues on Slashdot is that most readers here cannot understand the original reports in Russian, nor appreciate the host of the underlying cultural issues. Accordingly, Slashdot is not a good forum to debate Russian politics (I am actually surprised that this story made the front page). My comparison to another highly controversial issue--anti-globalization--was simply a way to indicate that reasonable people may disagree on their interpretation of the events. Neither the government nor the opposition have my personal full sympathy, but fortunately I can afford that view as an outsider.

    I don't do YouTube if I can help it, but I did read the LJ story that you suggested. The author does explicitly say that he had no trouble getting to the square where the meeting was officially allowed (although he says that others may had trouble getting there). He does describe substantial security measures, and some police activity in the subway, but nothing that applied to him personally (other than passing through metal detectors). He also explicitly says that the police attempts to disperse the meeting only started well after the officially alloted time ran out, at which point the organizers announced that the meeting was over and people should leave. Again, one may argue about the amount of force used to disperse the people who refused to leave or whether pre-meeting security measures were overblown, but technically even that report from the participant does not contradict the main points of the official story.

    As for national-bolsheviks, yes, they are not the only opposition party and I never intended to imply that they were. Some others are better, and some are worse. The LJ description of the sanctioned meeting does say that the approximately 300 national-bolsheviks were the rowdiest bunch there--constantly burned orange torches and yelled "Revolution!"--so they are not exactly behaving like a mainstream Western "unitarian/democratic socialist party" yet.

    1. Re:Lost in translation? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The LJ description of the sanctioned meeting does say that the approximately 300 national-bolsheviks were the rowdiest bunch there--constantly burned orange torches and yelled "Revolution!"--so they are not exactly behaving like a mainstream Western "unitarian/democratic socialist party" yet.
      The mainstream Western socialists are operating in a democratic framework. NBP has repeatedly stated that they are willing to take part in the fair elections as well, and accept their results for what they are, but it is precisely that right which is denied to them (and many other political parties in Russia), and one of the main reasons for the marsh.
  77. Re:Traffic blocking. Commies? Grow up, it's fascis by malekith · · Score: 1

    Russia's core problem with "freedom" and "democracy" was that they were Russians. What about those people who came to the marsh, even though they knew the present turn of events was more than likely? They aren't Russians?

    You mean a few thousand people in 150m country? Where like 80% of folks would vote for Putin if he was running for the office again?

    I would call them anomaly.

    Unfortunately Russians never had anything reassembling democracy and I doubt this is going to change anytime soon. I would love to be proven wrong, though. The Orange Revolution in the Ukraine had shown us that it's not impossible in a post-soviet state. Tell what you want about the outcome of it, but people are no longer afraid to protest on the streets.

    As for the grandparent post, I'm for one very happy that US wanted to fight commies. As are most of people in Central and Eastern Europe, I guess...

  78. I see by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1
    Well, let me preface this by saying that I'm a conservative christian, registered green party, vote (mostly) republican. Now that that's out of the way...

    I see where you're coming from, and I understand what you're saying. I don't think you're right, but I also don't think you're wrong; it's just that the analogy doesn't carry great - it's apples and oranges, both ways. I do, however, believe that these are issues that are important (freedom, security, power, responsibility) to us, and we should discuss them as such. It's unfortunate that usually emotion gets involved because these are emotional issues, after all. I think dialog is great, regardless of your position or my position.

    I'd like to prompt you with something that immediately came to mind, and see what your thoughts are on it; "The second protects the first". I thought of it and realized how odd that a seemingly polarizing issue would seem to bridge the political gaps between all parties, or at least most parties. What do you think?

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    1. Re:I see by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      "The second protects the first"


      this statement expresses a desire for protestors to needlessly endanger both their lives and the lives of police (who really they hold no grudge against at all), as well as nullify any publicity they may get to their cause by going violent?
      this is rather unreasonable an expectation, and completely discompassionate.

      it's just that the analogy doesn't carry great - it's apples and oranges

      where does it not hold? the second amendment, just like the first, can be (and is) abused to facilitate crime and general social disorder, except the second can much more easily kill people, but you dont see the hyppocrites rstricting the second amendment to "zones".

      this said i'm not for gun control, and i'm also not for speech control. how on earth could anyone rightfully claim themselves a "conservative" and allow the government to so clearly abridge the first amendment.
      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    2. Re:I see by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      this statement expresses a desire for protestors to needlessly endanger both their lives and the lives of police (who really they hold no grudge against at all), as well as nullify any publicity they may get to their cause by going violent? this is rather unreasonable an expectation, and completely discompassionate.

