Slashdot Mirror


DVD Porn Viruses Ravage US Soldiers' Computers

stevegee58 writes "Tom Ricks' Inbox in the Sunday Washington Post reported that bootleg DVDs purchased in Iraqi markets ('souks') are frequently infected with viruses. Iraqi soldiers were affected as well; electronic interaction between Iraqi and US soldiers frequently resulted in a corresponding exchange of viruses from these infected DVDs."

489 comments

  1. Sexually Transmitted Disease by Thalagyrt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Gets a whole new meaning now.

    --
    Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
    1. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 3, Funny

      So remember, no sex if safe sex, but if you watch sex use Norton!

    2. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 5, Funny

      But seriously, what is the world coming to?

      Previously, at least soldiers could count on running around, meeting interesting people, shooting them and raping their women.
      Of course, often that also meant some kind of medical treatment afterwards, usually including some nasty shots of penicillin, but that was a small price to pay for the vast spread of one's genetic material.

      Nowadays, the only virus you can get as a soldier infects your computer while you jack off to porn?
      Really, they shouldn't have gone all the way to Iraq for that.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    3. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 5, Funny

      So remember, no sex if safe sex, but if you watch sex use Norton!

      With Norton, you'll still get infected, but the system will slow down just enough that a DVD movie becomes a slideshow.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    4. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

      You wanna say the whole war in Iraq was just a lot of dick waving and mostly a masturbatory experience for a couple people?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I came in here to say this.

    6. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Binkleyz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, I'm fairly certain (at least I hope so) that you're either joking or just being a troll (in which case, I'm falling directly into your trap), but as (maybe one of the few) people on this site that were also previously in the military, I'm just about as offended as humanly possible at your comment above.

      Not everyone that goes into the military is a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, and quite a few of us are above average in terms of intelligence. I spent 6 years in the Navy, and I (nor anyone I knew) didn't shoot, rape OR pillage anyone.

      On a site like this one, where people from the outside would presume everyone is a pasty and pimply 34 year old living in their parent's basement, I really would expect (just a little) a little more tolerance and less assumption from the people involved.

    7. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by aplusjimages · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think they call it STDVD.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    8. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You know, I'm fairly certain (at least I hope so) that you're either joking Yeah, he's joking. It's kinda obvious.
    9. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by zacronos · · Score: 5, Funny

      On a site like this one, where people from the outside would presume everyone is a pasty and pimply 34 year old living in their parent's basement, I really would expect (just a little) a little more tolerance and less assumption from the people involved. You must be new here!
    10. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Funny

      You know, I'm fairly certain (at least I hope so) that you're either joking or just being a troll (in which case, I'm falling directly into your trap),

      FWIW, the part that offended you was mostly a joke.

      but as (maybe one of the few) people on this site that were also previously in the military, I'm just about as offended as humanly possible at your comment above.

      Now you just flatter me. I didn't even mention many things that would offend a much greater number of people, but which would not be funny in the least.

      Not everyone that goes into the military is a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, and quite a few of us are above average in terms of intelligence.

      I know quite a number of people of various IQ levels who've been to war. IQ and the ability to commit a war crime are not that related that I'd consider that comment as any kind of explanation.
      And their war was much closer to home than yours.

      I spent 6 years in the Navy, and I (nor anyone I knew) didn't shoot, rape OR pillage anyone.

      Yeah, I've heard quite a lot about seamen.

      Sorry, but you really walked into that one. ;)

      On a site like this one, where people from the outside would presume everyone is a pasty and pimply 34 year old living in their parent's basement, I really would expect (just a little) a little more tolerance and less assumption from the people involved.

      Don't take it all so seriously; beneath the irritating tone of my post there is some relatively sound biology.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    11. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Lunatrik · · Score: 1

      I am apparently a Slashdot newb and inadvertently modded your comment Redundant rather than Insightful (slip of the mouse), and the only way I know to undue it is to post here. out of curiosity, is there a better way to do this?

    12. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but do they run on Linux?

    13. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "..I'm just about as offended as humanly possible at your comment above..."

      And I'm just about as glad as I can be to read your comment. If you can't understand that the current military, looking for excuses to kill people after the Cold War finished, is just about the worst thing America has to offer the world, I suggest that your claimed 'above average intelligence' is missing in a few vital areas, like ethics...

    14. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by tscheez · · Score: 1

      I was thinking iSTD

      --
      Supplies!
    15. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by neomunk · · Score: 1

      Nope. You found the only option available to you yourself. (AFAIK)

    16. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Jumperalex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please do everyone a favor and learn the difference between the military, an instrument of national power, and the GOVERNMENT that wields it. If you want to meet a person who abhors war, talk to a soldier. If you want to judge someone for wanting to "kill people after the Cold War finished" I suggest you look at the people who decide when and where to send the military. I'll give you a hint, they don't wear uniforms.

      --
      If you can't be good, be good at it!
    17. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by value_added · · Score: 1

      Of course, often that also meant some kind of medical treatment afterwards, usually including some nasty shots of penicillin, but that was a small price to pay for the vast spread of one's genetic material.

      We've come a long a way, haven't we?

      Today, if soldier returns home carrying a virus, his wife probably won't know, or at least will hesitate before asking "Honey, what were you doing with your thumb drive while in Iraq?" and demanding that he sleep on the couch.

    18. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by peragrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      um the ASVAB isn't all that hard. I got a 98 on it in 1996. I took it just to keep my options open at the time.

      Any one of the geeks here could pass it with one hand tied under the desk.

      As for military service, It would do most of the slashdot community some good. 8 weeks of basic training would do wonders for them. while i never joined that was due to medical not intelligence. I would have to insist on joining.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    19. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, someone feel a bit pretentious don't they. Well, I love hating on the military, and yes, I know what the ASVAB is. We used to joke about it when they offered it during high school. We joked it was the "idiot" version of the SAT. "Not smart enough to get into college or trade-school, take this test and we'll determine what military career you'll have." Of course, you can modify that now to say, "Take this test and we'll lie about the career in the military for you, then we'll hand you a gun and throw you into a giant sandbox."

    20. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this modded Informative? The last two lines are packed with irony. This is a funny if anything.

    21. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Sleepy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Chill for a moment. If you read his post again, it is _satire_ not trolling.
      Some people are ALWAYS offended when they don't recognize satire..

      -s
      38 and not living in parent's basement.

    22. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just made an old veteran that I work with very proud. He would like to give his thanks to that comment.

    23. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Funny

      out of curiosity, is there a better way to do this?

      There is, but it involves a virus-infected DVD and higher authority will find out in the end. I recommend to just keep thinking about your bunkmate's picture of his sister.
      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    24. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Any one of the geeks here could pass it with one hand tied under the desk.

      Yes, but we geeks have had lots of practice doing things one-handed, with the other hand tied up with something else under the desk.
      Really, it would almost be unfair advantage.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    25. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by MrKaos · · Score: 2, Funny

      Digital Venereal Disease.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    26. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "If you want to meet a person who abhors war, talk to a soldier..."

      I wonder why they join up, then?

      Seriously, the ones who love war and want to keep it going aren't the grunts, but they aren't the politicians either. Given the choice, the politicians would rather be screwing the taxpayer to fund a lavish lifestyle.

      The ones who love war are the heads of the military, who would have no function if there were no war, and the heads of the arms businesses. And yes, they do (or did) wear uniforms. Why should you think that an organisation that prides itself on killing wouldn't attract large numbers of amoral bullies?

    27. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by phulegart · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, I'm not a pimply-faced anything. In fact, I work in the busiest computer repair shop near Camp Lejune (see Marine Boot Camp). I repair laptops (and desktops) all day long that belong to soldiers. I'm regularly cleaning Iraq out of the laptops, and I'm just talking dirt and grime. However, all of them... and I do mean all of them, come in infected with malware, spyware, and viruses. Not only your Smitfraud.C based infections (Smitfraud, virus heat, etc.) but porn dialers, porn redirects and browser hijacks... you name it.

      As far as tolerance is concerned, I'm glad that all these marines appear to know absolutely nothing about keeping their machines clean. It keeps me in a paycheck. However, I don't have much tolerance for people who insist that this might be an overblown story. As far as the Parent comment about rape and pillaging... our armed forces have changed radically since the Vietnam days. You can't necessarily blame the guy for his comment though. If what I'm cleaning off these machines is any indication... even if our armed forces aren't raping and pillaging, they sure are thinking of it. Where they are going on the web to screw up their machines like they are points to that conclusion.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    28. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Humor of all kinds (satire included) needs to have an element of truth in it to be funny. In other words, in order to find his "joke" funny, you would have to believe (on some level) that the US military really DOES go out and commit atrocities on a regular basis.

      In other words, those of you that found it funny REALLY need to get your facts straight about the US military. There are no regular atrocities, no raping and pillaging, no cutting off body parts. That stuff just does NOT happen, other than one or two VERY isolated incidents which were quickly and appropriately punished. Military justice is swift. Monsters get put down or put away FAST.

      The US Military is the best trained and the best disciplined force of any kind in human history. Most Americans are rightly proud of that history and will not stand for it's being maligned, even through the use of poor humor.

      The joke wasn't funny. Don't laugh.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    29. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The purpose of the military is to have and use weapons. These weapons get used specifically on other people. This is what army's do, it's what they are for.

      So, if you claim that soldiers abhor war, then WHY THE FUCK DID THEY BECOME SOLDIERS IN THE FIRST PLACE!

      If they abhor it so much, why the HELL did they VOLUNTEER to do it?

    30. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Nowadays, the only virus you can get as a soldier infects your computer while you jack off to porn?
      Believe me, computer viruses are not the only ones our returning soldiers need to worry about.

      There are fast-mutating viruses appearing in our military that are becoming antibiotic resistant 100 times faster than expected.

      We're looking at decades of some serious health issues resulting from the Bush Administration's feckless behavior, and that's not counting the cases of depression, PTSD, and battle-injuries such as loss of limb and spinal cord injury.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    31. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by lubricated · · Score: 1

      Why do you feel that everyone should know about the ASVAB?

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    32. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by lubricated · · Score: 1

      The stereotypes for thailors are much different than ones for infantry.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    33. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      Brings a whole new meaning to anti-virus software, doesn't it?

      Your little abbreviation of STDVD causes a whole new dilemma. What happens with Hi-Def format adoptions? Will there be more STDs transfered onto the disks as they include more space?

      Its also one more reason I wish Blu-ray didn't win. A BDSTDVD doesn't have the same ring to it as HDSTDVD. I think in the future, it will cause confusion with ER MD's and the ER anti-virus software folks.

    34. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Humor of all kinds (satire included) needs to have an element of truth in it to be funny. In other words, in order to find his "joke" funny, you would have to believe (on some level) that the US military really DOES go out and commit atrocities on a regular basis.

      Actually, no, you would not.

      You would merely have to know enough history to know that the modus operandi described in my post has been characteristic for invading armies since the invention of armies.
      Then you would have to notice that I actually implied that American soldiers were kind of wusses for not raping and pillaging, since all they really do is jack off to porn.

      The rest of your post I would rather not comment on in great detail; let it suffice to say that the rest of the world has a bit different view of your army. And of your country.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    35. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      ... in order to find his "joke" funny, you would have to believe (on some level) that the US military really DOES go out and commit atrocities on a regular basis. You mean you haven't been paying attention?
      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    36. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they abhor it so much, why the HELL did they VOLUNTEER to do it?

      Well, first of all, you only get to abhor the war as much when you've actually participated in one. Or four.

      Furthermore, some people join up in order to finance their education, hoping to hell there would never be a war they would have to fight in.

      Then again, as a Croatian citizen, I know fairly well what kind of people also joins the military and fights in wars.
      You get all kinds, and thus all generalizations are false.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    37. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cHiphead · · Score: 2, Funny

      You were not in the Army to take part in the traditional pillaging and raping fun, you were stuck in teh Navy and had to contend with vying for a bukakke session one of the 3 ladies onboard or cuddling with your fellow seamen.

      You Navy boys never catch a break.

      Sorry I couldn't resist. ;)

      Cheers.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    38. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      >>>"electronic interaction between Iraqi and US soldiers frequently resulted in a corresponding exchange of viruses from these infected DVDs."

      Same old story. Goes all the way back to when Roman soldiers exchanged viruses with Celtic milk maidens.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    39. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll give you a hint, they don't wear uniforms. Of course they wear uniforms! They wear the same suitcoat/tie uniform your company's CEO wears!
    40. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      There are fast-mutating viruses appearing in our military that are becoming antibiotic resistant 100 times faster than expected.

      Well, what little I can recall from my primary school biology classes, viral diseases are not treated with antibiotics anyway.
      Antibiotics work against bacteria; viruses are best combatted with vaccines, i.e. with prevention. That's why there is no cure for the flu, but you can get inocculated.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    41. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Marillion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As for military service, It would do most of the slashdot community some good.

      But, it comes with some very serious strings attached. I abhor the idea that killing is a solution to any problem. A soldier (or airman, seaman, marine) is given a gun. A gun is a machine designed to kill. The idea is kill your killer before he kills you. This is a morally dubious proposition and incompatible with the Christian theology I grew up with.

      --
      This is a boring sig
    42. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      Now we need government sponsored posters on the dangers of D(VD) The digital venereal disease.

    43. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by afc_wimbledon · · Score: 1

      "If you want to meet a person who abhors war, talk to a soldier." Then why do they join up? If there were no soldiers, how could there be any wars?

    44. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why of course the people don't want war. Why hould some poor slob on
      a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
      it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
      don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
      Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
      country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
      drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
      dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
      voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
      That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
      and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
      country to danger. It works the same in any country."

        - Hermann Goering

    45. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you want to meet a person who abhors war, talk to a soldier. Really? While it is understandable that soldiers they may not agree with some of the wars they are sent for, they did sign up to be first in line to go participate.
       
      If you want to talk to a person who abhors war, you want to talk to a person who refuses to have anything to do with the military. A person who turns down ROTC scholarships and pays their own way through college. A person who refuses to work a high paying job with a military contractor just because it would imply working for a business that produces weapons and support for the military. THOSE are the anti-war people to talk to, not a soldier.

    46. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A gun is a machine designed to kill. The idea is kill your killer before he kills you. This is a morally dubious proposition and incompatible with the Christian theology I grew up with.
      And THAT is why Christian Rome fell.
    47. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by das3cr · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the No Clue club for idiots.

      --
      Hurricane Island Outward Bound
      OB
    48. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Sfing_ter · · Score: 1

      in this case an STV :)

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
    49. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by jhol13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you only get to abhor the war as much when you've actually participated in one. Are you claiming it is not enough that my parents had to live in one? Or to know how the war "works"?

      Am I not allowed to abhor natural disasters as I have not been in any?

      If they are stupid enough to enlist just to finance, well they do not deserve my "tolerance".
    50. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In Yugoslavia there used to be something called ORA(s), which is an acronym I can't readily translate, but which included very large groups of young people doing some pretty hard jobs for a period of time, e.g. (rail)roadbuilding.
      This is a form of service I can subscribe to and would actually like to see re-instated in Croatia. For one, if high-school kids today just picked up the trash arund their schools and rebuilt the demolished bus stops, they would be less prone to littering and demolishing them all over again. IMO, of course.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    51. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by das3cr · · Score: 1

      While most could pass the ASVAB I doubt most could pass Basic Training.

      That would require leaving their parents basements. Not gonna happen.

      --
      Hurricane Island Outward Bound
      OB
    52. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      You get all kinds, and thus all generalizations are false. Including this one.
      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    53. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I spent 6 years in the Navy, and I (nor anyone I knew) didn't shoot, rape OR pillage anyone.

      I would suggest that your time was wasted. The purpose of a military is to kill the other guy into submission. It is a thought that offends so many people these days. The US military has become a glorified beat cop and test ground for new technology. I believe that one of the main reasons that the US hasn't won a war in 60+ years has to do with the fact that people no longer believe that soldiers and seamen should go kill the enemy until they stop fighting. Now they believe that having a support staff that is larger than the fighting staff is an acceptable way to run a military. If this were a corporation, it would have gone out of business years ago.
      And yes, I DO support the troops, and I did serve in the US Army. I just think that the troops are being mis-used. And people like you who get offended at the idea that people think you might have shot someone during your time in the military are a sign of the loss of focus of the military leadership.
    54. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You get all kinds, and thus all generalizations are false." ...in general.

    55. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I lived through a war.
      However, I lived in the capital, which was only a target of several air raids.
      Some of my friends survived regular bombings day after day, night after night; some of them had their parents and other relatives killed; some were re-settled or lived in camps.

      Do you think my feelings about the war are as deep and as strong as theirs?
      I'm pretty anti-war and anti-military myself, for various reasons, but I will never ever try to imagine I can feel as deeply about it as they do.

      As for financing your education... people do what they can. Or what they have to. I refuse to judge their choices as long as they act humane.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    56. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The fact that you didn't shoot anybody is luck. Having spent some time on the Carl Vinson I can say that if the orders came down, a lot of people could die in a short time. A carrier battle group is a very large force. It doesn't matter whether you are intelligent or just a jughead like the majority of your shipmates. All that matters is that you follow orders and do your job.

      Note to those who have never been on a Navy ship. The only "military" personnel are the marine guards. The average sailor is just a working stiff. He might as well be in construction or on an assembly line. But the output of his "factory" happens to be artillery shells or missiles delivered where the orders say.

      Did they ever mention to you at some point in your training what the military is for? Hint: its to kill people.

    57. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I didn't think it was all that funny, but I also didn't find it all that offensive, for two reasons. One, the OP didn't specify what nation's soldiers he was talking about, and two, he didn't specify what period in history (other than in the past). He could have been talking about 18th century soldiers from Europe, for all you know ;)

      Now, I grant you, that since this is an article about US soldiers getting viruses on their pc's, you could take it as implied that he meant the current US military, or at least the US military pre-PC days.

      For the record, I strongly support and am grateful for the services of the military. I just wish that our government was a little more cautious about putting your lives in danger (not speaking specifically about Iraq, talking about every conflict from Korea on). I don't believe enough emphasis is placed on diplomatic, rather than military, solutions. Risking the lives of our servicemen and women is the absolute last thing that anyone should consider.

      Cheers!

    58. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      Really, they shouldn't have gone all the way to Iraq for that.

      Exactly.

      The war in Iraq is mostly a land war. They shouldn't need so many sea...

      Sorry, sorry.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    59. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by daliman · · Score: 1

      I'd tend to agree with you on most counts, but the way that you missed the fact that the GP was a joke does lend some credence to the idea that at least one person that went into the military is a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal.

    60. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by colourmyeyes · · Score: 1

      Not everyone can be as insightful as you are. On behalf of humanity, I apologize.

      --
      My grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be 120 years old.
    61. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      Please do everyone a favor and learn the difference between the military, an instrument of national power, and the GOVERNMENT that wields it.

      Actually, no. I'd rather not.

      I'd prefer to believe that people are responsible for the choices they make in life.

      I'd prefer to believe that someone who chooses to enlist in the military when the "instrument of power" is being blatantly abused is an enabler of the abusive behaviour. After all the publicity, and all the abuses at Guantanamo, the renditions, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, the admission of faked evidence, etc, etc, nobody can say they are unaware of the evils that are being committed.

      Anybody who makes the choice to sign up at least tacitly approves of their government's actions. To my mind that makes them culpable.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    62. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by elhondo · · Score: 1

      Marine boot camp is either in MCRD San Diego, or MCRD Parris Island. 2nd Marine Division is at Lejeune, and while elements of infantry training exist at Lejeune, it's not what is known as "boot camp".

    63. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Funny
      The solution is obvious: US Government Certified Porn. We must protect our troops. The San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce will go along with it...

      They should also develop a holographic seal of approval.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    64. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by colourmyeyes · · Score: 1
      --
      My grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be 120 years old.
    65. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Funny

      And the olny weigh to fix a p

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    66. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by wytcld · · Score: 1

      That's a paraphrase of a common Nam-era joke. Updating it to the computer age was the poster's contribution. That you weren't sure whether it was a joke or not - well plenty of military people have solid senses of humor. Some say it helps in that profession. Never was military myself - my prime age fell between the wars - but I've know plenty, both relatives and especially in tech. Lots of former military in computers.

      --
      "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    67. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by hummassa · · Score: 5, Funny

      You wanna say the whole war in Iraq was just a lot of dick waving and mostly a masturbatory experience for a couple people? Are you saying it isn't??
      --
      It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    68. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Funny

      And the only way to fix a post where you made a mistake is to repost it.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    69. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by VShael · · Score: 1
      Previously, at least soldiers could count on running around, meeting interesting people, shooting them and raping their brown skinned women.

      Fixed that for you.

      Remember, if they want white poon, they have to rape a female US soldier. Who will then get punished if she raises a stink about it.
      Examples: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-05-our-view-usat_x.htm
      http://mibodegaonline.com/2008/04/04/another-us-female-raped-by-fellow-soldiers-kbr-rape-case/
      Google for Jamie Leigh Jones, etc...

    70. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they abhor it so much, why the HELL did they VOLUNTEER to do it? Temporary insanity. That's what I use as an excuse for the time I spent in the army anyway.

    71. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Duradin · · Score: 1

      As long as there are politicians that need an enemy to scare the masses into re-electing them and large corporations that finance politicians that expect their kick-back there will be war.

      Soldiers are the instruments of war. The ones playing the cadence are the politicians.

      Soldiers will be 'created' if none exist and the politicians want a war.

    72. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      I abhor the idea that killing is a solution to any problem. Hitler says hi. Or Stalin, or any of the tin-pot dictators killing their own citizens. (No, not an attempt to Godwin the thread, but killing is a valid solution to lots of problems that are difficult to solve so effectively or, yes, so cleanly otherwise.)

      A gun is a machine designed to kill. The idea is kill your killer before he kills you. Why, yes, it might a shocker but Darwinism works! If you aren't the fittest, you won't kill your killer before he kills you, and you Lose The Game.

      This is a morally dubious proposition and incompatible with the Christian theology I grew up with. ...you're joking, right? Your sky god has influenced more slaughter than anything else I can think of.
      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    73. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      You mean you haven't been paying attention? Regular atrocities by US servicemen. Post 'em. Now.
      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    74. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm 37 you insensitive clod!

    75. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Atari400 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Welcome to the No Clue club for idiots.

      -- I am interested in your views and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      --
      IBM doesn't play chess with the Universe.
    76. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by equinx · · Score: 1

      I believe he was talking about war in another context. Like 200 years ago or far more. When it was actually the case because the soldiers were partly (mostly?) criminals or peasants.

    77. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like how you defined humor, because it does not allow for things like puns, wordplay, innuendo, and hyperbole. I also disagree with the assumption that because you laughed that you find truth in the statement, thus if someone does laugh they don't have to believe it they might have simply found some other attribute of humor.

      I also think you need to get the stick out of your ass, because to be honest humor is defined by the listener, or in these case the reader, not by the presenter or some third party. You did not find it funny, thats great. Explain why you didn't find it funny, cite examples, prove proof that you're correct with the statement "humor of all kinds needs to have an element of truth in it to be funny." I find that very statement wrong, because it sounds like some drivel that some authoritarian dip shit who is out of touch with reality just decided because he was offended at something, its funny because its wrong, ergo No truth.

    78. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      http://whattorture.blogspot.com/

      When the 5,000th soldier dies CNN is giving away free toasters.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    79. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by encoderer · · Score: 1

      For the most part I agree with you, and I think the pro-army guys upthread got their panties in a bunch for no reason whatsoever.

      Even if you WERE insulting the military: Who cares? They do a great job for this country, but that's what they're paid to do. We're an all volunteer force.

      Anyhoo, I will take you to task on the "rest of the world" comment.

      Two things:

      1. You can think what you want, but can you really argue that the US Army is a quality force? "Best trained" as the OP said is a little presumptuous. Israel does a damn fine job, for example.

      2. It should be noted that you most likely live in an allied state (either a NATO country or one in the western hemisphere) OR an enemy/former-enemy state like the old soviet bloc.

