Slashdot Mirror


Iran Tried and Failed To Launch a Monkey Into Space

Medevilae writes with a recent report from PopSci's dedicated 'space monkey' news feed that "When Iran indefinitely suspended its plans to launch a monkey into space earlier this month, it was actually because they had already tried and failed. Iranian Deputy Science Minister Mohammad Mehdinejad-Nouri told state media that the Kavoshgar-5 rocket carrying a capsule with a live monkey launched during Shahrivar, which is the Iranian month spanning August 23 to September 22, but the launch was not publicized because it did not accomplish all of its mission objectives. Assuming one of the objectives was to safely carry the monkey to space and back, things don't sound good for the monkey."

272 comments

  1. Failed to launch a monkey? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Funny

    They failed to launch a monkey?

    Does that mean Ahmadinejad is still on Earth?

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by noems · · Score: 0

      you beat me too it....

    2. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by ByOhTek · · Score: 0

      Given they tried to launch, I suspect the rocket crashed.

      Obviously they have some seriously advanced tech, since the monkey not only survived, but could talk to state media about it within a month or two.

      Who knew that Iranian technology in crash safety was so advanced?

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    3. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by flanders_down · · Score: 0

      you beat me too it....

      Damn, he was quick.

    4. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only in body...

    5. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure he's still around. We just don't have that kind of luck in Iran right now!

    6. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were going to send up a Mexican drug cartel guy, but he got diverted to another mission.

    7. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But....still too slow to beat Jay Leno - who told the joke first. Lame

    8. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Informative

      To the mods, that is not racist, Ahmanedijad, or however you spell that fucktards name, is the only Persian I have that opinion of. Given I've run into quite a few Persians (Iranians) with that opinion of him also, I wouldn't call that racism, just an idiot who likes to wave his arms around like a fool... and fling poo.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    9. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot racism is super racist today.

    10. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that comparing a Middle Eastern person to a monkey was racist. I was under the impression that comparing someone to a monkey was racist when the subject was black.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    11. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Does that mean Ahmadinejad is still on Earth?

      No, but it does mean we know which religion ISN'T right - they can't even reach the heavens.

    12. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      Ahmadinejad is a puppet of the Republican Guard. He's there to spread their influence into the government, which was why the election was rigged (in a very comical way, yet with tragic results for the people of Iran.) Don't even begin to think Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is in any way the ultimate authority anymore - the Republican Guard have been replacing key figures in the circles of government with their people for years, sidelining the clerics.

      Quite a lot of good information came out during the protests, plus the evidence of "This is what they do" vs "This is what they say", there's no democracy, just going through the motions and then disposing of the ballots before showing the numbers the real powers that be employ to make it look real.

      Somewhere I have the spreadsheet released on the state election website, which is utterly pathetic in the way the pumped numbers here and there, but didn't bother with the simple task of making sure they add up or the percentages are even mathematically close. That was strong evidence of their hubris - they don't care they did it badly and stole an election.

      Ahmadinejad is simply the side-show, to give bombastic speeches, photo-ops, etc.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    13. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      No, the Ayatollah.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    14. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by deathlyslow · · Score: 1

      Let the woot! wars begin.

      --
      Don't blame me for redundant posts. I can't type very fast. Hence the user ID.
    15. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comparing an individual is not racist, if it is just about that one person, and not generalized to an entire race. Even if that person is black, it is not necessarily racist; it just has really bad historical precedents, so its hard to pull off without bringing up bad memories. For example, "Nikki Minaj looks like a drag queen" is not a racist statement. Or "Former President George W Bush looks and acts like a monkey", is not racist, though I'm pretty sure chimpanzees would find it offensive.

    16. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by Evtim · · Score: 1

      Half way through your post I though you were going to say it is racist to the monkeys and I was like "Yhea, that's right, actually they are the offended party no matter to which particular human they are compared to"

    17. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by wmac1 · · Score: 0

      Can you tell me who are the non-existent republican guards? There is NO republican guards in Iran. You have mistaken that with IraQ!

      There are IRGC (Revolutionary Guards) in Iran but considering that you don't know even the name, your other statements can hardly be trusted.

    18. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by cavreader · · Score: 0

      It's hard to understand how Iran or any other country with the same level of technology have trouble reverse-engineering and producing systems that were first built in the 60's. Iran like all the other 2nd or 3rd tier countries when it comes to developing technology have more than enough scientists and engineers (most of whom were educated in the West) capable of working on this type of technology.

    19. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first thing that comes to mind also.

    20. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by pluther · · Score: 2
      Certainly, but even with the best of technology and scientists and engineers, systems occasionally fail.

      Even the US space program, with a pretty darn good track record, still loses the occasionaly probe or shuttle.

      And we did our share to deplete the surplus population of monkeys while we were developing it, too.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    21. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      It's hard to understand how Iran or any other country with the same level of technology have trouble reverse-engineering and producing systems that were first built in the 60's.

      Even in the 'rich' west the private sector has yet to put a lifeform into orbit and return it safely to earth - What hope does some tinpot nation have?

    22. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Aside from the mistake of Revolutionary versus Republican guard, everything else is pretty much consistent with the general understanding of how Iran works these days. The Revolutionary Guard is a de facto independent faction in the Iranian government, with a significant amount of income that is independent from government salaries. I don't know whether Khameini has actually been sidelined, but the Revolutionary Guard is an important political faction in Iran - much more important than the name and basic purpose initially would suggest.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    23. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      Damn, I'm sure the monkeys take offense to that you insensitive clod!

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    24. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by cavreader · · Score: 0

      Iran wouldn't be relying on the private sector for anything. The Iranian government would spare no expense to achieve this type of propaganda victory. And think of the tech the US and USSR used for the first orbital attempts and compare that tech against the technology available today off the shelf. The average low end PC provides more computing power than anything NASA had in the early years of their space projects. This includes both the vehicle and ground based control systems.

    25. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Now if you assumed they shouted something like "Abu Akbar!" during the missile launch... that would be racist.

    26. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      The failed launch is a lie! No monkeys were killed!

      All lies concocted by the space monkeys to support space!

      Space should not exist and we call on all nations to join us in shaking our fists at it!

    27. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by SlippyToad · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that comparing a Middle Eastern person to a monkey was racist

      Racists are frequently ignorant of just how offensive their statements are. Just like incompetent people almost never know that they are incompetent.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    28. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by EEPROMS · · Score: 0

      One can't help but imagine Irans space program consists of a monkey sitting in a huge slingshot thinking WTF!!

    29. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot racism is super racist today.

      And what race is Islam, again?

    30. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by tibit · · Score: 1

      That's true, but not necessarily applicable. There's this seemingly large group of people who forgot what the difference is between saying generally offensive things vs. being racist. This group will classify anything as racist if it is both offensive and targeted at someone of a different race than the speaker's. As much as I'm anti-racism, I'm disgusted by the above mentioned group of people.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    31. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      "Abu is great?"

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    32. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by aevans · · Score: 0

      Insert obligatory Pixies reference.

    33. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Yes, Abu.

    34. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by Geotopia · · Score: 1

      But....still too slow to beat Jay Leno - who told the joke first. Lame

      This is a case of a headline with a singular punch line trajectory.

    35. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by Geotopia · · Score: 1

      Ahmadinejad is a puppet of the Republican Guard... Ahmadinejad is simply the side-show, to give bombastic speeches, photo-ops, etc.

      ... and apparently their best candidate for sub-orbital test flights.

