Slashdot Mirror


Russian Police Seize Kasparov

An anonymous reader writes "Russian police seized Garry Kasparov, the Russian chess champion, for staging a political rally against Vladimir Putin. IBM's Deep Blue computer was the first to beat a world champion when it defeated Kasparov, who is one of the strongest players in history." He's also been a giant critic of the Russian administration which is increasingly restricting free speech.

495 comments

  1. obigatory joke by 2.7182 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Checkmate!
    Seriously, this sucks.

    1. Re:obigatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, police seize Kasparov!

      what, what?

    2. Re:obigatory joke by sentientbeing · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's obviously just a pawn in all this.

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    3. Re:obigatory joke by SlashThat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually this might benefit Kasparov's cause. He's a respected person both in Russia and abroad, and a move like this could provoke a stronger protest against Putin. I trust Kasparov has calculated this 6 moves ahead :)

      --
      1's and 0's should be free.
    4. Re:obigatory joke by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Funny

      Checkmate!


      If he can just hit that bulls-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards!

      Chris Mattern
    5. Re:obigatory joke by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      that would work a normal chessgame . But in this case Putin is cheating

    6. Re:obigatory joke by nharmon · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Yeah, and Putin thinks he's king.

    7. Re:obigatory joke by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I can't say for the other countries, but here in Russia most people do not appreciate Kasparov as a politician. That might have something in common with Putin's high approval rating.

    8. Re:obigatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putin's high approval rating is an artifact of Russia's state-run media and Putin's KQB-style political 'engineering'. Think Nixon, except whistleblowers disappear the day before the big story which strangely never breaks.

    9. Re:obigatory joke by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      I was gonna say
      In Soviet Russia, Kasparov seizes you!
      but that does not really apply.

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    10. Re:obigatory joke by Kiffer · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was gonna say
      In Soviet Russia, Kasparov seizes you!
      but that does not really apply.


      In Soviet Russia, Pawns seize Kasparov!

      sigh... I had to say it ...
    11. Re:obigatory joke by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      And quotas about percentages of stories which must be favorable to Putin. Last I heard, no less than 50% of stories had to be favorable to Putin.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    12. Re:obigatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      (with apologies to Fark. Changed it a bit to include all pieces)

      Chess champ Garry Kasparov captured on his high horse by police. Was one of many pawns arrested protesting Putin's attempt to be king. Kasparov now in castle cell protecting his bishop from some queen wanting to mate. He's forked.

    13. Re:obigatory joke by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean, Fox News is illegal in Russia?

      I think I might like to move there.

      Wow.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    14. Re:obigatory joke by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Fox News itself might be illegal, but all news has to be like Fox News, but from a pro-Putin rather than a Pro-Bush angle. Same sort of propaganda, but with a different target.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    15. Re:obigatory joke by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      See, I don't see Fox News as a directly Pro-Bush station. I see it as a fear-mongering tool, used to keep the population too insane from a bombardment of propaganda intended to incite reactionary fear to be capable of voting in an intelligent and measured fashion.

      The efforts of Kasparov and his ilk are after the same sort of thing. Make people too afraid to co-operate and trust in each other so they can be turned against each other and exploited, like we do here in North America.

      No, I think I'd like it more if we started taking a page out of their book, instead of the other way around.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    16. Re:obigatory joke by flyingsquid · · Score: 1
      I can't say for the other countries, but here in Russia most people do not appreciate Kasparov as a politician. That might have something in common with Putin's high approval rating.

      How do you know his real approval rating? If he had a low approval rating, would your news be allowed to publicize this?

    17. Re:obigatory joke by caluml · · Score: 1

      Czechmate for a slightly Soviet tint...

    18. Re:obigatory joke by einhverfr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I am not so sure about this. Kasparov's "fear-mongering" about the end of democracy in Russia seem more fact based than one might otherwise think.

      Look, I am not saying that Russia doesn't have the right to choose a system which trades central control over infrastructure development and management of the country instead of one which safeguards individual liberty. This is a choice for Russians alone and I don't think we should interfere with that part itself. However, when Putin starts assassinating dissidents outside of Russia, then he crosses a line which makes him pretty clearly a problem everyone in the world has to face. We *should* have done this when Litvinenko was assassinated with polonium from a Russian nuclear reactor. Maybe this will help people start to realize the danger that Putin poses outside Russia.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    19. Re:obigatory joke by weighn · · Score: 1

      If he can just hit that bulls-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards! But Putin has been playing with a stacked-deck for the entire match. The rules of the game are set to change further since Putin is required to stand aside as President, but still desires one hand on the reins. This whole deal should serve as a reminder to Kasparov of how easily the prize can slip away.
      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    20. Re:obigatory joke by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      What, you think a man who has demonstrated both loyalty to his nation and the capacity to lead it effectively should just be isolated from the government on principle? In the absence of overweening pride, such men are national treasures in every society, with first hand experience in the recent history of the country that shouldn't be discarded out of hand.

      Around here, we recognize the utility of such men through such political structures as the Senate.

      There's nothing foul or corrupt about Putin wanting to remain in government behind the scenes.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    21. Re:obigatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... foul or corrupt ... you're taking the words from my mouth - Putin is a genocidal maniac riding a tide of popularity due on one hand to the economic prosperity being enjoyed by the burgeoning middle-class and on the other hand to him stirring the old nationalist fervor. The oldest trick in the demagogue instruction manual.

      You also imply that Bush need not depart the scene despite the 2-term limit.

    22. Re:obigatory joke by OrangeTide · · Score: 0, Troll

      Fox News is not motivated by a political agenda, they are motivated by profit.
      If you mischaracterize your enemy then you will never be able to defeat him.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    23. Re:obigatory joke by $0.02 · · Score: 1

      Kasparov cannot calculate 6 moves ahead because Putin does not play by any rules.

      --
      If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
    24. Re:obigatory joke by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      I think the concept of a 'term' violates the democratic process.

      It allows the con artists room to do real damage before they can be ousted from roles that give them authority, and it prevents genuinely good leadership from doing long term damage to the machinations of conspiracies, which is what the modern corporate structure amounts to.

      Democracy should be direct, transparent, participatory, and accompanied by a communist economic structure whose purpose starts and ends with intelligent maintenance of and expansion of common infrastructure.

      I think the ideal infrastructure would be to allow people to vote on every issue, some issues, or no issues, and if they weren't voting on issues, they assign their vote to any individual they like, lending their weight to that persons vote.

      So Hillbilly Joe can get Doctor Adams to speak on his behalf on issues he feels under qualified to decide about, and Doctor Adams can pass the vote for half the town on to a brilliant and responsible guy he knew in university on issues he doesn't understand. All the while, Twitchy McGee can sit at his computer researching during every spare moment and try to micromanage the world if he is so inclined.

      One of the characteristics of human societies is that they are very good at organizing themselves into totalitarian power structures when they are afraid and wish to enjoy the advantages centralized control brings during times of threat, but they are not very good at peacefully setting aside such power structures.

      Everyone is cool, until one day the shit hits the fan, then they become a centrally managed army, because it's wise, then when the threat is gone, they end up having to fight each other to disassemble the structure.

      That's what the modern corporate structure is. It's a centrally managed army of scared people, who are scared because the rules are set up to make society into an inhospitable jungle if you haven't personally made allies. It's sick.

      What we need is intelligent, wise and centralized control of critical infrastructure, with every person participating to the best of their capacity in each of the sectors so they have a sense of connection to what is going on, without the freedom to refuse, and as much autonomy to pursue higher achievements or personal leisure after they have done their chores as is possible.

      Places like Russia and China show more promise than the west. Not because of their leadership, but because of the sense of connectedness that their people feel. Politically, we are like a bunch of savages, while they are like a dysfunctional family.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    25. Re:obigatory joke by ikey11 · · Score: 1

      from what i've heard he's actually a queen.

    26. Re:obigatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, get the facts first.
      Guy staged the meeting and got arrested, this is right, but he broke several laws at the same time. For breaking the laws he got 5 days in jail. Do not take me wrong, protests are good thing, but they should not go out of control. However because of Kasparov's diminutively low support among russians he have make a big deal out of his protests. Doing it in unruly way is the simplest and cheapest way to attract media attention. Their favorite trick is to stop traffic of one of the major roads (without obtaining permission of course, or doing any other legal stuff). Not that they do not have any other means to protest, in nowadays Russia you may protest as much as you want, nobody gives a shit, it just cheap and effective.
      Now, how many of you would like to find during your morning commute that some asshole closed I495 just to get some attention? That now you have to spend 4 hours in gridlock traffic? That you are late for work, for important meeting, etc... Imagined it? No warnings, no nothing, your day just fucked. Do you like it? F it! For me, he is one of those communist era assholes who thinks that they above the law, and can do whatever they want, and who do not give a crap about people. In other words, he is just another self centering politician who uses scandals for self promotion. He could be an ass but he is also smart, and his tricks got him a plenty of publicity, at least on ./.

      He will be out in five fays, and gonna do it again and again. F him.

    27. Re:obigatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, news publicized this. In fact it made headlines in Russia. People still dislike him.

    28. Re:obigatory joke by Monsuco · · Score: 1

      Poor Gary, he was pwned

    29. Re:obigatory joke by Trojan35 · · Score: 1

      He may have calculated 6 moves ahead, but in the real world there's no guarantee he gets a second move.

    30. Re:obigatory joke by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. I suspect though, that if you were dumb enough to actually move, you might find out what a real police state and real tyranny is. Much better, easier, and safer to bitch from your safe confines within the US.

      I don't live in the US. And quite frankly, I'm afraid to enter again, even just to travel through to another country. I think your country is seriously fucked up, and as a foreigner, I'd fear for my safety.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    31. Re:obigatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good, you stay in your country, and we'll stay in ours.

      No, wait...

    32. Re:obigatory joke by CaTfiSh · · Score: 1

      It's a conspiracy of the Jews! ...wait, no that's Bobby Fischer.

    33. Re:obigatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is very sad, and very disconcerting.

      Who could educate the people on the background of these individuals? A chess-master vs. a former KGB-agent, it should be obvious to anyone who they should trust more...

    34. Re:obigatory joke by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative

      They won't, but I don't trust the news on the TV anyway. The opposition does conduct their own polls though, and while they don't show the same sky-high 70%+ ratings we see on TV, Putin still comes off as the most trusted and popular politician at the moment. Not acknowledging it for the fact is simply foolish.

    35. Re:obigatory joke by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not that they do not have any other means to protest, in nowadays Russia you may protest as much as you want, nobody gives a shit
      This hasn't been the case for at least the last 2 years. You have to obtain permission from the local government for any form of public protest (i.e. a demonstration), and they can refuse to grant it without explanation. In fact, the vast majority of requests filed by Other Russia (they planned demonstrations in many cities throughout the country, not just Moscow) were declined.
    36. Re:obigatory joke by Xonstantine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think your country is seriously fucked up, and as a foreigner, I'd fear for my safety. I think our country is seriously fucked up too, but then again, name me one that has a population over 5 million people and isn't fucked up. But the great thing about our country IS Fox news, or rather, if you don't like Fox news, you don't have to watch it. There are other media outlets to satisfy your progressive tastes. And if you are the type that likes Fox news or the 700 Club, well, that's available for you as well. We don't have some government autocrat dictating what's allowed and what isn't allowed and poisoning or beating to death dissident journalists that criticize the President and are anti-war (which has happened in Russia to people who criticized Putin and the war in Chechnya...short life expectancy, that carries). So, holding up Russia as something admirable because of the real life oppression that is there the way you do is stupid. Really stupid.
    37. Re:obigatory joke by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It depends on one's perspective. For some (actually, quite a few) in Russia, it's ethnic Russian vs. an Armenian Jew.

    38. Re:obigatory joke by nbarriga · · Score: 1

      However, when Putin starts assassinating dissidents outside of Russia So, it's OK for him to assassinate dissidents inside Russia?
    39. Re:obigatory joke by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      The real funny part of this thread is that the GP seems more willing to travel to Russia than to the US. It's not the first time I've come across that type of sentiment. Kinda makes you think, doesn't it?

    40. Re:obigatory joke by Darby · · Score: 1

      But the great thing about our country IS Fox news, or rather, if you don't like Fox news, you don't have to watch it. There are other media outlets to satisfy your progressive tastes. And if you are the type that likes Fox news or the 700 Club, well, that's available for you as well.

      Except having a variety of choices about what sort of bullshit propaganda you watch isn't at all a good thing, let alone great. Having news media that actually tried to present the truth as accurately as possible would be a good thing, but we don't have anything of the sort any longer.

      We don't have some government autocrat dictating what's allowed and what isn't allowed

      Sure we do, they're called the FCC.

      So, holding up Russia as something admirable because of the real life oppression that is there the way you do is stupid. Really stupid.

      I certainly agree with that, but claiming that having different lies and propaganda to choose from, as opposed to having a media that helps promote an informed electorate, makes America great is just as stupid.

    41. Re:obigatory joke by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      One of the best, ever :)

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    42. Re:obigatory joke by funkyrumblefish · · Score: 1

      the real joke is barring the candidates involved with Other Russia from the election. If the US likes spreading democracy so much, then why don't they go after the Kremlin or the election board? Stopping candidates for no reason other than seperate beliefs isnt very democratic, is it?

    43. Re:obigatory joke by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      Except having a variety of choices about what sort of bullshit propaganda you watch isn't at all a good thing, let alone great. Having news media that actually tried to present the truth as accurately as possible would be a good thing, but we don't have anything of the sort any longer. Obviously, the solution then is to have government step in and make sure that the news media accurately presents the truth, because we all know that the government has a monopoly on that sort of thing...

      Look, the reality is that news is a market driven affair. If you think there is a market for the "accurate truth", and that market is not being met by current news providers, nothing is stopping you from starting your own news company and competing with the bullshit propoganda organizations trumpeting themselves as news channels. Don't tell me it can't be done, Matt Drudge started off in his bedroom. And, roundabout to my original point, the difference between the US and Russia is you will not be put in jail, or beaten to death, or poisoned, or shot in the head at close range with a suppressed weapon by government agents for doing so.

      All in all, people bitching about the news is not unlike people bitching about crappy political candidates. If your ideas are so great, why don't you run?

      Sure we do, they're called the FCC. Absurd statement. The FCC is concerned with people saying "fuck" on TV, not running hits on reporters at the NYT who leak classified documents that the Bush administration requested they not release. The US press routinely publishes damaging and illegally communicated classified information with absolutely zero professional or legal consequences.

      I certainly agree with that, but claiming that having different lies and propaganda to choose from, as opposed to having a media that helps promote an informed electorate, makes America great is just as stupid. Having choices is great. Having fewer choices or no choices is not great. Look, for every person like you that thinks Fox News is Faux News, there are two or three people in flyover country that thinks it is great. Personally, it causes a near epileptic fit when I watch it...my ADD hasn't progressed enough for me to tolerate it yet, but I at least acknowledge that there are people who don't really like watching the democratic talking points every night on CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC news. Once again, if you think the truth isn't being communicated, why don't you start doing everyone a service and communicate the truth as a public service to mankind. That's what makes America great...the fact that you can, or I can if we wanted to. In the end, we get the country we deserve. If we have a bunch of politicians and media organizations that lie to us, it's because that's what we clamor for.
    44. Re:obigatory joke by Darby · · Score: 1

      Obviously, the solution then is to have government step in and make sure that the news media accurately presents the truth, because we all know that the government has a monopoly on that sort of thing...

      Yes, because that's exactly what I said.

      Look, the reality is that news is a market driven affair. If you think there is a market for the "accurate truth", and that market is not being met by current news providers, nothing is stopping you from starting your own news company and competing with the bullshit propoganda organizations trumpeting themselves as news channels.

      It is market driven, but there is no way to get a worthwhile news channel through market forces. Market forces drive it inevitably in the opposite direction. Actually there is something stopping me from doing exactly that. It's called the FCC. I can't start a broadcast news station since they refuse to yank the broadcast licenses of those news organizations which are not serving the needs of the public (all of them) to free them up for those that will which is their primary purpose.

      Don't tell me it can't be done, Matt Drudge started off in his bedroom.

      And that's an example of what exactly? That idiotic nonsense isn't restricted to the main stream media?

      And, roundabout to my original point, the difference between the US and Russia is you will not be put in jail, or beaten to death, or poisoned, or shot in the head at close range with a suppressed weapon by government agents for doing so.

      That's true, but we are heading rapidly in that direction. The argument that "we're still not as bad as one of the worst and so things are fine" is a poor one. We should be comparing ourselves with our stated values and our ideals, not with the worst of the worst. That only leads to a race to the bottom.

      All in all, people bitching about the news is not unlike people bitching about crappy political candidates. If your ideas are so great, why don't you run?

      Because good ideas do not get people elected. Lies, bribery, fear mongering and hate mongering are all that have for a long time in this country. I have integrity, so I am automatically excluded from national politics in this country. I'm an honest man, therefore completely unelectable.

      Absurd statement. The FCC is concerned with people saying "fuck" on TV,

      That's actually not the original purpose of the FCC. It is concerned with distributing the broadcast spectrum to those who will serve the interests of the American public. Therefore, their job is actually to pull the broadcast licenses from all of the major networks. They will never actually do their job though.

      Having choices is great. Having fewer choices or no choices is not great.

      It really depends. That is in no way an absolutely true statement. Having many choices of shit to be fed is not good in any way.

      Look, for every person like you that thinks Fox News is Faux News, there are two or three people in flyover country that thinks it is great.

      Yes, but the difference is that they are demonstrably wrong. They will choose to watch it because it tells them the idiotic lies they love to hear. That is in no way an argument that allowing Fox news to exist is in any way reasonable or even sane.

      Personally, it causes a near epileptic fit when I watch it...my ADD hasn't progressed enough for me to tolerate it yet, but I at least acknowledge that there are people who don't really like watching the democratic talking points every night on CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC news.

      Except that the idea that those networks do nothing but spout Democratic talking points is just one of the many blatantly false ideas which Fox news tries to promote as real. What you actually have is people who are ignorant delusional fools who cling desperately to their ignorant foolishness and *that* is all that they get from Fox news. Given that Fox freely admitted that they make shit up and it's been shown that People who

    45. Re:obigatory joke by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      That's true, but we are heading rapidly in that direction. No, we are not. We're slowly moving in that direction. Personally, at the end of the day, I think we'll be able to thank Republicans for implementing the framework to crush internal dissidents, and Democrats for actually using it.

      The argument that "we're still not as bad as one of the worst and so things are fine" is a poor one. You do me an injustice, sir. That's not my argument. My argument is that the original poster's idea that Russia was great because they don't have Fox news is moronic and insipid, the type of statement the left makes reflexively the same way Pavlov's dog salivated at the ringing of a dinner bell.

      Except that the idea that those networks do nothing but spout Democratic talking points is just one of the many blatantly false ideas which Fox news tries to promote as real. Right. Which is why the media overwhelmingly votes Democrat in the national elections. This idea btw, namely that there is a pretty distinct Democratic bias in the US media, predates Fox news by about a decade. Several of the news outlets have slowly drifted to the right due to market pressures from Fox, but they had to be dragged kicking and screaming, and even then, it's usually a token or nominal conservative to offset a full staff of hard core Democratic operatives (e.g., Chris Matthews, former speachwriter for Carter, top aide for Tip O'Neil, now runs Hardball on MSNBC and runs "impartial" Presidential debates; George Stephanopolous...former communications director for the Clinton administration and now the senior Washington correspondant for ABC News) who transitioned seamlessly from communications positions in Democratic politics to communications positions in the news media. Maybe it was so seamless because it wasn't much of a transition or job change.

      Now, the rest of the networks are crap as well, but they're crap because they are pushing corporate agendas and propaganda as well, not because they're lapdogs of the Democrats. The fact that Bush hasn't been executed for treason years ago proves that. A Basic simple honest presentation of the facts would have guaranteed that. Nice non sequitur.

      Because I think it's far too late. The American people do not want honesty or integrity. And yet you think you are different...as you say:

      So while there are some people like myself who actually do respect honesty and integrity, I'm in a vanishing minority. This sums up the problems nicely. I'm sure you could get 99% of Americans to agree with you on this. It's the same thing when pork barrel spending comes up. Everyone is all for getting rid of everyone else's pork barrel spending. The bottom line is it's real easy to point out everyone else's self-delusions, it's much harder to spot your own. As for myself, I try to be fair minded and rational and intelligent, but like everyone else, biases, even if it's just selection bias, inevitably filters in. You're a fool if you think that you are somehow immune, that you are the only intelligent person left in a sea of idiots, etc, etc.

      We" being the vast majority. That does not include me. Sure it does. The US is a collective organism. You may be fighting against the current, but you are still part of the flow, even if it's going in a direction you don't like.
    46. Re:obigatory joke by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      Fox News is not motivated by a political agenda, they are motivated by profit."

      The parent company that owns Fox news might be, yes. But Fox news itself is not about profit, it is about pushing a political agenda as a counter-balance to the "left wing biased media". That it is so insanely popular was a side affect.

    47. Re:obigatory joke by Darby · · Score: 1

      No, we are not. We're slowly moving in that direction. Personally, at the end of the day, I think we'll be able to thank Republicans for implementing the framework to crush internal dissidents, and Democrats for actually using it.

      Well, in 7 years we've dismantled several amendments in the bill of rights, instituted torture of innocents at the whim of the executive
      (think they're guilty of anything? Prove it. The fact that you can't (not through any fault of yourself but due to the laws) is all the proof you need) That's pretty fast in my book.
      As far as which part will actually take it farther, well that depends entirely on who is next in line. If a Repug gets elected president again, then that's a clear mandate to go ahead with their treasonous policies. If a Dem gets elected, they'll have a clear mandate to execute the entire current administration for treason which they will ignore in favor of moving ahead with the Republican's current fascist policies. So who takes the next step only depends on who's in.

      You do me an injustice, sir. That's not my argument. My argument is that the original poster's idea that Russia was great because they don't have Fox news is moronic and insipid, the type of statement the left makes reflexively the same way Pavlov's dog salivated at the ringing of a dinner bell.

      OK, your stance on that argument (the original) is fair enough. Your argument that choices, even when *all* of them are lying propoganda is a poor one as well though.

      Right. Which is why the media overwhelmingly votes Democrat in the national elections.

      You seem to think that that is in any way relevant.
      The talking heads do not set editorial policy. That is done by the heads of the major multinational corporations who own the networks.
      What the worker bees believe is meaningless to the discussion.

      This idea btw, namely that there is a pretty distinct Democratic bias in the US media, predates Fox news by about a decade.

      Just because a false idea has been around doesn't make it any more correct. Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the right wing radio hate squad were talking about it, sure, but that just makes it even more irrational to buy into given the demonstrated complete lack of integrity of those scum.

      Nice non sequitur.

      No, it wasn't. It was an example, using current events, demonstrating the falsehood of your statement.

      It's the same thing when pork barrel spending comes up. Everyone is all for getting rid of everyone else's pork barrel spending.

      Sure, and I'd be happy to see it all go since I pay for it and receive nothing. I live in Illinois, so we, like most of the "blue" states, actually pay income tax the vast majority of which goes to the leech states. i.e. the Republican Socialists ( which is the majority of the voting base).
      So, again, I'm not in the same position as the masses. I know where the money goes and where it comes from, and I'd be happy to see it all stop.

      The bottom line is it's real easy to point out everyone else's self-delusions, it's much harder to spot your own.

      Certainly. That's why I'm very careful to keep rechecking my assumptions and my logic. You haven't actually pointed out and self-delusions I hold though.

      As for myself, I try to be fair minded and rational and intelligent, but like everyone else, biases, even if it's just selection bias, inevitably filters in. You're a fool if you think that you are somehow immune, that you are the only intelligent person left in a sea of idiots, etc, etc.

      I likewise try to be fair minded, rational, and intelligent. That does not, in any way, mean that I have to treat the idiotic rantings of lunatics as if they were sane.
      I am not the only intelligent person in a sea of idiots, but the intelligent, informed citizen is a very small and dying breed. Pretending that that is not obviously true would make you a fool given the current state of affairs.

      Sure it does. The US i

    48. Re:obigatory joke by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      One of these days I'm going to work up the motivation to run the numbers at a county level to see what the correlation between net Federal funds and voting trends are, and for kicks, throw in Congressional representation.

      I've seen your assertion before, namely that the "socialist" Republican "red" states are leeches on the productive, capitalist "blue" states. The problem with this idea is that there are very few solidly red or blue states. California has more Republicans than any other state...they just happen to have even more Democrats. Likewise, there are a lot of Democratic voters in Texas. It would be interesting to compare a city like El Paso, Texas which went to Kerry in the 2004 election vs Fort Worth, Texas, which did not, and see which one used more Federal funds, and which one generated more economic output. There are several major sinks for Federal funds: transfer payments (recipients of whom trend poor & Democratic), military bases (trend Republican), and agricultural subsidies (trend Republican).

  2. Don't Worry by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't worry. George Bush has looked at Putin's soul and pronounced it excellent.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    1. Re:Don't Worry by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Funny

      We can only assume he was comparing it to his own, in which case Putin's is excellent.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:Don't Worry by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, as Kasparov was born "Garri Weinstein" you might be correct. It might be that name the Russian's shun; history tells us so.

    3. Re:Don't Worry by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Funny

      -1: Woosh.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware that Bush really did say that, right?

    5. Re:Don't Worry by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      George Bush has looked at Putin's soul and pronounced it excellent.

      It's true, Bush did say something along those lines. To this day, that leaves me scratching my head till all my hair falls out. I've been keeping up with politics for a long time. But this...THIS leaves me confused! Seriously, WTF?

      To be rational about it however, I can only think of a few reasons why he would say this.

      1. He's trying to befriend Putin so he can get him to change his ways. You know the drill "Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer"

      2. Putin is a psychopath , and equally as dangerous as Mahmoud Ahmadinjad. Bush it kissing major ass in order to keep him from doing something the world will regret. It's one thing to stop someone trying to acquire WMDs, it's another dealing with someone who already has them.

      I'm putting my money on #2. I feel like America is being blackmailed some how. Particularly with energy and their support of Iran.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's true, Bush did say something along those lines. To this day, that leaves me scratching my head

      Isn't it obvious? Bush is a clown who thinks superficial behavior is what counts. As apparently did some reasonable portion of the voters. In short, humans in general are really stupid, and have the absolute bare minimum intelligence required to form civilization, and probably do not have the minimum intelligence required to sustain it.