      If you live under the latter, well, I understand why you'd say such a thing.

      However, if you live in the former, please consider this: The US has, for 50 years, guaranteed your safety. It may not seem like much to you. But please, consider it: We've made a treaty that says that if you're attacked by nuclear weapons that we would consider that an attack upon our own soil and retaliate as necessary.

      In other words, we, the American People, would deliberately involve ourselves in full nuclear exchange just to protect you and your countrymen.

    80. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I think using the word abhor on natural disasters just shows you have a weak relation to the word.

    81. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Talk about presumptions based on out-dated stereotypes! I'm a pasty and pimply 34 year-old living in my own basement, thank you very much!

    82. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by hassanchop · · Score: 1

      "If you read his post again, it is _satire_ not trolling."

      Is that what you call it when you troll and get caught now?

      Methinks that if you genuinely think that was satire, you couldn't identify satire if it bent you over and raped you.

    83. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Hans+Lehmann · · Score: 1
      ...quite a few of us are above average in terms of intelligence.

      Quite a few? Heck, I'll bet that nearly half of you are above average.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    84. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really want to piss that troll off then just insult pedophiles or child murderers. On slashdot being hated is a goal and an honor. The vast majority of the losers here hate anything good and praise anything vile.

    85. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You're right. It isn't viruses that are showing up in the returning GIs so much as a resistant strains of various bacteria. There's a "super-staph" that's even worse than the one that's showing up in US hospitals these days that's coming home with US military returning from the Middle East.

      As if they don't have it hard enough already.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    86. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      It's not rape if you pay for it.

      I think mostly it's the men that get raped, when they aren't willing to accept payment for sexual favors.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    87. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by donweel · · Score: 1

      let it suffice to say that the rest of the world has a bit different view of your army. And of your country. I am a Canadian and I motorcycle tour the US frequently, and I have always been treated with hospitality. I like Americans. The Dutch people to this day honor US military for liberating their country in WWII. The original joke was not bad, let's not get carried away here.
      --
      Many a long talk since then I have had with the man in the moon; he had my confidence on the voyage. Joshua Slocum
    88. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by shadow349 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, if you claim that soldiers abhor war, then WHY THE FUCK DID THEY BECOME SOLDIERS IN THE FIRST PLACE!


      Exactly.

      Just the same way a person becomes a doctor because he or she loves blood and cutting people open.
      On the other hand, you become a nurses if you like sticking needles into people, dirty bedpans, and watching people suffer.

      You don't want to think why a person becomes a mortician.... trust me.

    89. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by mopower70 · · Score: 1

      Lighten up Francis. I was in the Air Force for 4 years and I didn't shoot, rape or pillage anyone either. There also wasn't a war going on. And if you were - as you claim - in the Navy for 6 years and didn't meet a single person who ever shot anyone then you probably should have crawled out of your bunk for more than a few minutes. I met quite a few Vietnam vets (I was in during the Carter/Reagan years) that killed people and more than a few with pillaged war trophies.

      And if a modern twist on one of the oldest Marine jokes in the arsenal offends you "as humanly possible" then I, for one, and pretty damn glad you don't have your finger on the trigger any more because you sound like your too damn sensitive to pull it.

    90. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Grant_Watson · · Score: 1

      And THAT is why Christian Rome fell.

      Christian Rome was many things, but pacifist was not one of them.

    91. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by bishiraver · · Score: 1

      "The US has, for 50 years, guaranteed your safety. "

      ...lol.

    92. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Jumperalex · · Score: 1

      You are correct but that is not what was being stated. The implication was that the military somehow chooses where and when it is used and that in fact the military (and by your implications the actual individuals) have somehow been looking for ways to keep on killing after the cold war.

      Oh and lets not forget about your little problem with the people who joined before all the abuses you mentioned.

      I agree with your last statement to a point. To a point because unfrotunatly life is not that simple. But we each have our opinions on that matter and neither will change the others. But concerning the post I replied to the FACT remains that it is civilian authority that authorizes and orders the US military into action. Not the other way around.

      --
      If you can't be good, be good at it!
    93. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "This is a morally dubious proposition and incompatible with the Christian theology I grew up with."

      Then the Christian theology you grew up with has very little to do with the Bible, at least on the subject of war.

      You may want to reinvestigate the doctrines of war in the Bible if you got the impression that it is somehow morally wrong to defend your country or fight in a war.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    94. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Brigadier · · Score: 1


      very valiant on your part, but you must respect that these stereo types come from somewhere, your comrades are not as innocent as you might think. I have seen the other side, the young 'native' kid. I've seen what a bunch of Neanderthal like service men are capable of while docked in port performing 'humanitarian' work. Build roads by day, support local prostitutes by night. Ohh don't forget there are two type of prostitutes in military lingo those you have to pay and those you don't.

      I know the 'new' navy has done much to patch up its reputation, however there are some traditions that still lurk.

    95. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 0, Troll

      In case you are out of touch with what your military is currently doing, I'll fill you in. You people invaded and are currently occupying a nation that held absolutely no threat to you. And your service men have slaughtered, and ARE slaughtering, hundreds of thousands of civilian men women and children.

      If you don't find that atrocious, I'd hate to see what it takes to turn your stomach.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    96. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by OldHorton · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that if you watch porn you think about raping people? Dead wrong. By the way you're fixing you're fixing computers that belong to Marines (or maybe sailors), not soldiers.

      Sgt USMC
      Cherry Point, NC

    97. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by qortra · · Score: 1

      I am genuinely surprised by the number of people who believe that the GP's claim is untenable on it's face.

      If you want to disagree with the GP, you have to make a case for yourself, rather than simply insulting his beliefs. The fact is that the in the New Testament, there is no example of Christian violence that wasn't rebuffed by Jesus himself.

      Most likely, the examples of war and "defending one's country" that you are referring to are all found in the Old Testament. Any of those are not such much examples of Christian theology ("Christian" == Christ Centered), but rather are part of God's interaction with the nation of Israel. The Bible makes it clear that participants of the New Covenant (read "things found in the New Testament") are called to a different standard. Many people (myself included) believe that the this standard incorporates the idea of Christian Pacifism.

      As I've said in other posts, I know Christian soldiers who believe it is moral to defend one's country in war. I genuinely respect that belief, even if I disagree. All I'm saying is that you should set aside your haughtiness and actually make a case for yourself, rather than simply accusing your idealogical opponent of being ignorant.

    98. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by tloh · · Score: 0

      I wonder why they join up, then?

      Patriotism?

      You might have heard of this fellow by the name of Pat Tillman.

      But I don't want to talk about him. I want to tell you about the lab manager at the Chemistry department of City College in San Francisco. He joined up for another reason that I think is far more common. Doug Love is not a "grunt" or an amoral bully. When he was still a student at the very department he now manages, he won the annual scholarship that is awarded by the department to the best performing student in Organic Chemistry for that year. After he transfered and got his 4 year degree, the state of the economy could not support him with suitable employment. He joined the Navy because they were able to help him support his family and clear the debt of his student loans. When I asked him about it recently, he tells me that all soldiers are anti-war because they are the first to get killed and maimed when conflicts break out. Even those who survive are often left with deep psychological problems that prevents them from ever living normal lives. Very few people in this world are blessed with a dream job. This includes many in the armed forces like my hero Doug.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    99. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by morari · · Score: 0, Troll

      Not everyone that goes into the military is a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, and quite a few of us are above average in terms of intelligence. At best, everyone in the military are ignorant and naive. No one with a real chance at making something of themselves joins up. It's a special little part of the world reserved exclusively for those knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who have little to no other career options or hope to piggy back their way through college. It's no coincidence that the large majority of recruits come from poor, often rural, areas. Nothing is more ironic than these people giving their lives to maintain order within the very system that keeps them in poverty. There is nothing intelligent about joining the armed services, and no amount of wanna-be patriotism will change it.
      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    100. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Jumperalex · · Score: 1

      Because wars aren't started by soldiers. Wars (in the classical geo-political sense) are started by the State. I'm ignoring here where the military and the State are one, and even in that case those "Generals" are about as far from the military as our own president and know they will NEVER be at risk.

      To claim that without soldiers there would be no war is just silly. Unless you classify a "soldier" any person who decides to take up arms against his neighbor.

      And to answer your question about why they join up: For a volunteer professional military, they (yes We) join because DESPITE he fact that we aren't itching to go into harms way we are WILLING to do it to defend our country. Again this speaks to the difference between the implement, and the one who weilds it. The military does not have the luxary, nor should they, of decided which battle to fight. It sounds all well and good to say that they should bow out of this war because they disagree with it, but what happens when it is a conflict YOU agree with and they don't? Would you be glad to see them not go? No ... there is a good reason why the military is not part of the process of deciding when and where to go to war and only the CIVILIAN politicians (and elected at that) are allowed to make that decision (ni countries where that is true of course).

      --
      If you can't be good, be good at it!
    101. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Kazrath · · Score: 1

      WOW,

      Do you have no idea what is going on over there? Do you really think that americans are strapping bombs to themselves and walking into markets full of civilians and blowing up hundreds of people? You do realize that any country america invades they spend a ridiculous amount of time/money investing in infrastructure and each of these countries end up significantly better off in the long run. Look at Japan or Korea for example.. both of them have very very strong economic functions globally.

      You sir are an ignorant idiot... and I thought only americans were this ignorant.

    102. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Jumperalex · · Score: 1

      No, but some people don't LEARN to abhor it until they've lived through it. And even then, they are all scared but bravado and shear mental self-preservation makes them delude themselves into that bravado.

      For the record, I have NOT been in combat, or anything close to it while deployed. But I don't need to inorder to know I don't WANT to, which is a whole different comment than my willingness to.

      --
      If you can't be good, be good at it!
    103. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I spent 6 years in the Navy, and I (nor anyone I knew) didn't shoot, rape OR pillage anyone."

      Ahh, navy man... not a fan of the ladies then eh? wink wink, nudge nudge. Leaving the rape & pillage for the army men then, no need for you eh? got your bases covered. wink wink

      (yes it's a joke.)

    104. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      people do what they can Like mug elderly. Or go to other countries for a kill.

      I refuse to judge their choices as long as they act humane. War is never humane.
    105. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. You can think what you want, but can you really argue that the US Army is a quality force? "Best trained" as the OP said is a little presumptuous. Israel does a damn fine job, for example.

      A well-trained force? Sure.
      Best in the world? I wouldn't really know, and I don't really care.

      2. It should be noted that you most likely live in an allied state (either a NATO country or one in the western hemisphere) OR an enemy/former-enemy state like the old soviet bloc. If you live under the latter, well, I understand why you'd say such a thing. However, if you live in the former, please consider this: The US has, for 50 years, guaranteed your safety. It may not seem like much to you. But please, consider it: We've made a treaty that says that if you're attacked by nuclear weapons that we would consider that an attack upon our own soil and retaliate as necessary.

      Since the USA is not the only country in the NATO with nuclear weaponry, do keep in mind that each of the other countries in the NATO has said absoutely the same thing.
      Frankly, if my country is attacked with nuclear weaponry, I don't give jack shit how you will retaliate; I'll have been incinerated and/or irradiated to the degree of absolute apathy by that point.

      Furthermore, during the Cold War, it seems to me that you benefited way more from that treaty; the USSR was more likely to nuke you than us. With several European nations armed with nuclear weaponry, they were much less likely to try anything.

      I don't believe in altruism in high politics; if it hadn't benefitted you and you primarily, you wouldn't have signed the treaty. Case in point: Tokyo Treaty.

      BTW, your either-or logic is severely flawed: I was born in Yugoslavia, which has since fallen apart in a nasty little bunch of nasty little wars. We were neither in the Allied nor in the Soviet block, and Croatia is only now about to enter NATO. Probably.
      Yugoslavia was Non-Aligned, which I still consider the best position in the dick-measuring contest you had with the Russians.

      In other words, we, the American People, would deliberately involve ourselves in full nuclear exchange just to protect you and your countrymen.

      Oh, puh-lease.

      It's so sad to encounter people who so fervently believe their own propaganda.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    106. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      let it suffice to say that the rest of the world has a bit different view of your army. And of your country. I am a Canadian and I motorcycle tour the US frequently, and I have always been treated with hospitality. I like Americans. The Dutch people to this day honor US military for liberating their country in WWII. The original joke was not bad, let's not get carried away here.

      Maybe Americans are better hosts than patrons; I don't know.
      They are not universally liked, however. In some parts of the world, in fact, they are not liked at all.

      I suggest we stop here, though; this has all the potential to turn into a flamefest, which I wouldn't like in the least.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    107. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

      Lets look at a New Testament example then. Here is proof that not all killing is wrong. Read what Jesus and his army do in Rev 19:11-19

      That having been said, there's definite disagreement between groups of Christians on the interpretation of the role of killing in society. For instance the bible clearly gives the state the authority to execute (Romans 13), and no where are soldiers who convert to Christianity told to find a new profession. This, to me, shows that the expectation that a Christian may kill in the service of the state is clear.

      A bit of extrapolation here, in that if God's law is higher than the law of man, which is instituted by God, for there is no authority except that which God has established, and it is right for our rulers to wield the sword, it must not be against God to wield the sword. Though God may say when the use of the sword is acceptable (e.g. only in the service of the state, only when defending life, only when defending others) I think it is a hard point to argue that love and justice are incompatible with a role that may require the wielding of the sword.

      For any non-christians out there who may have read through all that, the sword is shorthand for the authority to take someone's life. While it is clear that Christians shouldn't seek retribution (Matthew 5:38-42), or survive by violence, it is considerably less clear in the situations where violence is acceptable, except to say that it is clear that both never and every situation are not the right answer. /offtopic

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
    108. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh and lets not forget about your little problem with the people who joined before all the abuses you mentioned. before the abuses he mentioned... there were plenty more.
    109. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      War is never humane.

      But even warriors may be.

      I was talking about people, not events. Especially since I haven't met War, one of the Riders of the Apocalypse, in person.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    110. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Not going to get into the pro/anti war flamewar here... but;

      Please do everyone a favor and learn the difference between the military, an instrument of national power, and the GOVERNMENT that wields it. If you want to meet a person who abhors war, talk to a soldier.

      We have a volunteer armed forces now. Meaning everyone there CHOSE to be there. I do feel bad for all those kids who joined in the 90's for the GI Bill benefits, and ended up in a silly war, but its the military, it exists to throw undereducated young people at whatever country our pols deem hip at the moment, so they should have seen it coming. Any profession that focuses on gun training probably isn't going to be safe and fun. You choose to be a tool, don't bitch about it.

      Second, ex-soldiers are the most pro-war people I know. Even if they were pacifist-like before enlisting. The closer to combat you get, the more pro-war you have to be. It's called cognitive dissonance. They invested hugely in the process, thus their minds must make it justified.

      The closest to anti-War I've seen a recent veteran is the fatalism of PTSD.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    111. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Echnin · · Score: 1

      Then why do US soldiers generally support the Republican party, which appears to me to prefer war as a solution to various problems more than their Democratic counterparts do? This is an honest question, from a non-US observer. I've seen a similar situation in my home country, though our army is very small.

      --
      Lalala
    112. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      Hitler says hi. Or Stalin, or any of the tin-pot dictators killing their own citizens. (No, not an attempt to Godwin the thread, but killing is a valid solution to lots of problems that are difficult to solve so effectively or, yes, so cleanly otherwise.) The GP said he didn't like the idea of killing, he didn't say he was totally against. I myself also hate the idea that killing another human is a solution to the problem, although I wouldn't think twice about doing so to protect those close to me.

      Why, yes, it might a shocker but Darwinism works! If you aren't the fittest, you won't kill your killer before he kills you, and you Lose The Game. Some people have hope that we will evolve into something more civilized then lions and gazelles out on the killing field. I don't share the hope myself, but I don't blame them for having it.

      ...you're joking, right? Your sky god has influenced more slaughter than anything else I can think of. INAC (I'm not a Christian), but I think the GP is referring to the few commandments in the Bible that involve not fucking with other people. Maybe "Thou shalt not kill" comes to mind? It also talked about this guy named Jesus who tried to teach people to love one another. What you are referring to are a bunch of assholes to did a lot of fucked-up shit and justified it by claiming their actions were demanded by God. You think people would magically be really nice to each other without religion? Watch the South Park 2-part series of "Go God Go" for a funny take on why that would never happen.

    113. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is there a better way to do this?
      Yes. You could post an on topic comment anywhere in the thread. And yes, this is ironic.
    114. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it IS sometimes the only option.

      Or did you expect hugs and kisses to solve WWII? The atrocities committed by Saddam? Etc.

      While there is a place for diplomacy, sometimes the only way to solve problems is by carrying a bigger stick.

      I for one would love to live in a Utopia where there was no hunger, poor, diseases, war... but that place don't exist. Welcome to Earth where power corrupts and wars happen.

    115. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by johannesg · · Score: 1

      Not everyone that goes into the military is a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, and quite a few of us are above average in terms of intelligence. Yeah, I bet at least 10% is above average. It could even be as high as 15%!

      I mean, which intelligent person wouldn't jump at the chance to get shot at by unfriendly people in faraway countries, all for increasing the already-astronomical wealth of a few wealthy industrials?

      I spent 6 years in the Navy, and I (nor anyone I knew) didn't shoot, rape OR pillage anyone. Hah, you are just frustrated because you missed out on all the good action!
    116. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a laugh. Soldiers must enjoy fighting and war, otherwise they wouldn't be a fucking soldier. They CHOSE to become soldiers.

    117. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by qortra · · Score: 1

      Here is proof that not all killing is wrong. I was never contesting this point. I was merely saying that I don't believe that violence has a place for Christians living under the New Covenant. Though most of the New Testament occurs well within the bounds of the New Covenant (as I mentioned), Revelation 4-22 is largely an exception to that rule. Also, Revelation is subject to wide and various interpretation, and probably shouldn't be used for diving Christian responsibility in the current church. For example, the verse that you pointed to describes the actions of Jesus and the heavenly army, not Christians living on Earth or even governments of Earth.

      Many of your other points are very interesting. Most of my friends who hold anti-pacifism positions take up a very similar argument. Specifically, they argue that when a Christian is acting as an arm of the state, it is the state that is justly carrying out just violence through their God given authority (via Romans 13, which you mentioned).

      Even if I grant this, there is a larger issue for me that is brought about by our current opt-in military system. If the government orders a Christian to do violence in order to advance justice (via a draft or similar mechanism), you could possibly make the case that he is obligated to do so (via Romans 13). However, the larger question still remains; should a Christian volunteer to be potentially thrust into that position.

      I do appreciate your comments, and they do justice to the complexity of the situation. My posts was mostly a negative reaction to the position that Christian Pacifism should be dismissed out of hand. Rather, it should be taken very seriously; Christians who are considering doing violence for any reason (whether as apart of their job or not) should consider their situations very carefully and somberly.
    118. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Jumperalex · · Score: 1

      A very good point. I believe the reason is because it is actually not true. That is to say, the military, in my first hand anecdotal experience, has a very vocal evangelical group who generally assume that everyone around them feels the same way. I have called MANY a person on their off-handed "jokes" about liberals, democrats, gays, etc with the retort, "what makes you assume I agree with you, no less find that funny?" The conversation usually ends there.

      But I will also admit that you are right, there is certainly a type of personality that lends itself to volunteering for military service that also tends to lean in the conservative/republican direction. I am not a sociologist so I will not pretent to know the answer to that question. Much like I will not pretend to know why so many poor, but religious, seem to support the conservative/republican agenda. That is to say, I know why, I just don't know WHY!!!

      But again, not as many people in the US military are conservative republicans as the conservative republicans would have you believe. But I will say that at least one factor is that in general the conservative republicans are seen as "supporting" the miiltary more than the liberal democrats. Add to that the strong religious vain running through the military and it is not hard to see why so many vote the way they do.

      Frankly there is not a single answer to your question, because it is so complex, other than to say you are working from a generalization (and I do not mean that as a stick in the eye, really I don't) which really is just not true. I would be an example of that.

      --
      If you can't be good, be good at it!
    119. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      ...quite a few of us are above average in terms of intelligence. Quite a few indeed. Well over half!

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    120. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by seifried · · Score: 1

      That's an incredibly victimizing viewpoint to hold. Only I have suffered, and thus only I can truly understand how truly terrible war is! Get over yourself. You might want to stop martyring and put the cross down someday. My advice: seek help from a competent therapist who specializes in emotional trauma and PTSD.

    121. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      INAC (I'm not a Christian), but I think the GP is referring to the few commandments in the Bible that involve not fucking with other people. Maybe "Thou shalt not kill" comes to mind?

      IANAC either, but I'm pretty sure that commandment is mistranslated. A more accurate translation would be "You shall not murder". There's a big difference between killing in self-defense and murder. Telling people they can't kill under any circumstances would yield a population of pacifists, utterly unable to defend themselves against any aggressor.

      Some people have hope that we will evolve into something more civilized then lions and gazelles out on the killing field. I don't share the hope myself, but I don't blame them for having it.

      I do. Any idiot can read the news and see that many of us humans are certainly no more civilized than lions and gazelles. Ignoring that reality isn't hope, it's stupid. Luckily, at least in civilian life during peacetime, most people aren't going to do any physical harm to you, but there's certainly a percentage who will, and if you refuse on some idiotic principle to defend yourself against those who would hurt you, then as far as I'm concerned you deserve whatever they do to you.

    122. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by phulegart · · Score: 1

      My Bad. Thanks for the correction. I really had no idea. I just fix their machines, watch the helicopters and Ospreys fly overhead, listen to them practice with their artillery, and otherwise try to avoid them as they drive like crazed maniacs to Walmart from the base.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    123. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Do you think I'll say something against someone as smart and sane as GWB and his cronies? I couldn't.

      Mostly 'cause I'd die laughing.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    124. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by phulegart · · Score: 1

      My bad. I stand corrected. I did not know that Marines are not soldiers.

      However, I never said that if you watch porn you think about raping people, and you are not proving how well you pay attention if you are assuming that is what I meant. I was very specific, in that the EVIDENCE THAT THESE MARINES LEAVE BEHIND ON THEIR COMPUTERS THAT HAS TO BE CLEANED OFF FOR THEM indicates that the mindsets that drove soldiers and marines to rape and pillage in Vietnam still exists, but now is being exercised in their usage of their laptops. For example. A dozen or so videos entitled "Gangbang Rape Volume xx" etc. that had to go bye bye on Friday... they could be mis-labeled but I don't know. I didn't watch them. Sure, I imagine they aren't real rape. I only caught the fact that they were even on that machine as their titles flashed by in a delete. Doesn't change the fact that here is this marine, downloading I-dunno-how-many "rape" videos. If he could not get his fix on the internet, would he be like one of the countless who actually DID rape native women in Vietnam? I can't say for sure he would, but you definitely cannot say that he would not.

      But if you want to prove your reading comprehension is not up to snuff, you go right ahead. Just be aware. Ignorance is not a privilege.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    125. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

      Sorry for any confusion. I am not trying to advocate any specific determination, as I am quite torn on this one myself. But I would like to say that there are many reasonable and differing interpretations, but I think absolutism can safely be ruled out.

      The Rev. ref was more to show that a priori violence is not wrong. It was NOT meant as an example of what Christians should do. Violence may just be wrong in certain situations. That could include a wide range of possibilities, and of those there is legitimate room for disagreement, and the legitimate disagreement is really all I intended to be arguing for.

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
    126. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by encoderer · · Score: 1

      You can "LOL" all you'd like but it doesn't change the facts.

      If you think that the Soviet Union wouldn't have kept expanding if they felt it was in their best interest then you're just fooling yourself.

      If they could expand the iron curtain without fear of significant reprisal, they would have.

      But the people of this country stood beside you. We stood beside you against a common foe and said "our fate is tied to yours."

      This kind of long-standing alliance is rare in all of human history.

      Say what you want, without the US most of Europe would be speaking either German or Russian right now.