      I was, of course, not talking about taking guns to protests; this is reckless and borderline homicidial. There is no place for firearms in a peaceful protest. Even in the context of protesting gun control laws. Not that I know of this happening, but just as an example of the spectrum that it (no firearms in protests) covers. I meant in a broader sense that our right to arms partially assures our ability to speak out. A government with an armed people, albiet insignifigant to the arment of the government, has a populace which has the first step to open rebellion complete. I'm of course not saying that the people stand a chance if a branch usurps power and takes control with an iron fist... but then again, that's just what happened to Germany, and many rose to the occasion. I guess I was trying to say that the second vastly changes the political landscape in the favor of the people at a superficial level. I don't like violence, and I don't condone it, but sometimes there is a legitimate call to arms. It's easy to bully a populace when they have no 'muscle' to flex, and I think the first place it shows is in freedom of speech. Power is usually all in appearance. Nothing supports power, louder, than silence, when it comes to speaking out against a power. If that last sentence makes sense at all...

      it's just that the analogy doesn't carry great - it's apples and oranges where does it not hold? the second amendment, just like the first, can be (and is) abused to facilitate crime and general social disorder, except the second can much more easily kill people, but you dont see the hyppocrites rstricting the second amendment to "zones".

      I mean that in practice it doesn't apply. The example assumes a group openly carrying guns in a public commons area. If any group is blocking the streets, carrying around guns unconcealed; you're either in Beirut or a SWAT team is needed ASAP. On the other hand, the "zone" for free speech and peaceful demonstration is for a group of people demonstrating, within their rights, in a place that doesn't disrupt everyday activities. I'm not saying that it's right, but let's be honest, we have the right, but no one said it would be convient. I remember hearing of FDR, I think it was, who had a bunch of veteran come to protest at the whitehouse. He came out, had coffee or something brought to them and talked with them and address their issues and concerns. It's a fuzzy memory of a story I heard, but I think this is the honorable approach, although probably not reasonable anymore.

      this said i'm not for gun control, and i'm also not for speech control. how on earth could anyone rightfully claim themselves a "conservative" and allow the government to so clearly abridge the first amendment.

      I'm not for either, as well. So, I'm not sure if the "conservative" bit was meant for me or a general statement about the current admission...

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    3. Re:I see by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      The example assumes a group openly carrying guns in a public commons area.


      well, that wasn't what i imagined when i meant "second amendment zone". free speech zones are "cages" in which they pen protestors out of the way because by definition they protest in a group.

      by second amendment zone i was thinking a very small, secluded housing district, preferrably 1.5 times the average commute from major metropolitan areas, far removed from most civilization, and with unusually onerous business regulations "to protect the general populus from stray bullets" or somesuch. Then anyone who wanted to own a weapon would be forced to live out there, and most businesses would not want to be there because of the onerous safety regulations.

      this would do an adequate job of discouraging the exercise of the second amendment in the same way free speech zones discourage/neuter the first amendment, and it would all be based on a rational desire to protect the populus from unecessary disorder or inconvenience.

      On the other hand, the "zone" for free speech and peaceful demonstration is for a group of people demonstrating, within their rights, in a place that doesn't disrupt everyday activities. I'm not saying that it's right, but let's be honest, we have the right, but no one said it would be convient.


      if only they actually were, because if this were true every sidewalk would be designated a "free speech zone", any short stretch of road tractable by a combination of detour and walking would be one as well, but instead they place them miles and miles away. what really needs to be said is "on the other hand, while your building may be private, your company's public actions, and access to public roads means you have to deal with the public's very real outrage at what you have done". in short, if a protest does not in some way "disturb the everyday life" of the target of the protest, then there is no point to have the right to protest.

      the other quoted comment was not directed at you exclusively, but at the vast majority of talking heads who believe only supporter demonstrations should be legal.
      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  79. Re:Grow up, it's fascism by faragon · · Score: 1

    The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) was started as an insurrection from a fascist movement, intended to finish the Second Spanish Republic While the fascist movement was backed by both German-Nazi and Italian-fascist movements, the Spanish Republic was backed just by volunteers, known as International Brigades; the external Nazi supplies was key for defeating the democratic goverment by the fascists.