    36. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They failed to launch a monkey?

      Does that mean Ahmadinejad is still on Earth?

      Yes, he's still at the UN going APE !

    37. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by Geotopia · · Score: 1

      I don't know whether Khameini has actually been sidelined

      I must have misread the article,... are you saying they tried to put two monkeys into orbit?

    38. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by Geotopia · · Score: 1

      Even the US space program, with a pretty darn good track record, still loses the occasionaly probe or shuttle.

      Or the Apollo 11 telemetry tapes, and apparently the Apollo 14 lunar module. Although we can thank a woeful workplace ethics for the recovery of the Apollo 14 LM camera from one of the aging pilots with strange taste for souvenirs.

    39. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      *sigh* People really don't understand the basics or racism.

      If the GP had picked any other insult it would be fine, but he went for one that is inextricably linked with racism. While his intention may genuinely not be racist by using 'monkey' he at the very least made it impossible to tell. Like it or not some words are loaded with negative stereotypes.

      To be honest the whole story seems a bit suspect - not racist, just keep in mind that every country that tried to put things in space had many failures. It isn't a big deal, and if anything shows they are further along than was thought.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    40. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

      ...and here we are worried about Iran getting nukes...

    41. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by bloobamator · · Score: 1

      "That has to be the second biggest slingshot I've ever seen, but it'll have to do."

      --
      "Crude and slow, clansman. Your attack was no better than that of a clumsy child."
    42. Re:Failed to launch a monkey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, don't insult monkey like that!
      It's simply that they couldn't get Bush to not to play with the life support and kill himself. ;)

  2. Congratulations for trying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How many countries just rely on someone else to do the space thing for them?

    1. Re:Congratulations for trying! by swanzilla · · Score: 1

      How many countries just rely on someone else to do the space thing for them?

      The monkey space thing? Roughly 200.

    2. Re:Congratulations for trying! by durrr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All that have no ballistic nuclear missile cravings.

      Orbital rockets can easily be repurposed to ICBMs
      Home brewed nuclear reactors are a good step on the way to manufacturing nukes.
      Having a dictatorship ruled by religious fundamentalists of the worst kind is, when combined with the above, a good starting condition for world war 3 or at the very least an actual nuclear war.

      Not to be paranoid or anything, but it's pretty damn obvious that they want some serious military tools as a byproduct of their Glorious National Proudness Programs.

    3. Re:Congratulations for trying! by RDW · · Score: 4, Informative

      How many countries just rely on someone else to do the space thing for them?

      Well, they certainly have some catching up to do. The first 5 US missions of this type didn't exactly end well for the passengers:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeys_in_space#United_States

      and the first 'successful' Soviet dog in orbit trip didn't even include 'bring it back alive' as a mission objective:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laika#Controversy

    4. Re:Congratulations for trying! by wisnoskij · · Score: 1, Troll

      I would not call another country getting nukes a precursor to WW3 if anything it is a preventative measure.

      Sure one country having nukes could start WW3, since it now holds all the cards and can do whatever it wants to other countries without fear of losing but in a very real way multiple countries having nukes prevents WW3 because either everyone is afraid of using them and there is no war or everyone/some of them use them and there is no war just mass genocide.

      "Having a dictatorship ruled by religious fundamentalists of the worst kind"
      Yes I also worry about the USA, a very frightening country.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re:Congratulations for trying! by starmonkey · · Score: 1

      Your post could be applied to the USA. There was something once said about a pot and a kettle... Not saying that Iran is doing something good. Just saying they're as evil as the USA. Countries with these kinds of policies will lead to the destruction of civilization, one day.

    6. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact this comment isn't at +5 is scary. I'm amazed at how many people don't know the entire point of the US space race was equal parts of ICBM development and political propaganda. First and foremost, the US space race was about ICBM development.

      Any country which isn't a democracy, or worse, a non-secular government, should be feared. Any such government who is actively chasing space is endangering the entire world. Just as with all previous cases, such develop is purely to be able to nuke any place on the planet.

      As you rightly point out, if Iran doesn't stop this shit, they likely will be the cause of WWIII which may very well escalate into nuclear war; or at least an limited nuclear exchange.

      Anyone who is in favor of Iran obtaining such launch capabilities is no friend to peace or humanity.

    7. Re:Congratulations for trying! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      You've got it backwards.

      ICBMs can easily be repurposed to launch something like Sputnik.

      Generally, this sort of thing is the side effect of military projects. If they try to tell you different, they are probably lying.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    8. Re:Congratulations for trying! by networkBoy · · Score: 2

      I know you're trolling, but:

      "Having a dictatorship ruled by religious fundamentalists of the worst kind"
      Yes I also worry about the USA, a very frightening country.

      GWB is not in office any more...

      Also, honestly I must agree with the GP. There is already enough deterrant in the world. The US is not the only possessor of nukes. Iran wants nukes, has a stated goal of wiping Israel off the map (who also has nukes, whether or not it's an official position). WTF do you think is going to happen? The only real reason Israel has not been overrun is because they have a MAD device. If Iran gets one they almost certainly will attempt a first strike. After that the Pandora's box is open. Nukes have only twice before been directly used in anger.

      The entire world took heel at that.

      If I could wink an eye, snap a finger, was granted a wish, it would likely be to wipe out all nukes in the world, and make it impossible to make more. I am almost as pro nuke power as they come, but by no means does that mean I approve of atomic weapons. The only thing they are good for is to use their cores as power sources for RTGs on space probes, and as fuel for power plants. Swords to plowshares.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    9. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Reapman · · Score: 1

      I think you should take some time, live in Iran for 5 years, then switch and live in the US for 5. I'd be curious if you'd consider the US a "dictatorship ruled by religious fundamentalists of the worst kind" after that.

      Your other argument is highly flawed - having 1 nation with enough Nukes to destroy the world.. yeah that's bad. However we don't need Iran to step in and make sure the other guys don't nuke. We already have France, Britain, US, China, Russia, Pakistan, India, etc etc. At a point there's such a thing as too much. I think we already proved in the 50 previous years that the US and Russia/USSR was sufficient to keep a stalemate in check. Countries like Iran will likely never have enough nukes to counter the "dictatorship" of the US anyways - if the US is really so scary they are better off siding with China or the Russians.

      Besides, if I was American (And I'm not) I wouldn't honestly be worried about Iran nuking me. However if I was in the middle east I'd be EXTREMELY concerned.

    10. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the USA is scary, we were kind of the first ones to bring the hellish things into this world in the first place, but we also don't want to die. Iran, on the other hand, has had an awful lot of activity with groups who are totally fine with dying as long as they bring down as many of "the enemy" as possible. Besides, good chance they'll "share the love" with some of those groups - most other nuclear powers do. In either case, it's kind of insulting to say we're as bad as the Iranian government. The US may not be the greatest/most just/sanest country in the world but that's exaggerating to the point I can't take the rest of your post seriously. Besides, there *are* countries out there who really shouldn't have nukes. OK, really, no one should have them, but they aren't going away so we're going to stick to a relative scale.

      Israel having nukes is bad enough (I'm not against them, but they are a little trigger-happy), I'm really not fond of the notion of both Iran having them too. Living under the shadow of "mutually assured destruction" is not a happy thing and I don't think the world relishes the idea of having to do so every time a group of countries get into a pissing match.

    11. Re:Congratulations for trying! by imric · · Score: 1

      Suuuure - religious fundie muslims are going to nuke the holy land.