      We didn't 'save' you from either threat -- you did much of the heavy lifting yourselves -- but you weren't capable of doing it without our help.

      No reason to be smug on either side. But as you cast aspersions towards the US, as you deride our idiot President and his moronic foreign and economic policies (and rightly so), remember that American dominance on its worst days is far better than Germanic or Soviet dominance on their best.

    127. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      I understand your point about making a case for myself, however I am firmly of the opinion that you are your best teacher and that knowledge won from your own labors is retained longer and more intimately known.

      In addition, just quoting english scriptures to people will not provide them with the interlocking theological framework and categorical reinforcement necessary to understand and retain the doctrine. Nor does knowing a scripture or two that seems to prove your point make your point valid doctrine.

      I am sorry if my brevity was taken for haughtiness, but the bible makes its own case. It is your responsibility to learn it. All I was recomending was taking another look at the facts of the Bible. I probably should have encouraged him to do as I have done and learn some Greek and Hebrew, study systematic theology, and get a pastor who is a scholar first and a fundraiser last. But hey, I ain't trying to run someone's life here, just make a simple recomendation, ya know?

      Just some food for thought: If you are wagering your eternal salvation on a book, you might want to know what is in that book. Taking someone else's word for it without intense self study and verification is just asking for trouble. Too many teachers and "believers" ransack the scriptures in an attempt to find substantiation for their worldly preconceived beliefs for you to not be wary when listening to someone's interpretation.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    128. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by encoderer · · Score: 1

      1. You can think what you want, but can you really argue that the US Army is a quality force? "Best trained" as the OP said is a little presumptuous. Israel does a damn fine job, for example.

      A well-trained force? Sure.

      Best in the world? I wouldn't really know, and I don't really care.

      2. It should be noted that you most likely live in an allied state (either a NATO country or one in the western hemisphere) OR an enemy/former-enemy state like the old soviet bloc.

      If you live under the latter, well, I understand why you'd say such a thing.

      However, if you live in the former, please consider this: The US has, for 50 years, guaranteed your safety. It may not seem like much to you. But please, consider it: We've made a treaty that says that if you're attacked by nuclear weapons that we would consider that an attack upon our own soil and retaliate as necessary.

      Since the USA is not the only country in the NATO with nuclear weaponry, do keep in mind that each of the other countries in the NATO has said absoutely the same thing.

      Frankly, if my country is attacked with nuclear weaponry, I don't give jack shit how you will retaliate; I'll have been incinerated and/or irradiated to the degree of absolute apathy by that point.


      Furthermore, during the Cold War, it seems to me that you benefited way more from that treaty; the USSR was more likely to nuke you than us. With several European nations armed with nuclear weaponry, they were much less likely to try anything.


      I don't believe in altruism in high politics; if it hadn't benefitted you and you primarily, you wouldn't have signed the treaty. Case in point: Tokyo Treaty.


      BTW, your either-or logic is severely flawed: I was born in Yugoslavia, which has since fallen apart in a nasty little bunch of nasty little wars. We were neither in the Allied nor in the Soviet block, and Croatia is only now about to enter NATO. Probably.

      Yugoslavia was Non-Aligned, which I still consider the best position in the dick-measuring contest you had with the Russians.

      In other words, we, the American People, would deliberately involve ourselves in full nuclear exchange just to protect you and your countrymen.

      Oh, puh-lease.


      It's so sad to encounter people who so fervently believe their own propaganda.

      What part isn't true?

      Of COURSE we benefited from the treaty. We wouldn't have passed it otherwise.

      But I disagree about "who would be nuked" should it have come to that.

      Most likely, nobody would just, on a whim, fire off some ICBMs.

      Most likely, it would be an escalation. Like: Soviet crosses the border into West Berlin, or greater West Germany, and we respond, and they respond, etc.

      My point is simple: we stood beside you. You can throw stones at the people of this country. But we stood beside you. You can deride our military. But we pledged our military to protect YOU if you needed it.

      We're a flawed people. But you show me one that isn't.

    129. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 1

      America has been extraordinarily lucky to have had no major wars on its own soil for a couple hundred years now. The most recent wars here are memories long lost. The only exposure most Americans get to war is in movies, so we don't tend to appreciate the horror of it.

      Additionally, there was quite a long period of time where it was a great way to finance your education. We hadn't had a major engagement since Korea and Viet Nam and, until 9/11, didn't expect one any time soon. It seemed like a steal. A friend of mine joined for exactly that reason. Two weeks after he joined up, the Trade Center fell. He never did get to go to school, and he instead wound up bouncing around to various bases and eventually to Iraq.

      The idea that he could join up, get college paid for, go spend some easy time on a base in Germany or Japan, and have some hands-on job experience was a pretty powerful draw. Unfortunately for him and a lot of others, it didn't work out that way. That's what they don't tell you in the Army recruiting commercials -- that, shit, you might actually get shot at and have to kill people. Everyone understands that's a gamble, but until 9/11, the odds seemed heavily in your favor.

      Fact is that a lot of people with no desire to kill anyone joined the Army for the perks. Now they're in a worst-case scenario -- they lost their gamble and may pay for that college education with their lives or limbs.

    130. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      our armed forces have changed radically since the Vietnam days.

      So I see
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison

    131. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by king-manic · · Score: 1

      On a site like this one, where people from the outside would presume everyone is a pasty and pimply 34 year old living in their parent's basement, I really would expect (just a little) a little more tolerance and less assumption from the people involved.

      You must be new here?(low 6 digit ID must be a spoof, damn navy spooks!)

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    132. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by thynk · · Score: 1

      As for military service, It would do most of the slashdot community some good.

      But, it comes with some very serious strings attached. I abhor the idea that killing is a solution to any problem. A soldier (or airman, seaman, marine) is given a gun. A gun is a machine designed to kill. The idea is kill your killer before he kills you. This is a morally dubious proposition and incompatible with the Christian theology I grew up with.

      As both a Christian and a Veteran of a combat arms unit in the Army, I might shed some light on this for you. The 6th commandment is often mistranslated into "You shall not kill" but a more accurate translation is "You shall not murder". Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought, where as killing simply means to take a life.

      I served with many soldiers who had seen direct combat in Desert Storm, and had taken lives (I consider it lucky that I was not deployed). Not one of them described the action as having malice. They knew why they were there, knew if they didn't "engage and destroy" the enemy, then not only would the mission fail, but they would lose their own lives.

      There are times when taking a life may be the only resort, and it would not be considered murder. Active combat is one, self defense is another. I can't think of a position I would ever be in that would require me to commit murder, but there are many where I would kill.

      Not trying to change your point of view here, just sharing my own. Your beliefs are yours for a reason, and while I don't agree with them, you have a right to hold them. We serve(d) to protect those who could not, or would not.
      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    133. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by k3r3nsky'sr3v3ng3 · · Score: 1

      Well, it couldn't have gotten that much worse in Iraq, seeing that US led sanctions were literally starving Iraq. But wait, more Iraqis are dying now than under Saddam with this nice civil war we started. Iraq's government has a budget surplus (unlike our own) but the money simply diffuses into the hands of the corrupt stooges we hired. In addition, The USA will likely go bankrupt before we ever "finish the job".

      --
      "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." Dwight Eisenhower
    134. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Darby · · Score: 1

      I wonder why they join up, then?

      Patriotism?


      No. It couldn't possibly be that. Given that the military is used primarily as a weapon of big business and hasn't been used in defense of the US since WW2 at least, patriots wouldn't go near the military. Given that joining up means being used as a weapon against freedom, you're just not going to find any decent patriotic citizens in the service. They've been fucked too many times, and smart people learn.

    135. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of COURSE we benefited from the treaty. We wouldn't have passed it otherwise.
      <snip>
      My point is simple: we stood beside you. You can throw stones at the people of this country. But we stood beside you. You can deride our military. But we pledged our military to protect YOU if you needed it.

      ... because you saw interest in it.

      To be more accurate, your government saw interest in pledging some of your military - therefore, someone else's lives - in case some other NATO member was attacked.
      No-one ever thought about protecting me. And since my country wasn't in the NATO, we had no protection whatsoever. I remember the war, and the weapons embargo while we were being attacked.
      You didn't do jack shit.

      So please, please don't try to give me that self-righteous self-sacrificing crap. I grew up in a society ruled by war profiteers, listening to such propaganda. Please don't insult me by trying to feed me the same crap I'd gagged on when I was ten.

      We're a flawed people. But you show me one that isn't.

      Of course, I can't do that.
      But I can show you a number of peoples who do not invade other peoples in order to force upon them their preferred version of freedom in a holy war.

      Some flaws are more irritating than others. So please do not flame me.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    136. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone that goes into the military is a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal

      You can't really tell that from the results they achieve.

    137. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      And your service men have slaughtered, and ARE slaughtering, hundreds of thousands of civilian men women and children.

      Okay, maybe I should have said "things that our servicemen are actually doing, and not things that are happening in the area".

      If you think American servicemen are killing "hundreds of thousands of civilian men women and children" (protip: commas go in between items on a list), you are fucking deluded. So, no, your false example doesn't turn my stomach. Fuck off.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    138. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Read through my comment again; I think you'll find that you missed the point completely.

      I haven't been traumatized by the war much. But I do know people who have.
      And I'm just saying that I'm aware I will never feel about it as deeply as they do.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    139. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was a war protester during Vietnam. I would attend every antiwar rally I could find. And then one day I got drafted. That was when I learned how wrong I was and what a great experience war is.

      Half the time we were just stoned out of our minds in the local whore house. The other half of the time, we would go out on patrol and try to kill some gooks so we could take their money and buy more hookers and dope.

      My favorite memory was tying cats to the mortar shells and firing them at the enemy. That way they would hear a cat screeching at them before it killed them.

    140. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      I thought I was done on this thread, but seeing your posts accusing me of haughtiness, calling people ignorant, and saying that I said things I did not (dismissed out of hand?) I will respond in the only way I know how.

      Point to one scripture of the Bible (new or old testament) that specifically prohibits military service. As you said, you need to back up what you say, so where is the proof you are basing your opinions on?

      I can save you a huge volume of time and effort. It's not in there. Careful what you take from your own mind and place in the context of the bible. Saying scripture is "complex" when it is transparent is either an attempt to insert your own ideas (legalism) or an admission of lack of understanding.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    141. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The solution is obvious: US Government Certified Porn.

      If it's anything like Government Cheese, then I fear for the sanity of our troops.

      If it's anything like Government Weed, on the other hand, then I implore our troops to post some on teh intertubes for us civvies!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    142. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "The idea is kill your killer before he kills you. This is a morally dubious proposition and incompatible with the Christian theology I grew up with."

      Plenty of other Christians found it morally acceptable over the last couple of thousand years, which is why your faith spread as far and as fast as it did.

      The same deal works for Islam, which claims to be religion of peace but is as still as stabby and choppy as Christianity was before it became a hobby.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    143. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favorite memory was tying cats to the mortar shells and firing them at the enemy. That way they would hear a cat screeching at them before it killed them.

      I'm sure not going to post under my ID, but this last statement had me snorting in my cubicle.
    144. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Oldav · · Score: 0

      "Not everyone that goes into the military is a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal" Just most of them!

    145. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Oldav · · Score: 0

      Monthly rapes in Okinawa, Me-lai, Murder of Iraqi families, Gitmo, abu grahib, how about a difficult question, this one is easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

    146. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      DVD == Digital Venereal Disease.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    147. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cpricejones · · Score: 1

      I don't have a desk, you insensitive clod!

    148. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Surreal_Streaker · · Score: 1
      ...and quite a few of us are above average in terms of intelligence. I spent 6 years in the Navy, and I (nor anyone I knew) didn't shoot, rape OR pillage anyone.

      People don't pillage people, they pillage things.

    149. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      Muggers of elderly can be humane, too.

      But they deserve none of my tolerance.

    150. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by h3llfish · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      What a load of horse shit. Folks in the military voted overwhelmingly for Bush in 2004. If that isn't a vote for the aggressive use of American military power, then what is? If they hate war so much, they should have joined the PEACE corps.

      Our soldiers are bathed in the blood of the innocent. Life under Saddam was certainly brutal, but he wasn't going to kill anything like the number of Iraqis that the US military has killed.

    151. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Humor of all kinds (satire included) needs to have an element of truth in it to be funny. In other words, in order to find his "joke" funny, you would have to believe (on some level) that the US military really DOES go out and commit atrocities on a regular basis.

      Nah; it wouldn't have to be regular. If there were "renegade" US soldiers committing atrocities on an irregular basis, and their superiors were mostly just sorta looking the other way and rarely investigating, it would be just as good a basis for humor. And you'd have trouble convincing most of the world that this isn't pretty much what the US (and every other) military is like.

      Anyone who has been paying attention has read of what happened in places like Fallujah and Abu Graib, and knows what the phrase "extraordinary rendition" is a euphemism for.

      Pretending your soldiers are angels isn't really a good propaganda ploy. It only works with your own True Patriots; the rest of the world just snickers.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    152. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      I just had to throw in my two cents here (SSgt speaking)-

      I know you're not lying about the state of the computers you fix. But I would like to say that, given ANY large group of 18-24-year-olds, you will find the same thing. Young men are young men. All I'm saying is that it's good to take a step or two back every now and then to get some perspective.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    153. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dulce bellum inexpertis.

      I joined up because of a desire to give something back to my country, Starship Troopers-style. I know war sucks. I've deployed to Iraq twice. I think it's the most terrible thing I'll every experience in my life. And I'm signing up to go again.

      I did not join to finance my education; scholarships would have covered that.

      I am a citizen (politicians are scumbags who would kill me to win an election) AND a solder (I will do everything in my power to get the job done). That is a lot to wrap your mind around if you haven't been in the same situation. And I won't get on some moral high horse about it, because before I joined and before I went off to war, I didn't know what it was like, really. There just isn't a way to prepare for it. It changes you. But on the other hand, I'm going to have to take exception to this:

      "Am I not allowed to abhor natural disasters as I have not been in any?"

      There is 'abhor' and then there is hiding under your couch on July 4th, keeping your bags packed, staying armed, staying isolated, jumping at every slammed door...

      It is one thing to hate something on the principle that it is something that deserves to be hated, and quite another thing to hate something because it has power over you.

      So anyways... I see your point- and it is worth reflection- but there is another side to the story. I just thought I'd give you a soldier's perspective.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    154. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by ibsteve2u · · Score: 0

      I really would expect (just a little) a little more tolerance and less assumption from the people involved.

      Or at least an intelligent question like: Gee, I wonder if those people who have been trying to get Playboy and Penthouse banned from the PX and BX for decades and decades stumbled upon this as an alternative method?

      Nothing like the idea of being able to say "Porn is a threat to national security!" to attract the ramrod-asses...

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    155. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone that goes into the military is a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, and quite a few of us are above average in terms of intelligence. I spent 6 years in the Navy, and I (nor anyone I knew) didn't shoot, rape OR pillage anyone.
      Maybe you didn't, but you were morally bankrupt enough to sign up and take a paycheck in return for promising to shoot and kill anyone, anywhere that you were told to. You were willing to murder human beings to advance politicians' goals, regardless of how corrupt those goals might be. That is disgusting, and you don't deserve ANY tolerance.
    156. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      I'm dutch, but I still hope anyway that you will come back safely :)
      Be careful out there :)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    157. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cavebison · · Score: 1

      Let me guess - you joined the military to boss people around?

      Some join up for the guns, others for education.. guess it takes all kinds.

    158. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes. The good ole lethal-dose-of-laughing-gas special ops trick.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    159. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      FWIW, after all the things that happened to them after the war, a large number of Croatian patriots, who'd gone to war simply to defend their country, have told me that if Croatia were attacked again, they'd join the aggressor.

      A dejected patriot is almost as bad as a scorned woman.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    160. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Oh, I wouldn't worry about that.
      Nearly everyone has a boss whom they'd like to fire a lethal cat at.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    161. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Reasonable+Radical · · Score: 0

      If I had mod points, I'd spend quite a few of them upmodding all your posts in this thread. I know that's undoubtedly one of the reasons I DON'T have mod points, but I'd just like to state my absolute respect for you based on what you've said here. I wrote a lot more, but it seemed inadequate and has been deleted. So...have a great day.

    162. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      remember that American dominance on its worst days is far better than Germanic or Soviet dominance on their best.

      No. It is not.

      I'm sure that some Polish, Czech or Hungarian reader can confirm that the best days of Soviet dominance were far better than, say, current American dominance in Iraq.

      As long as you are in the position of dominance, it is so easy to think you are in the right and better than someone else who could be in that position. I assure you that the sentiment is not as readily shared by the ones you exert your dominance over.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    163. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by madjia · · Score: 1

      But at the same time also don't forget the help we as allies have been giving you, because the US would not have been able to do everything alone.

      Like the troops of your allies helping in Afghanistan and Iraq or the aid we've given when your country was devastated by 9/11 and Katrina.

      It goes both ways, and I am grateful for the good ties and I hope they will stay in good standing after some of the incidents that happened (your government lying to ours and other allied governments)

    164. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> If they abhor it so much, why the HELL did they VOLUNTEER to do it?

      People usually volunteer to defend their own country that's why.

      Unfortunately usually they then get called into offensive wars abroad

    165. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've made a treaty that says that if you're attacked by nuclear weapons that we would consider that an attack upon our own soil and retaliate as necessary.

      And that treaty was made because of what? Because nuclear blasts aren't that good for good, ol' Earth and will keep land uninhabitable for quite some time. You're more likely to damage your own soldiers with the radiation than anything else. That treaty was just for show. No government (except some batshit crazy Iranian anti-Semite or any form of radical idiots fighting for ideals) would use nuclear weapons on Earth. It's about as effective as removing skin to remove dirt on the skin. Nuclear weapons are for threatening, not for use.
    166. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      If it's anything like Government Cheese, then I fear for the sanity of our troops.
      It involves a lot of corsets and straps and elastic, and a knee brace.
      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    167. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by encoderer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I had written a long reply. But you'll just wave your arms and yell "propaganda" because, well, it's easier to label it all "propaganda" than it is to actually discuss something reasonably.

      I think a cultural barrier is going to prevent us from ever really seeing eye-to-eye.

      But here's my issue with you:

      You fault the American people for the mistakes our Government has made. Most notably, in your last post, about Iraq.

      But, when it comes to extending the "nuclear umbrella" over NATO states, when it comes to intervening in and winning "The Great Patriotic War," for these things, it's "high politics" and a selfish act.

      Well, you can't have it both ways. If our country, if our people, deserve your scorn for Iraq then that means that you believe that the American people are responsible due to who we chose to elect into power.

      Well, the American People could've elected in isolationist in 1940, 44, 48, 52, etc.

      We could've sat idly by while Nazi's consume the people and resources of Europe for their own gain.

      No matter what you want to believe Hitler, even if he'd been successful in Europe, posed no direct threat to our homeland. We weren't required to fight him to defend ourselves.

      The American People chose to.

      Regualar folks, middle class, middle age, middle income voters, in the voting booth, pulling the lever for a man who would continue to send our young boys to Europe to fight YOUR menace.

      Regular men and women, who knew what that vote meant. Who remembered WWI, where we also fought on your behalf, who knew the sacrifice of another European war.

      You say there is no act of altruism.

      Well, you're wrong about that.

      The only other option is that the power the American people hold is fictitious, that they were manipulated by our gov't.

      Well, like I said: you can't have it both ways. If you do feel that way, then how could you hold it against us for invading Iraq?

    168. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I spent 6 years in the Navy, and I (nor anyone I knew) didn't shoot, rape OR pillage anyone.

      So you mean that you drove/flew/sailed the ones doing the shooting and raping around...and then signed their paychecks?

      Sorry, bad Navy joke.

      Besides, if you're in the military, you're complicit. Period. Get over it, you helped to kill people.

    169. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      I had written a long reply. But you'll just wave your arms and yell "propaganda" because, well, it's easier to label it all "propaganda" than it is to actually discuss something reasonably.

      Actually, this time I will label it all idiocy and so much faulty logic that I'll first pinch myself and check if I'm talking to one of my creationist trolls.
      Yes, it's that bad. Non sequiturs abound.

      I think a cultural barrier is going to prevent us from ever really seeing eye-to-eye.

      Yes, you can call it a cultural barrier, too, if you really want to.
      Though that opens you up for a bunch of cheap shots about American culture, or lack thereof. I'll try not to make any, but just to let you know that I could.

      But here's my issue with you:
      You fault the American people for the mistakes our Government has made. Most notably, in your last post, about Iraq.

      No, I most notably do not.
      I have learned fairly well how democracy works on a larger scale (where "larger scale" is every and any scale at which people no longer personally know everyone else involved in the process), so I give the American people the benefit of a doubt.
      I only take exception to presenting the will of your politicians as the will of the whole people, i.e. to mixing up - at will - the small scale and the large scale.

      But, when it comes to extending the "nuclear umbrella" over NATO states, when it comes to intervening in and winning "The Great Patriotic War," for these things, it's "high politics" and a selfish act.

      I explained my view on the nuclear umbrella and I maintain that you gained more than you gave.
      As for the "Great Patriotic War", I don't even know which one you're talking about. I'll guess you meant the one war I talked about from my limited personal experience, i.e. the Croatian war for independence (capitalize as needed, I don't really care). If my guess is correct, then no, I never said nor expected you to intervene and win that war for us. Croatia was under a weapons embargo; lifting that would have sufficed.
      However, since you so fervently maintain that you were protecting us, I feel I have a right to ask you: where were you then? Where was your altruism then?

      I only ask that as a retort to your claims; otherwise it's all the same to me.

      Well, you can't have it both ways. If our country, if our people, deserve your scorn for Iraq then that means that you believe that the American people are responsible due to who we chose to elect into power.

      You simplify too much.

      I know very well what it's like when a candidate with less than a real majority of votes comes to power; many of your fellow Americans apologized when Bush was re-elected. If Croatia were more important, I would probably have apologized in the same manner for our current leadership.

      I do not attack the American people, once again. I attack your claims, I attack you. You just choose to hide behind the great mass that is the American people (this was not a slur on your average obesity level, though, in hindsight, it very well could have been).

      Well, the American People could've elected in isolationist in 1940, 44, 48, 52, etc.
      We could've sat idly by while Nazi's consume the people and resources of Europe for their own gain.

      Now, I'll admit I've never liked history much, but IIRC, the USA was pretty passive right until Pearl Harbor. If that hadn't happened, you might have stayed equally passive, for all that I know.
      However, since history is not one of my strong points, I will not debate it.

      No matter what you want to believe Hitler, even if he'd been successful in Europe, posed no direct threat to our homeland. We weren't required to fight him to defend ourselves.

      I vaguely remember something about Nazism and communism in Britain and in the US at that point in time, and a whole lot of s

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    170. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Corwn+of+Amber · · Score: 1

      LOL11

      If they were allowed to downlo0ad pr0n on BitTorrent using Military Fat pipes, they would never spend a cent to buy infected DVDs.

      Oh, but, and, they run Windows, then! (Remember, no virus on any other platform right?) So... Either give them BitTorrent pr0n, or do as armies always did in ye olden times : GIVE THEM WOMEN to have sex with.

      Or castrate them all. Clean-cut, disciplined, gilded soldiers will do wonders for America's image. So much better than a whorehouse next to the barracks! Yeah, good idea, that!

      --
      Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
    171. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by tloh · · Score: 1

      No. It couldn't possibly be that.

      why?

      Given that the military is used primarily as a weapon of big business

      prove it.

      and hasn't been used in defense of the US since WW2 at least

      NATO disagrees with you. The events of 9/11 lead to invocation of "Article 5" of the NATO charter where all member states come to the mutual DEFENCE of a member state that has suffered an attack.

      patriots wouldn't go near the military.

      proof?

      Given that joining up means being used as a weapon against freedom

      proof?

      you're just not going to find any decent patriotic citizens in the service.

      proof?

      They've been fucked too many times, and smart people learn.