    Despite the sad result, I disagree with your arguments; in my opinion, the Nazi/fascist movement was *neglected* until Germany invaded Poland (1939). That is why I can not agree with your argument: the "world" was not "terribly busy" in 1936, at least not Europe (I know that USA was still recovering from its 1929/1930 recession), Europe could have done *a lot more* for Spain at the time. Well, I hope we'll learn from past mistakes, although I'm not that optimistic.

  80. Re:Grow up, it's fascism by nephridium · · Score: 1

    True, the Spanish War ended in 1939 and a lot of the "trouble makers" were executed to quell any future potential for a new uprising. The thing is that a man came into power whose ideology and policies were in line with those of people like Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet or Saddam Hussein, yet no one seemed to care. Instead, (military) interventions were conducted all over the world and all of them ignored, sometimes even supported fascist dictatorships. After the rest of Europe was liberated, Spain was left to endure a dictatorship that lasted until Franco's death some 40 years later. Note that in 1953 Eisenhower and Franco signed the Pact of Madrid through which (fascist) Spain received economic aid while the US was allowed to establish military bases on Spanish territory.

    --


    And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
  81. Re:Putin... by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Russia has to defend itself from China nearby, as it is still growing. And they need land and resources. NATO is squeezing russia from each side, NATO fighters placed in Estonia, always taunt russian forces. In general West is still very unfriendly toward russia, and thats why you see rennovation of nuclear stock pile.

    Has it occurred to you that perhaps one of the reasons that the West isn't so thrilled with Russia is that they have a man like Vladimir Putin running the show?

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  82. Video by flogic42 · · Score: 1

    A 3-minute video of this protest, Kasparov's arrest, and Kasparov's remarks was posted on YouTube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzKhQWVb5-A

    --
    Check out my women's designer clothing store.
  83. Re:Traffic blocking. Commies? Grow up, it's fascis by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    You mean a few thousand people in 150m country? Where like 80% of folks would vote for Putin if he was running for the office again? I would call them anomaly.
    As one of the "anomalies", I can tell you that one thing that really puzzles us here is why the West is so unsupportive of the Russian opposition, especially when compared to its involvement in quite a few other CIS states. Where are the condemnations over what happened from the EU and the US? Economic sanctions? Refusal to deal with the present authoritarian regime? All we see instead are smiles between your leaders and our president, and assurances of eternal mutual friendship and cooperation. This particularly applies to the US and Italy.

    As it stands, many people here just feel that, while they are fighting for Western values, the West does not really care, as long the gas flows through the pipes to the right destination. And we know that we cannot win this fight on our own. Were it not for that, I'm sure there would have been quite a few more people marshing. If the West took notice and made some actions, getting beaten up by the police would at least have some purpose to it.

  84. Everyone seems to miss a point in this situation by burbilog · · Score: 1

    Kasparov is someone like Gapon (this name tells everything to anyone who studied the history of Russian revolution). Kasparov was allowed to take the lead of this protest forces because his political image is disgusting (really), and 99% of these who otherwise would support protesters (and there are a lot of things to protest against) are going to turn away in disgust. The whole ordeal was staged and masses were led into the trap. It was quite possible to just guard this meeting and nobody would notice it at all. But the government used this tactics to make sure that everybody who fights against current ruling party "Edinaya Rossia" get a bad-bad-bad image on TV screen. Nobody in sane mind here is going to support Kasparov. That's what the government wants: opposition is led by someone who is not going to get any reasonable support among thinking people.

  85. Re:Putin... by burbilog · · Score: 1
    You must be kidding. Saying that Russia is in need of land and resources is like saying that China is facing a manpower shortage. Even accounting for the percentage of the country covered in permafrost, they have more usable land than any other country in the world. And as for their natural resources, they are hardly hurting there either.

    Actually there IS a shortage of the land right now. The appetite for bribery from officials is enormous and it's kinda funny to read when officials from a small town in Siberia complain that there is no land for new house buildings. There are thousands of kilometers of raw forests around, but they say NO, you can't build there. And unless you pay huge bribes and fill mounts of paperwork you can't build. And property prices shoot through the roof (average 3-room flat in Moscow cost about $300k, yep, $300000).