    7. Re:Don't Worry by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but...

      This AC comment is a perfect example of an arrogant, elitist, condescending attitude.

      *sarcasm*
      What do I know. I'm just a pleb along with the rest of the voting public. This AC should be anointed with authoritarian power to point us in the right direction.
      *sarcasm*

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    8. Re:Don't Worry by fastest+fascist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      3. It was an honest opinion, expressed in support of a guy doing things how Bush would like to, if he could.

    9. Re:Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that Mahmoud Ahmadinjad is not the commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces and can't order an attack on the US or Israel any more than you could.

    10. Re:Don't Worry by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      To be rational about it however, I can only think of a few reasons why he would say this.

      Occam's razor suggests option #3:

      3) Bush is an almost complete moron and says things he knows nothing about.

      It can hardly have escaped notice that the Bush campaign to bring democracy to the middle east is based around the Dictator Musharaff who was one of the principal backers of the Taleban and came to power in a military coup in 1999 he organized after the civilian government attempted to sack him for his backing of the Taleban.

      The current planning for the war with Iran is based on the following two propositions:

      1) That Iran is an aggressive militaristic state that threatens it neighbors
      2) That Iran will not make any response to an unprovoked US attack despite having the developing world's second largest missile arsenal and the strongest imaginable strategic position, controlling the Straits of Hormuz and the oil that the West depends on.

      The fact that #1 and #2 are incompatible should be obvious, but not it appears to the administration. Not that anyone sensible is meant to believe #2 of course, it is merely a repeat of 'it will be a cake walk' just as #1 is a repeat of "WMD". The only people who are expected to believe it are the people who can't work out that #3 is the case.

      Bush is an almost complete moron but he is somewhat cleverer than the people who still beleive him.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    11. Re:Don't Worry by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      You do know that Mahmoud Ahmadinjad is not the commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces and can't order an attack on the US or Israel any more than you could.

      True but he can make bellicose statements and so can Bush and it only takes an itchy trigger finger on either side to start a war.

      Mr Ahmadinjad is the Zaphod Beeblebrox of Iran, he is there to distract people from the real source of power. Getting back to Putin, the reason he is so dangerous is that he has devised a scheme to allow him to continue as de-facto President after his term limit has expired. He is going to be like Iran's supreme leader, the guy that cannot ever be removed.

      Its not quite the same as during the Soviet era. Virtually all the former Soviet satelites are free today and about half of the former Soviet states.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    12. Re:Don't Worry by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 1

      Bush may be a prick, but Putin makes him look like Jesus fucking Christ.

    13. Re:Don't Worry by brucifer · · Score: 1

      Well, I think that might have a bit to do with why it was posted in the Cowardly fashion.

      Nothing says "I am better than you" like posting anonymously!

    14. Re:Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can only assume he was comparing it to his own, in which case Putin's is excellent.

      Hmmm... I got a "divide by zero" error.

    15. Re:Don't Worry by Copid · · Score: 1

      This AC comment is a perfect example of an arrogant, elitist, condescending attitude.
      I note that you didn't include the word "wrong" in that list.
      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    16. Re:Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, so when Bush proclaims that Putin is a good guy, that should really set some alarms off.

    17. Re:Don't Worry by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Putin may be a prick, but Bush is in a whole new league. Pliers and a blowtorch are tools too delicate to torture that particular man to death with.

      How I wish of those planes had hit him.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    18. Re:Don't Worry by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 1

      Maybe I should rephrase my original point. Bush is a disgusting, dictatorial, insane, imperialist cunt with frankly idiotic policies and barely enough sense to flip burgers for minimum wage.

      Putin is more unforgivably terrible than that.

    19. Re:Don't Worry by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 1

      It sets off my "Bush is an idiot and a terrible judge of character" alarm. Although that's been going off for at least 7 years now.

    20. Re:Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just had to reply but not to the comment. Does it makes me a nerd that I ROFL at your sig?

    21. Re:Don't Worry by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      I don't know if I really buy the idea of Putin as a supreme leader. He seems more like a charismatic, strong front man to me.

    22. Re:Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush makes Satan look like Jesus Christ.

    23. Re:Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This AC comment is a perfect example of an arrogant, elitist, condescending attitude.

      No it wasn't. I didn't exclude myself from the group. Even the smartest people who ever lived have done some really stupid things. Humans are not very intelligent, and it's only fortunate for me that I am less stupid than most people, and so can have a good job that I enjoy doing instead of having to scrub the toilets like I would if I were suddenly transported into some place where people were not so dumb.

    24. Re:Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing says "I missed the point" like your post. But then it only goes to add evidence to the original notion. Presumably you're considered fairly intelligent, and yet this obvious idea escapes you.

    25. Re:Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, Bush was referring to Putin's excellent collection of Motown recordings.

  3. another obligatory joke by mraudigy · · Score: 1

    *tips king* but seriously, first beaten by Blue and now by Mother Russia. Wonder which will be a worse defat?

    1. Re:another obligatory joke by empaler · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger... Big Blue might make you stronger, but the Russian Federation isn't big on the making-people-stronger part of the equation.

    2. Re:another obligatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      First beaten by Blue, then by Red. For someone who spent the vast majority of their life pondering black and white, this has to be shocking splash of color.

    3. Re:another obligatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      beaten by the police will be worse !

    4. Re:another obligatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that covers Blue versus Red.

      So next up, Blue versus Grey? Maybe he'll move to alabama.

    5. Re:another obligatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big Blue isn't as likely to take his life, but would likely settle for his king.

    6. Re:another obligatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I loled so hard...

    7. Re:another obligatory joke by Sage+Gaspar · · Score: 1

      The Russian Federation isn't big on the making-people-stronger part of the equation.

      Hellooooo... Ivan Drago?

  4. The Deep Blue Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IBM's Deep Blue computer was the first to beat a world champion when it defeated Kasparov, who is one of the strongest players in history. In a recent interview on NPR, Kasparov mentioned that there was probably some cheating going on.
    1. Re:The Deep Blue Win by 2.7182 · · Score: 1

      he's a little weird and crazy on this point. It's really clear now that the computers are stronger, even just a fast desktop running Rybka or something would probably beat him, or Anand.

    2. Re:The Deep Blue Win by florescent_beige · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He's got a massive ego, so people dismiss him as a bad loser. But his accusations of cheating aren't without merit.

      My respect for him has gone up quite a bit because of this incident. I wonder if I would have the courage to stand up to police and arbitrary imprisonment, knowing what Russian jails must be like these days.

      I hear lots of griping about the state of the world on /. and elsewhere, but I wonder if any of us would have the courage to put our beliefs into action like he has.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    3. Re:The Deep Blue Win by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      I read the linked article and there's nothing in it but speculation. And even then, it seems very thin. It looks like typical complex-machine anthropomorphizing; put enough MIPS behind it, and even a toaster can play chess with "extraordinarily refined sophistication." Basically, the accusations of cheating mostly boil down to 'no machine can play that well,' which when you get down to it, is exactly what the Kasparov / Deep Blue match was all about. They're basically just rejecting the premise of the whole match.

      Also, I don't think it's surprising that IBM decided not to try again. Why should they? They won; it was the best publicity they were going to get from the effort. Why keep going and risk a loss? Knowing a lot of engineers, it doesn't seem at all unbelievable that most of the team would probably want to move on to new things after a multiyear effort that had culminated in a win. Sometimes you just want to quit while you're ahead, take the resume line, and see what else is out there.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    4. Re:The Deep Blue Win by Derek+Loev · · Score: 1

      I really, really disagree with you here. Computers have gotten significantly better but they are not even close to being able to have the positional understanding that humans do. They run millions of calculations a second but the best players in the world have not yet been completely overshadowed by them because of the positional (non-understandable by computers...yet) aspect of the game.

    5. Re:The Deep Blue Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arguments for Deep Blue having cheated seem to be mostly "that move is TOO complex". Well, duh, it's frickin' huge supercomputer dedicated to brute forcing chess, you wouldn't expect it to play the moves a battery operated $4.99 LCD chess game of the era would.

      I say, if the guy still wants a rematch, let's put him up against some PS/3s..

    6. Re:The Deep Blue Win by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      I claim no knowledge of the inner workings of Deep Blue's code, and in any case my formal knowledge of AI is barely any deeper than understanding how minimax with alpha/beta cuts works. This said, there are two thing about that article I want to mention.

      First, and forgive the ad hominem feel of the statement, it takes a pretty enormous amount of hubris to say things like "his side claimed that White wins a Pawn or two and that no machine could resist snatching the material". The whole point of good AI is to be able to detect stuff like this. "it is impressive how Deep Blue has used so many of the well worn positional motifs of this particular opening. An opening that Deep Blue's programmers could not have reasonably expected" is also used to argue that there was some foul play afoot. Once again, the whole point of good AI is that it's capable of coming up with stuff that its creators can't.

      Second, still related to the latter quote, I'm pretty sure that Deep Blue is freaking complex. If the heuristics generic and complex enough, emergent behaviour is prone to crop up. So the whole argument of certain plays being exceptionally elaborate or beyond the engineers' capacity to predict is pretty empty.

      This said, Kasparov is still a hell of a player (understatement of the year), and I fully agree that this move by him shows a strength of belief and ideals that most of us should aspire to.

    7. Re:The Deep Blue Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      knowing what Russian jails must be like these days

      Not nearly as bad as Guantanamo, I hear

    8. Re:The Deep Blue Win by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      What do you make of "this move looks like a human mistake?"

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    9. Re:The Deep Blue Win by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      However, if the machine played consistently well that would be one thing, but what do you make of the moves that people point to and say that they look like human mistakes? Either the machine is so complex it is capable of making human mistakes or humans were making the mistakes.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  5. In Soviet Russia by EaglemanBSA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In Soviet Russia, they sieze dissidents. What, you were expecting a joke? 'Cuz this isn't funny.

    --
    Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
    1. Re:In Soviet Russia by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In Putin's Russia, they seize dissidents.
      In Soviet Russia, they shoot dissidents.
      Not quite there yet, guys.

    2. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Haven't these idiots ever heard of the first amendment? It applies to ALL citizens of the world, not just Americans.

    3. Re:In Soviet Russia by Poromenos1 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      In Soviet Russia, jokes expect you!

      --
      Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
    4. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like he had a malfunction.

      Kasparov will be re-booted, reprogrammed, and released, and whatever bug he had up his ass won't be displayed again.

      Problem solved. Humans can be so flaky.

    5. Re:In Soviet Russia by pilsner.urquell · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, they sieze [sic] dissidents. What, you were expecting a joke? 'Cuz this isn't funny.
      It isn't funny.

      Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
      Neither is this: Not a quiz: Yes or no -- Do you still beat your wife?
      In the USA we have the Filth amendment but the way things are going that may not last.
    6. Re:In Soviet Russia by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      In America, the government are dissidents, and they shoot *you!*

    7. Re:In Soviet Russia by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      They will get there, obviously. First they have to prepeare nation for it. Then they will label all who oppose terrorists (taking page from US book, what a irony) and they will be shot by gun squad without any court. Harsh times.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    8. Re:In Soviet Russia by TeknoHog · · Score: 3, Funny

      In Putin's London, you are served a cuP of tea.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    9. Re:In Soviet Russia by calebt3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hope you are kidding. If not, your ignorance amazes me.

    10. Re:In Soviet Russia by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 4, Informative

      In Putin's Russia, they seize dissidents.
      In Soviet Russia, they shoot dissidents.
      Not quite there yet, guys. Where have you been? Putin's been killing dissidents for a long time. Ever heard of Anna Politkovskaya?
    11. Re:In Soviet Russia by WombatDeath · · Score: 1

      Please remember to use MemeCode in future. Your comment should be coded as:

      0567GS02("jokes", "expect");

      Thank you for your time.

    12. Re:In Soviet Russia by TorKlingberg · · Score: 2, Informative
    13. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In Putin's Russia, they seize dissidents. In Soviet Russia, they shoot dissidents. Not quite there yet, guys.

      Tell that to Anna Politkovskaya.

    14. Re:In Soviet Russia by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      No, they just contract it out. The Russian Mob has replaced the KGB. They're just privatizing, like everybody else.

      --
      What?
    15. Re:In Soviet Russia by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Russia is just copying, yea they be biting the U.S.

      Course, the American's have them out gendered, Women's Bridge Anyone?.

      Of course we shouldn't let intellectuals have any power, that's just CRAZY!

    16. Re:In Soviet Russia by blackest_k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      then there is the polonium option for when in the uk. followed up by a run for political office.

      In putin's russia they deny shooting dissidents.

      To be fair though you can be accidently shot in the head five times in the UK If your french you can blow up boats in new zealand and if your mossad you can pretty much do as you please. Of course if your in bhopal then even corporations get to cause bloody mayhem.

      depressing isn't it.

    17. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, they shoot dissidents.
      In Putin's Russia, they poison dissidents.

    18. Re:In Soviet Russia by ilyanep · · Score: 1

      Why was parent modded 5? Just cause we're not quite there now, doesn't mean we won't be tomorrow, and that's where we're headed.

      --
      ~Ilyanep
      To get message, take amount of carrier pigeons at each stage mod 2. Then decode binary.
    19. Re:In Soviet Russia by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The parent poster is dead serious. He opened up some Jujitsu on her ass.

    20. Re:In Soviet Russia by mrami · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, me nuts drive these jokes.

    21. Re:In Soviet Russia by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      We're talking about a handful assassinations at the moment, and the government keeps pretending that it was not their idea. This is very different from the earlier Soviet times, when, as an enemy of the state, you'd get a bullet to the head quite officially, and no secret would be made out of that. At present, Russia still does not have any laws similar to infamous "political" Article 58 of the USSR; the closest that comes to that is the new "anti-extremist" law, and yes, it's already being used to suppress dissent, but neither the punishments nor the scale are comparable.

      Not to worry though, tovarisch. I'm sure that, as the "Putin's Plan" goes forward, the present new-old national anthem will soon be joined by other relics from the past we hoped we'd neveer see again.

    22. Re:In Soviet Russia by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia they did not shoot dissidents, they sent dissidents to psychiatric wards. Some of the dissidents managed to escape the country.
      That's Brezhnev's times, the decline of the system. In Soviet Russia proper (i.e. before the USSR) the penalty was labor camp or death by shooting (or by hanging during a short period).
    23. Re:In Soviet Russia by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Terrorism is for Chechnya. For other political dissent, an even more vague "extremist" label is used. And informally, President's supporters often label the opposition "fascists" in their propaganda.

    24. Re:In Soviet Russia by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Why was parent modded 5? Just cause we're not quite there now, doesn't mean we won't be tomorrow, and that's where we're headed.
      I wholeheartedly agree, and that's precisely why we shouldn't cry "wolf" when there is none yet, but when all chances are that there'll be one soon. Saying that dissidents are being persecuted in Russia on a massive scale today, imprisoned, and executed, would be a lie, and an easily verifiable and disprovable one at that. Telling such lies only hurts and discredits the opposition movement, both in the eyes of the Russian people, and those of the Western governments who are otherwise the only ones that can back up the pro-democracy forces in this fight. By all means, tell the truth: about Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Beslan, Blagoveschensk. But do not invent horror stories for the sake of more efficient propaganda. We have more than enough to show that our cause is right, and our struggle is that against tyranny. Truth is the best weapon in such a fight.
    25. Re:In Soviet Russia by ErikInterlude · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ever heard of Anna Politkovskaya?

      I hadn't, so I looked it up. The Wikipedia article is here. It's an unfortunate story. It makes me recall an NPR segment where a reporter was mentioning that the journalistic freedoms and protections we have in the larger, more powerful countries don't exist in elsewhere. Because of this, journalists have a reasonable expectation of protection from harm, but elsewhere there is no real journalism because everyone gets killed. It's too bad Russia is going down that route.

      --

      --Erik
    26. Re:In Soviet Russia by einhverfr · · Score: 4, Informative

      And another dissident investigating her death is poisoned with Polonium...

      But Politkovskaya was no mere political dissident. She had been prevented from mediating an end to the standoff in Beslan but was poisoned on her way there. This lead her to accuse Putin of direct involvement in the school massacre. Soon after this, she is shot dead. Litvinenko, on investigating her death, is then poisoned with Polonium from a Russian nuclear reactor.

      Even if Politkovskaya's allegations of Putin's involvement in the Beslan massacre turn out to be inaccurate, the subsequent assassination of both her and Litvinenko can only be called state sponsor of terrorism.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    27. Re:In Soviet Russia by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      Jesus. This sort of things makes you think that America's politics is playing checkers while Russia's playing chess. Nixon said the "cover-up is worse than the crime". But he didn't kill American citizens to do it.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    28. Re:In Soviet Russia by smorken · · Score: 1

      And possibly Alexander Litvinenko.

    29. Re:In Soviet Russia by Zeio · · Score: 1

      Russia under Putin has the potential to be worse now. The USSR had this overture of the rule of law. "The People" demanded justice, etc. After Stalin, they wanted a little less severe regime. Khrushchev resisted Castro's attempts to start a war with the US during the missile crisis (which was started in large part due to Jupiter missles in Turkey).

      Now its mafia thugs and a brutal, smart leader working on their own agenda. Spy? Kill with thallium. Journalist? Kill. (Anna Politkovskaya). Oligarchs that don't play ball? Gulag in a remote region.

      The thing with Putin is that for every bit of power (strategic and monetary) the US gives away though reckless monetary policy and hyper extension into world affairs, Russia and China are there picking up all the slack the US gives.

      Its a bad time. It will get worse. Putin's Russia has the ability to be worse than Khrushchev / Brezhnev / Andropov / Chernenko / Gorbachev's USSR.

      Putin Russia is using the playbook the US invented against the US. Buddy up with Iran, and make weapons sales to the US's enemies, watch the US spend inordinate amounts of money (while driving up the price of oil which makes they guys you sell weapons to richer), test out your gear against the enemy without engaging them, and let them deficit spend themselves into oblivion.

      GWB's USA will lose its long-enjoyed hegemony faster than the USSR took to collapse itself if this suicidal monetary policy and interventionist foreign policy continues.

      Your pay is in fake money, you standard of living **will** drop if things continue this way. Putin and Hu Jintao will vacuum every last drop of standard of living for themselves the more the US gives it away, and it wont ever be given back.

      Best of luck in the coming years.

      --
      Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
    30. Re:In Soviet Russia by ErikInterlude · · Score: 1

      Well, in defense of America, no one has really had to face the government Soviet Russia had. I've heard people say that President Bush has turned America into a totalitarian fiefdom, but that's nowhere near the truth compared to other places in existence today.

      Here's the thing I'm concerned about:
      About three years ago, I was talking to a real estate agent. He did a lot of traveling to Russia, and really liked going there. That is to say, he liked living in America, but he had an interest in Russian culture, art, etc. He didn't want to live there.

      In his view, there were two ideologies at work in Russia. The first was the ideology that going back to the Soviet days was a good idea. Putin is an example of this. Safety, stability, control. That's what he wants. The other ideology was that the Soviet days were the worst in Russian history and that everything possible should be done to prevent going back to them.

      So if that's true, where is the counter force to Putin? I don't mean dissident reporters or presidential hopefuls. There must be someone (or a group of people) of political influence somewhere who can stand or slow him down. Has Putin really been so effective at removing these people or cowing them to his will? And where is the "man on the street" on this? Does the average citizen just go with it, or are there growing rumblings of civil unrest?

      --

      --Erik
    31. Re:In Soviet Russia by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      There is no longer any influence that can challenge Putin. I wish that the Union of Social Democrats could do so (I think that they represent the best attempt at creating a uniquely Russian republic), but I also think that things are impossible to change. In fact the current leader of the USD helped to roll back Putin's authoritarianism for a while early in his rule. However, with state control over the media, and the distraction of Chechnya, it seems difficult to see this happen.

      BTW, one of the real eye-openers for me was when I read "Perestroika" by Gorbachev. I highly recommend reading it to get a very different point of view regarding governance during the Soviet days. I think that it also helps to clarify where Russia is at the moment.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    32. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucky Putinn did not give him thge Polonium 210 sandwhich !
      -K

    33. Re:In Soviet Russia by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      You fail to consider the possibility that people actually want to live in the society that he wants to create. The people don't want an ideology of competing for profit, they don't want conflict, they just want to work together, live their lives with some happiness, be productive, have a family and grow old.

      The man isn't ruling his people. He's leading his people, and they're following him because they like where he's going and they trust his capacity to get the job done.

      That really bothers you a lot, doesn't it?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    34. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What amazes me is the 100% certainty with which people accuse Putin of these things.
      There are other people in Russia with a bone to pick with the said people and capable of carrying out the deeds. There is no certainty that Putin would have had them killed, and at the exact worst times for him, politically speaking.

    35. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arrrrrrrrrrr

    36. Re:In Soviet Russia by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      I believe the dude was asking questions, not declaring how things are in a country he doesn't live in. But then, I hear asking questions isn't good for your health in Putin's Russia ^)^

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    37. Re:In Soviet Russia by ErikInterlude · · Score: 1

      That really bothers you a lot, doesn't it?

      Not particularly. It's another country with its own standards of how to deal with a given situation. And I can believe that some, many, or most of the population would follow Putin's ideas wherever it takes them. That stated, however, if everyone agreed with Putin there would not be critical reporters or aspiring political opponents. Further, as I mentioned, I've known people who have traveled to Russia over an extended period of time, who note feelings among the population that run counter to Putin's ideas. Putin, however, is running fairly unchecked throughout political circles, so it was a natural question to ask what happened to those who philosophically or politically oppose the man. Or, failing that, at least disagree with him.

      Putin could fast-fry his people and eat them, for all I care. The fact remains, though, that any action he appears to take or be a part of is going to cause scrutiny outside Russia's borders. This happens for politicians in general as well. People are curious about what the leaders of the world are doing.

      --

      --Erik
    38. Re:In Soviet Russia by guacamole · · Score: 1

      Where have you been? Putin's been killing dissidents for a long time. Ever heard of Anna Politkovskaya?

      This claim is unsubstantiated bullshit and you know it. There is no even a good motive for Putin to have to do that. The heyday of her journalism was during Chechen wars where she got to interview with Basayev and other blood thirsty thugs. The last few years almost no one cared any more about her or what she writes. Her murder was a very sad day in history of Russia and such incidents demonstrate that not all is well in Russia today, but saying that Putin did it is simply spreading blatant LIES and wild speculations, and you know it.

    39. Re:In Soviet Russia by guacamole · · Score: 1

      But Politkovskaya was no mere political dissident. She had been prevented from mediating an end to the standoff in Beslan but was poisoned on her way there.

      Ugh, why was she more qualified to end this standoff and how do you know her involvement would have produced better results?

      Litvinenko, on investigating her death, is then poisoned with Polonium from a Russian nuclear reactor.

      Another wild speculation by Putin haters. Investigating murders from London? *laugh*. Litvinenko loved making sensationalist claims about things he was "investigating" in Russia, always accusing the authorities of something bad, all while he was living in London, for Zeus' sake. And no one in Russia cared about what he says or does in London. Russian printed and internet press often made articles about his grandeur and over-pretentious statements and accusations, but to most people it sounded like a little bitter dog barking at an elephant.

      Admit it. The western media simply has a huge Putin envy. At the time when America's foreign policy has reached an all-time low, when America is losing the war everyone thought was supposed to end years ago, when America's president is looking like loser, liar, and wimp at home and abroad, Russia won a war that everyone said was not winnable, and is becoming once again strong economically, politically, and militarily.

      Forget Litvinenko and Politkovskaya. Tell me, who killed Zurab Zhvania, and why are the western press and politicians so quiet about this obvious implications of this murder? Maybe it's because Georgia's president a pawn of the US government, so overlooking a MAJOR (unlike the other two) political murder fine, something that can be swept under the rug before you start bashing Putin's Russia again.

  6. gratuitous IBM inclusion by gargletheape · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Surely a story about the greatest chessplayer of all time, and a key campaigner for civil liberties in Soviet Russia counts as "news for nerds" without some Deep Blue window-dressing. Do we really need to fake-tag this story as being about supercomputers to get it here?

    1. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by Kabuthunk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, after reading the summary, I was thining "Ok... the smallest sentence in the summary is about the article, and the longest one is about Deep Blue, which is COMPLETELY irrelevant right now.

      What, is it suddenly though thtat slashdotters have no clue who Kasparov is without referencing Deep Blue?

      Whup... better reference Linux somehow in this post... otherwise noone will have the slightest clue what the hell I'm talking about...

      --
      Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
    2. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Because there are actual people who would call it irrelevant. Usually there are the same people who try to edit ANY Wikipedia article who has at least a little criticism against Soviet Union or Russia to suit their needs.

      Yes, it is a little overboard, but better safe, than sorry. :)

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    3. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Informative

      Adding that he's a "giant critic" of the Putin government is an improvement, but how about the fact that Kasparov is an actual candidate for president, hoping to be elected head of that government in March? This is akin to arresting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    4. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by austinpoet · · Score: 1

      Really? It would seem to be more akin to arresting Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul in my not-so-informed opinion.

    5. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Perhaps someone was hoping for Big Blue vs. Putin.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    6. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by Elemenope · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In 2004, the Libertarian and Green candidates for President of the United States were arrested for attempting to enter the building in which the presidential debates were being held.

      Yes, it is that serious, and, yes, it does happen here.

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    7. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Surely a story about the greatest chessplayer of all time, and a key campaigner for civil liberties in Soviet Russia counts as "news for nerds" without some Deep Blue window-dressing.
      Actually I think being the last human to hold the absolute title of "chess champion" is pretty significant too. Not that they won't keep having contests to see who the currently best human is, but the fact that the very best chess players are computers has changed chess for me. Humans have never been the fastest runners on earth, or the strongest, or had the best vision. But we were the best chess players. No longer. Maybe we should hand the political reigns over to supercomputers after all :)
    8. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      What, is it suddenly though that slashdotters have no clue who Kasparov is without referencing Deep Blue?

      Its reasonable to include deep blue in any mention of Kasparov, the two are inexorably linked in history.

      You get that a lot in the computing field. I think it's because it's still relatively new, and we subconsciously still feel the need to remind people who such and such a person is famous in our field.

      This doesn't always work though, sometimes it perpetuates myths. The worst case I know of is John von Neumann, who is invariably mentioned as being the father of computing, responsible for the 'von Neumann Architecture'. Trouble is that's a lie, on both counts. History is written by the winners though, possibly it will 'become' true.

    9. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by turgid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And here in good old Blighty, let us not forget the frail, old Holocaust survivor who got arrested under Anti-Terrorism laws for shouting, "Nonsense," at a Labour Party conference.