      You DO know it's holy to them, too, right?

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    12. Re:Congratulations for trying! by durrr · · Score: 1

      Sputnik only need to go up with precision into orbit, if you want to return your astronaut you need a precision re-entry vehicle.
      And well, ballistic missiles doesn't need to go into orbit, just achive a ballistic trajectory, if you however have orbital capability you suddenly can develop weapons that goes under the fancy name of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System which to be fair, scares the shit out of me even though I live in a region that would never be a nuke target, and if you don't feel a bit concerned about what practically is an instant strike nuclear weapon then you're probably lobotomized to some degree.

    13. Re:Congratulations for trying! by N1AK · · Score: 1

      You are scum.

      In the format of one of the other posters who couldn't take his remark in perspective: I think you should take 5 years, go an live with someone who makes a living keeping women hooked on heroin and offering them out for sex and then see if you still think he's scum. In other words, think first and comment later.

      His point was to highlight a typical western, especially American, view that they can accurately and fairly define who should or shouldn't be allowed to own WMDs. No one, including durr thinks America is repressed compared to Iran; that certainly doesn't make America faultless or give it carte blanche to police the rest of the world.

    14. Re:Congratulations for trying! by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Eh? If nukes didn't exist we'd just go back to the old way of doing that much damage. Massive firebombing.

      People get all weird when it comes to nukes.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    15. Re:Congratulations for trying! by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Suuuure - religious fundie muslims are going to nuke the holy land.

      You DO know it's holy to them, too, right?

      They take a long view - sure, it'll be hot for a few centuries, but then we'll move right in. Not necessarily us or our children or our children's children, but our descendants will and that's all that matters.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    16. Re:Congratulations for trying! by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      I would not call being slightly sarcastic as trolling, and you very well might have a president even more fanatically religious then GWB in a fairly short time.
      And besides there is only one country I know of that has ever proven that it is irresponsible enough to not only use Nukes but to use them against civilian populations.

      But if Israel and Iran are fighting and only one of them has nukes then there really is not much of a deterrent where they are concerned.
      I too would prefer nukes did not exists but as long as some countries continue to have then then it is only logical that the others would want them as well.

      I cannot seem to remember what the second time was? In fact iI seem to remember people who would know specifically saying once...

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    17. Re:Congratulations for trying! by schnell · · Score: 1

      Suuuure - religious fundie muslims are going to nuke the holy land. You DO know it's holy to them, too, right?

      Nothing holy to them about Tel Aviv...

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    18. Re:Congratulations for trying! by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Yes but would France, Britain, US, China, Russia, Pakistan, or India step in to save Iran from its enemies?

      I would not consider a country simply trying to not have to rely on other countries and be at a huge disadvantage against them anything other then logical, even if we would be better off if they simply accepted their inferior fate or all nukes simply did not exist.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    19. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      As others have stated, it's only a preventative measure if both sides care about existing. Iran as a nation probably doesn't want to be completely destroyed, even if they could take out Israel at the same time. There are several smaller organizations that would have no problem with mutual destruction with Israel, though. Iran would probably be quite willing to give them the weapons to do it if it couldn't be absolutely proven that the weapons were freely given by the Iranian government, which is what would be required for any kind of retaliation.

    20. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Cause we don't have the ability to firebomb 1000 cities in 30 minutes.

    21. Re:Congratulations for trying! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I think that, given modern standards for how many civilian casualties are allowed before its considered a war crime, as well as modern precision targeting technology, Dresden-style indiscriminate firebombing would be just as unacceptable as nuclear bombing.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    22. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot seem to remember what the second time was? In fact iI seem to remember people who would know specifically saying once...

      The two operational uses of nuclear weapons in war were: Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Both deployments were in WW2, by the U.S. Air Force as part of a plan to force Japan to surrender rather than fighting to the last man.

      The actual amount of destruction caused however is widely regarded as less than what was done to Dresden (bombed with conventional weapons to the point of creating a "firestorm") which was chosen as a target specifically because it had no strategic value (it was retaliation for the Nazi bombing of London).

      All and all I'd say the US, is not a country you'd want to start a war with. We have a tendency to go from "don't care at all" to "one-hundred-and-crazy percent" very quickly.

    23. Re:Congratulations for trying! by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      It is quite absurd that you counsel me about a lack of perspective whilst simultaneously attempting to justify the same for the original poster. No matter, I have offended /. groupthink and have been downmodded for it. I have more karma than Gandhi so it only amuses me.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    24. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Hiroshima, and Nagasaki ... force Japan to surrender

      No, they were retaliation for Pearl Harbor.

      ... Dresden ... was retaliation for the Nazi bombing of London

      You got that right.

      See, it's easy. Humans are humans, revenge always surpasses the original attack in cruelty.

      Inventing historical "justifications" is lame, and is sad and painful if done by intelligent persons.

    25. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Hentes · · Score: 1

      ICBMs, in small numbers, can now be defended against. Still, something should be done if they don't stop. But I hope even if it comes to the worst it can be solved by traditional weapons, without resorting to a preemptive nuclear strike.

    26. Re:Congratulations for trying! by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      no, it was to force the surrender.
      There was already revenge being had for Perl.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    27. Re:Congratulations for trying! by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I would not call being slightly sarcastic as trolling,

      Your entire comment was not received as a troll, just the quoted part. But I will agree one man's troll is another man's snarky...

      And besides there is only one country I know of that has ever proven that it is irresponsible enough to not only use Nukes but to use them against civilian populations.

      And, as I said, the whole world noticed. It scared a lot of people, badly. A testament to this is how they've never been used again, by anyone. The two weapons dropped by the USAF were very small yield by today's standards, and yet even a device of that same yield would be "instant war crime" territory.

      But if Israel and Iran are fighting and only one of them has nukes then there really is not much of a deterrent where they are concerned.

      The deterrent is everyone else who has nukes telling Israel to keep it in their pants, so to speak. In all fairness while not blameless the Israel nation has been quite reserved in their use of military force capability.

      I too would prefer nukes did not exists but as long as some countries continue to have then then it is only logical that the others would want them as well.

      We agree on this, however, that does not extend to me condoning the others obtaining said technology. Non proliferation means no one with the tech makes new ones, and no one without the tech develops it.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    28. Re:Congratulations for trying! by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The danger is not Iran or any other country obtaining nuclear weapons. The danger is the countries like Iran who would either willingly provide or lose control of them to non-state actors. Plus the hard part of building long range nuclear ICBMs is the miniaturization involved in creating warheads small enough to be used with a long range missile delivery system.

    29. Re:Congratulations for trying! by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The definition of war is killing and destroying your opponents in the most efficient way possible. The tendency to constantly fret over civilian casualties does nothing but prolong the conflict and create an ambiguous ending. This is especially true today when combatants use civilians as human shields as a standard policy. Without all of the international bleating about civilian casualties during Israel's attack on Hamas (whose troops where using hospitals, schools, and neighborhoods as their base of operations) there would be no Hamas or any other Jihadist military group in that area to worry about today. If Bush had finished the first Iraq war by destroying anything and anyone who got in the way to Baghdad there would have been no need for a 2nd Iraq war.

    30. Re:Congratulations for trying! by cowscows · · Score: 2

      What evidence do you have that Iran would almost certainly attempt a first strike?

      Iran's rulers are well aware that any attack they launched on Israel would receive an overwhelming response. I don't buy into the idea that Iran's rulers are a bunch of manic religious nuts that will suicide their entire country just to kill a bunch of Israelis.