      Chances are, you have never been fucked by anyone or anything except the sad result of your own narrow-mindedness. Consequently, you have not had the chance to learn anything about the human spirit. But that is just a guess. I sincerely hope someday you will have the privileged and honor of meeting someone as noble as Doug Love or Pat Tillman. Hopefully, someone who is patient and compassionate enough to regard you with the respect that I find very difficult to grant you at the moment. Until then, I hope talking like an idiot is the worst you'll do and that your ignorance and immaturity does not land you in more serious trouble and compromise your safety and well-being. Because smart people learn without being fucked and befriending folks who are smarter and more worldly then you is one small step in the right direction. Good luck to you on your journey through life.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    172. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Darby · · Score: 1

      Given that the military is used primarily as a weapon of big business

      prove it.


      Here you go. Proof positive from a far better man and a far better soldier than you could ever hope to be.

      NATO disagrees with you. The events of 9/11 lead to invocation of "Article 5" of the NATO charter where all member states come to the mutual DEFENCE of a member state that has suffered an attack.>

      In the first place, that would apply to other NATO countries, not the US.
      In the second place, there was an opportunity to defend the US, but instead Bush chose to go follow their hare brained scheme of invading Iraq.

      Are you really too stupid to have noticed that we were never attacked by Iraq? How the hell could we be defending ourselves by blowing the shit out of an uninvolved country? Exactly, not possible, hence it isn't defense.

      Go read that book, and it constitutes all the proof you need for all of your idiotic requests for proof of the obvious.

      Chances are, you have never been fucked by anyone or anything except the sad result of your own narrow-mindedness. Consequently, you have not had the chance to learn anything about the human spirit. But that is just a guess.

      It's not even a guess. It's an idiotic delusional statement based on your complete ignorance of the US military's purpose and the uses to which it is most often put.
      I have far more respect for the human spirit than some idiot who thinks murdering democratically elected leaders in order to install mass murdering thugs who are friendly to US corporate interests at the expense of their own people is defending America.

      Seriously. You have proven yourself to be so stupid as to think that murdering innocents for profit is the action a patriot or even a decent human being would take.

      You are dead fucking wrong about that.

      Your contempt for humanity is evident since you stated flat out that you consider their lives to have no value unless they're slaving away at gunpoint to save you a nickel.

    173. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by brkello · · Score: 1

      But is he protecting himself or is he murdering? In this case, we are the aggressor. They aren't defending innocent civilians on our soil. They are fighting a foreign war on foreign soil based on false information. But the troops aren't there by choice, they are ordered by the President and those higher in command. So is it ok to murder someone just because you are commanded to? That is the problem with the military. It is controlled by people with interests that may not be the right thing to do. So does God forgive you if you murder people based on others commands? Or should you stand up and do the right thing? Or maybe just not join the military so you are allowed to make your own decision on what is right or wrong instead of becoming a machine that just accepts order.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    174. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by tloh · · Score: 1

      Who is Smedley D. Butler? How does the personal perspective of one individual constitute proof? Less the individual be God himself the man only offers one opinion among many. Brother, not you, not Major General Butler, not any one individual gets to pass off lone perspectives as overarching truth. There is no proof. Your opinion is only that.

      Mentioning Iraq sidetracks the topic of discussion at hand. NATO is not active in Iraq. Bush and company went in against the positions of member nations France, Germany, and Canada among others. You failed to recognize the fact that the initial invocation of "Article 5" demonstrates that 9/11 constitutes an attack on the US homeland as recognized by a military mutual defense organization. This is counter to the assertion that America has not been attacked since WWII.

      Now that that is taken care of, I would like to return to the point I was trying to make before which is that ordinary citizens enlist for reasons that are not all disgraceful or shameful. Neither Pat Tillman or Doug Love have the power to influence policy. I acknowledge your argument that military power can (and currently is being) misused. But don't blame the troops dying on the front. Don't blame the father supporting his family or the student financing his/her debt. One of my co-workers (ex-air force) has a daughter in an ambulance platoon. They did good work in Kosevo, they are good people.

      I read books. I learn a lot from them. But I've find it far more insightful to talk to people. People like Doug Love, my co-worker Jim Eli, and yes even you. I'm sorry I accused you of being a narrow-minded virgin. But if you are man enough to reply, then yes - I would also be willing to engage you in a rational discussion on this matter.

      Believe it or not, I think we share common ground regarding the use of military power. However, I strongly disagree with what seems like your position that the culpability for mistakes should entirely fall to the majority of currently active soldiers and veterans whose duty it is to follow orders (even bad ones which seems to be the norm these days). In short, I'm against the war, but I support our troops. My respect and admiration for life is driven by the nobility of all those I've talked to who have served and served for the right reasons. Less I be misunderstood, this is not to say I condone the events of Abu Ghraib or similar incidents. That is different but something I feel strongly about also. Most people I've talked to say that a good soldier would've refused to do what was done in those photos. But that does not represent the military as exemplified by my personal friends and acquaintances - none of whom are greedy senseless murderers.

      P.S. Lorn, huh? Whedon fan? ;-)

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    175. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Binkleyz · · Score: 1

      Maybe my experience was different, Sergeant Hulka...

      I spent all of my "at sea" time in the Navy on submarines (insert the inevitable gay sumbariner joke here), and while we had the power to end literally millions of lives (128 100kt warheads will ruin most anyone's day), nobody on either of my boats I was on (that I know of) ever shot, stabbed, raped, killed, etc anyone. Obviously the Marines that we dealt with DID have a job that required them to shoot or kill people in the line of duty, but I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say that they also were unlikely to have raped or pillaged anyone.

      My point was that it is manifestly unfair to tar an entire class of people as being indiscriminate thugs and killers, especially when the group that is being tarred is doing their jobs primarily for the benefit of (whether you agree with the underlying real or imagined political rationale or not) the very people that are reading this. And yes, I KNOW that not everyone on /.is in the US, but I imagine that the vast majority of us are.

    176. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Binkleyz · · Score: 1

      Wow. That's a pretty arrogant assertion on your part.

      The "system" has in no way "kept me in poverty", and none of the people that I have kept in touch with from that time of my life are either. In fact, that "system" has served me very well.

      I'm not stupid.
      I'm not (by anyone's calculation) poor.
      I'm pretty sure that I'm not naive (although if I am, I'm by definition not aware of it).

      In fact, I DID join the military for a reason other than the ones you assert "no other career options or hope to piggy back their way through college are the only choices". Personally, I didn't feel that I was ready to just go straight to school, so a few years in the military (yes, "serving my country") seemed like (and was) a good way to spend some time.

    177. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Binkleyz · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected...

      You are correct that only THINGS can be pillaged, but those things are usually PEOPLES things. I should have said "Pillaged anyone's things".

    178. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Binkleyz · · Score: 1

      You know, I've only recently become aware that people possessing a low UID somehow have some kind of "street cred" here on /. .

      I used to (many years ago now) work with someone (with a MUCH lower UID than mine.. in the low 4 digit range) that now works for sourceforge (the company behind /.), and he's the one that introduced it to me..

      I've been mostly a lurker for all that time, as my posting history indicates.

      I honestly didn't expect to ignite anything like the commentary that has been spawned from my post.

    179. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Darby · · Score: 1
      You failed to recognize the fact that the initial invocation of "Article 5" demonstrates that 9/11 constitutes an attack on the US homeland as recognized by a military mutual defense organization. This is counter to the assertion that America has not been attacked since WWII.

      I didn't say that. I said that the military has not been used to *defend* America since WW2. Obviously, not having any sort of military at all would be problematic. I'm not saying that.
      However, the military has not acted to defend us in relation to 9/11 which is one of the major problems with the whole Iraq thing. They have been used to stir up even more trouble, to increase hostility, and to justify even greater government and military expenditures.
      You can talk all day long about how you know people over there and they're passing out candy bars or whatever stuff they, as genuinely nice individuals, choose to do, but it's completely meaningless to the topic.

      The military was used as a tool to create more terrorists in order to use terrorism as an excuse to set up the police state bullshit we're currently enacting. You can debate whether that aspect of the plan was intentional or serendipitous, but it's obviously how it turned out.

      Who is Smedley D. Butler? How does the personal perspective of one individual constitute proof? Less the individual be God himself the man only offers one opinion among many. Brother, not you, not Major General Butler, not any one individual gets to pass off lone perspectives as overarching truth. There is no proof. Your opinion is only that.

      Opinions, however, are not equally valid. Smedley D. Butler is the most highly decorated American soldier at the time of his death. He was actively involved in many of the sleazy activities out military was tasked with until he got so disgusted by himself and our government that he resigned and dedicated his life to getting the word out to the citizens about what exactly they were paying to have done

      "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

      Now, while you can call that the perspective of one individual, most of that is simple history.

      Take the 1903 fruit thing. That's where the term "Banana Republic" came from.
      We're so cynical and/or ignorant about our history it's not even funny.
      That was a long time ago even, and the military was being used as a tool for big business.

      During the World Wars, the American people sacrificed a great deal, and some of them got very rich and powerful making weapons. It's one thing to be in the business of making war materials when demand goes through the roof, but it's a completely different thing to be in that market and make up wars to grow your business off of the public tit and the public blood.

      A great deal of what we've done militarily since WW2 falls into the second category.

      Presumably you disagree with that, or I don't think we have a disagreement at all.

      Obviously we have a military, we have companies who supply that military, and astronomical amounts of money involv

    180. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by tloh · · Score: 1

      However, the military has not acted to defend us in relation to 9/11 which is one of the major problems with the whole Iraq thing. They have been used to stir up even more trouble, to increase hostility, and to justify even greater government and military expenditures.

      Which is why I say bring up Iraq side tracks the discussion. The *Iraq* thing is the problem, not the military. The military just unfortunately happens to be the monkey wrench that fucked the whole thing up. Given the incompetent "tool user" at hand, it could easily have been something else.

      You can talk all day long about how you know people over there and they're passing out candy bars or whatever stuff they, as genuinely nice individuals, choose to do, but it's completely meaningless to the topic.

      Actually, that is exactly the point of the topic. I have a big problem with those who say that the military is at fault for the current situation we are in while white washing the responsibilities of civilian leaders. Sure, there is lip service about what bastards Bush, Chaney and Company are, but one seems to accept that as an unchangable fact of life while the men and women in uniform have done some horrible sin in one of many parts of the world where they are active. What's up with that? When you have flimsy furniture, do you blame the carpenter or his tools?

      The military was used as a tool to create more terrorists

      Ahh! There, you've said it yourself. I'm glad I don't need to explain this point any further. "The military was used *AS A TOOL*". The tool didn't use itself, did it? Is it a bad tool because it was misused?

      in order to use terrorism as an excuse to set up the police state bullshit we're currently enacting. You can debate whether that aspect of the plan was intentional or serendipitous, but it's obviously how it turned out.

      I don't think there is any question that the current restrictions on freedom and privacy is an intended component of response. Any security apparatus seeks to assert control and awareness over whatever it is protecting. With the perceived need to protect the citizens, our particular security apparatus has unfortunately been given too much power and control.

      Opinions, however, are not equally valid.

      So what? Distinguished individuals with strong opinions are a dime a dozen. Just because you happen to agree with one as opposed to another doesn't make one perspective more valid than another. Besides, this again, veers from the intended point I was trying to make. I never claimed that military power has never been misused, either presently or historically. (I thought we got over that point already.) My point is and has always been that individual people join up for good reasons and, with righteous motivations, do a lot of good things.

      During the World Wars, the American people sacrificed a great deal, and some of them got very rich and powerful making weapons. It's one thing to be in the business of making war materials when demand goes through the roof, but it's a completely different thing to be in that market and make up wars to grow your business off of the public tit and the public blood.

      That is all fine and good. But again, do you really intend to hold uniformed men and women who risk their lives accountable rather than the decision makers and financial stake holders who sent them out there? I have yet to meet one rich soldier or hear of anyone who became one in order to become wealthy.

      A great deal of what we've done militarily since WW2 falls into the second category. Presumably you disagree with that, or I don't think we have a disagreement at all.

      I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think you point is poorly argued and quite honestly beside the point. I think you are unfairly throwing out the baby with the bath water by refusing to distinguish

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    181. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how you went from "thou shalt not kill", to my comment which basically said that they meant murder, as self-defense is perfectly acceptable, to military involvement in foreign wars. I wasn't addressing the military at all, only the poor translation that used the word "kill" instead of "murder", leading many to stupidly become pacifists (meaning they won't even defend themselves and families against violent people, not that they won't join the military).

    182. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by king-manic · · Score: 1

      You know, I've only recently become aware that people possessing a low UID somehow have some kind of "street cred" here on /. .

      I used to (many years ago now) work with someone (with a MUCH lower UID than mine.. in the low 4 digit range) that now works for sourceforge (the company behind /.), and he's the one that introduced it to me..

      I've been mostly a lurker for all that time, as my posting history indicates.

      I honestly didn't expect to ignite anything like the commentary that has been spawned from my post. Most communities stratifies themselves. It's sort of a natural thing. So the low ID represents seniority and somehow means you are more then a random person, that you might be one of the founders and builders of the community. Sort of an inverse e-penis-size.

      PS. I can sympathize about where you are coming from, the armed forces are a diverse place and the US armed forces are one of the more benign military entities but gets held to a higher standard because it's western. Western democracies insists it's means of martial force be as just as possible which stands out against millenias of military history where brutality and rape have been the norm.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    183. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by tloh · · Score: 1

      Addendum. I speak for Pat Tillman because obviously, he can't speak for himself. Fortunately, his mother has opened up and spoken in public. Here is a radio interview: http://kqed.org/programs/radio/forum/ As of the moment, it is current, but the segment will enter into the archives pretty soon. You would agree with much of what she has to say about the failures and miss-steps of the military in handling her son's death. But regardless, she honors his character and spirit in the same spirit that I defend my friends.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    184. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Darby · · Score: 1

      Actually, that is exactly the point of the topic. I have a big problem with those who say that the military is at fault for the current situation we are in while white washing the responsibilities of civilian leaders. Sure, there is lip service about what bastards Bush, Chaney and Company are, but one seems to accept that as an unchangable fact of life while the men and women in uniform have done some horrible sin in one of many parts of the world where they are active. What's up with that? When you have flimsy furniture, do you blame the carpenter or his tools?

      OK, I think I understand what our fundamental misunderstanding is.

      I agree with you on most of what you said, but I think we're just disagreeing on a subtle point.

      It's almost (in my head) like you're arguing about the abstract concept of "The Military", while I'm arguing about the modern US military in particular, yet most of your specifics are about individual members of the current US military.

      Which is why I say bring up Iraq side tracks the discussion. The *Iraq* thing is the problem, not the military. The military just unfortunately happens to be the monkey wrench that fucked the whole thing up. Given the incompetent "tool user" at hand, it could easily have been something else.

      The problem with this reasoning is that it's equally applied to *The first* Iraq thing. Or to Grenada. Or to Panama, or to Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam, El Salvador, Argentina, Iran ( the Shah, not next week or whenever) and the list goes on and on.
      Rather than that, it's not that it applies equally well to each situation. I think it's that you're applying the argument to each event in serial and I'm doing it in parallel.

      If every time the same thing happens, you say that the people who were sent off to murder a bunch of people whose desire for a decent life interfered with the profiteering of US companies couldn't or didn't know that that's the sort of thing they were signing up for, then it works. But it only works in isolation from all of the previous events.

      If you step back and take a larger view than that your friends had high goals and ideals and they're great people you see a much different picture.

      I'm not talking about the motivations, goals and desires of the people you're talking about. For the sake of this entire discussion, we can assume that they're motivated by nothing but love for their fellow people, have not a scrap of anything unpleasant within themselves, and fart dusts of pure crystalized love if you'd like.

      If you, instead, look at the history of US military involvement as a whole from the present day perspective, then then you can no longer ignore the first misadventure while excusing the second. You can no longer ignore the first two while excusing the third... I assume you get the basic inductive principle?

      I'm not arguing that the Iraq thing is the problem. I'm pointing out that it's the current in a long chain of events promoted primarily by those who stand to make the most profit from it.
      Ignoring the chain of events and excusing each event in isolation might be an interesting thought experiment, but I don't see how it could ever grant any illumination on this reality.

      Ahh! There, you've said it yourself. I'm glad I don't need to explain this point any further. "The military was used *AS A TOOL*". The tool didn't use itself, did it? Is it a bad tool because it was misused?

      That's the difference between an inanimate object and a real thinking human being.
      The "atoms" of the "tool" in question made a conscious choice to be part of the tool.
      Again, this is where the analogy fails, and I think, the crux of our issue is.

      Anyone can buy a hammer. You might use yours to build a beautiful gazebo, and I might use mine to gouge out my eye while trying to pull a nail out of my forehead. As far as the hammer is concerned...well hammer's aren't concerned, and that's the point.

      Your serial approach to US military involvement assumes that peopl

    185. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by tloh · · Score: 1

      Darby, I think our conversation is becoming more enlightening. However, it wouldn't be long before this story becomes archived and enters read only mode. As such, it would be difficult to continue posting here to continue our discussion. I will reply as best as I can here and now, but if you wish to continue engaging in this exchange, I would encourage you to email me privately at thinkren*at*gmail*dot*com.

      As I was saying, I think we're finding more common ground. However, I feel I need to re-center this discussion around the original point I was trying to make which started off this discussion. I was responding to the question of why people signed up and joined the military. I answered the best I could, based on friends I know who actually enlisted. I never intended to become involved in a discussion about ethical use of the military (more on this later). You may or may not agree with my regard for my friends, but I wouldn't fault you for not appreciating people you don't know. They are *my* friends - not yours, and I am not going to blame you for not standing by them. Yes, I do, as you state, argue about specific individual members of the current military. That is because they are relevant to my answer to the question of 'why do people join the military?'. For each and every one of them, every conflict is indeed more or less isolated. That is because none of my friends are career military officers. They do their tour of duty (or whatever you call it) and then return to civilian life. My friends have been in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq (both times, but not by the same individual), and the Philippines. In each of those cases, my friends have supported US troops as well as provide humanitarian assistance as nurses, ambulance crew, relief and aid distributors, etc. Again, none of my friends, although, some have been shot at, have ever participated in anti-insurgent offensives, or any kind of organized killings. No murdering of bunches of people or personal looting and pillaging of native resources. By and large, they joined up as one phase of their passage through life under purposeful and well thought out intentions and were able to accomplish some good during that time.

      For the sake of this entire discussion, we can assume that they're motivated by nothing but love for their fellow people, have not a scrap of anything unpleasant within themselves, and fart dusts of pure crystalized love if you'd like.

      Thank you for understanding. That was all I was really trying to say all along. Realistically, speaking, some self interest is involved. I did mention paying off student loans and supporting families, right? But that is as selfish as it gets. Although my female (ex)soldier friends would tell you that women don't fart at all.

      I'm not talking about the motivations, goals and desires of the people you're talking about.

      Then we must be very clear about starting another discussion that is entirely different in tone and context from the one I initially intended. In particular, I think we need to clarify the degree of responsibility of involved participants.

      In particular let us talk about the culpability of those who join a misused military with misguided and borderline illegal missions. I'm not going to argue with you about how grave the situation is. It is pretty bad, no doubt about it. However, I think realistically speaking the angle you're coming from is counter-productive. The elimination of folks like my friends from enlisting will hardly make a dent in the accomplishment of the objectives of those who you single out a profiting from war and conflict. In fact, I think it will make it worse. There are already reports saying the recruiters have lowered enlisting standards to the point where criminal records are more tolerated and psychological integrity can be fudged. Without level-headed folks like my friends filling the ranks, we run much greater risks of "Abu Ghraib"-type events and other examples of break do

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    186. Re:Sexually Transmitted Disease by Darby · · Score: 1

      P.S. You have got me worked up enough to bang this out over an all-nighter. I'll try to clarify if there are any mistakes.

      Meh, I was in the middle of an until 3 AM work session, thought I'd hit submit, checked in from work the next saw my post wasn't there so I hit submit when I got home (before working until 4AM. Why do major problems have to occur in groups), so it only looks like I typed all that in the daytime ;-)
      I just went in and told my boss I'm taking Monday off for comp time. Boy did he get a good laugh out of that ;-)

      Anyhow, I'll respond to the rest later..

  2. Rootkits by adpsimpson · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are these the old Sony disks they're talking about?

    --
    Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
    John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
  3. Not worth it by Hyppy · · Score: 5, Funny

    From personal experience, believe me, Iraqi porn isn't worth it.

    1. Re:Not worth it by Technopaladin · · Score: 0, Troll

      Any culture that values ignorance(see virginity 72 of them specifially) over some one who knows what they are doing cant be trusted with something so serious as pron.

    2. Re:Not worth it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, if Family Guy is any reference, it simply has to beat English porn...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Not worth it by gwayne · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dhakmi does Mosel!

      Iraqi Man 1: Would you get a load of the slit in her burka! I think I saw an eye!

      Iraqi Man 2: Oh yeah, baby, put it on! More burka!

      Iraqi Man 3: Halalalalalalalala...BOOM!

    4. Re:Not worth it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Was Family Guy referring to the time pre the 2002 English porn liberalisation? Those Limey script writers moved to Los Angeles years ago. And at least english/euro pron doesn't have their genitals mutilated like US pron does.

    5. Re:Not worth it by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I didn't know there was such a thing as Iraqui porn. I assumed it was imported from elsewhere. If it's worthless, why are guys buying it and infecting their computers in the process?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    6. Re:Not worth it by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      Iraqi Man 3: Halalalalalalalala...BOOM!
      Aww, you poor thing ... suffering from premature detonation, are you?
      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    7. Re:Not worth it by Hasmanean · · Score: 1

      It's not the eye that's a cliche, it's showing a bit of ankle.

      The eyes are always visible anyways.

      Every culture has it's boundaries, and men get excited when women cross those boundaries. Remember when Sharon Stone crossed her legs in Basic Instinct, and flashed a bit of hair?

      A bit of hair...anything will do the trick for some men, as long as it comes from a woman.

      --
      Hasan
  4. Is nothing sacred?! by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

    That doesn't sound like supporting the troops.

    1. Re:Is nothing sacred?! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      No, nothing.

    2. Re:Is nothing sacred?! by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your child support payments support your kids (assuming they don't live with you), and your taxes support the troops (assuming they don't live with you).

      I support the troops. I'm getting a troop support rebate check this month, too!

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    3. Re:Is nothing sacred?! by Harlockjds · · Score: 4, Funny

      >I support the troops. I'm getting a troop support rebate check this month, too!

      I support the troops sooooo much that i don't qualify for a troop support rebate check

    4. Re:Is nothing sacred?! by lubricated · · Score: 1

      Your mom is sacred.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    5. Re:Is nothing sacred?! by retupmoca · · Score: 1

      Your mom is sacred. Your mom is scared.
    6. Re:Is nothing sacred?! by chromakey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since I earned all my income fighting in Iraq last year, my tax free income doesn't qualify me for a surplus check. Good enough to lay my life down for the country, but not good enough for a surplus check apparently.

    7. Re:Is nothing sacred?! by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

      How does this not make sense? If you didn't pay income taxes enough to qualify, then you don't get a rebate. That's like saying "I got EITC, but no rebate." You don't pay in, you don't draw out.

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
    8. Re:Is nothing sacred?! by chromakey · · Score: 1

      I pay in every other year, but the year I happened to be in Iraq was the year the government starts throwing out "free" money. It's ok, I'll be paying for it in the form of the deficit for the rest of my life.

    9. Re:Is nothing sacred?! by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

      The economic stimulus checks are for those who paid a certain amount of income tax. You already got a break (a well deserved one) by gaining tax-free combat duty pay. It's understandable that you are upset because others are getting their taxes back, for something less well deserved. But you already got to eat your cake, and now you want to have it, too.

      While other people gaining reduces the comparative value of your exemption, it does not undo the fact that you already got all that rebate and more, in the form of not having to pay it in the first place. Instead of being upset that others get to eat some more of their cake, try to be happy that you got to eat all your cake, instead.