      Keep on rockin' in the Free World.

    10. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by gargletheape · · Score: 1

      Well, since we're on chess, I think it is fruitful not to elide the distinction between 'best' and 'greatest'. Rybka et all can be better without being greater or vice versa - the greatness of Kasparov has to do with many things beyond his ELO rating, including his legendary battles with Karpov, his deep contributions to opening theory, his competitive demeanor and ability to psychologically break opponents, long lasting career and so on. And no, this isn't meant to be special pleading for human chess players. A similar point applies, say, to a comparison between the fifteenth best grandmaster today and Capablanca. Transport Capablanca to the present and I strongly suspect he'd lose to Ponomariov - chess knowledge has simply advanced too much in the intervening 70-80 years (aided in important ways by Capablanca's own ideas.) It would be bizarre to call the latter greater than the former for that reason however.

    11. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      If you're talking about his chances of winning, sure. But if you're talking about his status within the opposition party, he's a serious candidate.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    12. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by God'sDuck · · Score: 1

      While the US is no shining star in things like this, Badnarik and Cobb were arrested for *jumping a police line,* not for being dissidents. And they were promptly released, without being blackmailed, beaten or shot. I would hardly call that an oppressive action -- the police didn't even seem to know who they were arresting at the time.

    13. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by evilviper · · Score: 1

      This is akin to arresting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

      Actually no. It would be more accurate to compare it to arresting Ralph Nader.

      Even if not for the police state, Kasparov is running on the ticket of a tiny political party, and doesn't really have a chance of actually winning. Quite the opposite of Clinton/Obama.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    14. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      Did you see that on the news and just think, "That's great, but what it really needed was a barbershop quintet."

    15. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They weren't invited. Candidates who haven't a snowball's chance in hell of winning are usually barred from major debates seeing as their inclusion would be a waste of time. The Peace and Freedom, Communist, and leading Nazi candidates wouldn't have been allowed in either. This is totally different from arresting them for just being opposition candidates.

    16. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      That might be true and outrageous, but Kasparov is definitely not as popular as Clinton and Obama, he is more like Kucinich, max.

      There are more popular figures in Russia that are not even considering running for President (for many it does not make sense like "what would be use of that phone if you cannot speak" (Mr Anderson)).

      Being a "candidate" does not mean popularity or any influence. Look at the Perot or Ron Paul.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    17. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      But we were the best chess players.

      We used to be the best tic-tac-toe and checkers players too. Tic-tac-toe of course was the first to go, and I don't know when checkers fell, but it had to be quite a long time ago.

      Maybe Chess is just a hell of a lot closer to those two games than anyone thought.

      --
      AccountKiller
    18. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better analsyis here (start halfway down)

      link

      probably contains lots of things which would be news to someone who's only read western news stories on k

    19. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or like candidates for president David Cobb of Green Party and Michael Badnarik of Libertarian Party were arrested and excluded from 2004 debates.: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3740146.stm

    20. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, that's a good reason to stop them from speaking... They ARE the real opposition candidates. The 2 sides of the same coin will ALWAYS make sure a third party isn't allowed to arise, because it might be slightly different from the norm...

    21. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
      Completely offtopic (Kasparov arrested, chess, and now this), I did once read some article argue that humans are by far the best runners of the animal kingdom. No, we're not the best sprinters, but for long distance, we beat all animals, including dogs, wolves and horses. You know these marathon events, where people are running 200 km or more? No dog can beat their time, let alone a horse.

      One tactic of Australian natives to catch a kangaroo, was to simply run the beast to death. Just pursue until they drop dead from exhaustion, then eat.

      The article kind of stuck as I was also convinced that humans suck at every athletic skill compared to animals, and we only have our brains to distinguish ourselves. Guess our feet are not so bad as well.

    22. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by canuck57 · · Score: 1

      Surely a story about the greatest chessplayer of all time, and a key campaigner for civil liberties in Soviet Russia counts as "news for nerds" without some Deep Blue window-dressing. Do we really need to fake-tag this story as being about supercomputers to get it here?

      I agree about the deep blue part. First, I suspect it was about PR-sales gimic and not a real match. I site the following as deep blue hype:

      IBM refused a rematch, in fact by at least 2 other renowned players at the top of their game types at the time were turned down.

      I think it was the 5th game, when one piece was moved, anyone who know the game wondered WTF. He lost that game. I am not saying he threw it, but he sure was not near the top in play that day.

      Now if a computer wants to be top dog, they need to do it just like people. Play to become a master (points). Then enter the tournaments required to get to this level of player. Then play in the final rounds. One huge disadvantage Kasparov had is he could not study big blue's prior games for weaknesses. Yet deep blue had Kasparov's history of play. Something you always do in serious play.

      All deep blue was to this say is an oversold PR move. Not worth mention.

    23. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by daemonaetea · · Score: 1

      I think that's why Go has interested me so much lately. Lately I've been thinking about picking up the board game Othello, but I just can't bring myself to buy it. Knowing that it has been successfully solved such that a program could always beat me, it just doesn't seem worth it. It's just like in video games, where once I have used cheat codes I lose all interest in the game. Knowing that there is some way to do something perfectly seems to rob my joy of it. That's why Go, where the computer can't even beat a lesser player, interests me so much. However, at this time I still suck so much at it that the computer can beat me.

    24. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia's getting as bad as Singapore these days, throwing the leader of the opposition in jail just before elections. Do they have the same law that anyone who has served time in prison cannot stand for president by any chance?

    25. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1

      So when Democratic candidates don't want no-chance annoyances like Kucinich in on debates, they're stopping the rise of other parties?

    26. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by Rockin'Robert · · Score: 0

      RE: "This is akin to arresting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama."
      XLNT suggestion!
      BOTH PLEASE!
      Now Boosh knows!
      Well done /.!
      RR
      (HINT! FIND: P-A-K-I-S-T-A-N!)

    27. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      Computers still can't hold a candle to us in playing Go, so there's time yet on the handover to our computing overlords.

    28. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      I am sure Putin agrees that Kasparov has a "snowball's chance in hell of winning", and it is going to stay that way as long as the government supresses the opposition. The situation is not that different from the US, where two strong parties just work together to suppress any real opposition.

    29. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by lxw56 · · Score: 1

      So when Democratic candidates don't want no-chance annoyances like Kucinich in on debates, they're stopping the rise of other parties? no, in that case they're fighting intra-party dissent and change.
    30. Re:gratuitous IBM inclusion by amadeus733 · · Score: 1

      You must be kidding right? - Kasparov is not even Russian by nationality, he represents less than 0.2% of electorate in Russia. Multiple political parties tried to use him only because he is recognized as world's best chess player. So in real sense his role in Russian politics is one of the clown. It is partially his fault too because he always liked attention and that side of him turned out to be more powerful than logic :-(

  7. "against"? by toby · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Interesting choice of words, "against Putin."

    I didn't RTFA but have a passing familiarity with the context in Russia...

    One might have said, instead, "in opposition to", or "promoting a party which is an alternative to". But democracy is such a quaint concept these days - as Reichsleiter Gonzales might say. (Even the recent ouster of Australia's pygmy fascist Howard does not restore confidence, since that public already elected Howard twice, the second time unforgivably.)

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:"against"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Even the recent ouster of Australia's pygmy fascist Howard does not restore confidence, since that public already elected Howard twice, the second time unforgivably

      You're butting up against the ugly side of democracy. Being a democracy it means that people who don't think the same as you do get to cast their ballots. Whether you like it or not.

      Asking for a democracy in which the only people that are elected are the ones you like isn't asking for much of a democracy.

    2. Re:"against"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up, (s)he is making a valid point. I'm vegetarian, would that mean that I'm against carnivores? Ofcourse not. The world isn't black and white. It's easy to picture someone in one of 2 camps, but for the sake of journalism, please don't dumb down to that level. Especially not on /..

  8. "Stern but fair?" by qw0ntum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who tagged this "Stern but fair"? Please explain how this is "fair" and not just more of Putin's power grab?

    --
    'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
    1. Re:"Stern but fair?" by faloi · · Score: 0

      Because whoever tagged it like that lives in Russia and rather likes not being imprisoned, possibly.

      --
      "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
    2. Re:"Stern but fair?" by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Because there are people who actually love authoritarian power in Russia - and aboard. So it is no surprise that someone express such sentiment.

      I know, that's nuts. But people are brainwashed and don't believe in real democracy. It is more like wanting to be blind just because you can't handle real life. You want someone else (in this scenario Putin) to deal with all shit in your country.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    3. Re:"Stern but fair?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russian police: stern, stern but fair

    4. Re:"Stern but fair?" by asg1 · · Score: 1

      It could be a joke but I'm not sure... my sarcastic humor radar isn't picking it up! I'll let you know when I know for sure

    5. Re:"Stern but fair?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a reference to a Jackass TV special where they went on the Gumball 3000 and were pulled over by the Russian police.

    6. Re:"Stern but fair?" by mapkinase · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I worked in Moscow for outsourcing company for several months. All of the developers were big Putin (and /.) fans. The popularity of Putin might be artificially bumped up by the relentless propaganda, but this propaganda plus excellent economic context works. People REALLY like Putin in Russia, brainwashed (which I am sure about) or not. So "fear of being imprisoned" as you nicely exaggerated has nothing to do with it.

      You have to understand the political climate in Russia to see that Putinism does not have many alternatives, given sincere dislike of what West looks like in the light of American foreign policy.

      Putin came to power "with the blood of Chechens up to his elbows", but he made some good changes in Russia after the lawlessness of 90's. That happened many time in history, that is how autocratic rulers usually come to power: after screw ups of democracy, they fix many things (and then they fall, of course, and that what will eventually happen to Putinisim as well). Autocratism vs democracy is like dinosaurs vs mammals. Dinosaurs are bigger and stronger, but mammals are more resilient.

      Kasparov and other liberal opposition have ZERO influence or support in Russia. The only (very weak as well) opposition in Russia is a Communist party (do not laugh, it is not funny). The West of course do not care and they will support this puppet liberal opposition, anyway...

      Putinism in Russia is for long for better or for worse (for whom?).

      And "fairness" has very little to do in politics. Laws are typically broken by the powers.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    7. Re:"Stern but fair?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      kasparov is linked with limonov's national blolshevik party. they are nazi communists [seriously, read the link] and linked to violent and terrorist acts. they're exactly the kind of group that would be banned in the US. of course because russia is now an official enemy it's 'restricting free speech'. thank the lord americans have a 2 minute attention span, otherwise they'd forget how putin was anointed by yeltsin and how the US gave both of them money and free campaign advisors to make sure they'd win against exactly the same people we're supposed to shed tears for. the naivete of basement dwellers when it comes to international politics is clearly limitless.

    8. Re:"Stern but fair?" by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      I doubt that nazis/communists are outright banned here in the US. THey are allowed to hold whatever political viewpoint they want. I just think that most of their preferred policies are illegal.

    9. Re:"Stern but fair?" by Elemenope · · Score: 1

      If it is true that Kasparov et al. have no influence or support, then why on earth would the powers-that-be arrest him and risk sympathetic attention--strike that--any attention whatsoever be paid to him?

      I think they are calculating from a different set of numbers than you, my friend.

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    10. Re:"Stern but fair?" by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Is this a "we're shipping you to a gulag in Syberia" arrest, or a "we arrested you as an unruly protestor, you'll be charged with a misdemeanor and released tomorrow" arrest? The latter is pretty common in most countries; many people including John Kerry and Al Sharpton have been arrested at protests.

      I don't want to be guilty of downplaying what Putin is doing. But on the other hand, we have to realize that a cold war is a two-sided thing; our suspicion and rush to judgement of everything they do could get out too. I don't really know which is the case here.

    11. Re:"Stern but fair?" by smidget2k4 · · Score: 1

      Or if you had been following the story, Putin has been implementing more and more restrictive policies that actually are restricting free speech and harming people's rights. The country is no longer a democracy. The US is really good at backing these kinds of guys too.

      Lets see, who do we have here that we've backed...

      Pinochet, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Stalin, amongst many others.

    12. Re:"Stern but fair?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was fair because the Kasparov orginized a public miting, asked for permission, which was granted. But, after meeting ends he lead people to cut through police line and continue to walk down the streets which was not part of request and, of cause, permission.

      Basically, this clown (and he IS clown to most of Russians) figured he either get arrested and got puiblicity, or he can say the goverment affraid of his party's power. Oh, yes, speaking ofp resident candidate. Kasparov have a chance, in _fair_ election to be elected as president way less then snowball in hell. Way less.

    13. Re:"Stern but fair?" by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      First of all, I am not your friend. Be polite.

      Second. Kasparov and opposition organized a rally (March of Disagreed) which the authorities did not have (rightfully or not) permission to. The same happened in the past to much less known (in the West) rallies of Nazis, Russian nationalists, etc. He was not the only one detained. Take for example, nationalistic "Russian march". It happened for 3 years, some years illegally, some years legally (this year it happened in outskirts of Moscow, for example).

      So it was not an arrest out of the blue.

      You do not understand. Putin oppresses not just Kasparov and liberal opposition, he oppresses every opposition, from far right to the far left. Trust me, Russian blogosphere is filled w/ Russian nationalist up to the rim.

      You know Kasparov in the West, but you do not know other popular figures in Russia, like Belov, for example, the leader of DPNI, "movement against illegal immigration".

      The far right ultranationalistic opposition to Putin gathers more participants on their events than demos of liberals.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    14. Re:"Stern but fair?" by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      Kasparov is "linked with" the NazBols only by them both being part of the same opposition coalition. It's little more than a classic example of "politics makes strange bedfellows".

      Political parties - no matter how disgusting, crackpot, or offensive - are not banned in the U.S. I'm not aware of any Nazi Commie parties, but we have just plain Nazis and just plain Commies (and probably even a radical Islamist party) and they're perfectly legal.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    15. Re:"Stern but fair?" by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      We supported Putin when he seemed to be a supporter of an open, democratic society for Russia. Over the years, he has been slowly tightening his grip and becoming more and more authoritarian. The mysterious part is that he has gained rather than lost popularity with the Russians as he has become more authoritarian.

      My theory is that if you were an intelligent, freedom-loving Russian, you probably left the country years ago - the ones left are the idiots that actually miss the bad old days of autocratic pseudo-Communist rule.

    16. Re:"Stern but fair?" by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      The Russians who post here on Slashdot in favor of Putin and tag stories like this "sternbutfair" absolutely disgust me. Now I understand why my ancestors fled Russia 100 years ago. There is a terribly broken, retrograde cultural mindset there, despite the country being the source of so many brilliant thinkers, scientists and engineers. It's like they forgot to teach their children basic philosophy, civics, or history.

      Those who invite tyranny upon themselves deserve the death and destruction that inevitably follows. They are just as bad as the people who voted for George W. Bush in the second election.

      Sometimes I am just embarrassed to be a human being at all.

      Maybe I should move to Canada. I think they still believe in basic human freedoms there.

    17. Re:"Stern but fair?" by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. Look at BushCo's antics. They lie like other people breathe. The entire Bush administration lies about damn near everything. They lie about things both trivial and earth-shattering. I can't find the specifics just now, but IIRC Bush was caught telling some stupid lie about a kind of food he likes. It's a totally reflexive, instinctive reaction for them. They lie when it's painfully obvious that they're lying and stupid to try, but they do it anyway.

      Similarly, the instinctive reaction for an authoritarian dictatorship is to make problematic people disappear. Doesn't matter that it makes them look bad, and is stupid in demographic terms (Russia is suffering a population crunch due in great part to vast swaths of its own people being done away with by the Soviet government) or intellectual disadvantage (Soviet dogma dismissed Darwinian evolution, thus crippling any sort of progress in biological fields, to say nothing of the fact that their most intelligent citizens were always the ones most likely to get disappeared). It was Stalin who said, "No people, no problem".

      In a way, though, this is a good thing. It means the sort of permanent national necrosis you see in 1984 or other dystopias probably can't ever develop. The guys in charge will never be willing to apply the exact amount of oppression needed to keep it going; there will always be the temptation to go overboard on cruelty, generating positive feedback cycles in rebellion and excessive government responses. Imagine Nazi Germany given two or three more generations to work their nasty; is there a single demographic they wouldn't have eviscerated, either numerically or intellectually? Blue-eyed blonde-haired germans sure weren't immune from the Gestapo.

      If nothing else, they end of falling behind their neighbors and get reduced to irrelevancy. North Korea, for instance, would have the same international clout as Bangladesh if they weren't lucky enough to be in artillery range of Seoul.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    18. Re:"Stern but fair?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This too reads like propaganda. Even if Putin is offering the best leadership possible and fixing every problem he can (which I disagree with; you are being extremely vague in arguing your claim that he's helped Russia), it doesn't excuse his actions. The right to express dissent is not worth forfeiting for any economic gain.

      Liberty or death.

    19. Re:"Stern but fair?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With regards to the dinosaurs-vs.-mammals analogy, it did took a fucking asteroid to wipe them out alongside with most of the other animals. Even after that, it was millions of years until the world recovered

    20. Re:"Stern but fair?" by ghyd · · Score: 1

      By:

      "And "fairness" has very little to do in politics. Laws are typically broken by the powers."

      do you mean that Chechnya, Beslan, political murders to the point of terrorizing every independent journalist, are Business as usual ?

      Also Russia is 121th at the transparency index it seems remarkably low:
      http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html

    21. Re:"Stern but fair?" by Comatose51 · · Score: 1

      I think people like us who grew up in democracies and know of nothing but that don't really understand the mentality of those who didn't. The older generation of my family, who grew up in China, would prefer a strong Chinese leadership that can provide security over democracy any day. If they were going to be ruled by a dictator, they would rather it be a Chinese dictator. They don't want their country to be weak and exploited by foreigners. If they're going to be exploited, it's far better for one of their own to do it. The same thing can be applied to Iraq and other former totalitarian countries like Russia. In order for democracy to take hold, you have to show the people that the alternatives aren't between who gets to exploit you but between being exploited or not. The way some westerners screwed over Russia after the fall of the USSR wasn't the best of that. It left a bitter taste in their mouths.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    22. Re:"Stern but fair?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with your sentiment regarding older generations and also think that it takes decades to make real changes. You're undermining your position however by writing that "The way some westerners screwed over Russia after the fall of the USSR wasn't the best of that. It left a bitter taste in their mouths.". This last sentence is utter nonsense and shows how little (anything?) you know about Russian people.

    23. Re:"Stern but fair?" by cptnapalm · · Score: 0

      I knew nothing about these guys... What do we call them? The Nacoms?

    24. Re:"Stern but fair?" by Comatose51 · · Score: 1

      I don't presume to know the Russian people but I do know that there were Americans involved in the democratization of Russia under Yeltsin who took advantage of the situation to enrich themselves. So I know the story from the American side at least. I can only presume that it made some Russians very unhappy and feeling exploited. If you want to enlighten me on the Russian perspective of the events, please do so. Love to learn more.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    25. Re:"Stern but fair?" by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "do you mean that Chechnya, Beslan, political murders to the point of terrorizing every independent journalist, are Business as usual ?"

      Most of the politics is a very dirty business on a different scales. That is why I reject it wholesale.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    26. Re:"Stern but fair?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being russian myself I tend to agree with this.
      Except that, Putin is not that bad as ppl here seems to think, definitely better than Bush. At this point, given the state of things in Russia, he's probably the best person to return the country back to power.

    27. Re:"Stern but fair?" by turing_m · · Score: 1

      "If it is true that Kasparov et al. have no influence or support, then why on earth would the powers-that-be arrest him and risk sympathetic attention--strike that--any attention whatsoever be paid to him?"

      I'm sure he has plenty of support... like the kind Jacob Schiff et al provided to bankroll the October Revolution.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    28. Re:"Stern but fair?" by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      It's just a show for the West, Kasparov and his "Other Russia" party is really the same 3000-5000 people that travel from town to town on buses and trains organizing their political shows along the way. I know that it's not romantic and downright pedestrian but Russians do indeed like Putin for bringing order and economic prosperity, much like Singaporeans support their "managed democracy" authoritarian regime.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  9. Surprised? by Pecisk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Russia never was a democracy, and never wanted to be. At least seems to me.

    Yeah, I know, it sucks, because no one wants another Cold War. But seemingly US and West pays now for their lack of involvement of helping Russia to scurb corruption, investigating old crimes and anything else.

    Now we all pay the price.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    1. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's good to hear your opinion, noted Russia expert Pecisk (688001). Please feel free to keep Slashdot updated on your off-the-cuff, unexplained opinions on complex issues.

    2. Re:Surprised? by yotto · · Score: 1

      But seemingly US and West pays now for their lack of involvement of helping Russia to scurb corruption, investigating old crimes and anything else.

      I know. If only Russia had been a small Middle Eastern country we'd have gone in and fixed up their entire government. Maybe next time we'll do the right thing, assuming we're all done with this terrorist thing.

    3. Re:Surprised? by kcarlin · · Score: 1

      Russia was not seeking or accepting such "assistance". And would have been outraged had it been suggested. The bridling over the Western insistence on assistance for securing nuclear weapons and materials was faced down by the West only because of the imminent threat of catastrophe.

      --
      Free Adam Smith! (Or best offer.)
    4. Re:Surprised? by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      If only Russia had been a small Middle Eastern country we'd have gone in and fixed up their entire government.

      Because every American is 100% behind even that small effort, right?

    5. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any credible links or info on that, because as far as I can tell the U.S. has always criticized Russia and have thrown millions at them to clean up their nuclear weapons stockpiles.

      The spineless Europeans have their hands tied behind their back, they will not do anything unless they wanna freeze to death without their precious natural gas.
      As far as I can tell all the people around here love the Russians because of AllofMP3.com and could give a crap about some persons liberties.

      Pretty sad when the only fear around here is DRM technology and Microsoft.

    6. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If fact, Russia wanted to become democracy very much. Look into movements in late 80's along with structural changes like "glasnost'" (freedom of speech), "mnogopartiynoist'" - multi-party system along with free and fair elections. Parliament in early 90's was independent and even attempted to impeach President Eltsin for impoverishment of population through rapid transition to capitalism.

      Much of democracy in Russia ended when Eltsin shot at Parliament with tanks and got away with that.

  10. this is all still a remnant of Gorbachev's legacy by jacquesm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the transition had been a little milder than it was then the crime bosses in Russia would not have been able to grab as much as they did. The last thing the new 'vlasti' want is to have their playground taken away from them. This is going to be an extremely tense time for Russia.

  11. Hah! by Satorian · · Score: 1
    He didn't see that move coming! So much for calculating 8 steps ahead, you chess-playing Grandmaster frauds!

    *shakesfist*

  12. See, if only Kasparov had a soft, supple by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Funny

    stomach. He wouldn't have to worry about Putin arresting him at all. Kissing on the other hand.....

    1. Re:See, if only Kasparov had a soft, supple by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      This is a reference to something. What?

    2. Re:See, if only Kasparov had a soft, supple by mrlibertarian · · Score: 1
    3. Re:See, if only Kasparov had a soft, supple by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      This is... a little strange. I hope the Russians simply have customs I'm not used to... (Thanks.)

  13. playing with politicians?! by darxider · · Score: 1

    some politicians get angry when attacked and bang underneath the board. they barely follow the rules specially when there is no referee!

  14. Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I wish our president had such powers to sieze anti-American politicians like Clinton

    1. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by rednip · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish our president had such powers to sieze anti-American politicians like Clinton I thought that was funny as hell and was about to moderate it as such, but the sad thing is, I'm not sure if hes kidding. As I've heard people say in all seriousness such things.
      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    2. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by neomunk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Move to Saudi Arabia then you too-scared-to-live-in-a-democracy little pussy. I can't stand Clinton either, but I'm not so pussyfied that I'd wanter her arrested for scaring me.

      If you can't handle freedom, go somewhere where you can have big-daddy-authority-figure hold your hand and change your diaper. Scared little bitch.

      Do YOU have a problem with THAT, you anonymous little shitstain?

    3. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by gallwapa · · Score: 1

      I don't condone seizing any of them for their politics anyway: I do condone seizing them for being as corrupt as they are. They have fostered an environment of corruption and bathed in the blood of millions. Politicians should be held accountable, much like the corporations they represent, to face the crimes against humanity they help perpetrate.

      The shame of it all is some of them actually think they ARE doing the right thing.

    4. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      What, you expect to find a rabid authoritarian on Slashdot, a website about anti-capitalist, left-wing things like OSS, Linux, and copyright reform?

      (I eagerly await your moderatory moral dilemma over this post, too)

    5. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by neomunk · · Score: 1

      That is a whole different can of worms, and a completely nonpartisan one at that. YOUR sentiment is one that I can absolutely agree with and support. The biggest problem with it is that it'll leave us a much understaffed government until replacements can be properly made, as the corruption problem runs deep and wide.

      But I must point out that the difference between the GP's post and your post is like the difference between 'that guy's a fag, get him!' and 'that guy is choking my wife, get him!'. Somehow though I think the vocal 'majority' (I don't think they are the majority actually, I think they have the biggest bullhorn) would feel more comfortable supporting the GP's sentiments than yours.

    6. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      Of course. They're the target group for the "troll" moderation option.

    7. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      By democracy you presumably mean parliamentarism, and by freedom the freedom to choose from the options given to you by the two most powerful political parties, right?

    8. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by nuzak · · Score: 1

      Dude, seriously, he's a dumbass pissant AC, trolling you with something slightly better tuned than GNAA and "one day at the library" stories. It's more sad that we have to filter out all this noise all the time, and sadder still that there's probably *some* people who actually believe this stuff, but it's even more regretful when anyone actually gets their blood pressure up over the very aptly-named Anonymous Cowards. Anonymous shitstain does have a nicer ring for this one though ;)

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    9. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I didn't vote for the two biggest parties and my party still got some representation. What about you?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    10. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      If Guy Fawkes had been an American who tried to blow up Congress, we'd have made a folk hero out of him. :p

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    11. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do YOU have a problem with THAT, you anonymous little shitstain? Me big brave man not scared anything! Me proud free America! *beats chest* Say, when did you last refuse to pay your taxes?

      Lol, testosterone. If you get angry so easily - and over a troll, no less - you probably need to masturbate more.
    12. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, except that when these things happen it must happen across the board. Too often "corruption" is used as a charge against politicians who piss off fellow, more powerful politicians. When "corruption" charges are laid selectively it does more harm than good.