      Sure, they don't like Israel, but their biggest concern is maintaining their own position of power. They see nukes as a deterrent to keep outside forces from removing them from power. That's not to say that it's a good idea to let them have them, but I don't think it's a doomsday scenario either.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    31. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So now we're going to deny them nuclear power plants AND a space program on the basis that we think they're evil? You must truly have been longing for a replacement enemy ever since the Soviets stumbled and fell. Can you imagine how you'd feel if another country proposed that you should rely on them for providing these things to your country, making your country dependent on them? The USA does much more to weaponize space than any other country, and the stated civilian uses of the technology border on the ridiculous. Iran doesn't need to launch monkeys into space to justify building rockets that can be turned into ICBMs. They could simply strive to launch satellites. Who would deny them that? If they're working on a manned space program, that at least is a civilian use of dual use technology.

    32. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      Yup, I would like to ear the opinion of grandparent about what he thinks about the USA training the members of the mexican special forces that became the Zetas drug cartel, or the fact that the ATF shipped several thousands firearms to the mexican drug lords, and then lost track of them only to be used to kill an american officer in my country, or the 90,000 death and disappeared or 250,000 displaced in the drug war that the mexican puppet government i holding on US's behalf. Also, I would like to know what he thinks about the pseudo apartheid regime that Israel keeps with the US taxpayer support in the occupied territories of Palestine, or if the bombing of Nagasaki was justified in military terms.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    33. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gentlemen, you are both partly right.

      The revenge desired for Pearl Harbor was Japan's unconditional surrender*.

      The bombs were a quick way of gaining that.

      * Yes, I am well aware that the surrender wasn't "unconditional" in the end. We vaporized two of their cities, they get to keep their adored emperor to be a spiritual figurehead as they rebuild.

    34. Re:Congratulations for trying! by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 1

      I'm sure, if that were necessary to have prepared, the US military could have it set up. They're awfully good at logistics and weapons delivery systems.

    35. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You all fail to see the big picture. Read in the original transcripts, ignore the opiniated interpretations of historians, and you'll see for yourself that the primary reason was to send a message to the Soviet Union, which was: "Don't fuck with us. We will use it."

      The US needed to avoid the occupation and assimilation of the whole of Europe into the SU. Not because they'd care about those European countries, but because at that size the UdSSR would have surpassed the US in manufacturing strength and technological capability.
      So in a strange way the people in Japan died for the freedom of West Europe.

      Apart from this geopolitical reason, for the military strategic command this was the opportunity to test the technology on a real target. Only for the mid to low ranks revenge was an issue, but it helped them carry out the tasks without hesitation.
      An earlier capitulation of Japan was a welcomed side effect.
      As always, the reality of war for those who decide is completely un-human. Persons have no value to them, which makes nuclear weapons in their hands even more dangerous.

    36. Re:Congratulations for trying! by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Actually it does seem MAD works with unreasonable people. Some of the leaders of the Soviet Union were not exactly reasonable or sane! That might be true of some people in power in the USA, too. Yet we avoided nuking each other because we knew the result is that both would be nuked. Even earlier we avoided gassing or biological weapons throughout the 20th century, despite the fact that three of the four powers (and maybe you could count west's saturation bombing too) demonstrated genocidal insanity to those who could not respond in kind.

    37. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Then you must be TERRIFIED of Pakistan (a.k.a. CIA's best friend).

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    38. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      If Bush had finished the first Iraq war by destroying anything and anyone who got in the way to Baghdad there would have been no need for a 2nd Iraq war.

      Of course, there would be. Instead of moderate, secular government that survived the first war, there would be extremist religious government consisting of former neighbors that would come to now-free-to-settle land.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    39. Re:Congratulations for trying! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Destroying a particular building containing civilian human shields is still entirely different from indiscriminately leveling an entire city, which is what I was talking about.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    40. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0

      Countries with these kinds of policies will lead to the destruction of civilization, one day.

      Support the Tea Party, the savior of the world!

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    41. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Any country which isn't a democracy, or worse, a non-secular government, should be feared.

      Why would a democracy will be less feared? Once effective brainwashing propaganda was invented, it's just as likely to be run by tiny, abusive elite as any other political system.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    42. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did read the original transcripts extensively. The primary reason was to hasten the end of the war with Japan. At that stage, it was less about revenge and more about "how the FUCK do we get the Japanese to give up already?!" The Japanese had problems with surrender. There was a strong culture against it, heavily ingrained in the armed forces and government leadership. This leadership realized with calm detachment that they were up shit's creek -- the navy was gone, there was no antiaircraft defense possible -- yet they were determined to go out fighting. Two nuclear weapons, and the Soviet Union declaring war, convinced most of this leadership that the whole surrender idea was worth considering. One failed coup later (some in the higher echelons though "nuclear weapons? fuck that, we should have something even bigger, lets keep going") and peace was restored.

      That the deployment of these weapons was a sabre to rattle at Stalin was a bonus, not a reason. Anyway, Stalin already knew nuclear weapons were around the corner even before the Trinity test.

      The Soviet Union, mighty as it was, was not able to occupy the whole of Europe at the close of World War II. Stalin's hard-on was for Berlin (and after the cost-benefit analysis, Allied planners said "let 'em.")

    43. Re:Congratulations for trying! by ShadyG · · Score: 1

      It's a shame. There is always something that gets compromised.

    44. Re:Congratulations for trying! by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      They always demand that the rest of the world believe them, and they are on record as saying their primary goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the map. I am simply believing them. (I realize this is borderline on straw-man territory).
      Honestly though, I think Ahmadinejad really is that much of a nutcase as to do it. While most of the leadership may not be so extreme, he only needs one line through the chain of command that will not defy him to carry out a first strike. Now, it may be that there are no lines through the chain that will not call a time out and refuse to launch a nuke, but I think that there is at least one.

      I would think it more likely that the rest of the Arab world would lean very heavily enough against Iran launching a first strike to prevent it than internal resistance preventing it.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    45. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't buy into the idea that Iran's rulers are a bunch of manic religious nuts that will suicide their entire country just to kill a bunch of Israelis.

      Since they are certainly committing an economic suicide with their nuclear arms/space programs, I don't think you're that far off. I don't know if their religion affects their nuttery, they may be nuts anyway...

    46. Re:Congratulations for trying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muslims don't pray to Jerusalem. They pray to Mecca. The idea that Jerusalem is a Muslims holy place is a recent one (as of Haj Amin al Husseini). Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the Qur'an. The holy land to fundamentalist Muslims is only as holy as any conquered land is (must be recaptured at any cost).

  3. Pray for Mojo ... by xleeko · · Score: 1

    I can't wait to eat that (now toasted) monkey!

  4. And by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

    The key question is, what sort of monkey? :) On the serious side, it may indicate their current launch capacity, There's a big difference between a capuchin and a chimp. Yes I know a chimp is an ape, but in common usage they're frequently referred to as a monkey.

    1. Re:And by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      I normally would RTFA first, but it appears that TFA is on a broken link.

    2. Re:And by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      You would hope that PopSci, and all the other major news organizations that reported on this would know that a chimp is not a monkey.

      I think even the dumbest journalist should know that a chimp isn't a monkey.

      However, I don't know that Iran ever said what species they were launching. It could be there is no difference in translation and monkey/ape don't have seperate words.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:And by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      The article doesn't say it merely refers to a "monkey".