      P.S. The cake is a lie.

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
  5. Better Your Computer Than Your ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trust me, you can buy a new computer but you can't buy a new "unit."

  6. Support Our troops by brewstate · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We need to send them virus free porn. Gentlemen time to dump your hard drives to DVD.

    1. Re:Support Our troops by neokushan · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is going to take a while...

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    2. Re:Support Our troops by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      We need to send them virus free porn. Gentlemen time to dump your hard drives to DVD.
      Does anyone know where I can get a 500X DVD burner?
    3. Re:Support Our troops by Hercules+Peanut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We need to send them virus free porn. Gentlemen time to dump your hard drives to DVD. Strange the above quote is modded +3 interesting instead of funny. Does that mean the /. community is seriously considering doing this?
    4. Re:Support Our troops by Nimey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Send them individual socks, too. Keeps things tidy.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    5. Re:Support Our troops by jtev · · Score: 5, Informative

      It means that some in the slashdot community already have. It's not allowed to be talked about, but one of the comfort items most desired in theater is porn. They aren't supposed to have it, and they can't get it in the PX, so they get it in letters from home, in nice little optical shiny packages, or they download it from FTP sites set up by their families, that don't get on the blacklist. Those who aren't so lucky, purchase it in theater, which apparently is a less than stellar option.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    6. Re:Support Our troops by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why not? There's so much talk about how geeks don't support our troops, that we oppose the war in Iraq on principle, that we don't want to pull our weight. How much better, and geekier, could you show your support than by increasing our troops' computer security AND giving them enough wanking material to literally help them through the whole mess?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Support Our troops by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      After having been there a few times, I'll just point out that it is 100% illegal to have any kind of pr0n in country. No DVDs, no Playboys, no nothin, so don't mail it (I realize you made the above statement in jest, but someone reading it may think it's a good idea).

      That being said, I've seen more pr0n on classified servers than I've seen in the rest of my previous life. We had to remove about 3 or 4 TB off of one server so the map server could run properly. That and it was slowing down Call of Duty. Mind you, it wasn't all of it, just a couple of TB.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    8. Re:Support Our troops by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      A DVD-R that can write ~2.5GB / second would be pretty damn cool.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    9. Re:Support Our troops by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Sure hope there is at least one G.I. who likes midgets.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    10. Re:Support Our troops by name*censored* · · Score: 1

      And when used in conjuction with the CD/DVD edition of AOL's Dream Machine, the Iraq war will have a 10 minute ceasefire every single night!

      --
      Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
    11. Re:Support Our troops by eck011219 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, I don't know if you're joking or not, but I see no reason why this SHOULDN'T be the case. In the past, the government has provided soldiers with cigarettes, alcohol, and other "creature comforts" for morale purposes.

      I'm not suggesting they be given anything illegal or particularly depraved (by "conventional" standards, whatever that means), but how hard is it to provide a collection of confirmed virus-free pics and video?

      The only problems I see are that a) soldiers who prefer the company of their own gender would be worried about being tracked despite "don't ask, don't tell," and b) the difference (generally speaking, of course) between how men and women get their ya-yas may cause female soldiers to feel that the porn objectifies women and sets up inequality between soldiers.

      Still, it seems worth exploring (and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the government HAS investigated the possibilities). Fact is, the soldiers are going to seek it out. If it's not clean, it puts the network at risk.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    12. Re:Support Our troops by Defectuous · · Score: 1

      If any of the following makes sense, let me know. They can get all their free porn at home, their out there to experience the world and create capital... I mean democracy in the world. So let them get their virus porn out there, so as long as they know they get virus free porn at home.

    13. Re:Support Our troops by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. Gonna take more than one DVD, that's for sure.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    14. Re:Support Our troops by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 1

      By the time I'm done, the war will be over. Shipping and media costs will bankrupt me. I'm just one man, I don't have the resources to do this!

      --
      There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
    15. Re:Support Our troops by e-scetic · · Score: 1

      Ok, so you're a soldier, you've recently acquired digital porn - what do you do with it? Where do you go to jerkoff? And more importantly, where do you go with a laptop? This is puzzling me.

    16. Re:Support Our troops by d3ac0n · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sounds like someone in the Porn community that supports the troops could set up a very interesting charity.

      I can see it now: "Support the troops, send them quality American porn!"

      There could be shots of porn stars dressed like 1940's pinup stars in the ads for the charity.

      The name might be tough though... "Skin for the Soldiers", "Tits for the Troops"? I'm sure we could come up with something interesting.

      Anyone here have contacts at Vivid Entertainment? Let's get this baby rolling!

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    17. Re:Support Our troops by jtev · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This becomes far less of an issue if you are willing to share with your squad mates. All of a sudden things like rotations apear out of nowhere. Just because it's not an officaly army sanctioned activity doesn't mean there's not an army way of doing things.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    18. Re:Support Our troops by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Let's see, 1x is 1.2MB/sec peak, that's 20833 times the write rate, and 1x is about 580 RPM (for a CD anyway, I would assume it's the same for a DVD, but you how how dangerous that is.) Anyway, if they are the same that's about 12083140 RPM. Most discs weigh about 15 grams and have a diameter of 12cm. According to http://www.botlanta.org/converters/dale-calc/flywheel.html that's about 0.05 joules of energy (a joule is a newton-meter) whereas as 20833 times the speed, that's 21620375.64 joules. Just to put that in perspective, it's over six kilowatt-hours. Even with six lasers (and thus at 1/6 speed) it's still a kilowatt-hour's worth of energy... Given that the fastest hard disks operate at about 30 or 40MB/sec peak, I think we have a ways to go :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Support Our troops by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How much better, and geekier, could you show your support than by increasing our troops' computer security AND giving them enough wanking material to literally help them through the whole mess?

      Supporting their presence overseas is not supporting our soldiers. You want to do something to support the troops? Lean on your "elected" representatives to bring them home from fighting an illegal war.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Support Our troops by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Joke ---> .
      You --> o
              |
            / \
    21. Re:Support Our troops by eli+pabst · · Score: 1

      Actually you're not allowed to send porn to Iraq. When you send a package to a soldier stationed there, customs has a list of items that aren't allowed to be shipped into the country and will be removed from the package. Besides porn, you can't send a number of other items that are forbidden, such as pork products and alcohol. Seems a bit strange that you can buy it there though.

    22. Re:Support Our troops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shows well that deep down inside we're primates. War and sex are most basic human reaction models which are universal across many cultures.

    23. Re:Support Our troops by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just because it's not an officaly army sanctioned activity doesn't mean there's not an army way of doing things.

      Mental Image You Didn't Need For Today: A bunch of Privates standing around in a circle-jerk, with their Sargent calling out a cadence.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    24. Re:Support Our troops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a black market for contraband is strange to you? welcome to the real world man...

    25. Re:Support Our troops by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      The speed ratings on a DVD & CD are different.

      IIRC, 1x = 1500 Kbps on a CD-RW & 4.5 Mbps on a DVD-RW.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    26. Re:Support Our troops by pklinken · · Score: 1

      Bush for Bush?

    27. Re:Support Our troops by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Sounds like someone in the Porn community that supports the troops could set up a very interesting charity. I can see it now: "Support the troops, send them quality American porn!" You mean like this? http://www.skylighters.org/jane/

      A British submarine had been attacked, and was crippled and powerless on the bottom of the ocean. Sea currents swirled round the vessel and there was always the chance the enemy would swoop in for the kill. The crew inside fully expected the vessel to become their tomb, but knew how they wanted to spend their last moments. A request was put in to the captain. The submariners wanted to live out what time remained gazing at pictures, currently in his safe, of a stunningly beautiful woman from Eastleigh, Hampshire. Their commanding officer obliged and the images of the supremely sexy Christabel Leighton-Porter, aka "Jane," were distributed. Soon after, against all odds, the submarine was elevated to the surface.
      Jane served throughout the war, and was painted on the tanks with those brave British boys who went ashore on D-Day. After the War, she was rewarded with an audience with the King. She is remembered to this day by those who fought with her.
    28. Re:Support Our troops by n+dot+l · · Score: 1

      We're talking about a porn-related venture, and you're concerned about the name?

      Tits for the Troops will be just fine.

      Heck, it would probably win an award for most tastefully titled porn ever.

    29. Re:Support Our troops by n+dot+l · · Score: 1

      The Army's having enough trouble with PTSD as it is and you want to make the problem worse?!

    30. Re:Support Our troops by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

      You're right. I didn't need that. But you can't unring a bell.

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
    31. Re:Support Our troops by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      This is my rifle. This is my gun...

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    32. Re:Support Our troops by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 1

      The command to stop exercising, "and relax", suddenly takes on new meaning in this context.

    33. Re:Support Our troops by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

      Just because it's not an officaly army sanctioned activity doesn't mean there's not an army way of doing things. Mental Image You Didn't Need For Today: A bunch of Privates standing around in a circle-jerk, with their Sargent calling out a cadence. What was that about the sargent's privates?
      --
      This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
    34. Re:Support Our troops by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1

      one, two, three, four
      what a fuckin' stupid war!

      five, six, seven, eight
      now we all ejaculate!

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    35. Re:Support Our troops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boobs for our Boys! Butt Buddies in Baghdad! Porn for Persia! Hardcore for our Heroes!

  7. Protection by jspenguin1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The shift key: the condom of the Windows world.

    1. Re:Protection by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem I see is that Soldiers were using Windows-based PC's, WTF is going on? The NSA helped develop SELinux and these guys, in the most critical of the situations, are using the most insecure operating system in the world.

      Talk about National Security :-/

    2. Re:Protection by maxume · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's a bit of a stretch to call this the most critical of situations.

      Also, I believe that PromiscuOS is somewhat less secure than Windows.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Protection by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem I see is that Soldiers were using Windows-based PC's,

      Well the training games don't run on SELinux, let alone all the other games they play.

      Besides, they buy own their own laptops, if the Bush Company has trouble getting them essentials or housing that doesn't electrify troops, do you really think they have the time or money to get them CDs with SELinux or help them install it? And then what? They boot in Windows 99% of the time because they game and use WebCams to see their kids, etc.

      So ya, this is Window's fault if you are trying to distory reality in the hate Windows MS World. Autoload is the problem with a targeted OS. Windows IS NOT THE ONLY OS with autoload, let alone the fact that there are ways to spread this crap WITHOUT autoload.

      Want a SELinux targeted Virus, just say so, and give some DVD pirate a couple of hours. It is idiots like you that give people false senses of security when running Linux or OSX, and then Security people have to come in a clean up a mess or a security breach.

      What OS you run DOES NOT = LESS or MORE security at this point from an OS architectual standpoint unless you have an older OS without security inherently designed at the core level. (Like Win9x, OS/2, System 9 earlier)

    4. Re:Protection by jps25 · · Score: 4, Funny

      What OS you run DOES NOT = LESS or MORE security at this point from an OS architectual standpoint unless you have an older OS without security inherently designed at the core level. (Like Win9x, OS/2, System 9 earlier) I really enjoyed how you were able to type four paragraphs, but were unable to type "equal".

      It's also marvelous how you emphasized every other word.
      "Cool it Shatner, we don't read in the same voice you speak." (maddox)

    5. Re:Protection by lightversusdark · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work any more in Vista - registry hack only.
      (It's to disable AutoRun, infantrymen).

      --
      "There is nothing nice about Steve Jobs and nothing evil about Bill Gates." - Chuck Peddle
    6. Re:Protection by kalirion · · Score: 1

      You know, I can never get the shift key to work right. Just how long am I supposed to hold it down? Until the stupid "key assist" dialog opens? Anything short of that and autoplay still gets triggered in my experience. Why the hell did they remove the "disable autoplay" option from CD/DVD device manager properties in XP? Then again, apparently I'm too lazy to google for a work around (but not to type this post).

    7. Re:Protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are presumably personal laptops, although the article doesn't make it clear.

      That being said, DOD is all Windows XP. All servers are being moved to Windows 2003 Server. Linux doesn't count because it isn't certified secure by DOD standards.

      Yes, that's right: DOD can't use Linux because it's not considered secure enough. But they can use Windows because it has some certificate, "proving" its security.

      I think Solaris was considered OK a while ago, but I'm fairly sure even that's being phased out. It's Windows-or-bust in the DOD these days.

    8. Re:Protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a bit of a stretch to call this the most critical of situations. Clearly you have never been in the desert with no women if you don't see porn as critical!
    9. Re:Protection by Garabito · · Score: 1

      Want a SELinux targeted Virus, just say so, and give some DVD pirate a couple of hours

      You don't know what SELinux is, do you?

    10. Re:Protection by raddan · · Score: 1

      What OS you run DOES NOT = LESS or MORE security at this point from an OS architectual standpoint unless you have an older OS without security inherently designed at the core level. (Like Win9x, OS/2, System 9 earlier) You're kidding, right? Or are we supposed to assume that Windows "core level" does not include COM?
    11. Re:Protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you're missing here is that these are not always Military PC's, they're often the soldier's Personal PC's. Soldiers are allowed certain personal items.

      There's still a lot of reasons to use Windows, even in the military. How're you gonna make the point+shoot videogram systems on linux? It sucks, deal with it.

    12. Re:Protection by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

      On a semi-serious note. Then we need to start the OLPS effort. (One laptop per soldier). It is a serious problem that a soldiers computer connected to the military network (for that webcam conversation with home) could be infected by some iSTD(tm) from a bootlegged DVD that potentially could be an attack vector for the network it is connected to and potentially damage critical services. Start with the OLPC machine and run secure Linux instead. And get WINE running "Call of Duty" or select other games or software for diversions. Have to add the DVD player of course.

      --
      - Tjp

      I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

    13. Re:Protection by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      ow're you gonna make the point+shoot videogram systems on linux?


      Ever heard of cross-platform gaming toolkits?
    14. Re:Protection by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      You don't know what SELinux is, do you?

      Actually I do...

      But I don't give a flip what freaking OS you are using, or how 'tight' you might think the security is. SELinux with added on restricted access modes is better than vanilla Linux, but it doesn't make it bullet proof. PERIOD.

      Until PEOPLE stop writing code, there will always be 'smarter' people that can circumvent any level of genius, and this applies to OSes as well.

      I should ask, do you know what SELinux is? It layman terms, it adds some object intelligence and policy levels to the kernel. - Which is how NT works and was designed - so go ahead and argue how much more secure it is in a GENERIC deployment, based on the Win2k and early XP track record...

      And comparing the two, technically, NT is more robust for this segmented type of security with its object based token security model.

    15. Re:Protection by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      On a semi-serious note. Then we need to start the OLPS effort. (One laptop per soldier). It is a serious problem that a soldiers computer connected to the military network (for that webcam conversation with home) could be infected by some iSTD(tm) from a bootlegged DVD that potentially could be an attack vector for the network it is connected to and potentially damage critical services. Start with the OLPC machine and run secure Linux instead. And get WINE running "Call of Duty" or select other games or software for diversions. Have to add the DVD player of course.

      If the military's security model is based upon clean and secure clients accessing the network/servers then they are insane...

      Besides, the Bush Company doesn't give a flying fek about the soldiers out there. I have too many friends in the military and it is beyond horrid the lack of real 'support' this freaking administration has given them. The tons of denied equipment and armor requests, the delays in providing what they do because a Bush Buddy's company is making the new items and are 6mos or a 1 yr behind, even though they can be bought through other companies/channels. AND ON AND ON AND ON.

      So why would they give a rat's ass about their computers?

    16. Re:Protection by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      You're kidding, right? Or are we supposed to assume that Windows "core level" does not include COM?

      You mean COM? http://www.microsoft.com/com/default.mspx

      Then ya, I'm not kidding as COM is NOT in the NT portion of Windows. Just like KDE libraries are not in the core of Linux.

      Why is this so hard for people? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT

      Besides COM is not apparently the 'evil' you think it is either. It was a way to bag and tie several programming concepts together. Strapping OLE to ActiveX and to other communication mechanisms.

      If you don't like the IE ActiveX integration, then you have a ligitimate bitch. However, if you think dropping an Excel Chart or Corel Graphic in your Word Processor is bad then you are a bit dense.

    17. Re:Protection by raddan · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, an "operating system" was not just a kernel. So yes, I definitely lump the userland in with that term. Tell me, what distribution of Windows comes without or is even useable without COM?

    18. Re:Protection by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, an "operating system" was not just a kernel

      Well you can trick your definitions however you want...

      But NT is NOT Win32, and runs without Win32, where COM resides. NT is an OS that functions without Win32, and can even use BSD as a upper level subsystem. (See Vista Unix Subsystem)

      Also when you say an OS is not just a kernel or kernel architecture, you might want to have a discussion with a Linux user, because when you argue that a feature of something in KDE is a part of the Linux OS, you are not only wrong, grossly wrong. And effectively, this is what you are doing with trying to pretend COM is a part of NT. COM is Win32/Win64, NOT NT.

      You need to learn a bit about OSes and expecially NT before you make any more outlandish and horribly incorrect statements.

  8. Dude, your porn gave my computer an STD! by grilled-cheese · · Score: 1

    Dude, your porn gave my computer an STD!

  9. Solutions. by AltGrendel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hardware: Don't allow DVD drives.

    Software 1: Ummm, Anti-virus software? Hello?

    Software 2: Run a VM when accessing DVDs.

    Best: Run a Linux distro.

    Ok, I'm sure that these aren't necessarily the best solutions (except the last one) but it's something.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:Solutions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      BEST: use a portable DVD player.

      It's incredibly retarded to play suspect DVD's on a computer. play them on a cheap portable DVD player and give it up.

      What fool thinks playing it on the computer is smart in ANY way?

    2. Re:Solutions. by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Supply unix based machines for the soldiers to use, don't give them root, make sure media cannot be mounted with "exec" flags...
      Or just use standalone dvd players?

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    3. Re:Solutions. by lightversusdark · · Score: 1

      Best: Run a Linux distro.
      Step 2: Prosecute your soldiers for WIPO/DMCA violations arising from their use of DeCSS.
      Step 3: There is no step 3.
      --
      "There is nothing nice about Steve Jobs and nothing evil about Bill Gates." - Chuck Peddle
    4. Re:Solutions. by Mike89 · · Score: 1

      Step 2: Prosecute your soldiers for WIPO/DMCA violations arising from their use of DeCSS.
      Step 3: There is no step 3.
      Do you really think the black-market porn DVDs they're buying in Iraq have CSS?
    5. Re:Solutions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Software 3: Don't use autorun and don't click the .exe?

      Fucking morons.

    6. Re:Solutions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personal laptops.

    7. Re:Solutions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardware: Don't allow DVD drives.
      So that's the target market the MacBook Air was aiming for! Next version of MBA, with no USB ports will sell to the Army.
    8. Re:Solutions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's incredibly retarded to play suspect DVD's on a computer.

      No, it's incredibly retarded to use a DVD player that treats DVDs as executable code. There's nothing insecure about playing DVDs on computers, provided that you're not loading and executing code from them.

      Either these people are using MS Windows (with it's Virus Support Feature called "autorun") or there's some overflow bug in a codec. Somehow, I suspect the first.

    9. Re:Solutions. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What fool thinks playing it on the computer is smart in ANY way?

      Because I took my computer with me and was staying in a place without a DVD player. The only way for me to watch a DVD is to buy a DVD player or play them on my computer. It may not be smart, but it is often the only choice. Smart is bring your own or have them sent from home.

    10. Re:Solutions. by ScreamingCactus · · Score: 1

      Whose dumbass idea was it to allow video DVDs to execute code in the first place? And I'm not talking about autoplay, I'm talking about DVDs designed to play in a DVD player. That's just like these mp3 and wma files that launch websites (in wmp anyway). Microsoft had to intentionally design those features into the software. And for what? So we can be annoyed by ads, sent to phishing or trojan hosting websites, have rootkits installed, and get viruses? Seriously, are there any legitimate reasons for these "features"?

      --
      The path to enlightenment is truly through homemade drugs!
  10. Summary full of WIN by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Iraqi soldiers are affected as well."

    Wow, a porn virus that can make the jump from DVD to human?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Summary full of WIN by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You know how long I've been waiting for that? A virus that transfer from the poor, hapless computer to the moron that allowed it to be infected?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Good old days! by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I was in Thailand in 1974, htere were only three places to get cassettes: The Base Exchange (other brances called it the Post Exchange), there there were practically no tapes I wanted to hear, but there were blanks; a government-provided tape center with a library of high quality reel to reels with a good selection that you could copy to cassette; or the local market, where you could get poor-quality copies of damned ner anything.

    Tha bad part about the bootlegs from town was the fact that they were analog - the quality left much to be desired. Some had skips that came from the LPs they were recorded from.

    The good part about the bootlegs from town was the fact that they were analog - you weren't going to infect your cassette player with XCP or some other virus.

    -mcgrew

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:Good old days! by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was overseas and bought a lot of bootlegs as well. But I was all digital....

      I've never had a bootleg DAT tape infect a DAT player.

      I've never had a virus filled CD infect a CD player.

      I've never had a Virus filled DVD infect my DVD player.

      The answer here is use a hardware player and not a computer. An incredibly simple and cheap solution.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Good old days! by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "Tha bad part about the bootlegs from town was the fact that they were analog"

      As opposed to "digital"? What the heck are you talking about, uncle? Digital media in 1974?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    3. Re:Good old days! by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Well, there wasn't a lot of digital stuff in 1974. Even digital watches were pretty new. However, my computer doubles as my stereo and my forty two inch TV doubles as its monitor. My daughter infected it with XCP when she played a legitimate CD she bought at the record store she worked at. Yes, autoplay was off, but she bypassed it an ran the program, never thiking that a big multinational corporation would install viruses on her dad's computer.

      She knows better now. She's 21, and Sony has a foe until either it or she dies. And if she has kids, the hatred of all things Sony will likely follow.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Good old days! by sm62704 · · Score: 1
      Yes, analog, as opposed to digital. There was no analog recording in 1974 afaik.

      Well hell I can look it up... Oh, ok. They were analog, nobody had ever heard of digital sound, (digital watches were just starting to be sold) but wikipedia says

      In 1937, the British scientist Alec Reeves files the first patent describing Pulse-code modulation.
      In 1943, Bell Telephone Laboratories developed the first digital scrambled speech transmission system, SIGSALY.

      In 1957, Max Mathews of Bell developed the process to digitally record sound via computer.

      In 1967, the first digital tape recorder was invented. A 12-bit 30 kHz stereo device using a compander (similar to DBX Noise Reduction) to extend the dynamic range.
      Yes, as opposed to digital.

      Smartass.
      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  12. Don't they have Internet connections over there? by aliquis · · Score: 4, Funny

    Because as we all know Internet is for porn.

  13. Training issue? by Fjornir · · Score: 1

    With all of the other stuff they pile on recruits during boot wouldn't it be possible to teach them to practice safe hex?

    --
    I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
    1. Re:Training issue? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's a responsibility thing. If they did, the US Army would be responsible for damage happening during a soldier's recreation time.

      Now, this is a computer virus... but generally a lot of things where you wonder "why the heck don't they teach that" are simply left out because of responsibility issues.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Training issue? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Too subtle, try again later.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Training issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not subtle, just not funny.

  14. You get what you pay for by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    If it is too good to be true, then it probably is. If this becomes a real problem over there for our troops you can bet that the military is going to start cracking down on the troops for copyright infringement or something like that to persuade them to not buy these bootlegs and risk the military's networks.

    1. Re:You get what you pay for by Shoeler · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have quite a few friends deployed. What you speak of does not happen. The military networks are locked down and virus-checked, etc.

      The problem is the soldiers have their personal laptops on unsecured wireless networks they pay for from local providers so they can do what they *WANT* to do, which is surf porn, play MMORPGS (WoW is hugely popular) and other games that allow them to interact with "normal" people from back home. As is usually the case, the pure security concept pushes people to their own solutions which creates huge security issues. You're talking about brave, courageous, amazingly talented strong young men and women who are amazingly stupid about technology. They use Windows because everyone uses it and the guy down the way can help them load their Iraqi porn.