    13. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by mpeg4codec · · Score: 1

      Normally I say don't feed the trolls, but hot damn, it's nice to hear someone with a pair of balls in the midst of all the political correctness bullshit we deal with daily. Good show, sir.

    14. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by DuctTape · · Score: 1

      I wish our president had such powers to sieze [sic] anti-American politicians like Clinton

      Don't worry... he will.

      DT

      --
      Is this thing on? Hello?
    15. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans are the "anti-Americans." America was founded on the idea of separation of church and state, by people who rejected the religious authoritarianim they had suffered from in Europe.

      And in the current day we now have the glaring example of the wrongfulness of religion infecting government in the Middle Eastern countries.

      So what is the Republicans' response to this sickness of religion?

      To try to get it to infect America, too.

      Fucking retards. Since all they do is suck up the Christin Wrong, every Republican is basically an Al Quaeda.

    16. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      Doesn't he already live in a place like that?

    17. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by neomunk · · Score: 1

      Well I most certainly don't mean a system in which a politician gets arrested for having policies someone doesn't like, as the person I originally replied to led me to assume was his/her position, due to lack of any other explanation.

      You, however, read about 12 volumes within my short post. WTF do you get the idea that I think the U.S. political system is some magically mythical perfect system? I don't. In fact, I'm quite disillusioned with the state of my nation right now and am quite vocal about it, mostly offline though, as doing so on the net is mostly lost in the noise. All that aside, I DO know that it's better WITHOUT political prisoners becoming mainstream.

      If you have an issue with the above message, take it up with me. If you have an issue with something I -DIDN'T- say, take it up with the person that said it.

    18. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by neomunk · · Score: 1

      Naw, I didn't get angry, you just have to talk to these simpletons in a way that they understand. Actually, I was chuckling while I typed, but when is the last time you've seen polite suggestion and gentle reminders of fact even slow down a raging troll like that? In my opinion, you have to handle them in the way they understand, or ignore them completely. Maybe I should have ignored him, but see my response here for my reasons why I didn't. Or maybe it's my old D&D experience that makes me want to set flame to trolls. :-D

      Don't get me wrong though, just because I wasn't ANGRY doesn't indicate that I don't mean every word of what I said. Cowardly little authoritarianists (fascist, communists, totalitarians of all stripes) get no sympathy or respect from me, as they're too willing to toss away MY rights to placate their (usually unjustified) fears. That is unacceptable.

    19. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. And what would you do to proven Al Qaeda members?

    20. Re:Someone sieze that bitch Hillary by gallwapa · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I realize I took the bait, but I think it was a good response anyway. As far as an understaffed government: I have worked in the public sector all my life, and let me tell you, if the people "in charge" were removed, across the board, from any situation I had ever seen, and the "worker bees" were told to continue working and maintaining all current service levels, things would still get done. We'd have no extra projects, but things would be at least maintained, or at worse fall apart.

      I realize it is unrealistic, but I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said "
      Every generation needs a new revolution."

      *Shrug*

  15. Kasparov's background by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While free speech should not be violated, Kasparov has some really scary background. Here, Putin is the white King and I hope Kasparov can not enter the political scene. It is far too easy to say Putin is the bad boy here.

  16. Kasparov's allies... by NorQue · · Score: 1

    No idea if it's right that Mr. Kasparov is arrested. Honestly, I don't care. Just have a look at some of his allies and you'll know why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party - these guys are as much about freedom of speech as Adolf Hitler was, and you know how it ended. In this case it's better to be safe than sorry, in my honest opinion. Using Gary Kasparov and his political friends arrests as proof for diminishing freedom of speech in russia is just wrong. In this case there wouldn't be any political freedom in Germany, too, as the national socialist party is forbidden here, too.

    1. Re:Kasparov's allies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering you're a holocaust denier, NorQue (1000887), I do not think you have much to say in these parts either. Your own reasoning refutes you, here.

    2. Re:Kasparov's allies... by ducomputergeek · · Score: 3, Informative
      Kasperov is a member of this organization:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Civil_Front

      Which is part of a larger organization:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Russia

      This more a case of politics makes strange bed fellows. All those groups have one thing in common: opposition to the current government and the direction Russia is heading. Take that common cause away, and I doubt many of these groups would have much to do with each other.

      So saying Kasperov is guilty by association in this context isn't exactly fair.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    3. Re:Kasparov's allies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Hitler wanted to create the 'ubermensch'. Kasparov's DNA would be perfect for sampling/sequencing the genomes of a human brain.

    4. Re:Kasparov's allies... by arkanoid.dk · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Freedom of speech is a right even Kasparov, the communists _and_ neo-nazis should have. Breaking the law, through public discrimination, _illegal_ demonstrations and other such actions, should be punished. But the freedom of speech (and the right to gather) should be bestowed upon each and every single individual - even those who themselves would like to abolish it - otherwise, how are _you_ any better than them in your opinion?

      And just for the record, I fancy neither the communists, nor the neo-nazis. I do, however, fancy what freedom I have left.

      --
      Arkanoid
      gethostbyintuition()... why not?
    5. Re:Kasparov's allies... by NorQue · · Score: 1

      I know that's not Kasparov's party. In the very least one could say that Mr. Kasparov is a political opportunist, for allying himself to them. Don't you think he could've chosen his friends a little bit wiser? I am not content with the direction my country is heading either, especially in the personal rights department, but it'd never occur to make friends with fascist assholes to change that.

      There's a famous German proverb, attributed to Martin Luther: Wer mit einem Scheissdreck rammelt, er gewinne oder verliere, er geht beschissen hinvon. Translated that means something in the line of: when you fuck with crap, who cares if you win or lose, you go away covered in crap.

    6. Re:Kasparov's allies... by NorQue · · Score: 1

      Like I already said, we Germans consider ourselves having freedom of speech, yet we still banned the national socialist party (and several communist parties, too, btw). I don't think that's right, either. But it doesn't make Germany the evil dictatorship that Russia is currently painted to be for continuously imprisoning Gary Kasparov in the media ("He was a great chess player, afterall! How could he possibly be wrong?").

      You have to keep in mind that these people might have a different view on freedom than you have.

    7. Re:Kasparov's allies... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      NBP has changed a lot from the extreme national-communist party they were in Yeltsin's era. As they showed that they are the only political party in the country willing to oppose the present government even when it is declared illegal (i.e. full-fledged civil disobedience), quite a few young people from other opposition parties, such as the much more liberal Yabloko, have moved into NBP. As a result, their stance has shifted democratic socialism, and sometimes even beyond that. A brief glance at their old and new party programmes is enough, really, but anyone who had been following Limonov's rhethoric (all his speeches and writings are published on the NBP web site... in Russian, obviously) knows it already. They've even got rid of that sickening red-black-blue hammer & sickle of theirs. On the other hand, quite a few of the "old guard" have left the party because of this, and formed the numerous "true national-bolshevik" organisations, all of which are accusing NBP and Limonov of "liberalism" and "selling out to the West and the democrats". Which is by itself very telling.

  17. Meet the new boss... by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...he's not the same as the old boss. He IS the old boss.

    At least with Russia, the citizens can blame Putin for their woes. In the USA, we've got nobody to blame for Bush but ourselves.

    1. Re:Meet the new boss... by doyoulikeworms · · Score: 1

      In the USA, we've got nobody to blame for Bush but ourselves.
      Speak for yourself. I didn't vote for him.
    2. Re:Meet the new boss... by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself. I didn't vote for him.

      At least it wasn't Gore or Kerry, eh ...

      oh wait ... this is slashdot ...

    3. Re:Meet the new boss... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Let me know when Bush gets rid of term limits and has Hillary arrested. Then I might care. In the meantime, you're more than welcome to move to a nation with a better form of government. Just don your interstellar space jumpsuit, and off you go!

    4. Re:Meet the new boss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, as long as you're a Supreme Court Judge, feel free to blame yourself.

    5. Re:Meet the new boss... by ystar · · Score: 1

      Just because you didn't vote for him, doesn't mean you are absolved from blame.

      Voting isn't our sole responsibility. We must strive to educate others (folks who live in the red states, in this example). The right to voice political dissidence is a necessity. Everyone would love Bush if we weren't given critical thinking abilities through education, and that education is often distributed through dissenters who don't sit complicit with the status quo, and strive for improvement.

      I'm not suggesting you *don't* do your part to educate others and voice your opinions to your countrymen and leaders, but to leave it at "I didn't vote for him" is a big mistake, and a major reason for why so many Russians aren't fighting Putin.

    6. Re:Meet the new boss... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      What if you did campaign for the opposition and do your best to educate people in a state that voted 75% for Bush? I mean, sometimes there's a limit on how much you can take responsibility for based on the limits of what's possible to accomplish.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    7. Re:Meet the new boss... by ystar · · Score: 1

      What's important is that we all do our best, of course. As I stated, I wasn't assuming anyone just didn't vote (or voted for the opposition), and I don't think it's a crime if someone doesn't vote, for instance if someone's struggling with depression or anxiety they shouldn't feel guilty if they can't get out to the voting machines.

      Nonetheless! Campaigning in the face of such adversity is definitely still important, even necessary, because that other 25% may never have existed. Complacency is a major reason dictatorships take root and thrive, and a major reason Bush's administration has been able to demolish our own rights to privacy.

    8. Re:Meet the new boss... by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 1

      "What if you did campaign for the opposition and do your best to educate people in a state that voted 75% for Bush?"

      You're still an American, right? And enough Americans voted for Bush that even though he's not your individual fault, that doesn't matter. He's OUR fault.

      If the collective making a mistake separates you from the collective, then the collective is weak. A more responsible reaction to our collective mistake like George W. Bush is to apologize to the rest of the world and work to undo the damage he's done.

  18. The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by reporter · · Score: 5, Informative
    Unfortunately for Gary Kasparov, the Kremlin plays brutal chess.

    According to a report recently issued by Reuters, the leading political candidate representing the liberal anti-Kremlin Yabloko party has been shot by an unknown assailant. The candidate is now in serious condition in a hospital. This attempted assassination caps a year-long effort, by the Kremlin, to rig the parliamentary election on December 2. Under orders from the Kremlin, banks have refused to accept donations from supporters for deposit in the accounts of opposition parties. Owners of assembly halls have canceled contracts allowing opposition politicians to stage rallies. The police have seized the newspapers of opposition parties in a draconian attempt to prevent them from spreading their message.

    In early November, the election-monitoring arm of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) declined to send election observers to Russia to monitor the 2007 parliamentary election. This OSCE decision resulted from (1) the Kremlin's refusing to allow more than 70 OSCE observers to enter Russia and (2) the Kremlin's delaying the granting of visas to them. In 2003, the Kremlin had accepted 400 OSCE observers, but after the OSCE condemned the 2003 election for being unfair, many folks in the Kremlin vowed to stymie OSCE's efforts in future elections.

    1. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by Fred_A · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What I don't get is why people still act as if Russia wasn't a dictatorship while it clearly is.

      It puts on a lazy show of elections like any dictatorship is expected to do, even goes as far as not having the party in power not win with 97% of votes but that doesn't change anything to the reality of what's going on there. Made up wars (although the "western" democracies seem to do that a lot lately), numerous murders, broadlight corruption at every level of the state...

      That the states play the "our good friend Putin" game because of the hydrocarbons flowing out of Russia is one thing, but that a lot of people still somewhat believe it's a "rough" democracy still baffles me (not that the parent poster sems to believe so).

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    2. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What I don't get is why people still act as if Russia wasn't a dictatorship while it clearly is.

      It doesn't matter. It never did. As long as they're not Communist, everything is hunky-dory.

      --
      What?
    3. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by happyemoticon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Then why does America still have such close ties to China? Nixon and Kissinger really helped improve things, true; both America and China had bones against the USSR; and it's better to be at peace than at war (at least in my opinion, but why is there no strong ideological war being carried out? The real answer is that they're awesome trading partners, unlike the inefficient, walled-off USSR. I feel like I'm playing a shell game, and at some point, "democracy" was replaced with "capitalism". As was said before, now that they're pumping dinosaur juice out to the rest of the world and we can build a McDonalds in Red Square, we like Russia.

      I suppose this is a trite observation. Of course democracy has been usurped by capitalism. I just hadn't really thought about it in terms of foreign policy before.

    4. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Russians aren't so smart after all.

      If they were smart, then they'd waterboard the opposition and get them to admit that they are terrorists. And they could convince their media to exclude any mention of the waterboarding (or at least try to convince the population that simulated "torture" can consistently obtain reliable & credible info.)

      On the other hand, maybe the Kremlin wanted to do this in the open to have a chilling effect on the competition. Kinda like what happened to Joe Wilson and how that made whistleblowers think twice. Or the West Point professor that went to Iraq to investigate corruption, only to commit suicide during his investigation.

    5. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      The real answer is that they're awesome trading partners, unlike the inefficient, walled-off USSR.

      I was being somewhat facetious, but yes, you hit the nail pretty squarely.(It's the economy, stupid) However, off the books, I doubt Russia was ever very "walled-off". Fight each other by day, have a few drinks together the same night.

      --
      What?
    6. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by mike260 · · Score: 1

      If they'd really wanted to have a chilling effect, they'd have just shot him. Or if they were feeling creative, maybe put something nasty in his tea.

    7. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what way, exactly, is China still a full on, balls to the wall, communist state? If Mao saw how things are going today, he'd be fucking floored.

    8. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Then why does America still have such close ties to China? (...) I feel like I'm playing a shell game, and at some point, "democracy" was replaced with "capitalism". Bread and circus, in this case the bread. It's not just the evil corporate overlords that care about the economy. If the US started to honk off China, and they started breaking trade relations then the US economy would tank. Shortly after, the voters would be running to the voting booths to get someone in office that'll reinstate them. I don't think you should ever underestimate how much democracy succeeded because capitalism succeeded, I think it's been that way all along.
      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by masdog · · Score: 1

      Kjella, the problem with that logic is that China would be equally hurt by breaking off trade relations with the US as the US would be. We are China's largest export market, and that is growing by the day. If China decided to dump the dollar and/or break off trade relations, they wouldn't have a large market to send their wares to and their economy would come tumbling down as well.

      Why do you think China is worried about the product safety issues that have come up recently? If they start loosing the American export market, they are going to be in serious trouble.

    10. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Then why does America still have such close ties to China?

      The Chinese are no more communist (in the economic sense of the word) than we are. Arguably, the Chinese moved away from communism (when Deng Xiaoping proclaimed, "Black cat, white cat, who cares so long as it catches mice," in 1962). Not coincidentally, Deng's rise to power coincided with the warming of relations between China and the US, as seen by Nixon's visit.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    11. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by Yath · · Score: 1

      That's because the correct term is oligarchy. While he is powerful, Putin doesn't wield absolute power like Hugo Chavez.

      --
      I always mod up spelling trolls.
    12. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by bungo · · Score: 1

      Communist, dictatorship, democratic (but tied to big business) who cares... people get repressed everywhere, just some are more open about it than others...

      I'm sitting about 400m from NATO's headquaters. As long as I don't end up glowing in the dark, then I'm happy. Not pointing the nukes at my house was the best thing that has happened in the 90s.

      --
      "The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
    13. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 2

      Your new perspective warrants a review of US foreign policy since the end of WWII. Look at what the US has done in places like South America and Indochina for yourself. Without the cheery propaganda about democracy (which is often directly contradicted by the reality of what and whom the US supports) you may start to understand how so much of the world can see the US as the "bad guys".

    14. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Convince the media? They OWN the media!

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    15. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The cold war wasn't between democracy and totalitarianism. It was between evil men who got their power from capitalism and evil men who got their power from totalitarianism.

      Ideologically, communism is a better system of rules than capitalism, because in a communist economy, the group has an implicit duty to care about your well being and not leave you to freeze in the cold. In capitalism, they have an implicit duty to let you freeze.

      Ideologically, democracy is a better system of leadership than totalitarianism, because in a democratic society, the leader is materially accountable to the population, and can be replaced if he should wield that power according to whim rather than in the fulfillment of their duty.

      However, in the end, violence and deprivation are both effective tools for oppressing people, so it doesn't matter if you've got communism or democracy, if you've got totalitarianism or capitalism complimenting it, you're living with the threat of death staring you in the face.

      The cold war was won when the corrupt Russian oligarchy agreed to unite with the corrupt NATO capitalists and oppress everyone under the capitalist system.

      Putin is in an uncomfortable situation over there. They've already re-structured their society according to the capitalist ideology, so there aren't really any legal means he can use to prevent foreigners from raping his country and impoverishing his people, but he's decided to fight it out anyways.

      Of course, good luck finding anyone saying anything like that out of any Western run news organization. The people who own those outlets are the same ones who would happily see all those Russians back in the mines making minimum wage and living in poverty while all their natural resources are systematically piped out of the country and used to heat our houses.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    16. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      China isn't getting things in trade for those exports. They're exporting on loan, to the tune of billions and billions of dollars, and they're doing it so they can keep justifying the existing power structures where everyone goes to a factory to work while preventing too much wealth from being created that might lead to a cease in production.

      They could accomplish the same goal by dumping the goods into the Pacific as quickly as they were made. The USA hasn't had anything significant to offer by way of trade in a long, long time. If you're going to talk about China-US relations, you really need to fully digest these realities, or you're going to end up way off.

      To the people of China, working in those factories is no more practically useful than the Pyramids were to the Egyptians.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    17. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      Because China's President, Hu Jintao, while advancing the goals of China's communist party, has implemented free market ideas and theories into China's economic structure, guaranteeing that it will eventually destroy the Communist party in it and free China.

      He, despite being communist and despite having to appear communist all over his country, has actually done a lot of good, more than could be expected of a dictator.

      You can't win by attacking someone for doing the right thing. The U.S. is doing everything it can to reinforce China as it begins to adopt these free market practices that will ultimately save the world.

      He's still an evil rat-bastard but he's the first step to China's freedom, so don't jump on the "Hate China" bandwagon just yet.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    18. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All this story is missing is Jimmy Carter showing up to declare this election process clean and fair.

    19. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      So instead of slinging mud and deleting the opposition party votes, they proactively destroy the opposition before it gets a chance. Looks like Russia is just a little less subtle about rigging their elections.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    20. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by ookabooka · · Score: 1

      Syntax error. Expected ')'

      --
      If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
    21. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by Dilaudid · · Score: 1

      Of course democracy has been usurped by capitalism. I just hadn't really thought about it in terms of foreign policy before.


      Not a bad thing either. Democracy is just tyranny by the masses - it's pretty shitty if you're in a minority - and it seems to produce sub-optimal results even for the majority (c.f. America). Capitalism is truly meritocratic, and it works. Look at how China has developed and Russia has stagnated over the last 20 years. The rise of communication technology (i.e. internet, mobile phones) means people will be able to organise themselves without a big brother government to look after them. It's easy for "liberal" (read: socially liberal, economically restrictive) Americans to talk down capitalism. Chinese, Vietnamese, Indians etc. are embracing it with both arms - I think that is why the dollar is currently sitting at .67 euro, American wages aren't rising, and most major banks are now making more investment in the developing world than in America and Europe together.

    22. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA hasn't had anything significant to offer by way of trade in a long, long time.
      I think you discount the unparalleled American cuisine. China can not get enough Coca-Cola and McDonalds.
    23. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by HydroPhonic · · Score: 1

      China isn't getting things in trade for those exports. They're exporting on loan, to the tune of billions and billions of dollars, and they're doing it so they can keep justifying the existing power structures... What they get in return is that they are gravely indebting the US to them. Given the vast amounts of consumer credit card debt in this country, they know they can indebt us rather deeply before we notice.

      They'll cash that in later....
    24. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the nature of the world today that ANY superpower is guaranteed to be seen as "bad guys".

      In any unstable situation, a (third party) nation has choices. If the nation is weak, the choice to stay out of it is normally not held against them. But if the nation is strong... staying out of it is inevitably going to be seen as "left us to starve" or "left us to domination by [other superpower that DID chose to meddle]" or "tacitly chose the strongest faction by simply doing nothing".

      On the other hand, if the nation chooses a faction to back, well, by definition, when you choose sides, there's one or more other side you have acted against. And in these modern, enlightened, times, Western nations don't massacre the losers.

      In other words: in all possible branches of the decision tree here, there's going to be a large number of people at the end of any conflict who see a superpower as "bad guys". The US didn't have this problem before WW2 because before WW2 the US wasn't a superpower. The same exact thing happened to the Soviets and the same exact thing is going to happen to the Chinese.

      Further, there's an inherent news coverage bias too, which always makes one's own nation seem proportionately hated more than is really true. For example, in the West, it's not interesting to report what other countries feel about Russia or China, because that's not very relevant to Westerners. This can easily make it look like everyone hates *only* "us" and no one else. But, for example, the Vietnamese are not exactly fond of the Soviets or Chinese...

    25. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by aevans · · Score: 1

      You're stupid.

    26. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Not a bad thing either..."

      Capitalism is just tyranny by those with capital - it's pretty shitty if you're without - and it seems to produce sub-optimal results even for the majority (c.f. America). The rise of communication technology (i.e. wiretaps, internet tracking, marketing) means governments will be able to organize themselves without any educated popular oversight. It's easy for "capitalist" (read: socially repressive, economically unrestricted) Americans to talk up capitalism. The Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian governments, etc. are embracing it with both arms - I think that is why the dollar is currently sitting at .67 euro, American wages aren't rising, and most major banks are now making more investment in the developing world than in America and Europe together. Pure capitalism ultimately fails the majority of a nation's people.

      There, fixed that for you.

      Not that I mean to claim that any other pure form of government/economic system works. They will all ultimately fail. The only thing that will ultimately work is a synthesis of all systems, each applied in measure where they will do the most good for the most people. The U.S. has been so successful up to this point because they have embraced this better (not ever completely and it's falling off now) than most.

    27. Re:The Kremlin Plays Brutal Chess by tjw · · Score: 1

      Then why does America still have such close ties to China?

      The US could care less if a country is Communist as long as it allows Americans to own and exploit the resources within its borders. However, when the country tries to nationalize (seize) the privately held plantations, oil fields, mines, or etc. it is viewed as an act of war. China is a different beast since their resource (an almost limitless supply of Walmart plastic shit production plants) were already nationalized before the US entered into the market for them.
      --

      XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-UB E-TEST-EMAIL*C.34X
  19. Baaaaad summary by superwiz · · Score: 1

    It doesn't mention the fact that Kasparov is the main opposition candidate in the upcoming Russian presidential election.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:Baaaaad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's probably because he's not.

    2. Re:Baaaaad summary by superwiz · · Score: 1

      That's probably because he's not. He is. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7021697.stm
      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  20. Don't understimate the intelligence of a GM by El+Lobo · · Score: 1

    ... Maybe he DID see that move comming and planned this "sacrifice" for the greater check mate in the future... Strategy was his strong side in chess after all.

    --
    It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
    1. Re:Don't understimate the intelligence of a GM by Satorian · · Score: 1

      Could very well be and I wouldn't rule it out. I was just going for the cheap shot there.

  21. Interesting wording... by Fneb · · Score: 1

    I find it amusing how this was written; Garry Kasparov was arrested for being part of a political demonstration in Russia. On a completely irrelevant note, he was beaten by a computer! Isn't that amazing?!

    1. Re:Interesting wording... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > I find it amusing how this was written; Garry Kasparov was arrested for being part of a political demonstration in Russia. On a completely irrelevant note, he was beaten by a computer! Isn't that amazing?!

      Demonstrating against Putin: man, the lengths to which chess grandmasters go to find human opponents who can beat them.

    2. Re:Interesting wording... by Rockin'Robert · · Score: 0

      RFE: "He was beaten by a computer! Isn't that amazing?!"
      SO. http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/03/fischer-kasparov-karpov.html
      "Kasparov will never give bobby fischer his due but what do you expect. This is a guy Bobby calls a gangster and a complete crook." http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/03/fischer-kasparov-karpov.html
      Hmmm.
      RR

  22. Re:obligatory joke by Aminion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope that you are right, but if the world hasn't been able to do anything about Russia's horrible crimes against the people of Chechnya, how big are the chances that Kasparov can make a difference? Also, don't forget that Putin's approval ratings are pretty high even if you disbelieve the official statistics from the Kremlin, i.e. the Russians themselves might not even care about this and that is what's really required here. You can't force changes like this from the outside (are you going to sanction Russia? Use military force? Hardly), it has to come from the people of Russia.

  23. Did I read that right? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Where other candidates barred from the parliament election Putin is running in?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  24. In a Russian City, Clues to Putin's Abiding Appeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    Today's Washington Post has an interesting article which explains why the Russian people love Putin, or at least look the other way with respect to Putin's excesses.

    As Bill Clinton would say: "It's the economy, stupid". From the article:

    The lean, balding 35-year-old, who has spent his adult life working on the line at a glass factory in the suburbs of this city, now sits at a laden table with his wife and 13-year-old son. Behind him is a brand-new television beside a matching CD player, also new. His Lada car, bought recently with a bank loan, is parked outside the family's second-story walk-up apartment.

    "I feel much safer now," said Ignatiyev, whose family recently took its first vacation abroad, a package tour to a Turkish resort. "I have a good job, not a prestigious job, but a good living." In just the past two years, his salary has more than doubled, to $700 a month, reflecting his factory's growing sales.
  25. Russian Reversal! by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

    In Free West, dissidents seize YOU!!!

  26. Mods by Morosoph · · Score: 1, Insightful
    The mods are particularly humourless today. I hope that the parent modder is justly punished in meta-mod.

    In chess, you seize the opponent's King.

    1. Re:Mods by makuabob · · Score: 1

      In chess, the opponent NEVER takes the other player's king. A player topples his own king to acknowledge that: a.)his king is in 'check' where it stands and b.)he cannot block that check with another of his pieces or move his king to a position that will take the king out of check. This is what "checkmate" means.

      The Russians can play chess, play piano, and dance ballet with the best in this world,... but when it comes to government, they suck.

  27. A most pathetic attempt by deesine · · Score: 1

    at comparing a nation that doesn't hide the fact that it arrests political dissidents, with a nation hosting more political asylum seekers than all other states in the world. Keep trying...