      It shows a picture of an American chimp at NASA- but doesn't say that the Iranians were launching a chimp.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    4. Re:And by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      That was what I was expecting, a potentially bad translation or a lack of distinction in the original language (Farsi?).

    5. Re:And by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      The article has already been slashdotted for me, so I can't check.

    6. Re:And by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Ah wait, no. It's redirecting me to the *.com.au subdomain.

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

      or maybe nobody really gives a flying chimp about the difference? honestly, if it were actually a monkey they tried to send into space, would the story be different? didn't think so.

    8. Re:And by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      1 kilo worth of monkey vs 70 kilo worth of ape, plus the associated life support and return capability? Yes, it makes a big difference as to their capabilities. Are you ignoring the point I implied or...?

    9. Re:And by paiute · · Score: 1

      You would hope that PopSci, and all the other major news organizations that reported on this would know that a chimp is not a monkey.

      I think even the dumbest journalist should know that a chimp isn't a monkey.

      However, I don't know that Iran ever said what species they were launching. It could be there is no difference in translation and monkey/ape don't have seperate words.

      In Iranian, monkey/ape/woman are the same noun. Even mullahs care about cute little monkeys - they might not have risked one of those.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    10. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      http://translate.google.com/#en|fa|ape%20%0Amonkey%0Achimpanzee%0Achimp%0Agorilla

    11. Re:And by aenea · · Score: 1

      I'm actually wondering why launch a monkey at all. Or even a chimp. I think we're pretty sure at this point that no one is going to die from the space vapors or the orbiting hordes of vacuum leaches. What sort of telemetry do they get from a monkey that you can't get from a sensor package?

    12. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It shows a picture of an American chimp at NASA- but doesn't say that the Iranians were launching a chimp.

      That explains why they called the mission off. After seeing that photo, Ahmadinejad became convinced that the monkey was a Jewish American spy, probably one of the original team that faked the 9/11 attacks.

    13. Re:And by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Less condemnation/embarrasment and no loss of trained astronauts if the mission fails at the equipment proving stage.

    14. Re:And by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Wow, a useful AC. According to that link, ape and monkey translate to the same word.

    15. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you got a monkey onboard you can claim that it's not a ballistic missile launch.

    16. Re:And by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      I'm actually wondering why launch a monkey at all. Or even a chimp. I think we're pretty sure at this point that no one is going to die from the space vapors or the orbiting hordes of vacuum leaches. What sort of telemetry do they get from a monkey that you can't get from a sensor package?

      Shit return...

    17. Re:And by Millennium · · Score: 1

      Iran doesn't appear to be reusing old American or Russian vehicles (though they do seem to be using a Russian rocket), but actually building one of their own. A new vehicle needs to be tested; although there may not be "space vapors" or "vacuum leeches", there are still plenty of hazards in space that a vehicle needs to be able to handle.

      Using a monkey is a basic safety check: can the vehicle deal with said hazards well enough that something with very similar physiology to a human can survive a trip to space in it? If so, then an actual human will probably also be able to survive, and so you can proceed to that stage.

    18. Re:And by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      All the stuff that isn't published by the states that HAVE launched lifeforms successfully.

      Oh, and all the stuff about the return. That's important too.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    19. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes I know a chimp is an ape, but in common usage they're frequently referred to as a monkey."

      Ooooook!

    20. Re:And by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It always strikes me as funny that a state that has no problem imprisoning, torturing and murdering people feels the ethical imperative to put a monkey in space first.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    21. Re:And by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well who wants an enemy of the state to be a national hero?
      Besides I doubt Iran to start coming up with threats like if you don't behave "One of these days, Bang Zoom to the Moon!" to be their punishment.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    22. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they are, in a strict taxonomic scene. Old word and new world monkeys are different groups, apes branch form the old word monkeys not outside of these groups so by definition are a type of monkey. Apes are usually larger smarter more ground living and use tools, chimpanzees are among the smartest of the group , which is unsurprising as 98 percent of their DNA is identical to ours. Humans are a type of ape, we are the smartest (preserving childlike brain flexibility as well as brain/body proportion into adulthood) the most upright and the least hairy with flatter faces and weaker stomachs due to adaptation to cooked food and our larger brain, but we are not otherwise significantly different to the other apes. We have however the capacity for a much higher level of learned behaviour that we use to try and better ourselves, which differentiates us much more than biology ever did.

    23. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, given that they are wanting to execute an Iranian apostate from Islam, they could just as easily make him the target of their experiment, and launch him. Since this is the first such expedition they are launching, they can be fairly confident that he won't survive. It would save them from condemnation that they may get for 'executing' him.

  5. Gosh... by thestudio_bob · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hope it wasn't Michael Nesmith. He was my favorite.

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
    1. Re:Gosh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope it wasn't Michael Nesmith. He was my favorite.

      I was always more of a Peter Tork fan myself.

    2. Re:Gosh... by CraftyJack · · Score: 2

      Let's not beat around the bush: We're hoping it was Mickey.

    3. Re:Gosh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was hoping it was Davy. I was always jealous of the attention he got.

    4. Re:Gosh... by Subgenius · · Score: 1

      It was a scratch monkey.

      --
      Toil is Stupid. Don't be Stupid.
    5. Re:Gosh... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Everybody hopes it's Davey. That guy is a supreme fucking prick. I'd strap him to the top of the rocket.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Gosh... by melikamp · · Score: 1

      Regardless, I wonder if ISS denizens are already haunted by astroapes' ghosts.

    7. Re:Gosh... by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      Nice try, Mickey.

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

      Don't be silly. Davy Jones would require much less fuel.

  6. But fear the nukes! NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and yet, 'The West' (I'm a westerner) fears Iran can strike Europe and the US with nukes?

    LOL!

    1. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Australia's military budget is larger in dollar terms than Iran's... I guess that means that Australia is a bigger threat than Iran. (Yes, I'm being facetious).

    2. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Iran doesn't have nukes (yet).- but they certainly have missiles capable of reaching Israel (whom our countries count as an ally).

      They could hit Turkey (who want to be part of the EU).

      They could certainly hit their neighbours- Saudi Arabia, also nominally an ally of ours- and don't forget they just had one of the ambassadors of that country slain.

      There is the whole Sunni, Shiite (sp?) split... y'know kinda how Protestants and Catholics were killing each other for centuries.

      Iran doesn't have to hit us to bring us to war. They don't have to hit us to disrupt our oil supply and way of life.

      Iran does have the capacity to be a major PITA if they get hold of nukes.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      It's a lot easier to lob something on a ballistic trajectory than it is to send into space and bring it *safely* back down

    4. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      Fear the container ship... it doesn't move as fast, but it can conceal plenty of shielding....

    5. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Threats to Iran: Israel, Russia (sometimes), the United States (often)

      Threats to Australia: sheepfuckers from New Zealand.

      Iran knows it has it bad, but it thanks Allah that it isn't Australia.

    6. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      Heck even something like this can cause instability. One of their neighbors see's a large "missile" launch from iran, or one of these rockets crash lands on soil of a neighbor and either the neighbor fears it is in attack and pre-emptively counters, or there's an argument over who gets the wreckage. As Iran's technology rises, the probability of a war involving them in the near future approaches 100%. Especially if they are not announcing a project like this to make people aware of what they are attempting. Actually you know it would be kinda funny if it turns out that the first mission failed due to anti-aircraft fire from the US or another neighbor.

    7. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by 2fuf · · Score: 1

      I'll have my eggs Sunni Shiite up on a PITA bread, please.