      The only way to address this is to accept their habits (porn, games) and address it in a secure way.

      In this Army/Navy/AF/etc, that ain't gonna happen.

      Let's just say that I may be employed at (but not by) a US Government organization but I use my personal Mac and a personal wireless solution where neither the Mac nor the wireless ever touches their network, just so that I can do simple stuff like research current technology. Happens that some of this research tends to be on sites they consider "gaming" or "non business related" so they filter it. GFY, censors.

  15. MPAA defends US by kidsizedcoffin · · Score: 2, Funny

    This must have been what they had in mind when the movie studios insisted on strict region coding on DVD's, they had our best interest in mind all along.

  16. So wouldn't the solution be.... by scenestar · · Score: 1, Interesting

    to distribute porn DVDs among the soldiers along with their other assorted rations?

    I know that the moralists in americanisthan/jesusland will cry murder, but it seems like a better deal than having infected Computer systems.

    --
    perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
    1. Re:So wouldn't the solution be.... by bughunter · · Score: 1
      One of the soldiers that trains other soldiers to use our products likes to say, "if the US military could distribute ammo and supplies as effectively as the troops distribute pornography among themselves, we'd be invincible."

      It's not a matter of distribution. It's a combination of a) the contraband nature of the media forcing it to go bootleg, and b) the insecurity of the OS that is most widely used.

      I suggest making them reload a clean image of the entire boot volume every time they startup, and give them a partition to store their "family videos" and other personal documents. And disable autorun.ini, for god's sake.

      He also described to me the practice of "family night" video screenings. I won't go into detail, but to participate, you must bring your own blanket, a towel, and adhere to a strict "eyes forward" policy.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
  17. How? by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

    I smell bullshit. How would they be getting viruses just by inserting a DVD? Were they running the executable? And what does it mean by "my memory stick would be filthy with viruses every time I had to go and get documents from my counterpart or his section NCOs."

    This seems to be one almighty bad joke. I mean, watching porn... memory "stick" filthy with viruses?

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:How? by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Windows likes to automatically execute programs on media you insert... Never heard of autorun?
      Yes, it's a ridiculously insecure idea, most people wouldn't even have considered the possibility of automatically executing programs on inserted media, but microsoft did for some reason.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      DVD cartoon spreads virus

      The virus is hiding in data files sitting alongside the Powerpuff Girls episodes on the DVD. The files let fans create screensavers and wallpaper for their PCs.

      The virus does not affect DVD players, and will only infect a PC playing the disk if the additional software is installed and run.

      People with up-to-date anti-virus software should avoid being infected, he said.

      "Funlove has been around for a couple of years," said Mr Cluley, "which suggests that the people producing the DVD may not have been running up-to-date anti-virus software.

      "Old viruses never die," he said, "they just lurk in dark corners and directories."

    3. Re:How? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Because it's convenient. Convenient for software vendors, that is. Every third party vendor (and MS itself for its additional software packages) love it. No need for instructions. Slip in the CD/DVD and some installer starts, or if it's already installed, the program launches its "start me" splash screen. As a convenient side effect, you teach your users that it's convenient to have to slip in that CD to run your software, thus making them comfortable with your copy protection scheme.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:How? by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      I have as many complaints as the next guy with MS and their product decisions... but "autorun" really isn't one of them.

      Apple has been doing the same thing for YEARS, yet it hasn't really been an issue for MacOS users.

      The fact is, a user inserts a piece of media because he/she intends to view or run the content on it. Otherwise, he/she wouldn't have inserted it in the first place.

      The fact that it autoruns is irrelevant. That just saves them a couple clicks of a mouse, or a bit of typing. Either way, if it's infected, they're going to have problems as soon as they try to use the content on the disc.

    5. Re:How? by daliman · · Score: 1

      Memory sticks get hit up quite often. I came across quite a few "broken" memory sticks and camera memory cards while travelling; people throw them into some computer in a net cafe to upload them and there's a pile of files they can't delete when they take it out.

      As per usual, infected files are easy to remove using Linux though :)

      As for the DVD side of things - autorun anyone?

    6. Re:How? by CavemanKiwi · · Score: 1

      Users love it. Lots of other systems do this MacOS, Amiga and all consoles have autorun so it makes sense. Security is about finding the right balance of useability and Security as the more you lock it down the less usable a system becomes. Don't get me wrong good design can help ie programs writing to user folders instead of being hard coded c:\EtcEtc\

      Also there is a way to turn it off through the windows UI. http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article03-018/

    7. Re:How? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Amiga has it when the OS is not booted, it boots from the first device you put bootable media in, including the hard drive if you have one. Boot sector viruses come about on the Amiga because people would usually boot games from floppy, bypassing the OS.
      Once the OS has loaded however, nothing will auto execute when you insert media, it will only get mounted and an icon for the media displayed.

      Consoles autorun for the same reason amigas boot games from floppy, thats the primary method of loading games, and most users never use the console for anything else, certainly nothing of importance.

      I dont remember MacOS 7.x auto loading anything off inserted media, not sure about OSX but i've only ever seen it mount a volume and display its contents on insert, never auto execute programs. OSX won't do that as root either, the finder is always running as a normal user.

      I guess it depends how you see the OS...
      Is it a serious environment for getting proper work done, or is it merely a simply bootstrap mechanism for loading games? Would you put media from third parties into a machine storing all your critical business data if there was a change of it automatically executing arbitrary binaries stored on it, even before you're able to actually see what's on it.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    8. Re:How? by jasonjacks0n · · Score: 1

      Apple has been doing the same thing for YEARS, yet it hasn't really been an issue for MacOS users.

      They used to, yeah, in OS 9 and below; OS X doesn't though. Instead it lets you configure which already-installed app gets launched when discs of various types (music, video, photo, blank) are inserted.

      For data discs, you an icon is shown on the desktop, and as a vendor shipping a disc, you can give that disc's root folder a nice background image, lay out the icons so that the readme and/or installer is highlighted, etc.

      The fact that it autoruns is irrelevant. That just saves them a couple clicks of a mouse, or a bit of typing. Either way, if it's infected, they're going to have problems as soon as they try to use the content on the disc.

      Eh.. I suppose that use-case is accurate sometimes - like for software install discs I've already decided to trust, like a game disc, or my Visual Studio installation disc. But what if I, say, got a shareware disc in a magazine, and I just want to check out the software, read the readme first, etc?

      Plus, the Sony Rootkit fiasco highlighted that autorun, even if it's helpful in some cases, is overused and/or gives too much control to the disc: even though most people would think of a music CD as safe - it's "just music" - Sony was still able to autorun programs from those discs. That's just stupid. And it's not like a user can tell whether a CD-like object is really just a music CD or not by looking at it - you have to put it in your drive in order to tell, at which point it might be too late, if autorun is on.

      No, I think the best you can say about autorun is that it was conceived in a simpler era; the people who created it just didn't forsee the consequences in today's world.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
  18. Wowzers... by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This sounds like a fairly big national security issue to me...

    Now, I do realize that these computers operate on separate networks, but traveling disks that are frequently infected presents an issue. Or, put another way, a tempting target for foreign intelligence.

    And before you jump to the 'impossible' conclusion, consider this: What are those Iraqi officers trading with our soldiers by thumb drive? Is it ALL unsec material? NONE of it is of ANY operational importance? Really? Really, really?

    That strains disbelief...

    And consider this: If the portable drives were intentionally infected by a custom virus designed by, oh say, a super power, would the sec networks have a chance to detect it?

    My network would not. I'm certain of that. And I'm also fairly certain that I have far less BillyWare than they do in their deployment.

    1. Re:Wowzers... by keysersoze_sec · · Score: 1

      If the portable drives were intentionally infected by a custom virus designed by, oh say, a super power, would the sec networks have a chance to detect it? Yes, if they are designed and tested by true security professionals, with good penetration skills...
    2. Re:Wowzers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's smart. If I were distributing viruses or worms, porn DVDs would probably be my medium of choice. You are guaranteed that male soldiers always need porn :)

  19. Playboy.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was stationed in Kuwait in '06-07. We were warned about buying DVDs in Iraq (I would cross the border a couple of times a month) because of viruses. The one specific story i was told was the compromised PCs became part of a botnet which attacked various Israeli internet sites and Playboy.com. I dont know why the skinnies had a mad-on for Hef, i guess they just hate our freedom ;).

    1. Re:Playboy.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe it was just propaganda by your command...

    2. Re:Playboy.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP here: Doubtful, because 1) buying pirate DVDs in Kuwait was never discouraged and indeed there was a thriving trade among GIs & 2)digital pron was highly available and shared at all levels. As long as you didnt have "hardcopy" pron or were dumb enough to have a obviously marked dvd such as "Deep Throat XXX" laying about, you were in the clear. On that note, a buddy of mine sent me some XXX dvds in their original boxes thru the mail. Somehow they made it past customs. I sent him an email thanking him and telling him to never, ever do that again.

      BTW the places in Iraq where these DVDs were sold was near the Kuwait/Iraq border (Bucca,Navistar,Um Qasr,Basra).

    3. Re:Playboy.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont know why the skinnies had a mad-on for Hef

      Interesting.. is "skinnies" the standard nickname for the locals there? Well, that's better than "sand niggers" or the like, at least.. :) Do you happen to know a translation for what the non-hostile locals call Americans? "Fatties"?

      Also- is this American/European porn? Or is there like underground porn made in the Islamic countries too?

      I'm an American, BTW, and just curious. Thanks for indulging my curiosity. :)

    4. Re:Playboy.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Appears my original reply disappeared...
      Skinnies is a nickname for Iraqis i picked up from the Brits. Within my unit, we called Iraqis "durka durkas" (like in the movie Team America). Skinnies because they were quite thin, which wasnt suprising as 1)they probably werent well fed 2)it doesnt pay to be fat when the avg summer temp is 110F. Within my unit we called them "durka durkas" (after Team America), which is not very PC either.

      OK, the porn was all American. Never saw or heard of Islamic porn. Basically guys bringing their private stash ripped to a hard drive and sharing amongst each other.

    5. Re:Playboy.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool, thanks for replying.

  20. Practice safe souks! by Anarchofascist · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..and you won't get infected. This has been a health and safety message from your friendly neighborhood anarchist.

    --
    Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
    1. Re:Practice safe souks! by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      You've never been to the Middle East, have you? There's no such thing as a safe suk.

  21. Imaginative approach by Lincolnshire+Poacher · · Score: 5, Funny
    • +10 points for clever attack vector.
    • +10 points for using a vector which is deeply embarrassing to the target.
    • +10 points for SELLING a virus to the target.
    1. Re:Imaginative approach by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Huh? Does Sony have its rootkit on their porn now, too?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Imaginative approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +10 points for irony...

    3. Re:Imaginative approach by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      +10 points for SELLING a virus to the target.

      I think the points should still be given, but they're not really buying the virus, they're buying the DVD and the virus is just an unexpected "freebie".

      Kinda like the TV ad where the guy is buying some car insurance, and at the checkout the clerk gives him a huge armful of extra stuff he didn't even know he was getting. In this case it'd just be like if in addition to concierge service and what not, the clerk lady also hands the man an irate badger trained to attack groins.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Imaginative approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could you forget the breasts multiplier (*2)? It is very important. ding! ding! ding!

      60 points.

  22. Queue the by Fnord666 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Queue the camel jokes in 3...2...1..

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    1. Re:Queue the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Fair enough.

      A new Marine Captain was assigned to an outfit in a remote post in The Afghanistan Desert . During his first inspection of the outfit, he Noticed a Camel hitched up behind the mess tent. He asks the Sergeant why the camel is kept there. The nervous sergeant said, "Well sir, as you know, there are 250 men Here on the post and no women. And sir, sometimes the men have "urges". That's why we have Molly The Camel." The Captain says, "I can't say that I condone this, but I understand About "urges", so the camel can stay ." About a month later, the Captain starts having his own "urges". Crazy With passion, he asks the Sergeant to bring the camel to his tent. Putting A ladder behind the camel, the Captain stands on the ladder, pulls his Pants down and has wild, insane sex with the camel. When he's done, he asks The Sergeant, "Is that how the men do it?" "No not really, sir..They usually just ride the camel into town...... where the girls are."
      There :)
  23. One word by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Autorun

    Ok, three more words: Iraqiporn.avi.exe

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. Misleading title by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have spent a good deal of time at these markets, and I can testify that I saw no porn. Ever. I never saw porn, alcohol, or drugs at these markets. Maybe these porn DVDs were passed around sub rosa or something.

    Here is what you CAN find in the markets (even on base): Fake cigarettes, fake cigars, fake Rolexes, fake Nikes, fake anything. Imitation Apple products- headphones, iPod cases, even fake iPods. No fake zunes, though...
    In an area about the size of a high school gymnasium, about 80% of the space was filled with bootleg DVDs and software. I don't mean bootleg like the MPAA wants you think bootleg; I mean actual printed DVDs out of japan or taiwan. Some were really crappy theater-cams but many were very good copies of promos and the like. I watch 300, letters from Iwo Jima, Black Snake Moan, and many others before or very shortly after theater release. It was awesome :)

    I also got all ten (at the time) seasons of south park on 4 DVDs for $25. Sweet.

    So, here we have this article that, while it may be true, seems to completely miss the point. It's like saying that, "Magazines such as hustler are causing massive deforestation and are filling our landfills." It is just trying to sensationalize the situation. Which is weird, since there are so many other, BIGGER things out there to write about. Try this, RIAA: The base media server, loaded with ~180 GB of music, is free to anyone who wants to download from it. You can get 180 GB hdds at the BX. Oh and there is the movie server, loaded with hundreds of titles. All free for the taking. And this author chose to write about porn? Whatever. Iraq is the wild, wild middle east. Everything goes.

    -b

    --
    No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    1. Re:Misleading title by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The RIAA don't care. They only take on enemies with LESS firepower than themselves. They sue granies and kids, but I doubt they'd want to wrestle with the biggest military power on the planet.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Misleading title by ozbird · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try this, RIAA ...

      "Go ahead - make my day."

      The RIAA/MPAA are your classic bully, targeting the weak and vunerable: single mothers, children, grandmothers, homeless people - even dead people. I imagine that taking on any armed force (including pirates, arr!), is on their list right after "hell freezes over".

    3. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fake cigarettes What, they take twigs and roll them in a piece of paper?
    4. Re:Misleading title by apt-get+moo · · Score: 1

      I have spent a good deal of time at these markets, and I can testify that I saw no porn. Ever. I never saw porn, alcohol, or drugs at these markets. Maybe these porn DVDs were passed around sub rosa or something. Thinking of the social acceptance of porn in muslim countries, merchants will certainly not sell it in the open. In their neighbour country of Iran, which bases its law on the Shariah, production of porn may carry capital punishment. While Iraq doesn't implement the Shariah rigorously, I wouldn't want to fall to the scrutiny of some extremist.
      The same holds true for alcohol, drugs and pork. Their sale is morally prohibited.
      --
      ...."Have you mooed today?"...
    5. Re:Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh. My dream. The US Army invading the assholes at RIAA. I will paint my car yellow for "I support the troops". The MPAA can be sent to Guantanamo.

    6. Re:Misleading title by n1ckml007 · · Score: 1

      Dude unless bandwidth is an issue, $25 is steep. South Park is free here: http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/

    7. Re:Misleading title by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      You know, the interesting thing is that people do drink in Iraq. I can't remember the day, but there is a day each week in Baghdad where beer comes in or something like that. I'm sorry that I don't remember the specifics. Anyways, the point is that you have these soldiers who cannot drink (General Order 1A, no wait, we're up to 1B now), and they're watching over this muslim country where beer is sold out of people's cars. A little bit of irony there- decadent western lifestyle meets austere muslim lifestyle, but all turned around.

      Something else that I found really interesting/weird was that our cooks on base (who are almost all third-country nationals, mostly malaysian and mostly muslim) cooked our pork for us. I mean whole roasted pigs and sausage and bacon and pork chops and anything else you can imagine. Even when I was stationed in a hostile country, I still felt bad that our American dollars meant enough to certain people that they would sacrifice some of their core values in order to support themselves and their families.

      And then of course we had the uncannily accurate mortar attack, and subsequent search of third-country national living quarters, and found maps of our housing areas, work/shift schedules, maps, U.S. uniforms, etc. So the whole thing is really thorny, ethically speaking.

      If you have 17-20-year-old kids, please try to dissuade them from joining up right now...

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    8. Re:Misleading title by krenaud · · Score: 1

      Hmm, fake porn - is that the name for home movies made by couples who have been married for a long time?

  25. There's some good news here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    The good news being that the Iraqis are getting porn.

    Getting the people of Iraq and Afghanistan watching soap operas or porn is valuable in winding down the religious conservatism in these countries.

  26. Patton Meets Pr0N by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 5, Funny

    "You don't win a war by jacking off for your country. You win a war by making the other bastard jack off for ~his~ country!"

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
  27. Hold on... by wobbelyheadbob · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought supporting piracy was supporting terrorism, so if U.S. troops are buying pirate dvd's (in Iraq of all places) doen't that mean U.S. troops are supporting terrorism??

    --
    The weekend has landed. All that exists now is clubs, drugs, pubs and parties. I've got 48 hours off from the world, man
    1. Re:Hold on... by hasanen · · Score: 1

      bullshit ...those ppl selling DVDs there barely make enough money to feed their families and pay the rent for their shops.

    2. Re:Hold on... by BSAtHome · · Score: 1

      No, this is only an issue if the *other* guy is making bootleg copies.

    3. Re:Hold on... by wobbelyheadbob · · Score: 1

      meh...

      --
      The weekend has landed. All that exists now is clubs, drugs, pubs and parties. I've got 48 hours off from the world, man
    4. Re:Hold on... by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      Beware these thoughts!! You must doublethink, citizen!

    5. Re:Hold on... by wobbelyheadbob · · Score: 1

      for the record i dont personally believe that piracy funds terrorist groups!

      --
      The weekend has landed. All that exists now is clubs, drugs, pubs and parties. I've got 48 hours off from the world, man
    6. Re:Hold on... by wobbelyheadbob · · Score: 1

      its ok.. i live in europe... your Dept of Homeland Security cant get me here!

      --
      The weekend has landed. All that exists now is clubs, drugs, pubs and parties. I've got 48 hours off from the world, man
    7. Re:Hold on... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Why do US troops hate America??

    8. Re:Hold on... by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      *knock* *knock*

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
  28. Porn isn't allowed in Iraq by Chaxid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having been to Iraq before, I can say with 100% certainty that porn is supposed to be off limits to soldiers. That being the case, where are they purchasing these DVDs from? Are they stopping convoys to buy them from Iraqi markets, or are they seriously not watching what the Iraqis are selling on U.S. bases anymore?

    1. Re:Porn isn't allowed in Iraq by Dancindan84 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If that's the case, they've (The armed forces) brought this on themselves. Porn isn't illegal, the soldiers are adults and they're away from their significant others (if they have one). Denying it to them in that situation is just asking for them to go underground for it.

      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    2. Re:Porn isn't allowed in Iraq by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      well, US troops are coming home with stacks and stacks of bootleg DVDs. I guess the MPAA will start suing soldiers now.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    3. Re:Porn isn't allowed in Iraq by daliman · · Score: 1

      I rather imagine that porn is illegal in Iraq. And blatantly flouting the local laws is hardly going to endear the troops to the locals.

      So banning porn is probably at least half to avoid upsetting the locals. And half tight-assed moralistic idiots.

    4. Re:Porn isn't allowed in Iraq by Dancindan84 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IANAL (or an American for that matter), but I thought US bases were similar to embassies in that they're considered "US soil" and fall under US laws or at least the internal US Military Law. Local laws can often be bizarre and even in contradiction to US laws and customs. Following them on base for each location just doesn't make sense to me.

      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    5. Re:Porn isn't allowed in Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      Porn is illegal in Iraq and therefore our Armed Forces (officially) respect that law.

      However, we don't respect our own laws and allow Haji to sell us Bootlegs at the booth outside the PX.

  29. Thank You by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thank you for your service. The trolls here don't seem to understand that they probably wouldn't have the freedom to post offensive jokes were it not for you and your ilk.

    I'd also add that the average literacy rate in the armed forces is higher than the national average.

    1. Re:Thank You by d3ac0n · · Score: 0

      I'd also add that the average literacy rate in the armed forces is higher than the national average.


      In addition, the average IQ level is higher, as is the average education level.

      While I can't speak for other countrys, I do know that the US military (all branches) contains the brightest and best of America.

      When you understand that, it just makes the trolls who denigrate the military look even more like the pitiful, petulant, spoiled little children they are.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    2. Re:Thank You by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The US hasn't been threatened since Pearl Harbor. Every other conflict directly involving us was instigated by the US (at least in part).

    3. Re:Thank You by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      The US hasn't been threatened since Pearl Harbor

      Ask yourself why that is. I'll set aside the fact that we HAVE been directly threatened, often, since that time. Either your grasp of history and current events is very poor or you are just pressing your agenda with selective fact picking.

      I know, I Have Been Trolled and I fell for it. I won't again. Have a nice day though :-)

    4. Re:Thank You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I can't speak for other countrys, I do know that the US military (all branches) contains the brightest and best of America.

      Riiiight.

      The few, the proud, the bottom 10% of their graduating class.

    5. Re:Thank You by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      "In addition, the average IQ level is higher, as is the average education level."

      Considering how the DoD keeps lowering standards for recruiting (High School diploma optional, minor felonies are OK, Blood, Crip, Latin Kings, MS13 membership is not a problem, et al, etc.), that statement is likely no longer operative.

      And really, if they ARE the Best and the Brightest, why are they using Windows, and why are they getting their machines infected? No one knows about AV software?

      Apple should produce a line of camo-clad laptops.

      In this case, MacBook Pro takes on a whole new meaning!

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    6. Re:Thank You by plague3106 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Huh? For almost three quarters of our countries existance, we didn't have a standing army in peace time. It was only out of fear we kept one around after WW2, and I'd venture a guess that if we didn't have a standarding army the past 60 years or so, we wouldn't BE in Iraq or Afganistan right now, and a good number of other countries may not hate us as much.

      As for the literacy rate, it stands to reason you need basic reading skills to be a solider and so they either won't let you in or make you learn to read. Might as well say Hooters employs more women waitresses than any other chain...

    7. Re:Thank You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Times change dude. Also as for literacy...tell that to John Kerry ("If you don't get an education you end up in Iraq") and Stephen King ("If you don't learn to read you get...I dunno...the Army and Iraq").

    8. Re:Thank You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Thank you for your service. The trolls here don't seem to understand that they probably wouldn't have the freedom to post offensive jokes were it not for you and your ilk

      Invading a sovereign nation that did not attack us is protecting my freedom to post offensive jokes? Please.

    9. Re:Thank You by daliman · · Score: 1

      I'd also add that the average literacy rate in the armed forces is higher than the national average.

      If I say that's only in America, will I be implying that the ones in the military are unusually smart... or that Americans are unusually dumb?

      /me ducks

    10. Re:Thank You by colourmyeyes · · Score: 1

      I guess the attacks of September 11th don't count, because EVERYONE knows the government did that one.

      --
      My grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be 120 years old.
    11. Re:Thank You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Times change dude. Also as for literacy...tell that to John Kerry ("If you don't get an education you end up in Iraq")

      Or perhaps, you could learn about this thing called "reading comprehension", in which you'll find that John Kerry was referring to Dubya as being an uneducated rube who stuck us with Iraq.

    12. Re:Thank You by bishiraver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suggest you re-read your history books :) Oh, wait, our history books are rife with inconsistencies and lies. Like our overall goal in Vietnam was honorable, we just bungled it up. That previous sentence? Load of horseshit. History is written and molded by the victors, and very rarely is it seen through anything other than tainted glasses.