  86. Re:Everyone seems to miss a point in this situatio by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    I must be a minority here on Slashdot, because I haven't studied history of the Russian revolution, so I know not who Gapon is.
    Also, it would be nice if you could back up your dislike of Kasparov with any factual evidence instead of mere name-calling.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  87. Re:Putin... by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    Russia has to defend itself from China nearby, as it is still growing. And they need land and resources. NATO is squeezing russia from each side, NATO fighters placed in Estonia, always taunt russian forces. In general West is still very unfriendly toward russia, and thats why you see rennovation of nuclear stock pile.

    Let's see...
    Considering that the Soviet Union stole Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as the result of WWII and killed supporters of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and the Prague Spring of 1968, can you blame these countries for not trusting Mother Russia? My ex-fiancee was Ukrainian and her great grandparents were killed by Stalin's henchmen while her grandfather, a child at the time, was forced to watch them die, because they were Ukrainian nationalists. Mother Russia's "love" comes with a terrible price that many don't want to pay. So that is why the Baltic States and the Warsaw Pact countries rushed to join NATO - it's the only way to insure that Mother Russia won't invade them again. Russia may feel "squeezed", but it is only because of its past actions.

  88. Re:Kasparov tries the Moscow Gambit... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
    > Weak position? Are you kidding?

    Compared to Putin he's in a very weak position. And as you've just pointed out, he's played well and is now in a stronger position than before.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  89. ??? _ by LKM · · Score: 1

    And claiming that there was no theft is the same, but doubly so :-) Come off it, nobody is making that claim.

    Then why are we arguing???

  90. Re:Putin... by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

    There is lots of land, but the cost of laying down new communications is really high and skyrockets the cost of any new developments. I'm only writing this because I live in a small town in Siberia :)

    --
    US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  91. So what by hifisoftware · · Score: 1

    He violates a law and gets arrested for it,... what's unique about it. He seems to be extremely unpopular in Russian. He is not part of Russian political life in any way (being unpopular make it rather hard to play politics in democracies). Will slashdot let us know if and when he gets a parking ticket? I bet this would be even more existing.

  92. Re:??? _ by Kreplock · · Score: 1

    Then why are we arguing??? Perhaps you'll better understand if you reread the discussion so far.
  93. Re:Putin... by zoftie · · Score: 1

    Clearly you don't know russia, and system of polical and power counterweight. Russian economy has been modernised and ivestments are pouring in. Contrary to the "free" countries where Bush & Co sponsored revolutions. Their economies in the state of disarray. And and the moment them becoming free, the had military bases placed there, guess whose are those? And the west turns their back on them. They aren't part of EU and they have broken all ties off from Russia and nighbours. The whole freedom stuff, bandaid form purported singlehandedly by USA and funded to the tune of 40 - 80 US dollars each. They aren't free people uprising.

    Really russians can reinstate, its control over Estonia.

    As well you have failed to notice that most revolutions / major shifts in economic processes within contries, lead by USA, have lead to dismal failures. Thats why China tells them to stay the fuck out. And thats why they are doing relatively well. Look to the countries in South america and guided former states of soviet union.

  94. Re:Putin... by bioluminescence · · Score: 1

    NATO planes that patrol in the Baltic air space are dislocated in Siauliai air base, Lithuania. There are like 4 of them, if I remember correctly.

  95. Re:Everyone seems to miss a point in this situatio by burbilog · · Score: 1
    I must be a minority here on Slashdot, because I haven't studied history of the Russian revolution, so I know not who Gapon is.

    Gapon was an agent provocateur, who led people into the trap in 1905. Gapon organized workers into the mob and led them into the demonstration to bring the petition to the tzar, at the same time he talked to police to organize a shooting squadron. The intent was to scare workers away from doing strikes. The result: Bloody Sunday. about 100 killed and 300 wounded. This incident started 1905-1907 revolution.

    Also, it would be nice if you could back up your dislike of Kasparov with any factual evidence instead of mere name-calling.

    Kasparov is well-known for his support for chechen terrorists. That alone is enough to alienate 99% of Russian people. And there is much, much more than that... Western politicians did a grave mistake bidding on Kasparov, it's a sure way to turn Russian people towards Edinaya Rossia party, because they see no real choice. It was a very clever move by Russian government to let Kasparov slide into the public light and lead the opposition.