    8. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 5, Funny

      Austrailia, if there is one location that if an Old/Elder God were to actually exist it is that god forsaken continent. The continent where even rabbits can turn into an ecosystem destroying menace, dogs become child eating beasts and spawned creatures so outlandish that professionals refused to believe were real till a specimen was captured alive (platypus).

      Mark my words, that military spending is well deserved. Australia will laugh when the giant stone cover (Ayers' Rock) lifts up off of the casket of Vampire Cthulhu.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    9. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      You forgot that in addition, toads can become a mass extinction threatening nightmare.

    10. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      No, they're just sending a message. Every since that stupid "Axis of Evil" speech from George Dumbass, Iran has been freaking out over the possibility of U.S. invasion. Developing nukes and launch capacity is their way of saying to the U.S. and Israel "Don't even THINK about it."

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    11. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by fotoflojoe · · Score: 2

      and yet, 'The West' (I'm a westerner) fears Iran can strike Europe and the US with nukes?

      LOL!

      They are indeed able to strike the west with nukes. However, their ability to strike with monkeys is seriously in doubt.

    12. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by operagost · · Score: 1

      All that, and the craptastic government expects people to fend off attacks from bitey, poisonous monsters with knives and break-action shotguns.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    13. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, private gun ownership is discouraged here... so it's mostly knives.

    14. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Saudi Arabia, also nominally an ally of ours- and don't forget they just had one of the ambassadors of that country slain.

      Tried. Allegedly. Not succeeded.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    15. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Been reading much Tom Clancy recently?

    16. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I thought that was Guam. Darn, they really were just frogs?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    17. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's the ticket, the Iranian regime isn't evil, the West MADE them be evil. Those sneaky Westerners with their emphasis on human and women's rights, freedom from slaughter of homosexuals. Why next, they'll even be making it legal to be any religion they like...dirty sneaky Westerners.

    18. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And they'd do it once, because if Iran ever actually launched a nuclear strike against anybody, within 12 hours, Tehran and Qom would be glowing craters.

      And I think they know it. At the moment, the growing crisis appears to be between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, in no small part because of Ahmadinejad's extremist language surrounding foreign policy. It's got to the point where Khamenei is even proposing to do away with an elected president.

      I have a feeling that Iran is very soon going to be too busy with internal affairs to be threatening anybody else.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    19. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The Iranians were trying to develop nuclear weapons long before GWB came on the scene. They've been terrified of an American invasion since the 1979 revolution.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    20. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      When GWB made his speech in 2003, the President of Iran was a reformist moderate named Mohammad Khatami. Khatami had made many reforms in the country, had sent official condolences to the U.S. after 9-11, and was even talking about establishing regular diplomatic relations.

      After GWB's moronic Axis of Evil speech, all diplomatic ties were cut off, Iran began to actively pursue nuclear weapons, and in the next election, anti-U.S. hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected.

      Good work George.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    21. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well if you think about Iran, Just isn't in bad terms with US and Europe, It wouldn't mind much if the bomb missed and fell down on some of its neighbors too.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    22. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I stopped with the jumbo jet crashing into Congress

    23. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      "At the moment, the growing crisis appears to be between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, in no small part because of Ahmadinejad's extremist language surrounding foreign policy. It's got to the point where Khamenei is even proposing to do away with an elected president."

      And the problem Khameinei has is that Ahmadinejad is pissing off the 'conservatives'. Khameinei is more dangerous and less moderate than the President, and the Revolutionary Guards have captured essentially all the power. And they're dangerously nuts. Ahmadinejad has no control or probably knowledge about the nuclear weapons program---that's run by Khamenei and the RG's.

    24. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Iran was all peace and roses in 2003? And George Bush wrongly called them evil? And just to show us how mad they are, they "elected" Ahmadinejad in a "fair" election, spooled up a nuclear weapons program, "resumed" massive human rights violations (since in your model, they were a great place in 2003), and basically been a regional pain in the ass?

      Seriously? Is that how it went?

      Do you heavily abuse hard drugs like cocaine? If not, I suggest doing so. Maybe you will make more sense.

    25. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity did you consider that too incredibly outlandish or something? Keep in mind it was written pre 9/11.

    26. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      So Iran was all peace and roses in 2003?

      No, but they had been making a decisive and clear movement towards normalizing relations with the U.S. and making democratic reforms under Khatami. That all ended after GWB's stupid-ass speech.

      And just to show us how mad they are, they "elected" Ahmadinejad in a "fair" election, spooled up a nuclear weapons program, "resumed" massive human rights violations (since in your model, they were a great place in 2003), and basically been a regional pain in the ass?

      Yeah they did, *AFTER* GWB called them evil and basically threatened to invade them, the country became radicalized again, ended all of Khatami's reforms and elected hard-liners in the next election. A once-in-a-lifetime opportunity was missed and now we're pretty much guaranteed an anti-U.S. nuclear Iran (and an anti-U.S. nuclear North Korea too for that matter). All because the commander-in-dipshit thought that acting tough would scare them and cause them to back down. Oh, he scared them alright..scared them right into the only thing that can protect a smaller country against U.S. invasion--nuclear weapons.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    27. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I read it pre 9/11 - nothing to do with Clancy, everything to do with my two newborn sons and less time to read.

    28. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      Significantly more terrified after invasions of two of its largest neighbors, it should be noted.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Iran_(orthographic_projection).svg

      I hope everyone knows which country is Iraq and which one is Afghanistan. And which one is Pakistan, whose relationship with the USA since 2001 must be unnerving to Iranians as well. Knowing Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Uzbekistan and Georgia are bonuses, all of whose USA bilateral ties must be unnerving to a government which, as you noted, has been terrified of an invasion since its founding in 1979.

      It should also probably not be forgotten that a US navy ship shot down a passenger jet full of Iranians over the Persian Gulf in the 1980s, which is pretty terrifying an idea in general, and especially so to Americans who should be able to relate, considering the eerie similarity to the USSR downing of Korean Air flight 007 which killed almost 300 people, including a sitting US Congressman.

      In any event, while the current Iranian government may be legitimately crazy, especially certain political blocs inside it, their fear and general malaise caused by American presence in the region is perfectly reasonable.

    29. Re:But fear the nukes! NOT! by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      and yet, 'The West' (I'm a westerner) fears Iran can strike Europe and the US with nukes?

      LOL!

      Wrong. They may say that, but the real fear is that they can strike Israel.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  7. Timmy !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean the folks over at ThinkGeek are deep in mourning???

  8. Probability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe one of those random Shakespeare monkeys should have engaged the probability engine. Then things would have been "42"...

  9. steve the monkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and why don't they dedicate 5 pages on wired for the death of this monkey?
    i believe that this monkey contributed more to mankind than mr Jobs :P
    RIP dear monkey..

  10. Aladdin is going to be pissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I kiss the monkey? ACK! Hairball!

  11. Why on Earth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would Iran launch their president into space?

    1. Re:Why on Earth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would Iran launch their president into space?

      Maybe they should launch the US president into space.

      We know that that monkey deliberately murdered someone. Or we could pair it up with the dumb monkey that came before it, his vice monkey too, make it a threesome. Sure, send up the torturing war mongering monkeys.

      How about sending up all those anal raping Wall Street fat cat monkeys?

      The only risky part would be a safe landing.

  12. more bananas please.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess they forgot to put bananas in the capsule

  13. recycled joke time. by Darth_brooks · · Score: 4, Funny

    Where'd the monkey take his vaction? All over Tehran!