    --
    damaged by dogma
  28. Since slashdot is also against free speech by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 0, Troll

    When it's about
    -> violence in muslim holy texts and the violent life of the paedophile prophet
    -> the relation (that indeed exists) between violence on tv/video games and violence in real life
    -> anything related to bush
    -> discussion of the fact that abortion does indeed kill a human being and is thus not a laughing matter
    -> science that contradicts global warming (it exists, and like everything in science, the true answer is "we don't know"), or even the science that states that a 6 degree rise in temperature will generate exactly 0 "extra disasters"
    -> anything related to the iraq war (e.g. stating that over 95% of the deaths are due to muslims killing other muslims because "they don't believe" would get you modded down)
    -> any mentioning of the fact that in order to change things, you HAVE to go out and make it happen, sometimes even with violence
    -> any mentioning that it is cowardly in the extreme to "protest bush", who you know won't retaliate, and protesting at a local mosque against the "jihad" in darfur would be the very least that could be expected.

    1. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by Microlith · · Score: 1
      What kind of trash is this? I mean, your whole post is largely neocon talking points and trollish crap but:

      any mentioning that it is cowardly in the extreme to "protest bush", who you know won't retaliate

      Is frankly a bunch of bullshit. I mean, unless you LIKE what he's doing I can't see why you'd think it'd be cowardly to protest him.
    2. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol get the coathanger

    3. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by sigzero · · Score: 1

      Either you didn't get his post or you haven't been an /. for long.

    4. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. Take big brave Hollywood. When a good story portrays Muslims as the bad guys, big brave Hollywood flinches. Voila! Instantly Hollywood changes the Muslim terrorists in the original story to "Neo-Nazis". How convenient. None of the liberal establishment has the balls to take on the real threat to global peace and democracy: the crazed fanatical Muslim religion.

      The irony is that if the Muslims ever assumed power they would go after Hollywood, homosexuals, "free thinkers", Jews, and liberals first. Why do liberals have such a suicidal death wish?

    5. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by Synn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Free speech doesn't apply to private property like Slashdot.

    6. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by neomunk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, damn slashdot for being so against freedom of speech that they removed your post. I'm outraged! I REALLY wanted to reply and tell you how right you are, but now I just CAN'T because slashdot has gone and censored you. ...

      Show me the censorship. That's all I ask. Back that childish whining up with some bruises from the abuse you've taken. Oh, that's right, slashdot doesn't censor.... ever. That's right, I said it, EVER, as in being an absolute (I'm the kind of guy that likes to tack qualifiers and quantifiers on everything). That's why it's one of the few places I actually post instead of lurk. (I know, it looks like I'm saying I troll alot, I don't, I troll alittle, (and almost exclusively non-anon) I'm just principled about free speech like that)

      As far as your list of topics goes, you're not being censored, you're RIGHTLY being pushed to the back of the room by the CROWD (not the site) for being a... well... what IS the right-wing equivalent of a tin foil hat wearer? Oh yes, a Kool-Aid drinker. Very few of the little factoids you present have any basis in real-life at ALL, and those that do have a tenuous connection to reality at best.

      To sum up: You're not being censored for being 'edgy', you're being ignored for being ridiculous. You don't get to be a martyr for that.

    7. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      the waaaambulance just crashed into the lollercopter

    8. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can state your opinion as much as you like and even get modded up. That doesn't mean anything. IMO you are utterly and irreversibly full of bullshit. Seriously you're a mental retard. Seek help before it's too late.

    9. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Any time you find yourself using the term "neocon talking point", chances are you've been spending WAY too much time hanging out with the Kos Kids!

    10. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by skeeto · · Score: 1

      Yep, as far as I know, there has been only one comment ever removed from Slashdot. It was removed because some AC posted material copyrighted by those crazy Scientology fucktards. You know how they are. There was nothing Slashdot could do about it, so for that you must blame both Scientology and the US government (for unjust copyright laws), not Slashdot.

    11. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That guy has been on Slashdot for a long time, and you can review his posting history to see it's all the same xenophobic, authoritarian BS. He is probably a troll, as it's hard to believe anyone knowingly supporting his views... but whether he's a troll or a paranoid schizophrenic neglecting his medication, he seems pretty serious about it.

    12. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That guy has been on Slashdot for a long time, and you can review his posting history to see it's all the same xenophobic, authoritarian BS. He is probably a troll, as it's hard to believe anyone knowingly supporting his views... but whether he's a troll or a paranoid schizophrenic neglecting his medication, he seems pretty serious about it.
      That's not very nice thing to say about c6gunner. A bit of a militaristic wingnut, to be sure (can't you tell by his name?), but there are worse.
    13. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by einhverfr · · Score: 1
      Certainly this is a dark day for Russia. So was the Litvinenko and Politkovskaya assassinations. I am glad I don't live there :-).

      However, your post is obviously either a troll or a flamebait. In order to help avoid future flames, I am going to try to answer some of your posts.

      BTW, I am not a Muslim or a Christian. The main god I follow is one who represents human capacity and potential, and his name is Odin.

      When it's about
      -> violence in muslim holy texts and the violent life of the paedophile prophet

      The Bible is not without violence or pedophilia?

      Note also that if we are looking at things from a modern perspective, Jesus's father (i.e. God if you are a Christian) would have been a pedophile since Mary would have been only 12-13 when conceiving Christ ;-). Why this double standard? We should discuss issues for what they are rather than coming up with new ways to pick fights, for those will ultimately be turned back on one's own culture.

      However you are also correct that Islam is not nor ever has been a religion of peace, except in the sense that there would be peace if everyone followed the same interpretation of Islamic law. Islam is indeed a religion of law, where social prescriptions are at the center of the religion. Any concept of a separation of mosque and state is foreign to Islam (although this is arguably the case with the separation of church and state in Christianity, there is no possible argument for such separation possible within an Islamic framework). So personally I do believe that Islam is inherently in conflict with our current ideas of religious freedom and the separation of temporal and sacred authority.

      -> the relation (that indeed exists) between violence on tv/video games and violence in real life

      I am not sure that we know what that relationship is. With violent crime rates at much lower rates than they were, say, 50 years ago, it is hard to make that comparison.

      -> anything related to bush

      Bush pronounced Putin's soul excellent, and has endeavored to cheat our legal system in ways which are frighteningly similar to what Putin has done. However, the difference is one of a great degree quantitatively, but not one qualitatively.

      For example, seizing Mr Padilla, holding him without the right to Habeas Corpus guaranteed in our Constitution in such a way that Congress only can temporarily suspend (Habeas being the single greatest guardian of our liberty). Then, when the Supreme Court is set to rule on the case, they not only transfer him to civilian custody to avoid such a ruling but ask the 4th Circuit to vacate their current ruling so they can draw out the next case longer! If we didn't have our Constitution, there is no doubt in my mind that Putin and Bush would be no different.

      -> discussion of the fact that abortion does indeed kill a human being and is thus not a laughing matter

      I would not classify that as a statement of fact, but rather a statement of philosophy. Regardless of that, I don't think even many supporters of abortion rights see abortion as "a laughing matter."

      -> science that contradicts global warming (it exists, and like everything in science, the true answer is "we don't know"), or even the science that states that a 6 degree rise in temperature will generate exactly 0 "extra disasters"

      Of course, provided that rising sea levels from the melting of the antarctic ice caps, which then would flood a large part of Florida would not count as an "extra disaster..."

      The fact is that we don't know what global warming will really bring. All our computer models are vastly oversimplified versions of the real world and hence they could all be wrong. For example However, we do know that the polar ice caps are melting (this is a matter of observation and not modelling) and that this does threaten to cause sea levels to rise. And that a large n

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    14. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by anothy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      what the hell, i'm bored. in order:
      • certainly violence, but not significantly more per volume than the christian or jewish holy texts. the pedophilia thing gets slightly murkier because you've got more cultural norms to account for, but the same statement probably holds (there's certainly plenty of rape incest, and other manner of sexual depravity amongst our spiritual fathers). it's a simple matter of reading the text. i doubt you've been contradicted overly much on that point; i suspect it's really the bizarre conclusions you're coming to that people are taking issue with. your posted straw man, however, makes you look like less of a tool.
      • okay, say a correlation exists. i actually agree. but how strong is that correlation, and at what point does some correlation justify restricting the freedoms of everyone else? again, it's not particularly the claim you're making here that gets you slammed (although i'd love to see some citations there), it's the questionable and unsupported conclusions you draw from it.
      • "anything"? really? here let me try: George W Bush is the worst US president since the beginning of the 20th century, and possibly ever. now, start the timer for deletion, or even editorial mods to unattainable negative numbers. again, i think what's behind your straw man is that particular claims regarding bush you make get ridiculed, shot down, and/or laughed at (probably deservedly so). are we seeing the pattern yet?
      • a question of terms. many people don't believe abortion kills a human being because the human in question isn't finished being made yet. you're defining your terms to suit your argument, but ignoring the fact that those definitions are not universal by any means. you certainly don't have to go back very far in history (200 years is way more than enough; i can't pinpoint it much better than that) to find where the universal understanding for the creation of a human was birth. at lest your argument has a different problem than the last several here.
      • i've seen a pretty good debate on this topic on /., actually. but the claim that a significant increase will not have catastrophic effects is pretty well unfounded as far as i'm aware. can you cite? i think you're just upset your particular assertions aren't taken as authoritative.
      • just false. here, again, we can time the deletion or ultra-demoding: most violent deaths in Iraq in the past year or two have been muslim-on-muslim violence due to religious or pseudo-religious differences (although this might interfere with the above experiment, i'm willing to take that risk). now we're back to your straw man tactic. nobody would seriously doubt that, i think. but moving from that to some sort of assertion that the hundreds of thousands of deaths the US-led occupation is responsible for somehow don't matter, or the hundreds of direct killings by US troops every year don't matter, or that the US-led overthrow of Iraq's former sovereign government doesn't have a role to play in the current sectarian strife, is all further unfounded conclusions skipping several steps in reasoning from your stated starting point.
      • um, what? on the one hand, it sounds like you're asserting that the majority of /. readers would deny the American Revolution ever happened; i think it's safe to say that's patently false. on the other hand, it sounds like you're condoning vigilantism, armed rebellion, and/or sectarian violence, which, yeah, i think you're going to have a hard time getting support for. i don't think that's actually your intent, but here you've set up a straw man so far removed from the point you're actually trying to argue that i can't even tell what that is.
      • you're free to mention it. you're just stupid and wrong. Bush, by his actions, words, and decisions, is directly responsible for all sorts of badness - hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq, an uncounted (but almost certainly much smaller) number in the US, trillions of dollars pissed away, giving our children an
      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    15. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by ookabooka · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has removed a post before being it was infringing on the property rights of the church of scientology. A DMCA notice no less. In any case slashdot certainly does censor things. I didn't even see his post because it was modded so low, but that was my choice (preferences) and by a nice democratic system of moderating.

      --
      If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
    16. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      -> Okay first, the quran is both a LOT shorter than the bible (even without the new testament) AND contains a LOT more violence (have you read them both ? Really ?), so per volume the situation is even worse. Also the bible contains STORIES with violence, the quran contains ORDERS to be violent. To say there's no difference is beyond stupid. Different religions are different, okay ? Is it really that controversial a point ? And yes, that means that some are more violent than others, some a LOT more violent. Furthermore the prophet was a military conqueror, obviously he was a LOT worse than Jesus. He stole, raped, he was a paedophile, and worse, according to muslims own texts, while Jesus, according to christian's holy texts, was either sinless, or VERY close to it. At best there are a few controversies over some things Jesus SAID. With the muslim's prophet, well he massacred amongst a lot of other people his own family ("tribe"), so it's not really debateable whether he was a moral abomination or not. He also fucked a 9 year old girl against her will, and that's still called paedophilic rape. (Citations needed ?)

      -> look you cannot agree that there is a correlation and then say that is an unsupported conclusion. I mean, that just truly makes no sense. The people who study this say that there IS a correlation, and that preventing exposure helps. At the very least, I think this justifies whatever measures are necessary to let parents decide whether their child gets to see it, in an easy way. Something like the v-chip. (again if you need citations, no problem)

      -> I really fail to see the point you want to make here. I could also make the point that congress's poll ratings are worse than Bush's. So I guess all democrat candidates are even worse. To say hillary is worse than Bush is right now would imho be a serious understatement. I could perhaps like Obama if he truly was who he says he is, but this seems to me unlikely in the extreme. He is a lyer.

      -> 200 years ago abortion was not an option, so there was NO DIFFERENCE in saying human life begins at birth and at conception. It didn't have any practical implications. Besides 200 years ago you got convicted for double homocide if you killed a pregnant women, so I guess you're at least partially wrong.

      -> to be honest I couldn't care less about global warming. It's a storm in a glass of water, so to speak, and I say WAY too many scary indicators of foul play on BOTH sides. I suggest ignoring it, or at the very least keep the government's paws OUT OF IT. So let's just drop this. I know very capable people in meteorology that say that 6 degrees rise won't make shit hit the fan.

      -> an occupation is if the occupying force decides any and all politics, which the US obviously doesn't do. The terrorists dream of becoming an occupying force, but the US is not.

      -> I just would like to make the point. If you truly prefer Saddam to Bush, why don't you go to Syria ? There baathists (the muslim's version of nazism, in case you wonder about what this is) are still in power. The current president is responsible for at least 80.000 executions, and his daddy once killed a million palestinians for being "uppity". Clearly you prefer this situation to living under Bush. The entire population is (literally) terrified. Since you obviously say that this situation is preferable to "American occupation", how come you're living in America, which obviously is under "American occupation", and not in Syria, which is not ? You're just a hypocrite, nothing more.

    17. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      About global warming : mostly I question the motives of the UN :

      http://www.balidiscovery.com/messages/message.asp?Id=4112

      There's a UN climate conference in Bali. The airport is worries. Apparently they don't have the parking space required to house all the private jets that will land for that conference.

    18. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by anothy · · Score: 1
      we got our couch. but now i'm waiting for another housemate to wake up so we can move mattresses from the basement to the attic. so, bored again.
      • yup, read 'em both, and i still think you're wrong. i think you're wrong on the quantity of violence in the old testament; there's whole genocides in there! cities to salt, slaughter of the first born, fire and brimstone falling from the sky, and a flood that wipes out nearly the whole human population. and no orders of violence? for a good time, check out what Deuteronomy orders us to do to disobedient children. that's a real high point.
        no, it's not controversial to point out that different religions are different. but you're ignoring history. i agree, Jesus' portrayal in Christian texts is much better (by any secular or objective standards) than Mohammed's portrayal in Islamic texts. but you need to keep in mind that every major Christian denomination claims the old testament as part of their Bible. that means Christians don't get to just point to Jesus and say "see? all good!". we also have to own up to David, a military conquerer with... "significant moral blemishes." we have to own up to Abraham's marriage practices. Noah's drunkenness and the resulting incest (and these were the best folks God could find!). i could believe that, on some percentage basis, the Koran is more violent than the Old Testament (i don't believe that at current, based on my reading, but i've only read the Koran once, don't own one to compare, and probably wouldn't bother with the lengthy textual comparison if i did (i'm not that bored). the point is i could be convinced). my point is that the differences are, at best, one of degree, and not a huge degree, either.
      • i would like a citation for the correlation, but not because i disbelieve it. i agree it's there. but the logical step you're missing is going from that correlation to some particular action. the same argument works for pornography: i think there's plenty of cases where it leads viewers to objectification of women and associated evils. but in neither case does that necessarily lead to suggesting any particular action. where is the boundary between personal responsibility and government mandates or interference? i agree that parents need to be involved here, but i'm unclear how you get from that to the v-chip (on video games? what?).
      • i've not seen any reputable poll indicating congress's ratings to be worse than bush's; please cite. but that's entirely beyond the point. you're argument was that any comment about bush would be censored. that has not, as yet, happened. you're even free to make unfounded, libelous comments about Obama being a liar without significant fear of incarceration. the point is neither of our posts has been removed or be mod-bombed. my timer's still running.
      • abortion was an option well more than 200 years ago. methods are described, written in a medical text, at least as early as Soranus, the Greek physician who died in 128AD and wrote the book on Gynaecology (quite literally). it shows up in several other cultures, too, Devereux wrote, in "A typological study of abortion in 350 primitive, ancient, and pre-industrial societies" that "There is every indication that abortion is an absolutely universal phenomenon, and that it is impossible even to construct an imaginary social system in whiich no woman would ever feel at least compelled to abort." and in what jurisdiction are you talking about this double homicide thing? it certainly wasn't universal, nor the biblical prescription. but, again, you're not arguing the point you initially opened with. you've done nothing to prove that your definition of terms is universal, which is a pre-requisite to the rest of your argument on this point. please do that first. you might start by explaining the Biblical passages which very clearly state that the human form is given a soul much, much later than conception: particularly, the first breath. see, among others, Gen 2:7, Job 33:4, and Ezk 37:1-6.
      • i read this comment as "i
      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    19. Re:Since slashdot is also against free speech by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      First of all, pointing fingers at holy books doesn't matter. Every holy book I have ever studied has contained divinely inspired sexually questionable acts (or sexually questionable acts by divine powers, for example, Mary conceiving at the age of 12, which seems to be a pedophilia-laden version of Leda and the Swan).

      On the other hand something I do find greatly disturbing is t

      The fact that Islam does not allow for a separation of sacred and social authority or law. These two concepts are very deeply homogenized in Islamic thought which leads inexorably to a world where there is no freedom of religion and no ability to seek one's own roots back beyond Islam. What is the penalty for converting away from Islam according to Islamic tradition again? Religious laws do not work, and "religion of law" is an oxymoron.

      Secondly, I won't say Bush is the worst president ever. I think Harding was probably worse, and Woodrow Wilson (the great supporter of the KKK) doesn't seem that much better... However, we have a definite decline in leadership certainly since Kennedy and probably since Eisenhower.

      Third, I think that Iraqis probably were better off prior to the invasion. You had a functioning educational infrastructure, etc. Sure Saddam was terrorizing the populations but he was relatively predictable (as opposed to the various criminal, terrorist, sectarian, etc. group terrorizing the population now). I.e. there was more security under Saddam, and there is probably more terror now that there is no law or order in most of the country.

      We never should have invaded. There is no rational case which can be made for saying that Saddam was our problem or our responsibility. We would have had a greater moral right to invade Russia than we did to invade Iraq (I still think we should add Russia to the list of state sponsors of terrorism). Now, however, we have made the Iraqi civil war our responsibility. Every lawless killing is on our hands because we made it our responsibility when we invaded. However, this is not something we can now just turn and walk away from it now. We need a good plan to do what is necessary in Iraq to let the Iraqis take ownership for their country, but we also need to provide security to make it work. There are ways forward but our current leadership seems more intent on letting one side in the civil war (the Shiite sectarian militias) hide behind our troops and the Iraqi government, and then let our soldiers get killed instead. That is neither fair nor constructive, and it is one reason why we are losing the war of occupation in Iraq.

      Furthermore this being the mistake of the Bush Administration, the Iraqi civil war is very much on his hands as well.

      No, I wouldn't prefer to live in Iraq under Saddam than in America under Bush. We are protected from such acts of arbitrary government by our constitution, so regardless of the ambitions of the leader, we as a country have protections in place for our freedom. However, my statement holds that Iraqis were better off living under Saddam than living in the lawless area which has followed.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  29. Mod GP "Funny" by Morosoph · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    There are no mod-points in "funny", and indeed a funny mod can lead to more punishment if it is followed by down-mods.

    Also, the authour is anonymous; what does it matter? Without a name, it matters little what the intent is. You don't even know whether the other reply to your post is the same guy! Despite my comments about punishment above (a disguised critique of the fact that funny can't at least cancel down-mods), there's no need to punish such people. If your find it funny, mod it accordingly! If they don't, then your mod takes on an ironic quality.

    1. Re:Mod GP "Funny" by rednip · · Score: 2, Informative
      You are correct, 'Funny' has no Karma attached to it, and as other moderations do, one's Karma could be affected. Due to that, those who which to participate on Slashdot as 'class clowns' would eventually fall into the karma pits below zero, and ignored by most, if they are only 'ha-ha funny' rather than achieving the 'funny because it's true, funny'. So I guess that only those who don't care about karma, as either a few black marks couldn't hurt an already fine reputation, or they just don't give a shit, should consider posting puns, memes and such, unless of course you are certain that it would be worthy of an 'insightful' or two.

      Thank you I'll be here all week!

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    2. Re:Mod GP "Funny" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normally when I got mod points I mod down all the funnies as trolls. Slashdot has gotten to the point where there is very little real discussion and more of everybody trying to be the funny person. "Funny" is ok in moderation but it is out of control nowadays.

    3. Re:Mod GP "Funny" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascist.

  30. Seriously Unfortunate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw Kasparov's appearances on the Colbert Report and Real Time with Bill Maher earlier this year. He was extremely witty, intelligent and charismatic. He discussed some of the precautions he was taking in order to run against Putin. This is a really bad turn, and I wonder if we'll ever see him again.

  31. Mod up please. by Hemogoblin · · Score: 1

    Thank you.

  32. Perhaps that was meant as some joke by benhocking · · Score: 1

    If not, you should realize that he was actually born [Cyrillic doesn't post on Slashdot, see Wikipedia for actual spelling]. Garry Kasparov is an excellent phonetic representation of this.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:Perhaps that was meant as some joke by aproposofwhat · · Score: 2, Informative
      Guess what?

      Followed your link, actually read further than the summary, and it turns out GP was right!

      From the Wikipedia page that you linked:

      Garry Kasparov was born Garri Weinstein [1] (Russian: ) in Baku, Azerbaijan SSR to an Armenian mother and a Jewish father. He first began the serious study of chess after he came across a chess problem set up by his parents and proposed a solution.[2] His father died when he was seven years old. At the age of twelve, he adopted his mother's Armenian surname, Kasparyan, modifying it to a more Russified version, Kasparov.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
  33. But AMERICA is evil! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahahaha.... all the slashtards talking points tell us how Bush is the evil in the world, shutting down all their "free speech". Obviously, this is just a bunch of hysteria promoted by liberals, because when an enemy of the united states really does it, they excuse the behavior.

  34. In Soviet Russia... by turgid · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...under Gorbachev, at least, people had much more freedom of speech than this.

    This is a personal tragedy for Kasparov, but dangerous for the rest of the world too.

  35. Finish the analogy by apankrat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > This is akin to arresting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

    This is also akin Hillary organizing illegal political rally against George Bush.

    --
    3.243F6A8885A308D313
    1. Re:Finish the analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't. There's no such thing as an "illegal political rally" under U.S. law, so that scenario is impossible. This one is real.

    2. Re:Finish the analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is also akin Hillary organizing illegal political rally against George Bush.

      "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." The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

      This is one of the differences between a free country and a non-free one. The concept of an "illegal political rally" is (or rather should be) a non sequitur in a free country. The dishonest lawyers of the Bush administration are of course busily deploying all the weaselly semantic weapons they can manage to erode these constitutional protections, but freedom of assembly, particularly but by no means exclusively for political purposes, has deep roots in English law. Despite attempts in the past couple of decades to prune the branches, the roots are not going away any time soon.

    3. Re:Finish the analogy by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      Of course, an _illegal_ rally, where the illegality is determined by none other than George Bush. How convenient! I'm sure someone with that kind of authority would never, ever abuse it to their own political advantage, nossir.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    4. Re:Finish the analogy by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      This is also akin Hillary organizing illegal political rally against George Bush.

      What makes a political rally illegal?
      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    5. Re:Finish the analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Municipal traffic regulations.

    6. Re:Finish the analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they choose to "peaceably assemble" on a major highway in a rush hour, this rally VERY QUICKLY will be deemed illegal. You have to realize that legality of the rally depends on administrative regulations on the city.

      Going back to the grandparent comment - if Hillary decided to conduct a rally on a lawn in front of the White House, it would've ended before it began, which clearly proves the country is non-free. Here's a non-sequitur for you to mull over, smartass.

  36. Re:this is all still a remnant of Gorbachev's lega by Bananatree3 · · Score: 1

    Agreed. Figuring Russia has only been democratic for a little more than 15 years, and god knows how many ex-soviets are still in the government. It will take some time to root out those who have Soviet Nostalgia through elections.

  37. Re:obligatory joke by thrillseeker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    how big are the chances that Kasparov can make a difference

    Even less while imprisoned.

  38. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  39. We're allowed to read beyond the summary?!? by benhocking · · Score: 1

    Color me embarrassed...

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:We're allowed to read beyond the summary?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't really blame him for not wanting a jewy-sounding name in Russia.

  40. Not Soviet Russia, more like Fascist Russia by dgr73 · · Score: 1

    Actually, Putin's regime bears a closer resemblance to fascist regimes... if you look at near history, there's several common points with Germany of 1933-1939.

    -Hitler and Putin were both elected by democratic elections (initially)
    -Both were "strong leaders" who "rescued" their countries from a depression
    -Both refused to yield power once they got it
    -Both suppressed dissidents with a firm hand
    -Both had politically inconvenient people "dissappeared" or jailed
    -Both garner support from embracing a militant nationalism

    I know, I know, i'm bringing out the Nazi card in a conversation, but atleast i'm trying to point out valid similarities instead of just shouting "You nazi".

  41. Okay, time for the obligatory 'Soviet Russia'.... by DeusExCalamus · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, Chess plays you...?

    --
    "...Sleep comes like a drug in God's country Sad eyes, crooked crosses in God's country..."
  42. Unfair comparisson by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

    This is akin to arresting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

    Kasparov is an off-kilter, conspiracy theorist with minimal backing in the electorate.

    No, this would be akin to arresting Ron Paul.

    (ducks)

  43. There are many ways from a democracy... by i · · Score: 1

    ..to a dictature.

    Most of them involves democratic elections.

    --
    Mundus Vult Decipi
    1. Re:There are many ways from a democracy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dictature
      This struck me as rather foreign sounding. While I realize it is not the case in other languages, in English, we generally say "dictatorship" over "dictature". (Although the dictionary actually lists "dictature" as an English word too.)
    2. Re:There are many ways from a democracy... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Most of them involves democratic elections.

      One idea from a mexican friend of mine, was giving "extra votes" to people who have a college degree or a certain degree of education. i.e. phD's get 3, people who got to high school get 2, the rest get only 1. This way educated people will have more weight in the elections than uneducated masses who are easier to manipulate.

    3. Re:There are many ways from a democracy... by 808140 · · Score: 1

      Right, because the intelligentsia had nothing to do with the October revolution, for example. Smart people are immune to stupid ideas!

  44. Nobody is watching. by moxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now that the US has become transparently hypocritical to it's own citizens and the rest of the world in regard to "democracy" and civil liberties, there is no country to serve as the example/beacon/leader of "democracy."

    Obviously it isn't quite that simple; I don't for a minute think that the current administration (or many before) even cares about the rights of it's own citizens tpo petition for redress, let alone the citizens of Russia - but now they can't even pretend to pressure these other countries to allow freedom of speech and respect the rights of the individual.