      Vietnam was directly instigated. Many of our military endeavors over the past 70 years or so were directly instigated by us. Things that have happened that 'threatened' us since then have been blowback. People don't hate us because we're free, people hate us because we kill their elected / populist leaders and install puppet dictatorships and then go to war with the puppet dictatorships when the puppet dictator gets tired of our hand up his ass.

    13. Re:Thank You by wbaxter1 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that would have helped either.
      The Media Entertainment outlets only gives enough information to be flame bait. It takes a little more discipline than to read a newpaper, or a magazine.
      It's kind of like listening to a married couple argue trying to sus out the truth.

    14. Re:Thank You by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      I, for one, think higher of men who rather shit in their pants than kill others.

      And, yes, I've gone "through" the army.

    15. Re:Thank You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? For almost three quarters of our countries existance, we didn't have a standing army in peace time. It was only out of fear we kept one around after WW2, While the Continental Army was disbanded in 1783, The Legion of the United States was formed in 1791 to combat the "Indian threat", and since then, a standing army has existed within the US, whether fighting Native Americans, Mexicans, Spaniards, other Americans in the southern states, Filipinos, you name it. True, the name of the standing army may have changed, and it did downsize during times of peace, especially after WWI, but it always existed, except during the aforementioned 8 years. To claim we didn't have a standing army until after WWII? Well, define standing army please?

      and I'd venture a guess that if we didn't have a standarding army the past 60 years or so, we wouldn't BE in Iraq or Afganistan right now,

      This is an irrefutable claim - how can you prove this is the case?

      and a good number of other countries may not hate us as much. I'd imagine other countries would just find other reasons to dislike us - heh, see how easy it is to spout out irrefutable claims? =D
    16. Re:Thank You by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your service. The trolls here don't seem to understand that they probably wouldn't have the freedom to post offensive jokes were it not for you and your ilk.

      If we were talking about WWII veterans, then I would agree (with proper props to the Russians and British as well). But Iraq has nothing to do with anyone's freedom to troll /. I still respect the military, and think that they are do a terrible and thankless job. But I don't like this old haw.

      How is any of our current wars protecting our freedom? Actually, how has any war since WWII been about protecting our freedom? Iraq is about as useful as Vietnam, and perhaps more harmful in the long run. Afghanistan was a "just" war, but it still has nothing to do with protecting my freedom. This is just quasi-patriotic rhetoric, lacking substance.

      Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean "I don't support our troops", so don't try that line either. We can both support and be honest, can't we?

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    17. Re:Thank You by fistfullast33l · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Due respect to those who lay their lives down to service in the military, but it's not the military alone who guarantees us the right to free speech - it's also anyone in organizations such as the ACLU or People For the American Way who protect us from people like you who use false patriotism and fear as a shield to shout down free speech.

    18. Re:Thank You by k3r3nsky'sr3v3ng3 · · Score: 1

      Like operation AJAX? (where we overthrew the democratically elected ruler of Iran)

      --
      "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." Dwight Eisenhower
    19. Re:Thank You by k3r3nsky'sr3v3ng3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmm... seeing that we armed Binladen and the Taliban, as well as Saddam(during the Afghan-Soviet war and the Iran-Iraq war respectively), yeah, we pretty much did that to ourselves

      --
      "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." Dwight Eisenhower
    20. Re:Thank You by colourmyeyes · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I didn't think the US was training Al-Queda to fly 737's full of civilians. Or are you talking about the box cutters? Did we provide them with box cutters?

      --
      My grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be 120 years old.
    21. Re:Thank You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Some guy on this site keeps insisting that "Jews did 9/11 WTC".

    22. Re:Thank You by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

      Are you saying Pearl Harbor wasn't instigated by the US? Let's not forget the fact that we were helping to enforce an oil embargo on Japan at the time. While we had not declared a state of war, we knew which side we were on.

      We did instigate Pearl Harbor. We were right to do so. It was in America's (and the world's) best interests to see that the Axis powers lost that war, and we knew it and acted on it long before we were attacked.

      I think there's a gap in your implied logic that instigating an attack (at least in part) is the wrong course of action when we should be clearly opposed to the actions of those we are instigating an attack from. Sorry if I'm just feeding the trolls, but what he said in his second sentence is true, and we are not always (or even most of the time) on the wrong side of our wars, even if we do pick them. There are some things that have to be decided by fighting, or by letting the other guy decide them. When something important enough comes up, you don't let the other guy decide. If that means instigating a conflict, then you instigate a conflict.

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
    23. Re:Thank You by Lershac · · Score: 1

      oh fuuuuuuck you.

      --
      Chuck
    24. Re:Thank You by styrotech · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Geez, talk about overly sensitive US centric knee jerk reactions.

      If anyone objecting to it actually read the comment (and not embellish it with your own sensitivities) it was referring about war in general historical terms (ie the "Previously..." bit). And in that sense it was far more accurate than it was inaccurate.

      The only reference to Iraq and/or the current American military was in the contrasting "Nowadays..." bit that related to the story.

      Out of all western democracies, only the US seems to have this fawning glorification of all things military where any criticism of its actions gets the standard "you wouldn't have the freedom to say that without them" reaction or branded as unpatriotic.

    25. Re:Thank You by Trogre · · Score: 0, Troll

      You're right. Without a strong military, we most likely wouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan. We would probably be too busy adjusting our wive's Burqas and worrying about how our Fatwah against England was going.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    26. Re:Thank You by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      I guess the attacks of September 11th don't count, because EVERYONE knows the government did that one. No, but the US is heavily behind the Saudi royal family... for some reason... and 15 of the 19 Sept 11th attackers were Saudi.

      e.g.
      http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11176

      Gee... Think there might be a connection?

      --
      Deleted
    27. Re:Thank You by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Fortunately the moderaters have seen your post for the garbage it is.

  30. How does it work? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    Ok...I'm a bit confused. How does one get a virus just playing a DVD???

    It isn't an executable...just a bunch of vob files really isn't it? How does one get a virus by playing a simple DVD?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:How does it work? by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ok...I'm a bit confused. How does one get a virus just playing a DVD???

      It isn't an executable...just a bunch of vob files really isn't it? How does one get a virus by playing a simple DVD?

      How did Sony's music CDs infect people's computers with the infamous rootkit?

      Just because .vob files are not executable themselves, it doesn't mean that you can't include an autorun.inf that will wreak havoc on your Windows install.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    2. Re:How does it work? by garett_spencley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One word ... autorun.

    3. Re:How does it work? by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just because your run Linux doesn't give you the right to make fun of others.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    4. Re:How does it work? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      One word ... Shift.

    5. Re:How does it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like DRM?

      Oh wait...

    6. Re:How does it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word: Anydvd

      Goodbye piracy messages, drm, trailers, etc. And as far as I know, it bypasses autorun so no more InterActual or similar crap, and I would assume lesser chance at virii

    7. Re:How does it work? by WD · · Score: 1

      Or how about disable autorun instead of having to remember to hold down shift before any CD, DVD, thumb drive, etc. is inserted into your computer?

      http://www.cert.org/blogs/vuls/2008/04/the_dangers_of_windows_autorun.html

    8. Re:How does it work? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1
      Your comment brings up a valid point: What the hell are they doing running Windows IN A WAR ZONE? Because I'm sure that your average soldier has a constant Internet connection so the anti virus can get the constant stream of updates needed to keep the machine from being owned,not to mention I'm sure they all carry a Windows install cd right next to the MREs in case Windows decides to shit the bed and require a full reinstall.


      Seriously, as someone who is typing this at home on his Win2K Pro machine I can understand wanting to use Windows at home. But I run Xandros Business 4.1 on my laptop because even though I deal with primarily SOHO setups you never know what kind of bugs could be on any system you hook up to that you don't control so I'd rather be safe than sorry. I can't imagine being in the middle of a war zone and expecting Windows to run flawlessly for however long I was stuck there. And it isn't like you can't play games on Linux as my Crossover that comes with Xandros plays most of my favorites without even needing tweaking and I heard Crossover games is even better at it. So why are they running Windows in a war zone? Anyway that is my 02c,YMMV. And while I do not believe in this war I hope all the men and women there stuck in that hellhole have a safe return home.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    9. Re:How does it work? by tigerbody1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does.... And I don't run Linux these days.... just OSX ;}

    10. Re:How does it work? by Reasonable+Radical · · Score: 0

      Neener neener, I run Linux!

    11. Re:How does it work? by stands2reason · · Score: 1

      No but if someone doesn't know how to disable autorun or hold down Shift when they insert a CD, thereby giving the simplest code direct access to their machine, then we can make of them.

    12. Re:How does it work? by Upphew · · Score: 1

      I run away from linux, but it keeps poppig up everywhere I look at. Linux, its everywhere!

    13. Re:How does it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't give you the ability either...

  31. I was there Yesterday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was at the Iraqi Bazaar on the base I am stationed at yesterday. There is NO hardcore pornography there.

    They have tons and tons of movies though. Complete with cover art. The movies are obviously pirated as they are all on blank DVD-R discs.

    This is the first I have heard of any virus being related to what they have at the bazaar. I'm sure if there was something we'd be getting a briefing on it. Just like we get briefings to watch out for sharp turns on the sidewalks...

  32. Virtual STD's Anyone? by cryptodan · · Score: 0

    I guess this is called a Virtual STD Outbreak?

  33. Cyber? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    No thanks, I don't have a virus scanner.

  34. OT: What is this world coming to? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Funny

    What is this world coming to when even 7-digiters are able to mod?!

    1. Re:OT: What is this world coming to? by Lunatrik · · Score: 5, Funny

      What is this world coming to when even 7-digiters are able to mod?!
      You have no idea. I mod up everything that has to do with Ballmer throwing chairs, Gotse, ?? Profit, and FIRST POST, while making sure to mod down anything with substance. I considered, albeit briefly, modding with dignity, but then I saw that 7 digit number and realized.. neh, screw it.
    2. Re:OT: What is this world coming to? by StreetStealth · · Score: 3, Funny

      Whatever, mr. high six digits!

      --
      Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
    3. Re:OT: What is this world coming to? by dal20402 · · Score: 1

      You must be new here.

    4. Re:OT: What is this world coming to? by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Whatever, mr. high six digits!

      Get off my lawn!

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    5. Re:OT: What is this world coming to? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Ah, jealousy...

  35. hmm by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

    So... an STDVD.

  36. another example... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of how prohibition of anything is doomed to fail:-{ and how the consequences are worse than the disease...

  37. More than an inconvenience by bughunter · · Score: 5, Interesting
    We build UAV systems for the US military. Widely used ones. Lately one of the branch's weapons labs has been coming to us and saying "we need a ground system that will operate any UAV or UGV. Why don't you use a computer?"

    So the R&D chief goes on a rant (to me, in private): "We've tried sending PCs into deployment, and they come back filthy with 'family videos' and viruses. We try sealing up and enclosing the USB/FW ports and DVD slots, and they come back pried open. No computers."

    Customer (to me, during requirements review): "The soldiers get issued WinXP notebooks anyhow. Utilize them."

    So I was handed the task of managing the resolution to this showdown. My first thought was, "Porn is not my problem." Second thought, "Hell, give them some clean porn ferchrissakes." Third thought, "oh crap -- we can't certify our product if it is a) in the decision making loop for a certain class of UAV, and b) can run any old crapware, including family videos."

    So it's not just a porn problem, but a problem with the inadequacy of the Windows OS itself. I know that this is potential flamebait moderation material, but it's a major thorn in our side: it's not a realtime OS, and even the embedded version of XP isn' real time. And it's susceptibility to viruses and hackers really makes it unsuitable for much more than family photos, letters to Jane, and facebook.

    Solution: Give them what they want, on their dime, while spending R&D money to prototype what they need. (Sorry - can't describe it.) Then when the inadequacies become painfully apparent, offer them the alternative, ready for development testing.

    --
    I can see the fnords!
    1. Re:More than an inconvenience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Customer (to me, during requirements review): "The soldiers get issued WinXP notebooks anyhow. Utilize them." Translation: "I want a cyber-crime syndicate halfway across the world to be able to control a UAV with Hellfire missiles. They wouldn't possibly sell control of something like that to the highest bidder."
    2. Re:More than an inconvenience by vlm · · Score: 1

      Use a linux based bootable cdrom.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:More than an inconvenience by bughunter · · Score: 1

      That was one of the first suggestions. But they gotta run mission planning and data analysis apps written for Windows. And they won't run under Wine. Tried that already.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    4. Re:More than an inconvenience by dedazo · · Score: 1
      The article is more fluff than substance (surprise), but is there a particular problem with running a simple script on these machines to adjust the group policy (or push ot from a domain controller like sane people do) and remove their admin privileges? They can happily access the internet and email/browse/IM without them. Are the laptops owned by the soldiers or the Pentagon (in which case I assume they're on a milnet)? If the latter then I fail to see what big problem is - seems more like a lack of will by the military to do things correctly. If the former, then who gives a crap?

      Smells like just another Slashdot hack job, with the usual shades of "Windows sucks". But that's what pays CmdrTaco's bills.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    5. Re:More than an inconvenience by tacroy · · Score: 1

      Why not use a live boot of windows? Use something like BARTPE and remove the hard drive completely? BTW, I'll take a check (even a small one) if that fixes your problem. :)

  38. so there_is_a simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just ban windoze;-)

  39. So they're not getting it directly from the DVDs? by Punto · · Score: 1

    They're actually getting it FROM AN IRAQUI FRIEND who bought the DVDs, and then they became in contact with this FRIEND? this is what we're saying?

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

  40. Quite sloppy of the U.S. military by Eternal+Annoyance · · Score: 1

    This is military equipment, which might very well contain confidential information.

    In a correct situation the soldiers shouldn't be allowed to modify their computers altogether. There's a reason they get a computer in the field (otherwise they don't need to get one).

    Another option (more secure): do not put windows on those boxes and do not allow modification of the computer. Modification should be done by people authorized to do so, this will help prevent security breaches.

    The U.S. military should impose harsh penalties on unauthorized modification of computers which deal with information of tactical and/or strategical importance (direct or indirect). Situations like this can have dire consequences.

    1. Re:Quite sloppy of the U.S. military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's not military equipment. Soldiers bring their own computers.

  41. That is so naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you want to meet a person who abhors war, talk to a soldier. If you want to judge someone for wanting to "kill people after the Cold War finished" I suggest you look at the people who decide when and where to send the military. I'll give you a hint, they don't wear uniforms.

    That is so naive, on so many fronts.

    The people who want war are those who profit from it, either directly in dollars, or indirectly from the political power that comes from agitation of the dumb voting public, or more simply, from leading the war machine. And yes, many of those people wore uniforms at one time, or have deep and long-standing links with the military so that they might as well be wearing uniforms.

    What you say does have some truth when taken literally, but you can't shrug off the responsibility for your government's warmongering that easily. Soldiers are the facilitators of the problem, and unless your upper ranks perform a direct veto on government excesses, then you cannot avoid the taint that comes from your actions. The excesses would not happen if you did not perform them.

    It's so easy to pass the buck, but that doesn't make it right. Nor is it correct to pass the buck, because much of the push for military action comes from the military leaders, always happy to support action that will inflate their budgets and raise their profile.

    While your grunts-eye view isn't a lie, it's highly myopic, and very very naive.

    1. Re:That is so naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although President Bush, who's responsible for the war, ostensibly wore a uniform while avoiding service in Vietnam, and looked dashing in a flight suit during the "Mission Accomplished" debacle on the Abe Lincoln, he doesn't have "deep and long-standing links with the military." Vice President Cheney was SecDef at one time, and strongly disagreed with the occupation of Iraq in the 1990s. He either had a brain transplant in the last 15 years, or was overruled by Karl Rove, who also did not serve in uniform.
      That said...
      The folks who put on the uniform do it for a myriad of reasons, and from my experience, none do it to kill people - though most are prepared to enthusiastically kill any enemy that opposes us. Saying the uniformed services facilitate war is a bit like saying health professionals facilitate disease. The U.S. military's purpose is to efficiently carry out the orders of our civilian leadership, prepare for war and demonstrate a serious enough threat to avoid conflict. If, and only if, given a legal order to make war, the military will fight. There is no veto by the upper ranks because they serve at the pleasure of the civilian leadership making the decision. Which brings us back to judgment of our duly elected leaders. I admit I may be naive, but I also pretend to understand the military to some level, whereas you have demonstrated prejudice and a level of understanding that aspires to naivety.

    2. Re:That is so naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying the uniformed services facilitate war is a bit like saying health professionals facilitate disease.

      Your first paragraph was objective and factual, and it seemed to be the first part of a rational and even-handed response. Then you came out with the utterly moronic sentence above, and you ended the piece with empty posturing instead of logic.

      It may have escaped your notice, but the AC got awarded Insightful points not by expressing prejudice against the armed services, but by laying aside the rose-tinted spectacles and describing things as they are in a world ruled by vested interests.

      Laying that out bluntly may have hurt a bit if the military was your whole life, but neither shooting the messenger nor ignoring the message are appropriate responses if you accept the rule of logic. Those non-partisan facts aren't really in dispute. That's how the world works, including the part played by the military.

      Moving the words around to soften the bluntness and to disclaim responsibility doesn't alter anything. Take the blue pill if it makes you personally happier, but that won't alter the reality of the world.

  42. Put a Helmet on that Soldier! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our men and women in uniform deserve virus free porn! American porn producers should flood Iraq with free porn DVDs so the bootleg market dies out.

    Until that happens, what brain dead fuckup uses a computer or flash disk likely to have a virus to transfer data to military computers? The kind that like to get their buddies killed? The kind with a death wish? Or just fucking morons?

  43. AlhamduliLlah by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Nice!

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  44. Stupid formats by Deadplant · · Score: 1

    Pr0n is multimedia... audio and video.
    There is no reason at all for such things to carry viruses.
    AVI files people. If your porno video is in wmv for exe format throw it out.

    If your pictures contain executable code you are doing it wrong.

    1. Re:Stupid formats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ignorance of this comment is breathtaking. Apparently you have never exploited a buffer overrun inside a JPEG or MPEG parser?

    2. Re:Stupid formats by Deadplant · · Score: 1

      What are you, a programmer from 20 years ago? buffer overruns parsing untrusted data are blindingly simple to avoid. Anyone who writes a jpeg parser that overruns in this day and age is incompetent and should look for a new job.

      Obviously a sufficiently incompetent programmer can make anything dangerous.

  45. I just bought some of these yesterday by algerath · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have been playing these DVDs in my laptop since I got here with no problems. I have not heard of anyone getting a virus from the DVDs here. I have bought a couple crappy cam movies but most are really very good quality and have caused no prblems. TFA also talked about sharing flash drives with IA soldiers. I would guess that is where the problem lies. I would also be very cautious with the wireless internet that is for sale by the locals, it is not very secure. There have been some minor problems there. BTW here is Northern Iraq.

    1. Re:I just bought some of these yesterday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just because you are in iraq, you are not above the law, cams and pirate dvd's are stealing, you should expect a lawsuit when you go back to the "land of freedom"

    2. Re:I just bought some of these yesterday by algerath · · Score: 1

      So sue me, in the us, for watching movies in Iraq or you can just piss off. on second thought just piss off.

  46. Moderators w/o a Sense of Humor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems this thread will be a bitch to meta-moderate.

    1. Re:Moderators w/o a Sense of Humor by Fifty+Points · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have mod points, but I'm not touching this thread with a ten foot pole. :/

      --
      I'm in between insightful sigs right now...
    2. Re:Moderators w/o a Sense of Humor by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, no, you got the joke all wrong! You used an article where you should have used a possessive pronoun.

      I have mod points, but I'm not touching this thread with my ten foot pole.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Moderators w/o a Sense of Humor by cp.tar · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, no, you got the joke all wrong! You used an article where you should have used a possessive pronoun.

      I have mod points, but I'm not touching this thread with my ten foot pole.

      I wouldn't touch it with yours, either.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
  47. Make legal porn available? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmmm... I remember when my ex-husband was in the military, it was illegal to sell porn on base. Is this still the case? They could, oh, I dunno MAKE IT LEGAL and start treating these guys like the adults they are SUPPOSED to be.

  48. In the good old days... by ThousandStars · · Score: 1

    You'd just clear it up with penicillin. Which makes me think, perhaps the Linux community has been going about advocacy the wrong way. Perhaps something like: "Linux: The Penicillin for Computers" would get the word out, especially given SE Linux.

  49. toolazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    am i the only one who is a bit sickened by a bunch of bums who sit on cozy chairs reading slashdot criticizing troops on the front line? yes perhaps i am such a bum myself, but regardless of what you think of the iraq war, soldiers do not sit around all day masturbating. get real.

    and more importantly, to echo another post above, i too have been to these "souks" in the middle east. you can't find porn there - this should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about Islamic restrictions, regardless of their travel experiences.

  50. Ummm...why is this allowed at all? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

    So can someone explain to me why US soldiers are buying illegal material (bootleg DVDs) and installing it on military equipment? I would think either one of these is worthy of a severe reprimand.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    1. Re:Ummm...why is this allowed at all? by jruschme · · Score: 1

      So can someone explain to me why US soldiers are buying illegal material (bootleg DVDs) and installing it on military equipment? I would think either one of these is worthy of a severe reprimand. I've been reading this thread and trying to figure that out, too.

      I do software development on a Government network with a Government-supplied notebook. Based on what I've seen of the Information Assurance (IA) compliance here, I'd expect that if I tried to view porn on the notebook, I could expect to be *escorted* out of the building.

      Is Schmedlap (generic soldier) really allowed (i.e., physically permitted) to take his ToughBook running MCS back to the barracks and view movies on it?
    2. Re:Ummm...why is this allowed at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it's military equipment. It's pretty common to bring your own laptops, and avoid govt networks so you're not filtered.

    3. Re:Ummm...why is this allowed at all? by Scr3wFace · · Score: 1

      You would be shocked to find that this kind of thing is rampant within the military. We use to have 7 TB movie and warez box on the gov NIPR net, now everyone has just moved to the SNEAKER Net, thanks to USB drives. The Army's HOOHA has been replaced with ARRRRRRRR! Oh man you just don't know!

  51. Pacifism by Perf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A gun is a machine designed to kill.

    Sorry, you are wrong. Re-read the Bible and spend time thinking about it.

    There are guns designed to punch paper. There are guns designed for hunting - killing animals.

    And then you get into the Christian policeman thing. Is it immoral for a Christian to be a policeman? Should he kill to stop a murder? Yes - It would be immoral for him NOT to.

    A soldier is much like a policeman. His purpose is to fight to end a war. (Not all soldiers fight with weapons - some are medics, etc. But all fight to bring an end to the war.)

    BTW, many people's confusion about Christian theology on this point comes from a poor translation of the 10 commandments. It's NOT, "Thou shalt not kill." It IS, "Thou Shalt Not Murder." (If you disagree, read ahead in the book - commands expressing society's duties to execute muderers.)

    1. Re:Pacifism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's all fine and good, except that...America isn't "fighting to end a war" that was started against them. Iraq had not invaded anyone since 1991 and has never invaded the US.

      America started this war. America shot first, without provocation. That's basically murder. (No 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq.)

      I'm not anti-military. We need them to protect this country. That's why it's so upsetting that our military and our valuable military equipment are losing readiness, being worn out, and watching some of our brightest officers leave the service thanks to a distant war we didn't have to start.

      The concept and execution of the Iraq war has been a grave expression of disrespect to our Armed Forces.

    2. Re:Pacifism by Flavio · · Score: 1

      You are correct that the commandment is "thou shalt not murder", and I agree with the theological rebuttal to the grandparent's post.

      However, you are completely out of your mind to propose that guns aren't designed to kill, or that a soldier's purpose is to end war. To quote Forrest Gump, a soldier's purpose is to do whatever his superior tells him to. If the commander in chief wants eternal war, then the soldier's purpose is to execute that wish. An obedient soldier under a morally corrupt leader automatically becomes a morally corrupt.

      The illegal occupation of Iraq is a perfect example of soldiers being used to start a war, not to end one. And if M16s weren't designed to kill, what were they designed for? Decorating birthday cakes?