    What color were the monkey's eyes? Blue. One blew north, the other blew south....

    Iranian NASA. Needs Another Simian Astronaut

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    1. Re:recycled joke time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was the last thing to go through the monkey's mind?

      A piece of sheet metal.

    2. Re:recycled joke time. by jsilver212 · · Score: 1

      While we're at it: How did they realize the monkey had dandruff? Its Head & Shoulders was found in the desert.

    3. Re:recycled joke time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      circa 1986: How did they know the monkey had dandruff? They found his Head and Shoulders on the ground.

    4. Re:recycled joke time. by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Too soon.

  14. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 0

    Take your prejudice elsewhere AC troll. While it may possibly be a shit-hole, it has nothing to do with their state religion.

  15. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by Jawnn · · Score: 3, Informative

    Places with a "state religion" (which particular religion doesn't matter) are, by definition, shit holes.

  16. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    I would think their brand of their religion, given that it is a theocracy, has a good bit of bearing on their conditions.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  17. Re:Ahmadinejad / Monkey jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think (or hope) calling that guy a monkey has more to do with his behaviour, rather than his religion or race

  18. monkey see, monkey do by Nyall · · Score: 1

    Who's the Jerk who sold a bunch of monkeys to Iran ?

    --
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
    1. Re:monkey see, monkey do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should just use a Palestinian instead.

      It is a lower form of life.

    2. Re:monkey see, monkey do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add monkeys to the list of sanctions

  19. Bad News by should_be_linear · · Score: 1

    I always hope every country reach their objectives when it comes to space exploration, and Iran is no exception. I hope their next missions will be more successful.

    --
    839*929
    1. Re:Bad News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that a bit of an extremist stance? I mean, there are plenty of people who would do bad things with space exploration tech. I think the responsible line is somewhere between "only MY nation gets to explore space" and "EVERY nation gets to explore space".

    2. Re:Bad News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a feeling that the monkeys are hoping the exact same thing.

    3. Re:Bad News by orphiuchus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Iran's goal for space exploration, and all of their technological innovation for that matter, is to force everyone in the universe to convert to their horrible religion or die... I for one hope that they keep on failing.

    4. Re:Bad News by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Is it really? I have always felt that "the answer to bad speech is more speech", so maybe the answer to bad exploration is more exploration.

      What bad things would they really do? In fact, what bad COULD they really do? It is one thing to be the only player in space, that is nowhere near the case, there is nothing they could do up there, that couldn't be discovered and retaliated against.

      I think people do too much worrying about what everyone else is up to, and put too much faith in public statements, which always contain a lot of political message. The Iranian government sucks, but more so for its own people than anyone else. Some factions within them are troublemakers, some of them are extreme fundies. It is as much a mistake to believe they are a single cohesive group as to believe our congress is.

      If their government represents the will of the people, then ours does too...and I think we all can agree how laughable that statement is.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    5. Re:Bad News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow really?

    6. Re:Bad News by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

      I doubt most of the Iranian scientists even believe in "their horrible" religion, but you have to profess belief to get ahead.

      It will be the same here, when Rick "Pray for Rain" Perry gets in.

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    7. Re:Bad News by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't think we have to worry about him. He debated his way right out of the running a while ago now.

    8. Re:Bad News by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Did you have the same sentiment regarding the USSR space program? Gagarin's photo on your dartboard, by chance?

    9. Re:Bad News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like the idea of them succeeding, because succeeding would mean they have other technologies that are more dangerous to the rest of the world. However, I have no illusions. One day, they will succeed. We'd better plan on it.

    10. Re:Bad News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iran's goal for space exploration, and all of their technological innovation for that matter, is to force everyone in the universe to convert to their horrible religion or die... I for one hope that they keep on failing.

      How is this insightful?

  20. Cue Robot Chicken! by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  21. Re:Ahmadinejad / Monkey jokes by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

    Even more likely, that he is a politician.

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  22. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

    They may be overlapping sets. However just because all dogs have 4 legs, doesn't mean that all animals with 4 legs are dogs.

  23. Like Norway! by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

    Where, by default, you get baptized as Luthern!

    1. Re:Like Norway! by tibit · · Score: 1

      If you get baptized. You don't get baptized at birth, yaknow.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  24. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That includes one nation under god.

  25. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by slim · · Score: 1

    You've just called the UK a shithole. Thanks.

    Also, Canada, Costa Rica, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, Greece, Denmark, Iceland, Norway.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

    Furthermore, although I do disagree with state religion, it's not all that defines a country. I'm certain Iran has some areas of outstanding natural beauty, magnificent architecture, foot, culture etc.

  26. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by Dishevel · · Score: 0, Troll

    Don't you start in with all your facts and shit.
    Remember.
    No one is allowed to judge anyone else.
    You shall from this moment on assume all people / countries / religions / companies are equal.
    They are not "Created" equal. They ARE equal.
    Judgement based on facts is unfair.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  27. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    UK is a shithole because you limey derps prosecute victims of crimes for acts of self-defense and let the perpetrators sue.

  28. Uh oh.. by JayPee · · Score: 1

    Hopefully there wasn't any monkey business on the pad before the launch, causing the failure...

    1. Re:Uh oh.. by JayPee · · Score: 1

      Man, that mission control is probably more fun than a barrel full of monkeys...

  29. pride before fall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not so sure some of the smug remarks are justified.
    The Iranian dude can always snicker about the 'monkeys' on the Challenger and Columbia that didn't quite make it back.

  30. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

    By definition? Not necessarily, Scotland, Italy, Finland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Iceland, Norway all have state religions(amongst others). While some may argue that some of those countries are shitholes, very few people would argue that they all are.

  31. Re:Ahmadinejad / Monkey jokes by genjix · · Score: 5, Informative

    OK, I hold an Iranian passport and have been in and out of Iran many times.

    People in Iran do not like Ahmadinejad. One of the many insults is to call him a monkey because he is a half-wit. Same as how George Bush got the monkey insults.

    Nothing to do with race. Just that he's a simple fool in charge of an entire country.

  32. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by slim · · Score: 1

    Well, nowhere's perfect. You yank derps execute innocent people.

    Although the in the most recent UK case of a homeowner killing an intruder, the homeowner was released without charge.

  33. Re:Ahmadinejad / Monkey jokes by Gertlex · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure we spent most of 8 years calling our own (US) president a monkey in political banter.

    I do in fact have a mental image of his ranting being like a crazy monkey.

  34. Re:Ahmadinejad / Monkey jokes by slim · · Score: 1

    OK, accepted.

    I was going to say that "monkey" isn't a common insult doled out at white idiots. But then I remembered Steve Bell's cartoon version of George Bush.

  35. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by Millennium · · Score: 3, Informative

    Places with a "state religion" (which particular religion doesn't matter) are, by definition, shit holes.

    Most places actually have a state religion, including some that I'd question if you actually intended to call them shit holes. I'll leave the naming of them to the other replies in this thread. Some even have several state religions going at once. American-style separation of Church and State is, relatively speaking, actually quite an unusual state of affairs.

    That said, many of these places have both a state religion and religious freedom. These are not incompatible.

  36. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by khr · · Score: 1

    I'm certain Iran has some areas of outstanding natural beauty, magnificent architecture, foot, culture etc

    Foot?

  37. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by SpasticWeasel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, but usually in Texas or some other shit hole.