    Unfortunately it seems like things are trending toward the corporations and governments getting all of the rights, basically becoming untouchable - while the individual is is losing rights, control and even "having a say" by the day.

    1. Re:Nobody is watching. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a look at the Scandinavians - Sweden, Finland, Iceland, maybe Norway to a lesser extent. They're far from perfect, but you'll be surprised at how well they actually perform in many cases. Or how about Switzerland? They've got their share of problems, but they're the only country in the world that might actually deserve to be called a true democracy.

      Granted, maybe you're looking for something bigger, but saying that there is NO country left to serve as an example... that's incorrect.

  45. Re:Way to feed the troll Mr Neomunk by neomunk · · Score: 1

    Good point, I suppose you win this round with your superior logic. You've outsmarted me once again, Anonymous Coward.

    Assuming you're the original AC (or at least an AC of like 'mind') here is the spot where you're supposed to back up your developmentally-stunted opinion with some reason or at least some halfway decent sensationalism.

  46. Apples to apples by apankrat · · Score: 1

    Point was that OP's analogy was invalid to begin with.

    --
    3.243F6A8885A308D313
    1. Re:Apples to apples by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      So is your notion that "illegal political rally" is somehow applicable to the United States.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  47. We need more! by Fri13 · · Score: 1

    "He's also been a giant critic of the Russian administration which is increasingly restricting free speech." And all U.S Citizens can come back to told that Russion speech is more restricted when they get own "free speech" to better state. U.S has biggest mediacontrol in world and same thing is happening all other countries unless someone starts keeping eye that there should not be bad news in every f*n news paper page or television news or webpage etc etc.... What really is restricting free mind and free speech is big news corporations and coverment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3kI8LNTqNo

  48. Re:Way to feed the troll Mr Neomunk by neomunk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Oops, didn't see the subject line of your post, sorry for the other reply...

    But yeah, I feel the need to try and make the more egregious trolls both look and feel like the degenerate fools they are. In my opinion half the reason things are look as dark as they do in the world (specifically my little corner of it, the US) is that people like the troll I'm setting flame to get away with pronouncing such utter bullshit without opposition. Oh, I know that ignoring them is a type of opposition, but when people hear (or read) such bile without someone else stepping in and pointing out how foolish it is, well, then that thought now has a spot in your head where it floats around without being solidly opposed. I just can't let memes like that go around programming people without trying to 'debug' it somewhat.

  49. On the Next Garraldo by sanman2 · · Score: 1

    Sort of reminds me of how Geraldo Rivera was born Gerry Rivers.

    Both seem to be grandmasters at grandstanding.

    I don't buy that Gary Kasparov is a legitimate good-faith democratic reformer, any more than I buy that Geraldo is a good faith investigative journalist. All I see is demagoguery. The fact that Russia has a lot of valuable oil that the West COVETS certainly doesn't help matters.

  50. Thug-ocracy by MajorBlunder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I spent a couple of years living in Russia back in the Yeltsin years of the mid 90's. Overall Russians are extremely friendly and hospitable, but they have a long sad history of instituting governments that are in effect a legitimized mafia. From the 10th through the 19th centuries the rule of the Tsars were essentially a gang of thugs with pretensions of royalty. The better part of the 20th century they switched to a government that was another gang of thugs with pretense of communism. And now they have switched to a new band of thugs with pretensions of democracy. (Actually this is still the same band of thugs as the communist ones, they just switched pretensions). It seems that Putin is slowly dropping any pretense of democracy.

    --

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

    1. Re:Thug-ocracy by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Is this why the western countries are cozying up to the Chinese?

      The world today seems absolutely crackers,
      With nuclear bombs to blow us all sky high.
      There's fools and idiots sitting on the trigger.
      It's depressing and it's senseless, and that's why...
      I like Chinese.
      I like Chinese.
      They only come up to your knees,
      Yet they're always friendly, and they're ready to please.

      I like Chinese.
      I like Chinese.
      There's nine hundred million of them in the world today.
      You'd better learn to like them; that's what I say.

      I like Chinese.
      I like Chinese.
      They come from a long way overseas,
      But they're cute and they're cuddly, and they're ready to please.

      I like Chinese food.
      The waiters never are rude.
      Think of the many things they've done to impress.
      There's Maoism, Taoism, I Ching, and Chess.

      So I like Chinese.
      I like Chinese.
      I like their tiny little trees,
      Their Zen, their ping-pong, their yin, and yang-ese.

      I like Chinese thought,
      The wisdom that Confucious taught.
      If Darwin is anything to shout about,
      The Chinese will survive us all without any doubt.

      So, I like Chinese.
      I like Chinese.
      They only come up to your knees,
      Yet they're wise and they're witty, and they're ready to please.

      All together.

      [verse in Chinese]
      Wo ai zhongguo ren. (I like Chinese.)
      Wo ai zhongguo ren. (I like Chinese.)
      Wo ai zhongguo ren. (I like Chinese.)
      Ni hao ma; ni hao ma; ni hao ma; zaijien! (How are you; how are you; how are you; goodbye!)

      I like Chinese.
      I like Chinese.
      Their food is guaranteed to please,
      A fourteen, a seven, a nine, and lychees.

      I like Chinese.
      I like Chinese.
      I like their tiny little trees,
      Their Zen, their ping-pong, their yin, and yang-ese.

      I like Chinese.
      I like Chinese.
      They only come up to your knees...

    2. Re:Thug-ocracy by InterNyet456 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for a clear view of Russian leadership and political culture: Russia has muddled through centuries of authoritarian regimes, corruption and violence. Having visited there once (1986), I wonder what these "friendly and hospitable" people might be capable of achieving if they could have a few decades or so of true democracy and non-corrupt open markets.

  51. A *hard* challenge for AI by rbrander · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When an AI can mimic *this* aspect of human intelligence and decide to risk a change from "well-off and greatly respected", to being shut in a concrete box, all for the greater good of its fellows, THEN I'll be impressed with AI.

    Until then, its just a glorified calculator brute-forcing its way through a mechanical computation, as impressive as a newspaper press making 500,000 copies of todays celebrity news faster than 50,000 human scribes.

  52. Lethal kid by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    He first began the serious study of chess after he came across a chess problem set up by his parents and proposed a solution... His father died when he was seven years old.

    I suppose that is one way to stop the old man from testing you.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  53. Takes one to know one. by wonkavader · · Score: 1

    It's like he's looking in a mirror.

  54. Come on, guys! by Sam+Lowry · · Score: 1

    Has anyone listened to an interview of Kasparov? He is dumber than Bush in everything not related to chess!

  55. In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Kings check YOU!

  56. I wonder by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why is there so little reporting on what this Kasparov actually stands for? Check wikipedia, about the only thing I can find is that he is far-left (communist?) and that the Other Russia party is a coalition of parties including communists and nationalists. Well, that is a load of my mind. That is Stalin and Hitler in one party, why choose when you can have two!

    It is kinda like the US people who keep saying vote Ron Paul, then you read up on the guy and learn that, yes there people who would make even worse presidents then Bush.

    Just what does Kasparov stand for, just because he is against Putin who clearly ain't all that nice does NOT make kasparov himself any better. The problem with the media is that they like the idea of heroes, Putin clearly no longer is one so they need someone else. The world doesn't work like that.

    No comments so far seem to explain anything about Kasparov except one commenter who points out that his dad was jewish. Oh well that eases my mind. I think another person rallying against a troubled goverment promising better things had a jewish father (step-father).

    Godwin or not, just what does the Unitied Civil Front (his real party, Other Russia is a coalition of multiple parties) stand for? I do not know and don't speak russian and the western media seems almost reluctant (or kasparov just ain't as intresting as britney spears) to report on it.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:I wonder by asaw · · Score: 1
      Here is an excerpt from the UCF (which Kasparov founded back in 2005) manifesto http://www.rufront.ru/materials/4380FBA92717F.html :

      Today in Russia violation of legitimate rights and freedoms of citizens became a general practice. Mobilization of people for fast and joint repulse to any signs of lawlessness on the entire territory of Russia is one of the main tasks for United Civil Front. People of very different beliefs agree that Putin's regime must be dismantled at the the shortest possible time. This means that ideological differences are not an obstacle to integration with UCF. The United Civil Front is neither right nor left organization. People who are aware that with Putin power Russia has no future, and ready to actively prove their commitment to freedom and democracy will join the United Civil Front. Today we intentionally do not say what new Russia should become. It is merely clear for us that there should be no room for violence of special services, despotism of bureaucracy, total corruption, appointed tame parliament, irresponsible and incompetent government, Basmann courts, dependent on the authorities press, and fed up by the Kremlin oligarchs.

      It says it all. I assure you (from all I've heard on the radio and remains of independent TV here in Russia) that recovery of democracy in Russia really is the main goal of Kasparov. It is amazing thing, but Limonov (who calls himself a National-Bolshevist and who also is a member of the Other Russia) is one of the most prominent supporters of democracy, freedoms and Russian Constitution (which is very liberal and democratic in fact http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm ).

      PS Kasparov has just been sentenced to 5-day administrative arrest for... actually just for leading a demonstration without permission which actually is a constitutional right http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-03.htm#31 .

      PPS Neither do I know why Western media (and officials) are reluctant to react on it...

    2. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kasparov is a nut. He is exactly the Ron Paul of Russia, or a San Francisco liberal. The way he comes across in his public speaking has already had him fail. He's everything Russian silent majority came to despise after after petestroika. Another well-fed, well-paid talking head with yet another agenda, smugly yapping on TV about democracy and arranging these idiotic chaotic 'protests' as people go about their business. He may even mean well, but he's so far-left that the meaningful dialog or consensus is impossible. So in the absence of real political dialog and any substantial representation in Duma, Kasparov is content to go into streets and stop traffic at intersections, generating mild irritation in the population at large that now has yet another bunch of nuts complicating their life. And what's amazing, his arrest is in my local news feed, yet there's NOTHING about the war in Iraq or the situation in Pakistan. Go American media and the watchdog groups!

    3. Re:I wonder by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can clearly TRUST Wikipedia on articles about Russia, because they are so well treated from "editors who knows *real* truth what's going on in Russia".

      FYI, there are SPECIAL team to edit out ANY bad references against Putin's Russia, Russia and of course, U.S.S.R in Wikipedia (No, it is not a myth and I have talked to those guys). I suggest you to read Talk page for that article and also more general ones. You will be surprised, how they think they are right - and everyone else who oppose them are totally wrong, are liars, and fascists/Nazi.

      Kasparov stands for democracy in Russia. He went in exile from U.S.S.R., so, obviously, he simply can't be far left. Maybe a left-center.

      And please, what is all about "Kasparov is not better"? It is DEMOCRACY, EVERYONE has right to say what they think. In fact, he even have opposed those who said that Russia must be taken back to course by force. No, he thought that it is better to be politically active. My God, it is a sin, isn't it?

      What a load of bs. No offence, but when next time make such claims about Russia or related topics, please investigate DEEPLY (and it means not only Wikipedia) anything. Because amount of disinformation these days coming from there is absurdly big.

      Disclaimer: I am from Latvia, but I don't hate Russians :) I hate Russian apologists and "historians" who wants to prove that "alternative" history exist.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    4. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parties and organisations of the Other Russia coalition share same views on a few basic questions like those concern electoral rights, stripped down in the last years in favour to the ruling party, and recently adopted fuzzy laws concern extremistic movements targeted primarily on opposing political forces. They show their discontent with the government for paying less attention to the existing laws and constitutional right, for granting too wide field of actions for national security service and tending to deal with legal issues and protest movements coercively. In short, as I see it, they want to restore pre-Putin decade's last years status quo to be able to act on political scene freely holding no fear of being banned with false accusations, like what has happened with lots of small political parties, organisations and individuals in the last years. As long as these goals will be archieved, there will be nothing to hold the parties the coalition consists of together.

  57. Russia Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    russia is bad - no if, ands or buts; the country is a serious threat on every level, and should be treated as such. A preemptive strike on mother russia would do the world good.

  58. Help, help, he's being oppressed! by roystgnr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's a difference between being "against free speech" by imprisoning the speaker and being "against free speech" by posting things which contradict a speaker's arguments. I'm sorry if you've been emotionally scarred by the latter experience, but my advice is to try sucking it up, accepting that some of your opinions are unsubstantiated and unpopular, and moving on.

    Claiming that it's cowardly to protest Bush and get stuffed into the Pier 57 cages just makes it seem more pathetic that you're simultaneously whining about Slashdot users modding you down. Somehow I'm guessing you're not battling the evil Modstapo from an airport wifi connection on your way to Darfur.

  59. Nice tagging there... by Jeian · · Score: 1

    I like how this is tagged "sternbutfair", and yet if the same thing happened in the US it'd be tagged "bigbrother" "fascism" and "policestate" instantaneously.

  60. You sure he meant that with "rammelt"? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

    Given the person, the times and the "gewinne oder verliere" part I would expect "rammelt" to mean fight ... not fuck in the sexual sense.

    1. Re:You sure he meant that with "rammelt"? by NorQue · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's how I meant "fuck with", actually. If I'm not absolutely wrong informed this phrase can carry the meaning "mess with", too.

    2. Re:You sure he meant that with "rammelt"? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Fuck can mean anything, if the proverb is about not fighting worthless fights with low lifes it no longer has any bearing on Kasparov's situation though.

  61. Kasparov Gambit Accepted by mindwanderer · · Score: 1

    Kxd4!?

    --
    :wq
  62. Read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone actually read what happened? He was arrested for staging an unathorized protest and resisting arrest.

  63. In Soviet Russia (non-joke!) by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, most people in the goulags were there for crimes of black market. Thing is, everybody practiced the black market, so when the authorities wanted to send someone away, they just picked that.

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia (non-joke!) by God'sDuck · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, most people in the goulags were there for crimes of black market. Thing is, everybody practiced the black market, so when the authorities wanted to send someone away, they just picked that.

      That is indeed interesting, and applies well to systematic US arrests with excessive punishments. But the analogy fails to apply here on the lines that (1) "everybody" was not line-jumping (2) a night in the county jail is hardly equal to a life in the gulag (3) the point of civil disobedience is to get arrested; the nice thing about the US is that you also get released, and (4) when there is actually a remotely viable third-party candidate, the networks are THRILLED to host him or her to boost ratings.

      If you want a conspiracy by the ruling US parties to shut out third-party candidates, please point to things like campaign finance law, winner-take-all districting, and gerrymandering, rather than theories that local rent-a-cops would even recognize the libertarian candidate.

  64. No Mod GGP "Underrated" by ericspinder · · Score: 1

    While I too laughed at your joke, I'd have trouble marking it anything but 'funny', as it is not informative, nor insightful. But hey, there's 'underrated', and it works much better than a 'funny' as one can help a joke the '+5 Troll', or even the legondary '+5 Off Topic'. Also, don't confuse my love for 'underrated' as even a fondness for 'overrated', which is the abonination of Slashdot's moderation system. To cast a negitive mod, one should be required to give a reason, and for it to be subject to meta moderation.

    --
    The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
  65. ObChess by Jay+L · · Score: 2, Funny

    We wish -- no, must -- make our disgust at this abuse perfectly clear.

    1. Re:ObChess by Tore+S+B · · Score: 1

      HAH!

      The funniest part is: I was listening to this on my MP3 player, which is on shuffle. It played this line, literally the second I scrolled down to read your text.

      I guess when you have millions of readers, it's bound to happen.

      --
      toresbe
  66. Re:obligatory joke by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Even less while imprisoned.

    They said the same about Nelson Mandela...

  67. Agreed by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would add that Iran is clearly far more democratic than Russia is today. Russia is more like Iraq under Saddam, where elections occur but nobody has any possibility of being elected except Putin. Despite meddling in the elections by the Council of Guardians, there are actual and real political dynamics which exist in Iran today. No such real dynamics occur under Russia today.

    The big difference is that, unlike Saddam, Putin actually does have weapons of mass destruction.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:Agreed by tftp · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The big difference is that, unlike Saddam, Putin actually does have weapons of mass destruction.

      And another big difference is that not much you can do about this :-)

      But really all this naming game ("democracy", "dictatorship", "monarchy") starts getting silly. We now see, on US's own example, that democracy does not work (it's too easy to manipulate.) In Europe you can see that the democratic governments are pandering to the electors instead of doing the right things. So why all the surprises that for Russia a different model seems to be optimal, based on an elected, strong ruler who defends the stability of the country against all wandering salesmen of snake oil? It doesn't have to be a hereditary monarchy, of course, but people like long term stability. For example, US politicians are mostly concerned about reelecting themselves rather than about doing the job regardless of what the people think. There is a reason why US Supreme Court judges are given the job for life. But this is a delicate balancing act, obviously - a bad ruler can, and will hurt the country.

      If you look around the world, there are just as many definitions of democracy as there are democratic countries. Deal with countries as they are, and not as you'd like them to be. Those countries know better, and the test for it is in popular opinion - it is somewhat harder to influence than an election.

    2. Re:Agreed by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Sure we can. We could make a strategic decision to purchase oil from Iran and embargo Russia ;-) We could and probably should add Russia to the list of state sponsors of terrorism (I started arguing this after Litvinenko's assassination). And we could start working with China to isolate Russia economically. Quite frankly if Putin wants to terrorize Russian dissidents inside Russia, that is a problem that the Russian people need to take responsibility for evaluating, but when he is ordering assassination of dissidents in other countries, then that crosses a line which we must not allow to be crossed.

      However, your criticisms of democracy are fair criticisms. In reality, democracy's only redeeming value is that it is one additional protection of the people against the harms of arbitrary government. In cases where dictators are reasonably well-intentioned and mostly focused with getting the right things done (like Malaysia) they work quite a bit better on all levels than disfunctional democracies (Malaysia has a better human and possibly even civil rights record than Indonesia which is democratic). I think that there are two human rights which must be respected above all others: the right to collective self-determinism and the right to equal treatment before the laws. While Putin is arguably infringing on the latter, only when he crosses the line to order assassinations elsewhere does he move into areas which make this problem our responsibility.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    3. Re:Agreed by zzidre · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't get me wrong, but when a son takes the presidency after his father, only delayed by a man whose wife is likely to take it over after them all, it really looks like the difference is only that there are two elite groupings instead of one.

    4. Re:Agreed by tftp · · Score: 1
      Well, I do not believe that Putin ordered any of those assassinations. It's too stupid, and even a child could have predicted the fallout from them. My bet is that it was done to hurt Putin, and there are plenty of parties with such an interest. Besides, Litvinenko's story is so much spy vs. spy I don't even want to consider for how many secret services he may have worked at the same time. And the use of Polonium is totally ridiculous; if any secret service wanted him dead he'd be hit with a brick over the head, and robbed of all his cash, and nobody would even notice [in London.]

      Now, you propose to elevate China and punish Russia. But be careful here, China is not your lap dog - not any more than Russia is. I think China made it known just a few days ago, in HK - you surely remember? If I were to choose from the US's position, I would rather choose Russia as a preferred partner. Why? Simply because Russia is self-sufficient, primarily in energy; what it needs (manufactured goods) can be easily imported from many eager sellers. China does not have enough oil or gas even today. So the energy war will have to happen at some point, in some form, and it is safer to pick a partner that has what you need, rather than a partner that needs what you also need.

      And finally about this Kasparov thing - Russians despise him specifically, and many more of the "democratic" crowd of 1990's because they had a chance (a whole decade!) to show what they are worth, and they did, all the nothing of it. However in this specific case Kasparov is arrested as a repeat offender, probably for inciting a riot - what he did is he tried to lead the 1,500 protesters from the agreed upon and approved path to elsewhere, blocking traffic and basically breaking the law. You can read and watch YouTube here or read here, and in many other places. It is expected that the judge will sentence Kasparov to standard 15 days (cleaning the streets, for example) - this is a typical low-end punishment for small offenses. He is not going to Siberia yet.

    5. Re:Agreed by tftp · · Score: 1
      Indeed only two, since the Kennedy clan is not as powerful as it used to be.

      But you are right, of course; and even if a president or two happen to have no family ties to the clan, they still have even stronger ties to the establishment that selected and installed them. Popular opinion does not matter. Everyone I know hates Hillary; but somehow she is the leader... it can happen only when the decision is made privately, among people who matter. We aren't them.

    6. Re:Agreed by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Of course he expected fallout. However, on the balance, they accomplished a goal-- to silence criticism of what is/what was going on in Russia. Sure as an American, I may find it scary that Lugovoy is being treated as a hero in the Litvinenko assassination, but then I suppose we have Ollie North....

      The main point, however, is that I would be very concerned about talking with Russian emigrants about their experience under Putin. I would be afraid I might put their lives at risk. That, I think was the point.

      Before you go too far idolizing Putin, remember the Kursk.

      Again, there is a tradeoff in moving towards dictatorship that the Russian people have to decide. It is not my decision, but when this starts to undermine the safety of people who are under the protection of other governments, I draw the line.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    7. Re:Agreed by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is a little more subtle than that.

      In the US, Republicans get elected by voting their party's call. THis is why John McCain can never get elected (he can't win the primaries. He could win the general election, however.) Sort of like two British satirists wrote in the 19th century:
      "I grew so rich that I was sent
      By pocket borough into Parliament
      I always voted my party's call
      And I never thought of thinking
      For myself at all ...
      I thought so little they rewarded me
      By making me the ruler of the Queen's Navy"

      The Democrats have a less unified position but the coalition of issues ends up forcing consistency on the part of their nominees as well. Consequently we are stuck with two dominant ideologies which cannot allow for other views or voices. THis is further enforced by the rules of the electoral college which more or less preclude more than two viable parties from putting candidates up for election (because if no candidate gets more than 50% of the electoral votes, it goes to the house of representatives, which will almost certainly vote along party lines).

      Additionally we have a problem in the US, as you do in Russia, where the intelligence and military organizations run a lot of the international politics from behind the scenes. This is a common problem internationally.... Putin on his record could have gone two ways (either extending the reign of the military and intelligence organizations or reining them in. He chose the former-- a good example of what might have been is found in Indonesia's president who has reined these in despite having a background similar to Putin). So there is often an appearance of dictatorship here, but it has not yet come to the point of generally infringing on individual liberty (it does threaten to, however).

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    8. Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of the number of allegations the Western media makes against Putin in Litvinenko and Polikovskaya cases these are still allegations. I am not aware of any single evidence to support those allegations.

      Lugovoy is not treated as a hero. He is treated as innocent victim of Western propaganda the ultimate goal of which is to frame Putin and undermine the first little steps Russia makes towards independence and caring about their own interests first rather than being controlled by a puppet regime which gets orders from Washington.

      Don't be afraid asking Russians anything. That's ridiculous. See I can say this:

      You Putin! You are a dick sucking fascist pig!!!

      And I'm still alive. If you were able to read Russian you would be able to find a lot of Putin's critics and who are still alive and well. But you only get information about Russia from your English media. It is impossible to imagine how wrong this information is. It is not information at all. It's complete and utter bullshit.

      I do not understand what you are trying to prove with the Kursk example. This is the same as blaming Bush for hurricane Katrina. Yes, both presidents did not show themselves as great as people hoped for. But they did not commit any crime too.

    9. Re:Agreed by tftp · · Score: 1
      when this starts to undermine the safety of people who are under the protection of other governments, I draw the line

      And it is reasonable. However note that the previous style of democracy under Yeltsin, in 1990's, was very chaotic and very unpredictable. With Putin at least you know where he stands, and you know that the country is stable. This is quite valuable (unless, of course, it's somehow in your interest to foment unrest in a country which has nuclear weapons.)

      The main point, however, is that I would be very concerned about talking with Russian emigrants about their experience under Putin. I would be afraid I might put their lives at risk.

      I wouldn't worry about that - as long as they don't seriously work on a violent revolt against the elected government, as Berezovsky does. He is still very much alive, by the way, even though you'd think he would become another Trotsky. And of those who plot to overthrow the government and actually do something bad to that end ... does the name Osama ring a bell? The USA killed a lot of people in many countries recently chasing him, including countries that the USA is not at war with.

    10. Re:Agreed by Gumbytwo · · Score: 1

      The polarization is caused by the broken voting system. We need something like the Condorcet method where you can actually express what you want, not what you are forced to vote for to make sure the other guy doesn't win:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
      Counties or states would have to adopt something along these lines first.

    11. Re:Agreed by zzidre · · Score: 1

      To ordinary people the problem with Putin is that his primary and probably the only focus is on the large businesses, which he has explicitly stated during both of his election campaigns. From the outside it may look quite bright: Russia restores its influence in the post-soviet space, certain companies grow rich, military exports are increasing, the space industry survives, as does the nuclear industry, etc. But behind the curtains, there's a lot of internal problems which have received little to no attention during the 8-year presidency of Putin, and neither they did under Eltsin.

      A lot of people who is dependent of the state budget (the military, most of medicine and education workers, pensioners) did not get a kopeck of these peak oil prices. It's becoming hopeless to them if Putin's course (or, as we get it from the mass media these days, "The Putin's Plan") doesn't get altered to take into account at least the most basic of their interests. To give you an example, among my relatives, a therapeutist of the highest category (as per the state ranking system) gets $400 a month, and one of the 30 top Russian Space Force officers gets $900 a month. The irony is that these people are treated as dependent and receive direct pressure from the authorities to vote and agitate for Putin's "United Russia" party.

      To those who's relatively on their own, it is not much better, too. We have European price levels in Moscow, and the salaries of those who get paid according to the market are about twice as low, and we're glad we have that at least. Granted unaddressed low apartment building rates we've got a never-ending housing bubble all over the country, and to the most of those who do need a place to live in there's no way of buying a simple one-room flat. This is something Puting promised to solve from the very beginning, and has silently failed at. The problems of the "constantly emerging" middle class receive almost no attention, too, and it is effectively suppressed as the result.

      From whom I've talked to, most don't treat Putin as an independent figure, but rather like the face of a team which is closely tied to the large businesses, which have evolved naturally from the oligarchy of the 90s and brought Putin to power in the first place. Provided this, there's usually no notion of dictatorship as such, but the analogy goes as far as equating "United Russia" to the CPSU. I've read an article of "The Guardian" recently, which comes surprisingly close to my personal opinion on the upcoming elections, here it is. Honestly, a couple of years ago I couldn't imagine my vote going to either of the parties mentioned there.