    3. Re:Pacifism by halivar · · Score: 1

      America shot first, without provocation.
      Oh, but of course. The Baathists were being such good boys and never tried to antagonize.

      It sure would be nice to live in a world as black and white as yours.
    4. Re:Pacifism by qortra · · Score: 1
      The grandparent made two claims: "A gun is a machine designed to kill", and "This is a morally dubious proposition and incompatible with the Christian theology I grew up with". I will defend the second claim.

      Sorry, you are wrong. I think it's fairly arrogant of you to make an assertion like that about somebody's beliefs. Honestly, this is a matter of interpretation for a Christian. Being a Christian myself, this particular issue has weighed heavily on me for the last decade or so.

      Re-read the Bible and spend time thinking about it. A very good suggestion. After a lot of reading and a lot of thinking, I have decided that I would not feel morally comfortable in a position where I could potentially be required to kill (even if for a "good" cause). This is not the proper forum to go into my biblical arguments for that position. However, you should understand that very many intelligent and thoughtful people have come to this exact conclusion. Suffice it to say, after my best and most thorough analysis of the Bible, violence seems to me to have no place in a Christian's life under the new covenant. There are two quick caveats to this statement:

      1. This is not a criticism of Christian Military men. I know some of these people and have a great deal of respect for them though we disagree on the issue of Christian Pacifism. They hold their beliefs in good conscience, just as I do.

      2. Also, I hope that this viewpoint doesn't make Christian Pacifists sound like cowards; many of us genuinely have no problem risking or giving our lives for our country in other capacities - for instance, being a non-violent field medic (as you suggested).


      As a side note, I agree with you concerning the GP's other claim; "A gun is a machine designed to kill" is a fairly trite and unhelpful statement.
    5. Re:Pacifism by CowTipperGore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are guns designed for hunting - killing animals. The fact that you are killing a varied selection of animals does not change the fact that guns are designed to kill. In fact, you simply reinforced the statement you appeared to be trying to contradict.

      And then you get into the Christian policeman thing. Is it immoral for a Christian to be a policeman? Should he kill to stop a murder? Yes - It would be immoral for him NOT to. So says you. Unfortunately for you, others do not agree with your classifications of moral and immoral. Some would say that a preemptive murder crosses the line regardless of what you think you may be preventing, while others would argue it is immoral for anyone to kill another human regardless of the reason.

      A soldier is much like a policeman. His purpose is to fight to end a war. Wrong. A soldier attempts to achieve the goals of his or her leadership. Sure, you can make the argument that the overall goal usually is to end the war, whether to defend your country or to eradicate opposition to your invasion. Yet, soldiers are expected to kill who they are told to kill. Both sides are showered with propaganda about the bad guys in order to get the average soldier past their socially-ingrained aversion to murdering fellow humans.

      BTW, many people's confusion about Christian theology on this point comes from a poor translation of the 10 commandments. It's NOT, "Thou shalt not kill." It IS, "Thou Shalt Not Murder." (If you disagree, read ahead in the book - commands expressing society's duties to execute muderers.) BTW, many people's confusion about Christian theology on this point comes from a poor understanding of the message of Jesus as presented in the Christian New Testament. It's not about the semantics of murder versus simple killing. It is about "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (If you disagree, read the New Testament, or get a Cliff Notes version from a Mennonite church at http://www.plowcreek.org/bible_pacifism.htm.)
    6. Re:Pacifism by CowTipperGore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh, but of course. The Baathists were being such good boys and never tried to antagonize. The US DoD news release to which you linked discussed supposed Iraqi anti-aircraft attacks on US aircraft over Iraqi airspace. The no-fly zones were created by the US, Britain, and France, not the UN. They were created under the pretense of protecting Iraqi's Shiite and Kurdish minorities, yet the implementation demonstrates otherwise - they were setup on straight boundaries that did not overlap well with the minority populations, the US attacks on Iraqi installments had no relation to threats to the Shiites or Kurds, and the US even allowed Turkey to bomb the Kurds.

      Try, just for a few seconds, to put yourself in Iraqi shoes and lets talk about someone antagonizing. Imagine that Egypt, Iran, and Syria decided to take serious issue with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and declared that the Israeli military could no longer enter Gaza or the West Bank. Do you believe that Israel wouldn't fight back? Do you believe that the US wouldn't assist?

      It sure would be nice to live in a world as black and white as yours. It sure would be terrible to live in a world so devoid of empathy and rationalization as yours.
    7. Re:Pacifism by steelfood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, GP can drop the "Christian" part and still make perfect sense. It's against GP's morality to kill other human beings, probably in any situation other than in self-defense (but I cannot truly speak for the GP on this matter). The military exists to do just that. Killing another person isn't a requisite to being in the military, but it is an expectation. And the other side has the same expectations as well. And if killing another person is against someone's morals (like GP's) regardless of whatever logical or illogical basis, then that's that.

      Oh, and a soldier is NOT like a policeman. Police exist to keep the peace by enforcing the laws, and provide assistance to citizens in need. In an ideal situation, police serve the public, though that isn't always true. But generally speaking, they serve the law, whatever the law might be. They are not trained to kill, and certainly not trained to survive. To claim that police and military are the same means you either have a warped sense of the place and purpose of soldiers, the place and purpose of law enforcement, or both.

      Finally, stop being pedantic. Firearms are designed for maiming and killing, be it human or any other animal. GP is not talking about other "guns". Glue guns have the word "gun" in the name too, but I'm pretty sure when someone puts military and gun together, they don't think about a nozzle that ejects a hot, sticky substance. Have you any other uses for a firearm (not explosives or some other appratus that otherwise uses explosives to propelled projectiles) besides killing or maiming? And don't tell me target practice.

      Seesh...I don't know if it's Monday or what, but the mods need to get their shit together.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    8. Re:Pacifism by Marillion · · Score: 1

      Wow, I didn't intend for this to degrade into a heated debate. I was trying to articulate the reasons why I and perhaps a few other like minded people would refuse military service. My reasons are founded in part in my theology. I'm not asking anyone to agree with my theological interpretations. I only ask that you respect my point of view as I respect those who hold different opinions.

      We all know that the most horrible acts of war and genocide have been committed in the name of Christianity. In my opinion, these acts are most un-Christian. The world has no shortage of examples of atrocities waged against humanity in the name of God or other gods.

      I see no reason to run off on distracting tangents like things called "Gun" that are not harmful. Glue guns and paper punching guns are only called gun because their grips resemble the very machines they're named after. The militaries of the world do not issue glue guns to soldiers, they issue guns. The kind of gun that is designed to kill whatever appears in the crosshairs.

      Bickering over the difference between murdering and killing is exactly the kind of argument that the Sadducees and Pharisees would have loved. I do not believe that God is a lawyer who makes a commandment and then enumerates dozens of loopholes and exceptions where it doesn't apply. If someone dies at my hand, it might be important to call it murder in a courtroom. But I will feel little consolation from anyone who tries to suggest that calling it murder no longer makes it my fault.

      I'll be the first to admit that a pacifistic stance is difficult in the face of the savagery present in the world. Today's newspapers are full of belligerent nations bent on destroying their neighbors and history books are full of the names of extinct civilizations that died under the sword. However, I can not find redemption for a personal act of barbarism in the belligerence of a rogue state or the violence of a criminal.

      --
      This is a boring sig
    9. Re:Pacifism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure when someone puts military and gun together, they don't think about a nozzle that ejects a hot, sticky substance. i'm sure thst a small percent of readers will disagree.
    10. Re:Pacifism by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      >>They are not trained to kill, and certainly not trained to survive

      I have to take exception to this. I am a soldier, and I am close friends with 4 people who have graduated cop school, and they are more qualified to kill than I am. They have extensive training on pistol, shotgun, pepper spray, taser, baton, and hand-to-hand combat. Any of them could easily take me down. They are also trained to take out suspects in high-speed chases via techniques like the PIT maneuver. They have advanced training in firearms control, cover, tactical reloading, emergency medicine, etc.

      I think it is disingenuous to portray police as this benign caricature of Barney Fife. Police are killers who don't want to. Soldiers are also killers who don't want to. The difference is that they get their order from their police chief, and I get my orders from congress and the president. You need to stop thinking of soldiers as executioners. Or short of that, examine why it is you think of soldiers as executioners. I've never killed anybody, and if I did kill anyone in the course of my duties, it would be for the same reason I'd kill someone in any other circumstances: self-defense.

      Go ahead and rationalize it away by saying that I'm not typical, or that if I volunteered for it then I knew what I was doing, or any other reasonable argument. The fact is, humans fight. We will fight until we're not technically humans anymore. History has borne this out, and fiat histories claiming otherwise are just plain wrong.

      I'm sorry to ramble. Don't take it personally. I guess I'm just tired and I probably shouldn't even be posting on slashdot in the first place.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    11. Re:Pacifism by morkk · · Score: 1

      when someone puts military and gun together, they don't think about a nozzle that ejects a hot, sticky substance WHAT!?!?!?!

      have you never heard of the three-hundred-forty-four-millimeter Lepage glue gun that can stick together, in the air, entire formations of bombers? (Catch-22)

    12. Re:Pacifism by Perf · · Score: 1

      Not intending heated debate -- me too.

      Regarding guns - I should clarify. Paper punching is a reference to shooting targets. Target guns are not designed for killing. They are designed for ergonomics and accuracy. Totally impractical for military or police work. Awkward for hunting. Capable of killing? Yes. But then again, so is a car or horse and buggy.

      Our media projects a distorted concept of guns. Most are not used for crime or killing a person. Although I do not have much use for one, I have relatives who have. One uncle is a retired California Highway Patrolman. Nicest guy you could meet. One cousin had to kill a bear in his front yard. Although he and his dog chased it off, it returned and wouldn't go away. (He has 4 preschoolers.) Another uncle had a cougar wander thru a school yard onto his place and kill a goat.

      A gun is a tool that can be used for good or bad. It's not the gun, knife, car, or horse and buggy, that is good or bad, it is the individual.

      Pacifism: I have profound respect for the true ones. (e.g. Desmond Doss). Most I have met are just Vietnam era cowards who were more concerned with getting shot than having any true convictions against killing. Although I may challenge your convictions and understanding, please understand that I hold you in respect. I hope you can understand that police officer who shoots a bad guy can hold pacifist convictions just as strong.

      P.S. I know of an incident where a lady visited a (pacifist) church. (Name left out on purpose.) When a few members found out her ancestry, they started accusing her, "Your ancestors persecuted our ancestors 300 years ago." :-) As you say, it is the individual who decides peace or conflict.

      Peace

    13. Re:Pacifism by Upphew · · Score: 1

      Oh, and a soldier is NOT like a policeman. Police exist to keep the peace by enforcing the laws, and provide assistance to citizens in need. In an ideal situation, police serve the public, though that isn't always true. But generally speaking, they serve the law, whatever the law might be. They are not trained to kill, and certainly not trained to survive. To claim that police and military are the same means you either have a warped sense of the place and purpose of soldiers, the place and purpose of law enforcement, or both. Additionally, policeman almost never goes over the ocean to bust someone for breaking the local law, or to Mexico to arrest illegal immigrants. <wishful thinking>Modern armies should be for defence of the nation and defencive doctrine should not include preemptive strikes </wishful thinking> People that are trained to kill and obey commands without questions make bad policemen, imho.
  52. As others have said, Autorun.inf - Executable by FoamingToad · · Score: 1

    I nearly fell foul of something similar a year or so ago. I bought a copy of Gareth Marenghi's Darkplace from Amazon, and on inserting it into my Win2k3 box the machine bluescreened - twice in a row.

    Turns out that they were trying to apply a dodgy copy-protection driver onto the machine, which apparently wasn't 100% compatible with 2k3.

    Of course, soon as I noticed that I disabled autorun (which is something I'd just forgotten to do since the last rebuild) and ripped the content.

    Again, intrusive copy-protection measures make honest users into copyright infringers.

    F_T

  53. Media should be passively displayed, not executed by dpbsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lost cause, I suppose, but it seems to me that the root cause of this is a series of insanely bad decisions made by the industry as a whole and by Microsoft in particular, in blurring the line between data and programs in viewable media.

    There is no good reason why an email program should willy-nilly try to execute any attachment it sees, and no good reason why a computer should execute stuff on a DVD.

    99.99% of the time, the end-user thinks of a .jpg or a DVD as passively viewed content.

    An unholy alliance between technical sweetness (oooh, generality), possibilities for commercial exploitation (this DVD could display ads with a "buy" button on them), and DRM, has created a terrible situation.

    The mischief comes in when there are so many parties that have an interest in creating media that are not what they appear to be to the end-user.

    When the end-user thinks he's just watching something, the system should enforce the will of the user... not the will of the media provider. If the media does what the vendor wants and not what the user wants, that's a bad capability in itself--but it also is a gaping whole for malware which can subvert that capability to purposes neither user nor vendor want.

  54. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  55. Republican Soliders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then why do soliders overwhelmingly vote Republican in spite of the fact that that's the party that keeps flinging them into danger and cutting their benefits for when they get home?

  56. Soldiers by afc_wimbledon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There may well be other factors needed to cause war. But soldiers are a pre-requisite. "Soldiers will be 'created' if none exist..." Ignoring the movies, how? Conscription? Unwilling conscripts make lousy soldiers, which is why it's so out of favour with most "advanced" militaries these days. Anyway, there does seem to be a ready supply of volunteer "professional soldiers" willing to fight these wars, despite what the OP said.

    1. Re:Soldiers by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Lousy soldiers are better than no soldiers when you've got something to gain.

      In a culture where anything short of total and unquestioning loyalty and obedience to the government is akin to treason (how can you support your country if you don't support your government?) creating 'volunteers' is all too easy.

      Create social situations where the only likely way to obtain higher education is through a military system and paycheck and you'll have a steady stream of 'volunteers'.

      Plus, the worse the soldier the better (and more expensive) gear they need. Which is great when you make that gear.

      And even with our advanced military there are still things that can only be done with boots on the ground. That is where the conscripts will go. The tank drivers, jet pilots and other highly technical (and limited in number) positions can be filled by the actual volunteers.

      War on terror, war on drugs, war to spread democracy (a system you cannot successfully force on a population) create a situation which will continually provide a threat which we need to defend our "homeland" (too bad "motherland" and "fatherland" were already taken) from.

      Bang the drums and sound the horns! We need troops to keep the evil people over there and not over here! They hate us for our freedom (a little late on that one in my opinion)! Citizen, don't you want to keep your family, friends and homeland safe from these terrors? Only those that support the enemy wouldn't want to stop them on their own soil...

  57. So you don't understand what digital means... by hassanchop · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_media

    "The history of digital starts with the development of the number 0 (see 0 (number)) by the Babylonians about 2000BC."

    Digital, as in digits. A piece of paper can be "digital media".

  58. To: A thin-skinned military man by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    I'm just about as offended as humanly possible at your comment above. Are you now?

    On a site like this one, where people from the outside would presume everyone is a pasty and pimply 34 year old living in their parent's basement I'm just about as offended as humanly possible at your comment above.
    Not everyone that logs into slashdot is a pencil-necked dork, and quite a few of us are above average in terms of looks and charm.

    So why don't you just learn to take a fucking joke, mr smart navy man, and refrain from committing the very same offense which you decry? Because if there's one kind of people I wish would be skinned alive and dropped in the middle of the ocean, it's hypocrites like you.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:To: A thin-skinned military man by Binkleyz · · Score: 1

      Umm... What I said was:

      "On a site like this one, where people from the outside would presume everyone is a pasty and pimply 34 year old living in their parent's basement".

      Note the "where people from the outside would presume". I'm also not a "pencil-necked dork", nor are most of the people that I know personally (as in "In person", in the real world) on /. .

      My point was that it is not usually a good idea to make assumptions about people based purely on a single factor (like having been in the military or being a /. reader). At no point did I assert or imply that people on /. are ANY of the things that "people from the outside" would think we are.

    2. Re:To: A thin-skinned military man by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      My point was that it is not usually a good idea to make assumptions about people based purely on a single factor That's a good point.
      I think my point was that you were WAY too easy to offend.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  59. Give the Soldiers Porn by BoldlyGo · · Score: 1

    There is a very simple solution to this: Make pron available to any soldier that wants it. It would be very cheap and easy for the government to make copies of porn dvds for the soldiers. It's better for them to be getting porn that is secure, than bootlegged porn that is full of viruses.

  60. Cyber warfare by Fuzzums · · Score: 2, Funny

    We could have known that porn would be a key weapon in cyber warfare ;)

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  61. Re:toolazy - Islam & pron by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    One opinion on the place of porn in Islam - it doesn't have one.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  62. Re:Media should be passively displayed, not execut by SheeEttin · · Score: 1

    no good reason why a computer should execute stuff on a DVD
    I take it you don't play many games.
  63. It is all fine and dandy by aepervius · · Score: 1

    A fine point which has been overused in the past to justify a lot of bad stuff. It only takes your local fanatic point out that killing the other people not belonging to your religion is not technically murder, it is saving their soul. Or whatever other crap like their supposed crime against christiandom, or torturing them until they avow their crime, then burn them (after mercifully strangulating them in the majority of the case, but not always) even torturing and burning kids as low as 5 year old or 9 year old (read Mckay extroaordinary popular delusion and madness of crowd, witch mania chapter, and the reference therein).

    By now, I think this was intentionally written as "you shalt not murder" in the old testament, because the writter was clever enough that "you shalt not kill" would severly reduce the power of the local religion, then the christian church took it over, and indeed probably took the same reasonment, seein how they sometiems directly killed people which was not agreeing with them.

    So technically you are correct.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  64. Likelihood? by ^_^x · · Score: 1

    It's funny to see so much discussion of the logistics of it and whether or not you'd find porn at a souk.
    Reading the comments in the article it sounds like very little technical knowledge and a lot of speculation was involved in the description of the problem. "RAM rot?" I think it's more likely that whatever viruses they have were aquired through typical internet surfing and trading files via flashdrives and networks. I mean, it's possible to put a virus on a helper app on a DVD, and stick an autorun script on it, but I'm betting the source is completely speculative and anecdotal.

  65. Military Providing Virus Free Porn for the Troops! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coming to a regiment near you, Officially SANCTIONED 100% ALL AMERICAN PORN FOR RED BLOODED AMERICAN SOLDIERS! Free from Viruses, for both sexes but you can't ask for the gay stuff because we are not allowed to know about that!

  66. irony? by shentino · · Score: 1

    So our Men In Uniform are buying bootleg DVD's?

    I think that itself is more newsworthy than the virus bits.

    What I'd like to know is how the US Soldier's computers are even getting the bad dvd's in the first place...

  67. How does dvd work as a virus vector? by jmdc · · Score: 1

    I would not have thought it possible to spread a virus like this. Sure you could put the virus on the dvd, but when will it get executed? Wouldn't you have to exploit vulnerabilities unique to each dvd decoder?

  68. Re:Media should be passively displayed, not execut by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

    I think you miss my point, which is precisely that games and video should not be delivered in the same format.

    The fact that they are is the result of ill-considered technical convenience. The two formats could have been separated at no cost or inconvenience to gamers.

    There ought to have been a hardware distinction between a digital VIDEO disc, containing what the viewer believes to be and intends to use as passively viewable content, and a digital VERSATILE disc, which holds arbitrary data... interactive, executable, computer files, whatever.

  69. Need more information by conorr · · Score: 1

    What exactly is this "porno-virus"? Besides Tom Rick's Inbox article, I've found no other mention of infected Iraqi bootleg pornos. This does not mean Mr. Rick is wrong, but his article contains little information. All it says is that some bootleg DVDs in Iraq carry unspecified virus(es). Hopefully, his article is based on more than the included excerpt from Capt. Michael Noonan, which made less sense each time I read it. I am not attempting to criticize CmdrTaco or his post. I am questioning the lack of information in Tom Rick's article.

  70. wbaxter1 by wbaxter1 · · Score: 1

    It's nice to see we're bringing something western into these Iraqi soldiers' short boring lives. But I wonder if it was the original intent of the attacker. I wonder if the attacker wanted to inflict pain upon the Americans and the Iraqi soldiers were a welcome bonus. Good ploy though. If you can't attack your enemey directly, hit him in the heart.

  71. Soldiers and semantics by afc_wimbledon · · Score: 1

    "To claim that without soldiers there would be no war is just silly." Why is that silly? Wars are large scale conflicts fought by soldiers, hence without soldiers the cannot be war. There can be plenty violence and generally nasty things, but categorically not war. "Unless you classify a "soldier" any person who decides to take up arms against his neighbor." If lots of them do in any organised fashion, of course they are soldiers. What else? Nuns??

  72. Yeah, just where IS the MPAA? by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

    I'm curious about something: where IS the MPAA in this story?

    I mean, all we ever hear from them is bootlegging = "terrorism". How come they're not lining up soldier subpoenas and lawsuits for such "Un-American" activity?

    Oh, wait. It's the guns, isn't it?

    --

    I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

  73. Windows... by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1

    It doesn't work unless you run an OS that tries to execute everything in sight with admin privileges. I have no idea why anyone would use such an OS, but it seems to be wildly popular nonetheless.

  74. Pacifism leads to war by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    The purpose of the military is to have and use weapons. These weapons get used specifically on other people. This is what army's do, it's what they are for. So, if you claim that soldiers abhor war, then WHY THE FUCK DID THEY BECOME SOLDIERS IN THE FIRST PLACE! If they abhor it so much, why the HELL did they VOLUNTEER to do it?

    Because history teaches us that pacifism invites attack. Pacifists can only survive in isolation or when protected by non-pacifists. Soldiers perform a necessary function as deterrents. If deterrence fails, often a result of a perceived weakness - sometimes a military unwilling or unable to fight effectively, then it functions in defense to mitigate damage or perhaps retaliate. Either of which can alter the perception of being weak and affect future deterrence. In short, one of the most effective ways of avoiding attack is to appear to be more than capable of repelling it. Humans are predators and predators look for weak prey.

  75. Please support the troops by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 3, Funny

    Folks,

    It appears clear to me what we must do. I believe it would be difficult to find a group of people with a larger aggregate porn collection, or larger distributed array of DVD burners, than we who read slashdot. So let's get busy archiving our porn onto DVDs and send them such a vast quantity of smut, no poor GI will have to resort to the virus-infected local stuff over there.

    Remember, you don't necessarily need to be an American partiot, you just need to be kinda pervy.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    1. Re:Please support the troops by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Ahh, dammit. s/partiot/patriot

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    2. Re:Please support the troops by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Given the content of the DVD's, "Partiot" might well be more appropriate.

  76. how about holding the shift key? by Z80a · · Score: 1

    or turning off autorun on the machines when inserting the disk?

  77. Stop autoplay on all drives by tonan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm a network/client admin in Afghanistan. Personally, I turn off autoplay (gpedit.msc) on all government and personal machines connecting to our network here. It's pretty easy and saves a lot of headaches. People pass around infected thumb drives so much here, containing it was a problem until we did this.

    I also wish Norton knew how to get rid of malware that sets up a service in Windows. Every time a computer gets infected with one of those, I have to manually remove it.

  78. red ribbon by ls354 · · Score: 0

    Troops don't need better combat vehicles, what they need is safe, high quality porn. Buy a red ribbon.

  79. Mmmm Horses-pucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry guys. This story is complete bull shit.

  80. NOT MILITARY EQUIPMENT by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

    They're not. They're using their own personal computers. Where this unfounded assumption comes from that they're issued computers or that military hardware is being used for personal purposes, I do not know.

    1. Re:NOT MILITARY EQUIPMENT by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      Ah. Well in that case, who cares? Other than the fact, of course, that they're still buying illegal material (pirated DVDs, and presumably just being porn in Iraq--can't find the laws on that for sure, though). Aside from the legality of it, who cares if they're stupid enough to trash their personal computers?

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  81. new weapon of terror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    IED = Infected Erection Disc

    ss