    12. Re:Agreed by Wrathie · · Score: 1

      It is expected that the judge will sentence Kasparov to standard 15 days (cleaning the streets, for example) - this is a typical low-end punishment for small offenses. He is not going to Siberia yet. He was apparently sentenced to five days in jail, meaning he won't be able to do very much campaigning, nor will the other candidates for parliament who were arrested. Also, how can you generalise in such ways, saying that Russians despise Kasparov specifically? Do you work for Putin? I'm seriously asking.
    13. Re:Agreed by tftp · · Score: 1
      He was apparently sentenced to five days in jail, meaning he won't be able to do very much campaigning, nor will the other candidates for parliament who were arrested.

      As popular wisdom says, "can't do the time - don't do the crime." Besides, he got the absolute minimum punishment; one can get more for just being drunk in public. Besides, only Kasparov remains under arrest, other organizers have been freed and can campaign. The organizer who signs the papers carries personal responsibility for the event, that's why Kasparov is where he is - he signed on the dotted line.

      Also, how can you generalise in such ways, saying that Russians despise Kasparov specifically?

      Inside sources (such as ability to read the whole .ru domain.)

      But on the subject of your question, there was time when a certain group of people (dissidents, promoters of human rights, some writers, etc.) promoted democracy a tad too much. When Yeltsin gave them power, and the right to execute on their dream, they failed miserably, and it ended in 1998 IIRC with a default on foreign debts and with a war in Chechnya. Many Russians learned their lesson there and then. Note that not all dissidents belong to this group, some behaved very honorably. And not only dissidents joined the fray - some new names did that too, like one Eduard Limonov, neo-fascist, or Vladimir Zhirinovsky, anti-Semite and a chauvinist. They have their own parties now, all hail democracy. In any case, many early dissidents thoroughly discredited themselves, and the country stabilized only when serious people came to power (after Yeltsin).

      Do you work for Putin? I'm seriously asking.

      No, but that's immaterial. With 75% approval three out of four Russians will tell you why Putin is a reasonable leader (not a $deity, mind you - just reasonable, considering the choices.) Method of Monte-Carlo in reverse, if you wish. As I said, people like stability, and 6% annual growth of GDP during Putin's years is a good thing - everyone can count their own money. When a Russian buys a new car he knows who made it possible (hint: it's not Yeltsin, and not Yavlinsky.)

  68. Nothing changes in countires by asm2750 · · Score: 1

    Russian official: The Soviet Union will be pleased to offer amnesty to your wayward vessel.
    American official: The Soviet Union? I thought you guys broke up.
    Russian official: Yes, that's what we wanted you to think! [laughs]

    1. Re:Nothing changes in countires by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Zombie Lenin: Must Crush Capitalism.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  69. So, then Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism by einhverfr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Look at the Litvenenko case. The assassination was designed to be clearly traceable to Russia (since you can fingerprint artificial isotopes to show what reactors they come from), and could not have been done without state help. Russia denies this, and this represents an assassination of a dissident emigrant specifically to warn other emigrants not to speak out against Putin. This is violence for the sole purpose of invoking terror, and it is arguably a greater threat to our way of life than Al Qaeda ever has been.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  70. Re:obligatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're actually just a rabidly fantastic fucking idiot, aren't you?

  71. Quite insightful by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    I would add that we saw the same thing with Fujomori in Peru-- a man who managed to bring an end to the horribly bloody civil war and then decided to stay in power after his term.

    I am watching Ecuador's Correa but at the moment I think he is acting to preserve rather than undermine democracy. He has gone into things thus far with appropriate checks and balances, but we will see if that changes.

    However, I see Putin as a very dangerous man in world politics. Under him, Russia might internally have some semblance of a rule of law (even if it is only a facade over a government of men), but domestically and internationally, Russia has become a state sponsor of terrorism. Everything that anyone ever accused Saddam of doing, Putin has done. But Putin is a better politician than Saddam, and Russia, like Saudi Arabia, has sufficient oil reserves to buy favor with Washington.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  72. Re:obligatory joke by SlashThat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    :S
    Is this guy from the KGB? Or how they call it now... FSB?

    --
    1's and 0's should be free.
  73. Sociopath vs Psychopath by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 1
    I was about to comment that Putin would conform to being a sociopath. When I looked it up in Wikipedia, the symptoms fit Putin reasonably well, and fit Bush perfectly. Judge for yourself.

    Sociopath symptoms

    1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
          2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
          3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
          4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
          5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others
          6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
          7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another Psychopath symptoms

    * 1. Superficial charm and good "intelligence".
            * 2. Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking.
            * 3. Absence of nervousness or neurotic manifestations.
            * 4. Unreliability.
            * 5. Untruthfulness and insincerity.
            * 6. Lack of remorse or shame.
            * 7. Antisocial behavior without apparent compunction.
            * 8. Poor judgment and failure to learn from experience.
            * 9. Pathological egocentricity and incapacity to love.
            * 10. General poverty in major affective reactions.
            * 11. Specific loss of insight.
            * 12. Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations.
            * 13. Fantastic and uninviting behavior with drink, and sometimes without.
            * 14. Suicide threats rarely carried out.
            * 15. Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated.
            * 16. Failure to follow any life plan. Bush has continually stated in public that he's had no second thoughts. There is no indication if this is the case in his private life.

    Both men will do absolutely anything they think they can get away with to retain power and control. Fortunately for the US, there are less viable options. Fortunately for Russia, Putin recognizes that a thriving oil based economy is key to dampening dissent.
  74. Break the law - get arrested - ... - profit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kasparov intentionally broke the law (again) to get himself arrested.

    He's totally willing to sacrifice a few hours of his time (to fill out and sign the papers) and a few dollars of his sponsors (to pay the fine) to get you (western public) more and more enraged about Putin's whatever.

  75. "free speech zones" in USA anyone? by hoyeru · · Score: 0

    It's telling how most of the comments keep on talking how terrible this all is, and ignore the reality of USA. Oh, Putin is all evil, Russia has no democracy, etc, etc. If he was doing the same thing in USA he would be arrested too.
    As if USA has much "democracy" and "freedom" of speech left. Kasparov is a real idiot to not see how hard Putin is fighting to save Russia.

    Oh NOW my karma is bad, huh? Screw you, /., I WILL keep on speaking the truth!

    --
    fuck karma, I like saying the truth better
  76. Not in Russia, apparently. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    The right to express dissent is not worth forfeiting for any economic gain.

    Apparently most Russians would disagree with a six to one favoring of a strong economy over a strong democracy.
    Depressing.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  77. Mod Parent Up by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    A Google search verifies this.
    (Though I'd post AC too if I was admitting that I recognized a quote from that stupid show.)

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  78. You keep using that word, I do not think it means- by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Free speech doesn't mean freedom from being called an idiot for saying stupid things.
    It means the opposite. Welcome to dissent -- you must be new here!

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  79. So sad - he bought right into left wing propaganda by melted · · Score: 1

    Kasparov is a smart man, but somehow he bought right into left wing propaganda and he now _believes_ it. In US there are neocons, in Russia there are neolibs. They don't really give a shit about the most important thing for Russia - putting the economy back on its feet. They're more concerned about the abstract, Moscow-only bullshit like democracy (where "democracy" is defined much more radically than here in the US) and freedom of speech (which in their understanding is the freedom of the owner of a TV station to force the talking heads to constantly slam the president).

    There are two problems with their plan, however:
    1. 90% of the population in Russia are pretty poor. They aren't starving, most of them actually live good lives, but they're by no means economically active business class the country needs. So for them GDP growth and controlled inflation at this point in history easily outweighs the fact that TV stations and certain strategic companies are no longer controlled by a bunch of Jewish folks hammering their own agenda and buying up the democratically elected parliament. Think Maslow's pyramid, it explains a lot. Once there's something resembling a healthy proportion of middle class, you will get democracy and all that comes with it. This is WAY in the future for Russia, however.
    2. The only thing they're good at is bashing the current president. Putin actually isn't that bad. The brown nosing around him is bad, but I don't think he enjoys it. For the first time in decades Russia decides on issues while keeping its interest in mind. Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin would just sign anything that the US gave them, just to please the rich white man from the West. These days, Russia is much more sane in this respect. They sign things they like and don't sign the ones they don't. This is exactly like any other sane country approaches international relations.

    Russia is shifting to Chinese model. In the Chinese model, you can be a capitalist for as long as you don't try to buy up the legislative and/or executive branch of the government. If you do, you go to prison, like Khodorkovsky (you didn't really think he's in the labor camp only for tax evasion, right?).

    As far as I'm concerned, their only remaining issue is that the court system is in the crapper. A lot of issues would simply go away if this wasn't the case. If I were running the country, this is what I'd focus on, not on abstract issues related to whether the country conforms to the "american" model of democracy.

    Kasparov merely got caught in the crossfire here. He doesn't play chess anymore, but he needs adrenaline - so he gets his adrenaline through other means. It was always "romantic" to be a dissident in Russia, even if you're the only one who cares about your particular set of issues.

  80. Re:"free speech zones" in USA anyone? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    The difference is that he'd be let go, would have any charges against him thrown out of court, and most likely have a chance of pursuing a section 1983 tort against local or state police and a Bivens action against federal officers.

    "Free speech zones" are complete BS, but we're not as bad as Russia yet. There's still some rule of law.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  81. brainwashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kasparov has already been arrested once. He was fined for 1000 roubles (~ $40) and released. Most likely this time they will do the same. Americans, beware! You are being brainwashed. They tell you he is arrested - and allow you to imply the most horrible things. But they do not tell you the details - like those that Kasparov indeed broke Russian law and was treated exactly according to it.

  82. Blocked In Russia? by ThatSandersKid · · Score: 0

    I sent this to my friend Arseniy in Russia, and it doesn't load.

  83. if you didnt read the bbc... by nar9000 · · Score: 1

    if anyone didnt read the bbc site: "The trouble broke out at the end of the rally when about 100 protesters tried to break through police lines."

    this is all just staged.. he wanted to get arrested... he wanted the story to be posted on bbc..

    the OTHER side of the OTHER RUSSIA lead by chess man.. for those that dont know: "Mr. Limonov and his mainly youthful followers have been a mainstay of the Other Russia movement, a pro-democracy coalition led by chess champion Garry Kasparov"
    source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0706/p07s02-woeu.html

    more information on mr. limonov - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Limonov more information on this party - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party

    western media and their support for anti-putin, the lose use of the words like "authoritarianism" are all very interesting these days. in fact russia today is very interesting as well. however remember that american media print receives 90% of there material almost word for word from the same source the AP. i highly recommend anyone interested in world news to dig a little and research things and question what they read from western news.

    in my post i do not make any conclusions. just questions to think about.

    1. Re:if you didnt read the bbc... by einhverfr · · Score: 1
      I don't know. It seems like there is a real lack of information as to what is going on.

      From Interfax.ru:

      "Kasparov and several other people have been delivered to the Meshchansky Court, but so far it is not clear what charges they are facing as a lawyer is not being allowed inside," Prokhorov told journalists.
      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  84. Malum in se versus malum prohibitum by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 2

    But they do not tell you the details - like those that the Burmese monks indeed broke Burmese law and were treated exactly according to it.

    1. Re:Malum in se versus malum prohibitum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not an expert in Burmese law. I doubt that it demands to kill people if they participate in an unathorized rally. If it does - this is bad law. Very bad. The Burmese people have every right to change it.

      In Russia you get for unathorized rally either arrest for 15 days or a $40 fine. Is this too cruel?

      Besides, just curious what do you get in US for that?

    2. Re:Malum in se versus malum prohibitum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, this ended just about like I said.

      Kasparov got 5 days in jail. Which is less than maximal possible 15-day sentence according to administrative law. In Russia administrative law covers cases that are not worth of criminal prosecution. Like if you make too loud noise that disturbs your neighbors after midnight.

      Apparently this story is all about making noise. Kasparov deliberately went offensive toward police guards knowing in advance that he will not be seriously punished for that but it will get a lot of attention in media.

  85. Re:this is all still a remnant of Gorbachev's lega by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Figuring Russia has only been democratic for a little more than 15 years, and god knows how many ex-soviets are still in the government. It will take some time to root out those who have Soviet Nostalgia through elections.

    During the most democratic time, the economy was wobbly and many of the poor, old, and sick got hit pretty hard. Capitalism started looking like the dog-eat-dog cruel system that Soviet doctrine had painted it as. Many associate democracy with capitalism, whether they are really related or not.

  86. Re:obligatory joke by flosofl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    By comparison, rich foreign capitalists who want to plunder Russia support Kasparov
    Instead, rich, domestic capitalists are not only plundering Russia, they're raping it to death. Kleptocratic oligarchy FTW!
    --
    "This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
  87. Russia is NOT a dictatorship (yet) by Cyberax · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, Putin and the ruling party ("Edinaya Rossiya" - "United Russia") have enough public support to win the upcoming elections without resorting to violence and voting fraud.

    In any case, Kasparov's approval rate is about 2%, it's really that small. I personally won't vote for him in any case (I'm a Russian citizen). For example, he have neo-Nazis (no, I'm not joking) as political allies.

    He's a good chess player, but not a good politician.

  88. Not agreed by Cyberax · · Score: 1

    The problem is that Putin doesn't NEED to tamper with the elections. He has a high enough approval rate as it is :(

    1. Re:Not agreed by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that his tampering with the elections is unnecessary (i.e. preventing contributions to opponents, rigging the news, and outright assassinating some opponents)?

      Are you saying that it is unnecessary to ammend the Constitution to give him direct control over the appointment of various officials previously elected, that he would get his way anyway?

      Of course, aside from the assassinations, state-run media, and over-all subtle politics of opposition, Saddam probably didn't rig the elections directly and probably seemed in many ways to tamper with them even less than Putin ;-)

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    2. Re:Not agreed by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      I'm saying that Putin is not tampering with the elections (I'm Russian, BTW) in any serious manner. There may be some individual incidents when overeager local governments which try to please the ruling party, but overall elections are quite normal. Putin has high enough approval rate (about 70%) to win elections.

      And I don't really think that Putin needs to assassinate anyone - our opposition can't find its own ass with both hands. For example, one of Kasparov's political ally is a neo-Nazi (I'm not joking) organization. I'm sorry, but the best word describing Kasparov's opposition to Putin is not 'fierce' but 'rabid'.

    3. Re:Not agreed by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Personally I am a big fan of the Union of Socialist Democrats :-) Russia would be better off having their Nobel laureate leader in office than with Putin :-).

      Putin is only popular because of the manipulation of the press. Otherwise, incidents like the Kursk and reasonable rational inqueries into who really killed the kids in Beslan would have destroyed him long ago.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    4. Re:Not agreed by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      >Putin is only popular because of the manipulation of the press.
      Nope. Putin is popular because he created at least SOME stability. It's much better now than during late 90-s.

      >Otherwise, incidents like the Kursk and reasonable rational inqueries into who really killed the kids in Beslan would have destroyed him long ago.
      Why? Kursk blew up because of a faulty torpedo. And Beslan children were killed by terrorists (sometimes indirectly).

    5. Re:Not agreed by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      The Beslan children may have been killed by the Russian special forces, who also appear to have interfered with mediation efforts (poisoning of Politkovskaya). Yes, one can say it was indirectly by the terrorists, but this does not absolve the Russian military of their responsibility in the matter. With the death of Politkovskaya (after she has started publicly voicing her allegations), Litvinenko (killed by Polonium from a Russian nuclear reactor while investigating Politkovskaya's murder), and others, it looks like this was sufficiently worth silencing to kill dissidents both at home and abroad.

      The Kursk issue had to do with how the rescue and recovery was handled rather than the accident itself. At the time, many Russians opposed Putin's handling of the accident.

      Personally I would hope you would give the Union of Socialist Democrats a chance. Their leader has done well in the past to the extent that he was awarded a Nobel Prize, and would do well again.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    6. Re:Not agreed by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Beslan children might have been killed by special forces' bullets. But people somehow forget that _terrorists_ first filled the building with explosives and killed two dozens people even before the siege has began. Maybe there were better way to storm the building - but it's stupid to say that Russian military and Putin are guilty.

      I don't really believe that the murder of Politkovskaya was linked to Putin. It's much more probably that it's linked to her Chechen friends.

      As for Union of Socialist Democrats - I don't understand people voting for Gorbachev _again_.

    7. Re:Not agreed by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      As for Union of Socialist Democrats - I don't understand people voting for Gorbachev _again_. I suppose a lot of people don't understand the desire for openness and transparency in government :-)
      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    8. Re:Not agreed by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      >I suppose a lot of people don't understand the desire for openness and transparency in government :-)

      I do want an open and transparent government. But I also want a _competent_ government. Preferably, lead by a man without a previous record of splitting a country into 13 parts.

    9. Re:Not agreed by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      I do want an open and transparent government. But I also want a _competent_ government. Preferably, lead by a man without a previous record of splitting a country into 13 parts. A lot of the problems had to do with the fact the Soviet Union did not do much to erase the local tensions. Blaming the ability to give places like Georgia and the Ukraine a choice in whether to stay or go seems rather foolish IMO. In the US, you may not be aware of this but we have secessionist movements not only relating to the US in general but relating to states (there is a movement for example for Eastern Washington to secede from the state of Washington and become a separate state). Most of the time these are due to large cultural rifts where one side ends up dominant for a long period of time.
      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  89. Re:The Deep Blue Cheated by bussdriver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I suggest curious people look into the chess match. I did at the time and I had a little A.I. experience and gained a little more since then. Chess is an interesting test because the problem is so vast that brute force attacks are unrealistic; although, still used by computers since it helps and they can out calculate humans. In terms of actually learning to play chess well, computers have a long way to go.

    I'll consider computers as better at chess when they can honestly beat someone at Kasparov's peak WITHOUT unfair advantages such as a whole team of engineers tweaking the system DURING AND IN BETWEEN MATCHES!

    The purpose of the chess exercise is to develop Applied Intelligence so it can be approximately as good as a human and hopefully learn enough to apply the discovered concepts to other areas. Any advancement in Applied Intelligence is a win since that is the true purpose for the game. Actually, 'winning' is actually a loss for Applied Intelligence as well as A.I. and sadly IBM was only thinking of themselves when they got lucky. They dare not risk losing again-- after all, they LOST ALL THE TIME until they finally beat a top human once.

    Life is a non-linear approximation ;-)

  90. Kasparov is just another dirty politician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, get the facts first.
    Guy staged the meeting and got arrested, this is right, but he broke several laws at the same time. For breaking the laws he got 5 days in jail. Do not take me wrong, protests are good thing, but they should not go out of control. However because of Kasparov's diminutively low support among russians he have make a big deal out of his protests. Doing it in unruly way is the simplest and cheapest way to attract media attention. Their favorite trick is to stop traffic of one of the major roads (without obtaining permission of course, or doing any other legal stuff). Not that they do not have any other means to protest, in nowadays Russia you may protest as much as you want, nobody gives a shit, it just cheap and effective.
    Now, how many of you would like to find during your morning commute that some asshole closed I495 just to get some attention? That now you have to spend 4 hours in gridlock traffic? That you are late for work, for important meeting, etc... Imagined it? No warnings, no nothing, your day just fucked. Do you like it? F it! For me, he is one of those communist era assholes who thinks that they above the law, and can do whatever they want, and who do not give a crap about people. In other words, he is just another self centering politician who uses scandals for self promotion. He could be an ass but he is also smart, and his tricks got him a plenty of publicity, at least on ./.

    He will be out in five fays, and gonna do it again and again. F him.

    1. Re:Kasparov is just another dirty politician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Jesus, Fischer, get over it already.

  91. Country leaders by Axello · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately there's a saying:

    "Every country gets the leader it deserves."

    That holds true for Russia, as well as the US of A.

    I for one hope the Russians, like the Italians, will get their act together and discard their despots.

  92. Re:obligatory joke by makomk · · Score: 1

    True but, well, let's just say that the ability to get TV airtime and general media attention isn't exactly equal, mainly due to the fact that Putin's allies own most of the media...

  93. Ahmadinjad has never threatened USA, or? by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    My guess is that Ahmadinjad has never threatened USA.

    when did he do that?!
    -

  94. In Soviet Russia by Daneurysm · · Score: 2, Funny

    ....In Soviet Russia Government protests you!

  95. Re:obligatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're describing yeltsin's russia, not putin's. kasparov serves those who want the "managed chaos" back (can't blame them - they pursue their own interests).

  96. McDonalds is still open by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IKEA is open for business too. Walmart is opening its doors in a year or so.
    This is in Russia, I am talking about...

    So what's the problem again? Which dictatorship? Which iron curtain?
    You guys are totally clueless about Russia...

    Slashdot's pitching in Russian politics is kinda off-topic and totally bogus

  97. Kasparov is a neocon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.ontoinfo.com/2007/04/06/its-official-garry-kasparov-has-dedicated-his-career-to-us-security/

    Kasparov is a neocon. Yeap, the same Kasparov.

    That news back in April was so embarrassing that they removed the record from the website.
    I am sure web archives have all the logs.

    So much for freedom of speech and genuine opposition to Putin.

  98. Re:obligatory joke by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is this guy from the KGB? Or how they call it now... FSB?
    Yes, I always wondered how a former top KGB man could be elected President of the Russian Federation. It would be as dumb as, say, a former head of the CIA being elected President of the U.S.
  99. Re:So sad - he bought right into left wing propaga by asaw · · Score: 1

    in Russia there are neolibs

    Very funny. FYI, the history of democracy in Russia counts less then 20 years. There still are politicians in power that were in power back in USSR times. And "neolibs" actually can't be anyone else than "classical" Russian liberals.

    They're more concerned about the abstract, Moscow-only bullshit like democracy (where "democracy" is defined much more radically than here in the US) and freedom of speech (which in their understanding is the freedom of the owner of a TV station to force the talking heads to constantly slam the president).


    They are concerned about what Constitution states (of course you can call it bullshit but it is strange when a man supposed to be its "guarantor" acts like if he thought it was bullshit):

    Chapter 1. The Fundamentals of the Constitutional System

    Article 1

    The Russian Federation - Russia is a democratic federal law-bound State with a republican form of government.

    The names "Russian Federation" and "Russia" shall be equal.

    Article 2

    Man, his rights and freedoms are the supreme value. The recognition, observance and protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen shall be the obligation of the State.

    Article 3

    1. The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation shall be its multinational people.

    2. The people shall exercise their power directly, and also through the bodies of state power and local self-government.

    3. The supreme direct expression of the power of the people shall be referenda and free elections.

    4. No one may usurp power in the Russian Federation. Seizure of power or usurping state authority shall be prosecuted by federal law.

    Chapter 2. Rights and Freedoms of Man and Citizen

    Article 29

    1. Everyone shall be guaranteed the freedom of ideas and speech.

    2. The propaganda or agitation instigating social, racial, national or religious hatred and strife shall not be allowed. The propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or linguistic supremacy shall be banned.

    3. No one may be forced to express his views and convictions or to reject them.

    4. Everyone shall have the right to freely look for, receive, transmit, produce and distribute information by any legal way. The list of data comprising state secrets shall be determined by a federal law.

    5. The freedom of mass communication shall be guaranteed. Censorship shall be banned.


    1. 90% of the population in Russia are pretty poor.

    Yes, it is true after 8 years of Putin's ruling given that oil prices were constantly rising since he came to power (from minimal back in Gorbachev and Yeltsin times BTW to historically maximal).

    As far as I'm concerned, their only remaining issue is that the court system is in the crapper. A lot of issues would simply go away if this wasn't the case. If I were running the country, this is what I'd focus on, not on abstract issues related to whether the country conforms to the "american" model of democracy.

    You are absolutely right: court system in Russia is the most important issue. And it is not going to be worked out as long as Putin is in power. Simply because good-working truly independent court system doesn't fit into Putin's-invented "Power Vertical".
  100. Apparently... by clayne · · Score: 0

    He couldn't honor the restraining order Deep Blue took out on him.

  101. no joke by swokm · · Score: 1

    Actually this might benefit Kasparov's cause. He's a respected person both in Russia and abroad, and a move like this could provoke a stronger protest against Putin. I trust Kasparov has calculated this 6 moves ahead

    I seriously doubt there is any positive outcome now, considering what happened to the last person seized: Larisa Arap I think they now know they could have gone much, much further with her without any kind of retribution from the outside world (we all like their oil and gas) or domestically. The Russians would rather have the known Putin, who they seem to like, than Kasparov, who many dislike and distrust as he is not really "Russian" at all. Ethnically or nationally it seems (or so I've been repeatedly admonished).

    Beisides, why not? Who would challenge Putin (meaningfully, I mean)? No one. The U.S. has no traction anymore, and the U.N. is starting to wonder if they can accomplish anything at all together...

    An excerpt from her wikipedia entry:

    On 2007-07-05, Arap went to a clinic in the closed city of Severomorsk for the results of a medical examination, which she had passed a month earlier to renew her driver's license. Doctor Olga Reshet asked her whether she was the author of the "Madhouse" article. After receiving a confirmation from Arap that she was indeed the author, Dr. Reshet told her to wait outside and called militsiya (Russian police), who detained Arap until the arrival of a psychiatric ambulance. Arap was injected with drugs that caused her tongue to swell, weakened her, and affected her vision and balance, according to her relatives. The detention was illegal, since a decision of a judge authorizing her detention and treatment was issued subsequently, thirteen days later.

    [...]

    Arap claimed that she was severely beaten by the medical personnel and had bruises all over her body. She was tied to her bed and treated with unidentified 'sedatives'. To protest, Arap went on a five-day hunger strike, but she was eventually fed by force.

    I'll be surprised if he can even figure out how to tie his own shoes by the time they are done with him.

  102. Oh dear, this one believes it by microbox · · Score: 1

    A russian friend told me that Russia will never go that far under the existing regime. He said the TV is very positive about the government, and most people just believe it. I also noticed some unusual behaviour from him, like not trusting banks and other institutions. Spending time with him made me realize how russia is really in a lot of pain. A simple fact: if Putin was so wonderful, he wouldn't condone thuggery on anyone, let alone an old man. There are far poorer nations in the world where people are happier, like Bhutan, where the police chief asked the monks to purify the police-force for the conflict they created by doing their job. People trusting each other is worth more than money. If I didn't believe that, then I'd join the mafia. Oh, I get it, Putin *is* the mafia, and you're their for the gold bricks right?

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  103. Re:obligatory joke by lordSaurontheGreat · · Score: 1

    The people of Russia? I wouldn't put much faith in them.

    They're the ones that sat by during the purges of Stalin. They let themselves be deluded by the single most evil man in recorded history.

    Unless something has changed in this latest generation, I would place zero trust in the people of Russia, simply because they've been historically very apathetic to causes, particularly their own!

    I have nothing against the people of Russia, but historically speaking they have everything against themselves. It pains me to see such people so abused by so many horrible people.

    --
    Consider yourself spoken to.
  104. about ron paul by vaporland · · Score: 1

    prepare for the flames...

    --
    Ask Me About... The 80's!
  105. I think we should tag this story by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    rememberlitvinenko

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  106. Left out an important detail... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

    You left out a vital detail that makes this completely different from what's happening in Russia...

    They went out of their way to get arrested. They were trying. It was their plan all along. They weren't invited to the debate, so they intentionally created a disturbance, so they would be arrested for publicity.

    That is completely different from being arrested to silence your protest.

    You've got a seriously fucked up definition of "happen" you you think this happens here. That, and you really have no appreciation for how good you've got it when it comes to political freedoms compared to what the Russians have.

  107. Appearin on Real Time with Bill Maher by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    It couldn't have helped appearing on the HBO program real-time (which I like). It is sort of high profile here in the usa.

  108. This isn't exactly "thuggery" by melted · · Score: 1

    Under Russian law, one must obtain a permission to do an event of this magnitude in a public place. The center of Moscow qualifies as a public place I believe. The event must then stay within the bounds outlined in the permission. Any provocations towards law enforcement personnel are met with sometimes asymmetric response, just like here in the US.

    This is exactly what happened - some people in the crowd thought they were above the law (or just wanted some adrenaline), so a few folks (including Kasparov) were picked from the crowd and sent to a local jail for a few days. Kasparov got five days, for example. This is EXACTLY what would happen in Seattle (where I live) under the same circumstances.

    Putin is far less "mafia" than Yeltsin & Co were. Yeltsin just carved up Russia and gave it away for pennies on the dollar to a few folks who are billionaires now. Compared to this, Putin is actually a HUGE improvement. And if you think that Russian "democratic" forces are acting on their own, you're naive beyond belief.

    This doesn't even happen in the US - the self professed "bastion of democracy". Corporations pay to get folks elected, and then lobby the heck out of them to pass the laws they want. President and vice president simply work as representatives of the military industrial complex in exchange for a "consultancy" contract with multimillion dollar salary after their term ends. This goes right across party boundaries, too. And the TV just shows the right thing, because it's in their best monetary interest to do so.

    1. Re:This isn't exactly "thuggery" by asaw · · Score: 1

      Under Russian law, one must obtain a permission to do an event of this magnitude in a public place. The center of Moscow qualifies as a public place I believe. The event must then stay within the bounds outlined in the permission. Any provocations towards law enforcement personnel are met with sometimes asymmetric response, just like here in the US. The right to perform public meetings is actually granted by the russian constitution, not by arbitrary local authorities.

      Article 31 Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to assemble peacefully, without weapons, hold rallies, meetings and demonstrations, marches and pickets.
      There is that recent federal law that literally states the contrary but is virtually impossible to contest it in court.

      Putin is far less "mafia" than Yeltsin & Co were. OMG you don't watch russian central television, do you? Putin was effectively appointed by Yeltsin as his successor and actually was a part of that "& Co". The first Putin's decree as a president granted inviolability to Yeltsin and his family.
    2. Re:This isn't exactly "thuggery" by melted · · Score: 1

      I don't see the contradiction. They have the right to assemble peacefully, "regular" folks have the right to use the streets and not get beaten up by protesters for no reason. That's why "regular" folks are protected from this thousand or so demonstrators by the riot police and that's why the city government issues permits (rather freely, I might add). They got a permit to use a certain set of streets for that. Then they started provoking the riot police and trying to break through the cordons. Some folks got beaten up. Some got some jail time.

      As far as Putin is concerned, I believe he was appointed by folks in the Russian FSB/GRU - (which would be FBI/CIA in the US). This community is traditionally very strong in Russia, and it has dossiers on all of the nuveau rich, so they couldn't do anything about it. He also played some of them (Berezovsky) by promising them everything and then kicking them out of the country. During Yeltsin's rule, Berezovsky (as well as Khodorkovsky, Gusinsky and Abramovich) could pretty much open Kremlin doors with his foot. This is not the case anymore. So you can bet they weren't the ones who appointed Putin.

    3. Re:This isn't exactly "thuggery" by asaw · · Score: 1

      I don't see the contradiction. They have the right to assemble peacefully, "regular" folks have the right to use the streets and not get beaten up by protesters for no reason. That's why "regular" folks are protected from this thousand or so demonstrators by the riot police and that's why the city government issues permits It reminded me the Minority Report. Actually things are not that bad in Russia. At least I am not aware of such incidents since 1991 (where crowd would beat regular passers-by).

      (rather freely, I might add) How do you know? Anyway, it depends on who asks such a permission. If it is Nashi they freely get one even if they are going to block up a foreign embassy, threaten their employees and detain people trying to get in. But if someone else not affiliated with the Kremlin administration tries to obtain such permission he is usually told that the place is already taken by Nashi or someone else who ostensibly was the first to ask.

      Then they started provoking the riot police and trying to break through the cordons. Some folks got beaten up. Some got some jail time. ... according to official version (some policemen say there were 1.5K people with Kasparov while other say there were only 30 and officials say that no more than 1K overall came to the meeting). According to the other side Kasparov was walking towards the Central Election Commission and several dozens people (including journalists) joined. That was regarded as a march by the police.

      As far as Putin is concerned, I believe he was appointed by folks in the Russian FSB/GRU - (which would be FBI/CIA in the US). This community is traditionally very strong in Russia, and it has dossiers on all of the nuveau rich, so they couldn't do anything about it. Ha! Many of those guys ARE "nouveau rich". And Eltsin's family was very "mixed" in particular.
  109. Reverse Polish...uhh, Russian notation by aqk · · Score: 1

    Most earlier posters got it backwards...

    In Soviet Chess tournament,

    YOU beat Kasparov!


  110. Putin is by sentientbrendan · · Score: 1

    the sort of guy that many people in the administration wish they were.

    Despite all of the continuous fuckups of this administration, it is clear that the only thing that they will regret when their eight years are up is that they have to leave at all. They've spent eight years consolidating power, but are still short of their holy grail.

  111. Rainbow revolutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It appears the russians think Kasparov is being made the figurehead of CIA's Orange/Rainbow revolutions operation in Russia. He would certainly be the logical choice.

  112. This is sad to see... by dpastern · · Score: 1

    And tell me, where is Bush Jr. on this? Do I see him invading the USSR and overthrowing a dictator? Do I seem him speaking out aloud about the growing lack of democracy and freedom of speech in the USSR? Do I see him condemning human rights issues there? Do I see him and his regime, oops, I mean government trying to honour their countries promises of nuclear arm disarmament?

    In a real world, the UN would look at economic sanctions against the USSR, but the VETO vote kills it. The US government would know all about immoral applications of UN Veto votes.

    Lucky for the USSR it doesn't have huge reserves of easily accessible oil, and that it has a much larger military group than weak nations like Iraq and Iran, which proves to me that the US is nothing more than an international bullshit artist and bully.

    I know that many /. readers are Americans, and many of them blind patriotic idiots, but open your eyes and you might begin to see why the US is so distrusted by the rest of the world, and more importantly, dislike is growing. If the US wants to be a world police man, then apply the laws equally - take full economic sanctions against the USSR, lead by example and encourage other nations to do the same.

    Dave

    --
    Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.
  113. Re:The Deep Blue Cheated by toolslive · · Score: 1

    To most chess players, the competition between a human player and a computer is about as interesting as the competition between Marion Jones and a Ferrari or a weight lifter against a fork lift. As a footnote to this. the competition was not exactly fair as the Deep blue team had access to all of kasparov's games while kasparov did not know anything about his opponent before the match. In chess preparation is half the fight so Kasparov had an uphill struggle. He had himself to thank for that because that were the match conditions he agreed upon.

  114. The Case against Putin by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    I think that we can be fairly certain of involvement by Putin's government in the Litvinenko assassination or at least interference in the subsequent investigation. The amount of Polonium which would have been used was quite high and there are a large number of controls relating to strong alpha emitters (like Polonium and Americium). Although these elements do have commercial uses, fairly strict accounting and control measures are in place as with any source of ionizing radiation. (Alpha emitters are often used to create electrical conduction in air, for example in smoke detectors or certain types of antistatic equipment. When contained they are reasonably safe-- the alpha particle cannot penetrate the skin so the decay has to happen inside the human body to be dangerous. In this case, however, it is the most dangerous form of radiation because it steals 2 electrons from various molecules thereby creating twice the free radicals of a single interaction of any other form of ionizing radiation.) Aside from commercial uses, Polonium is also used in older generations of detonators for nuclear weapons and therefore tends to be subject to even tighter controls than other alpha emitters.

    The Polonium in the Litvinenko case was traced to a reactor in Russia. This is not cost effective nor is it the MO of various organized crime syndicates. Therefore the choice of Polonium must be significant. Due to the various accounting and control of Polonium, and due to its discovery on airplanes used in the London/Moscow route, we can be quite sure that this came from Russia, not from anywhere else. Either it was Putin's government sending a warning to dissidents or it was an extremely powerful opponent of Putin who would be able to pay off all the right people to obtain a significant quantity of Polonium.

    Poisoning is one MO of the Kremlin. See the Yuchenko poisoning by dioxin, which the Ukrain argued was political assassination by the Kremlin and orchestrated by Russian agents (there is a definite pattern of political opponents at home or abroad being poisoned or shot).

    The question is quite simple: Is this a message from the Kremlin that dissidents must remain quiet? Or is it an attempt to frame the Kremlin? If the assassination of Litvinenko, Politkavskaya, and others are the latter, then it would seem to be counterproductive, because of the chilling effect it has on getting other people to come forward. On the other hand, given other known similar incidents and given the chilling effect which has occurred, I would suggest that the Kremlin is almost certainly involved in these assassinations. No, we can't prove it, but the circumstantial evidence is fairly substantial.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:The Case against Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you say does not qualify as a circumstantial evidence. This is just a speculation that is not based on any facts. Nothing like "chilling effect" on Putin opponents ever happened. Opposition members are very vocal at blaming Putin for Litvinenko and Politkovskaya deaths and for so called Yuchenko poisoning as well. If the goal of the assassination was to send a message to dissidents could you name a few of them who indeed got the message and went silent out of the fear of evil Kremlin? What I see is they simply use these cases to substantiate the mantra about "bloody Putin regime" they repeat over and over again. Perhaps this is because the opposition is not serious in their accusation of Putin. They do not really believe what they say and so are not afraid to say this.

    2. Re:The Case against Putin by guacamole · · Score: 1


      The question is quite simple: Is this a message from the Kremlin that dissidents must remain quiet? Or is it an attempt to frame the Kremlin? If the assassination of Litvinenko, Politkavskaya, and others are the latter, then it would seem to be counterproductive, because of the chilling effect it has on getting other people to come forward. On the other hand, given other known similar incidents and given the chilling effect which has occurred, I would suggest that the Kremlin is almost certainly involved in these assassinations. No, we can't prove it, but the circumstantial evidence is fairly substantial.


      I believe the case for alternative hypotheses (those that don't put Putin behind the murders) is much stronger. However evil you may allow Putin to be, I just don't see a good motive behind those murders for Putin. No one cared about Litvinenko's or Politkovskaya's work in Russia, but they sure were darlings of the western media. When it comes to Litvinenko's murder my favorite hypothesis is "the rogue FSB officials did it." Think about Litvinenko's past. He used to work as a small fish at FSB, so he probably has some dirt of some of the low and mid-ranking officials. He could have blackmailed them requesting to produce more dirt on higher ups or assistance in his "investigations", and eventually got whacked but these people (one of whom supposedly had access to the kind of polonium you're talking about).

  115. ahem... by korjjj · · Score: 1

    I don't think people should be thrown into prison for just being jackass... but Kasparov is definitely a jackass.

  116. Re:obligatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First off the reason why the world hasnt responded to the Chechnya conflict is becuase it is a rougue state and a breeding ground for terrorists. That is a that god forsaken pit in the ground is..Chechnya is a terrorist state that should wiped off this earth starting with Grozny...also Kasporov is no more than a man craving attention Mother Russia has flourished under Putins regime..but all the bleeding hearts that would otherwise love to see Our glorious nation fall into a liberal dystopia for which the kremlin would be run by boy touching fatalists that have no place living in our land...Soon enough Russian shall regain the power it once had and show u simple minded americans that freedom you take advantage of wont be free for long ..when we march upon your shores as we should have done in 1961 or should have done in 1983...You Americans take every right and freedom that your country gives you..well you will see the world has had enough of the Amercian empire...payback is a bitch

  117. press by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IBM Deep Blue unavailable for comment

  118. F#$kin Putin by obscured_dude · · Score: 1

    As a officially sanctioned IT Consultant of the Commonwealth of Australia, I Officially announce sanctions against the so called United Socialist Soviet Republic (USSR), I Refuse to repair computers of anyone originating from the USSR, Nothing personal but your (so called) president is a commie saddamist f#$kwit, who will end up where john howard and tim costello is right now. HELL. Your (and most politicians) Nazi bullshit stopped being accepted by humans in general back in 1945... I did a google search for alexander putin and found out he is actually a long lost relative of Hitler! Oh and any USSR hackers who think they are better than the 3rd world hackers they actually are... i double dare you to hack putin's computer and find out what is realy going on.... it happened with media defender why couldnt it happen to putin? hmm the RIAA... Putin... Mp34All or what ever it was called, hmmm it looks like george bush has basically said to putin that he can have a free for all of his own country if he abides by the FTA agreements and laws that the USA cares about, capitalist money hungry so and so on.... Little Johnny is gone and its george bush's turn next! its a shame the next person in his place is probably going to be just as corrupt and morally retarded. I guess the same goes for Russia and Putin....

  119. You have been trolled. by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

    As someone who is actually a Russian living in Russia I have to say that these opposition meeting are nothing but staged shows for western press (helpfully invited beforehand to film the "police atrocities", and yet another arrest of poor G. Kasparov for gross hooliganism, only to be released a few hours later, it's has become almost a part-time job for him). These people really have a as you say "a snowball's chance in hell" to be elected for anything yet alone President. And their party despite flooding mailboxes with their weekly political spam still is less popular than American Communist Party in America.

    --
    US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  120. Intervention by N8F8 · · Score: 1

    I'd be one to argue for intervention but I have so many liberal knives in my back I've become an advocate of isolationism. Let em go to hell. Let Russia and Venezuela burn. Start cutting all imports and withdrawal from all these bullshit international agreements where we never get reciprocity from other members anyhow. Screw them all.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Intervention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US state department invested millions of dollars into promoting democracy in Russia. That is these millions were paid to Kasparov and friends. Are you serious suggesting to abandon all these investments now? I bet US government will continue this policy until it either succeeds or it learns that there is no chance to overthrow Russian government with money only and resort to other means of enforcing democracy like those they tested in Iraq.

    2. Re:Intervention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for some reason you think a wild-west anarchy with nuclear weapons would be no thread to anything except themselves... OOOOOO KKKKKK...

      Before WW2 the US was very isolationist. Pearl Harbor worked out real nice didn't it?

  121. Oil and Gas by turgid · · Score: 1

    Russia has lots of oil and gas. In fact, it could hold Western Europe to ransom with the gas tap.

    Perhaps it might need "liberating?"

    /me sighs resignedly.

  122. There is a difference here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you remember the guy Russia imprisoned? Remember the guy who wanted to start a opposition party, and was stripped of his company, forced to pay "taxes", and thrown in jail? I bet you don't remember that guy, and that is my point. The world has forgotten him, and will forget Kasporv.

    It is sad, let me tell you... I know I have a brother working in Russia and he told me jokingly, "oh yeah I know they put him in jail, and they shot another opposition leader as well." Did you hear about that? Probably not... My brother does not seem to clue into these sorts of issues. He just called it another day in Russia.

    What the leaders in Russia have clued into is that so long as people have full stomachs they don't care about their rights... Russia is a country one should be very very concerned about...

  123. Re:In a Russian City, Clues to Putin's Abiding App by KudyardRipling · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the usual list: cushy job, nice home, car, entertainment system, vacation, etc.

    Nothing is more obnoxious than an unpleasant truth.

    --
    Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
  124. Re:obligatory joke by igny · · Score: 1

    And Vladimir Lenin too...

    --
    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
  125. Re:obligatory joke by DJCacophony · · Score: 2, Informative
    Do you think that the South should have been allowed to secede from the rest of America? How about Chechnya from Russia? The former resulted in many more deaths, why are you not defending those poor Southerners and their slaves, if you favor secession so much? How about a little selection of the horrible misdeeds these poor "people of Chechnya" have committed?
    • In October 2005, at least eighty-five people were killed in street fighting in the southern Russian city of Nalchik after Chechen rebels assaulted government buildings, telecommunications facilities, and the airport.
    • A three-day attack on Ingushetia in June 2004, which killed almost a hundred people and injured another 120.
    • A December 2002 dual suicide bombing attack on the headquarters of Chechnya's Russian-backed government in the Chechen capital, Grozny. Russian officials claim that international terrorists helped local Chechens mount the assault, which killed eighty-three people.
    • A bomb blast that killed at least forty-one people, including seventeen children, during a military parade in the southwestern town of Kaspiisk in May 2002; Russia blamed the attack on Chechen terrorists.
    • In Moscow, an August 1999 bombing of a shopping arcade and a September 1999 bombing of an apartment building that killed sixty-four people, and two more terrorist bombings in September 1999 in the neighboring Russian republic of Dagestan and southern Russian city Volgodonsk. Controversy still surrounds questions about whether these attacks were conclusively linked to Chechens.
    • In 2004, when Basayev, ordered an attack on a school Beslan, a town in North Ossetia. More than 300 people died in the three-day siege, most of them children. There were thirty-two militants, all but three or four were non-Chechens, and all but one were reportedly killed during the siege.
    Why should the people of Russia demand change in the policy against Chechens when the image they portray is not that of the righteous freedom fighter, but that of the ruthless, child killing terrorist? If my child was held hostage and then slaughtered, I wouldn't have much sympathy for their cause, either.
    --
    Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
  126. Checkmate by Morosoph · · Score: 1
    Well, of course, you're right.

    I could argue semantics, that "seize" doesn't necessarily mean "take", but it would be, most likely, implausible.

    GGP was funny; I was trying to explain why to the hard of modding.


    The Russians have always sucked at government. One of the world's great tragedies.

  127. Re:this is all still a remnant of Gorbachev's lega by jez9999 · · Score: 1

    During the most democratic time, the economy was wobbly and many of the poor, old, and sick got hit pretty hard.

    Whereas in Putin's Russia, none of these people get hit. At least, none of it makes the TV.

  128. I love... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love the G.H.W. Bush reference Mr FB.

  129. Even given your hypothesis by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    Putin still bears some strong measure of responsibility. He is under your theory still an accomplice.

    If these were rogue FSB agents, then Putin has command responsibility for their actions, especially when there is no major effort to find and punish these people in a way which lets people know that these were in now way sponsored by Putin's government.

    When rogue elements of one's own government commit crimes, if the government does not hold them accountable, then the government could be said to be supporting them. This was the major case against Milosevic at the Hague and it is reasonable. If a government turns a blind eye to such crimes, the government is supporting the crimes. End of story.

    BTW, this is exactly the reason why I opposed the calls for Rumsfeld to step down after Abu Ghraib. Had he done so, the Bush Administration could have moved on and more or less argued that the matter was closed. But since he stayed, it meant that we had to continue to hold the Administration accountable for its failings there.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  130. Re:obligatory joke by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

    * In October 2005, at least eighty-five people were killed in street fighting in the southern Russian city of Nalchik after Chechen rebels assaulted government buildings, telecommunications facilities, and the airport.
            * A three-day attack on Ingushetia in June 2004, which killed almost a hundred people and injured another 120.
            * A December 2002 dual suicide bombing attack on the headquarters of Chechnya's Russian-backed government in the Chechen capital, Grozny. Russian officials claim that international terrorists helped local Chechens mount the assault, which killed eighty-three people.
            * A bomb blast that killed at least forty-one people, including seventeen children, during a military parade in the southwestern town of Kaspiisk in May 2002; Russia blamed the attack on Chechen terrorists.
            * In Moscow, an August 1999 bombing of a shopping arcade and a September 1999 bombing of an apartment building that killed sixty-four people, and two more terrorist bombings in September 1999 in the neighboring Russian republic of Dagestan and southern Russian city Volgodonsk. Controversy still surrounds questions about whether these attacks were conclusively linked to Chechens.
            * In 2004, when Basayev, ordered an attack on a school Beslan, a town in North Ossetia. More than 300 people died in the three-day siege, most of them children. There were thirty-two militants, all but three or four were non-Chechens, and all but one were reportedly killed during the siege.

    Why should the people of Russia demand change in the policy against Chechens when the image they portray is not that of the righteous freedom fighter, but that of the ruthless, child killing terrorist? If my child was held hostage and then slaughtered, I wouldn't have much sympathy for their cause, either.

    Let me add that the Chechen butchers also brutally murdered four telecommunications workers in 1998, who were installing a system that would greatly benefit the ordinary citizen of Chechnya. The more brutality that the Russians can mete out on those worms, the better AFAIC.

  131. Re:obligatory joke by SlashThat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well first of all I meant the guy from the dumb pro-Putin posts above, not Putin himself.
    But you raise a good point. No, it's not as dumb, it's much worse. You can't compare CIA to KGB. As much as CIA is disliked in the US (and people really love to hate CIA, it's so "in"...), they really don't deserve this treatment. The CIA's job, and this should be really trivial when you think about it, is to PROTECT american citizens, and this is what they do every day. Often while endangering their own lives. I really don't understand just how ungrateful people can be (btw, I'm not an american citizen, so I consider myself to have an unbiased view on this). I truely believe that most of the CIA staff are really good people who do they best to protect the citizens of US. How they keep doing this in such an ungrateful environment is a mistery to me.
    The KGB's job, on the other hand, was to spy on and torture Soviet citizens. So no comparison here. To elect a president from KGB is really a kind of masochism.

    --
    1's and 0's should be free.
  132. The Russian Bear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Russian government might no longer CALL itself communist, but that bear hasn't changed its fur.

  133. Re:obligatory joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you for real, or are you for awesome?

    The KGB's outward role was to be the CIA's counterpart, aka protecting the country from spies, covert agents, and so forth.
    The KGB certainly had no qualms about warantlessly wiretapping, jailing indefinitely without a trial or torturing their own citizens.
    It is very possible KGB agents thought of themselves as doing what had to be done to protect the country.
    It is also possible they were right, in that the demise of their political system would have been hastened had they not done what they did.

    Without going into a laundry list of what American 3 letter agencies have been suspected of doing, it seems that comparing KGB and CIA is not an apple to orange comparison. Instead, it is a study in shades of gray.

  134. Re:obligatory joke by tjw · · Score: 1

    Also, don't forget that Putin's approval ratings are pretty high even if you disbelieve the official statistics from the Kremlin... Arresting everyone who speaks out against you tends to have that effect on approval ratings.
    --

    XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-UB E-TEST-EMAIL*C.34X
  135. Are you fucking kidding me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen to you! Do you have any idea what you just said? Do you even recognise the innate cognitive dissonance in what you just typed?

    Here's a slashdot thread full of indignant yanks chastising Putin for arresting Kasparov - a candidate without a "snowball's chance in hell of winning" for an "unauthorised protest".

    Oh but in America, according to you, it's A-OK to arrest opposing candidates for turning up uninvited to a stage-managed "elites-only" debate between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. After all, they have no chance of winning (due in part, presumably, to not being "invited" to get their message out) and would just waste everybody's time!

    You blow my fucking mind.

  136. Re:obligatory joke by stinerman · · Score: 1

    Seeing as CIA staff regularly break the Constitution by inflicting cruel and unusual punishments on suspected terrorists, I don't have much respect for agency brass who order these punishments or the people who carry them out.

    Yeah, there are a lot of good guys there, I'm sure, but even the RIAA does some good some of the time.

  137. Re:So sad - he bought right into left wing propaga by Floritard · · Score: 1

    Since someone already claimed the Godwin prize I feel at liberty to mention Hitler. Wasn't it his rejuvenation of Germany's weak post-WWI economy that got things moving in such an unfortunate direction with that whole wonderful chapter of world history? True Russia doesn't currently have any policies of state-endorsed racism that I know of, but the Nazi party does staqnd as a pretty good example of a group of people going along with some pretty rotten ideas in the long term after some initial economic successes. Maybe it isn't realistic to expect everything to start off on the right foot in a new Russia, but I can't help but wonder what sort of people will result from growing up in such a political climate.

  138. Re:obligatory joke by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
    Do you think that the South should have been allowed to secede from the rest of America?

    Yes, they were evil slaving bastards (Im a yank) but we were designed as a federation and states should have been allowed to opt out. FWIW the war did not start to be hot until the south fired on a union base in S. Carolina. The firing on Union troops was an act of War by the confederate states. Should the union have up and left? maybe but the south could have *at least* attempted to settle it amicably.

    This in no way answers if Russia should free areas under its control..

    --
  139. Thus Sayeth... by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

    When someone (particularly the Debate Commission or the Media) decides that Candidate X hasn't a chance of winning, it falls under the category of self-fulfilling prophecy.

  140. Re:So sad - he bought right into left wing propaga by melted · · Score: 1

    You don't understand. In the past 20 years or so, folks were subjected to so much political BS, they can't take it anymore. They care about more basic things, such as whether they can put bread on the family table, whether their elderly parents can sustain themselves on their state pension, whether they can go to a restaurant or a movie every now and then with their wife/husband/girl-/boyfriend. Politics comes after the basic needs and wants are met, not before.

  141. Re:this is all still a remnant of Gorbachev's lega by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Whereas in Putin's Russia, none of these people get hit. At least, none of it makes the TV.

    Increasing oil revenues probably saved Putti's arse.

  142. Re:obligatory joke by shplorb · · Score: 1

    Here in Australia, the ABC just showed the conclusion to the two-part documentary "The Rise And Fall Of The Russian Oligarchs", which is precisely about the title.

    It's fascinating viewing and this weeks episode detailed how the oligarchs put Putin into power, thinking he'd be their patsy like Yeltsin had been, and how he turned around and stabbed them all in the back.

    For me, it has put the current situation in Russia into context. Not that I agree with all of what Putin is currently doing, but I suppose it is the realpolitik of the situation.