    --
    No sooner do I get over one, then you put a better one right next to me. Bastards.
  38. Anybody monkeying (groan) with the software? by wisebabo · · Score: 2

    Just wondering if some embedded controller somewhere had been hacked. It seems the Iranian space program would be an obvious target for some unfriendly foreign government to try to cripple. Even if (when?) the Iranians get the bomb they'll need some means of delivering it.

    I would imagine it'll be too big to send via diplomatic pouch and their air force is completely outclassed by their main adversaries in the region (Israel and Saudi Arabia). (I don't know if those countries air forces could knock down a low-flying cruise missile, I'd think the cities and oil installations on the gulf might be indefensible). Despite having a few subs, I'd imagine the U.S. Navy tracks them very closely, still a short range attack by mini-subs or suicide speedboat might be possible.

    So that leaves space. With their "military" space program being watched very carefully, it appears there will be some sort of ABM system covering U.S. Allies and Europe before they have an intermediate range missile capable of delivering a nuke. That's where their "civilian" program could conceivably come into play. A nuke placed IN ORBIT could go the "long way around" thus avoiding the theater defenses currently being built. Of course the U.S. has anti-sat weapons but they may not cover every approach especially if the weapon deorbits before completing even one revolution. (And it's pretty clear that the U.S. doesnt have the specially equipped F-15 fighters all over the world to cover its allies.).

    Finally, who's to say that the U.S. will even know what to shoot down? The Iranians may say they've just launched a monkey into space only to reveal later (maybe MUCH later) that the capsule carrying the presumably now-dead monkey actually has a nuke instead. Even if the U.S. decided to shoot on sight any Iranian "satellite" that started acting funny over the U.S. mainland, it could be too late. An EMP blast before the ASAT weapon gets to it could prove pretty devastating.

    That, by the way, is why the Outer Space treaty was put into place; having nukes in orbit was far too destabilizing and would have led to the world being just seconds away from WWIII (instead of the current approximately 30 minutes). Of course if the Iranians are going to ignore the non-proliferation treaty, who's to say they'll honor any others?

    So there's a real incentive to deny the Iranians access to orbit. Anybody writing a James Bond script about this?

    1. Re:Anybody monkeying (groan) with the software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US and other countries routinely ignore international treaties, (all the current wars.) With the new mini shuttle, we can put a nuke anywhere. The threat should not be exclusive to Iran but any state with launch capabilities. So far I can think of a few(many) countries that send soldiers and missiles to people they do not like, and which their names do not happen to be Iran. I'm not saying I'm biased, only we should be pointing the finger at everyone..

    2. Re:Anybody monkeying (groan) with the software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      being to orbit and making a controlled re-entry just means you can build icbm's with unlimited range(within the scope of the globe). that's why the space program mattered.

      no country has defenses against earth hugging cruise missiles though, and pretty much no metropolis has defenses against a remote controlled cessna even. and I think they already wrote a few james bond scripts about it. and it's pretty clear iranians don't regard any treaties as valid(that's the point ).

    3. Re:Anybody monkeying (groan) with the software? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      the presumably now-dead monkey

      Ohhh.. I'm pretty sure the monkey is dead.

    4. Re:Anybody monkeying (groan) with the software? by k31bang · · Score: 1

      Ohhh.. I'm pretty sure the monkey is dead.

      Did you observe the monkey to know it's dead?

      --
      -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
    5. Re:Anybody monkeying (groan) with the software? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Ohhh.. I'm pretty sure the monkey is dead.

      Did you observe the monkey to know it's dead?

      Geee you're right. That was an assumption on my part, that the lack of oxygen could negatively impact the monkey's survivability in space. I did not check for a pulse.

      I'll wait for the report before making any wild statements again.

    6. Re:Anybody monkeying (groan) with the software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ur twisted..

    7. Re:Anybody monkeying (groan) with the software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diplomatic pouch? Unlikely. We're more worried about them giving one or two to Hezbollah, who might successfully smuggle them into, say, Tel-Aviv. Or Riyadh. Or any other major city in a country the Iranians don't particularly like.

  39. The real reason they suspended... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that the monkey came back to earth super intelligent.

    I for one, welcome our furry sapiens overlord!

  40. Hey, great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to Space Nutters, a space program brings all kinds of progress and benefits to a society. Maybe they'll move to Iran now?

  41. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stay in California, you douche-bag liberal hipster.

    That's right. I hyphenated douche-bag.

  42. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    "While it may possibly be a shit-hole, it has nothing to do with their state religion"

    This sounds even more stupid the more I read it. Whoosh.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  43. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by networkBoy · · Score: 1

    Yes. See the entire US isn't a shithole. The shithole part of the US is over there [/waves hand]. I'm over here [/waves other hand] where it's all better and we are enlightened*. But really when you think about it [/flails arms] the whole world is a shithole compared to us, and that's because we had George. George was a great man. He made people happy. George saved the world, then he died and the world turned back to a shithole. George also was an awesome narrator for Thomas the Tank Engine.

    ~
    -nB
    * ok, not really [/hangs head] I live in California, where we are on the bullet train to socialism and bankruptcy as fast as we can go.

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  44. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Agreed. GP should have said it has nothing to do with their particular state religion.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  45. Re:Ahmadinejad / Monkey jokes by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

    I'd rather they like Ahmadinejad than the Supreme Leader. Ahmadinejad is a moderate compared to that guy.

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  46. Re:Ahmadinejad / Monkey jokes by Shatrat · · Score: 1

    Also, they both have big ears, low hairlines, and in Ahmadinejad's case, tends to be pretty excitable.
    I'm still waiting for him to throw poo at the UN.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  47. Re:why launch a monkey by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Because it's a macho thing to "ignore/cover-up/fake sensor data". With a monkey you can "sorta pretend it is really an astronaut", it makes people get just a tad more serious if someone signs off and then it still goes wrong. If you think someone was playing games you simply say "Show me the monkey!" Bonus Points if it listens to Peter Gabriel on the way up.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  48. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    Canada has a state religion? That conflicts with the following map (where gray represents "no state religion") as well as the very content of the page you linked to.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_state_religions.svg

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  49. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

    You apparently lack comprehension skills. Let me spell it out for you, a nation may be a shit-hole without it being caused by said nation having a state religion. I know a number of nations that are shit holes without having declared a state religion, I know a number of shit holes with a state religion. There is some overlap, but no correlation.

  50. Re:Ahmadinejad / Monkey jokes by Clsid · · Score: 1

    Yes, I'm pretty sure everybody in Iran hates that guy. Leaders with zero support tend to stay in power for a long time, I don't know how they do it but it happens. I guess even Ghadaffi had more supporters than this Iranian guy.

    In general, I don't like to judge world leaders based on whoever the US says is bad or the educated minority base of these third world countries, which most likely have studied/lived in the "West" and also speak English. Those countries sometimes deserve leaders like that since they have very different societies and the same rule that applies to us, barely applies to them. Nobody gives a crap about Sarkozy, Berlusconi and Zapatero, all of them European leaders with pretty bad ratings, but hey, they are allies.

  51. Re:Ahmadinejad / Monkey jokes by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

    Sounds like you've been a bit of a monkey!

  52. Re:Ahmadinejad / Monkey jokes by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    If I'm making the Ahmadinejad/monkey jokes, it's not racist. It's an intentional personal insult. I trust that the overwhelming majority Iranian people want to live peaceful lives and prosper in their land. It's the religous types and the government that whip up a frenzy to kill and dominate. I'm assuming. If I'm wrong, that will become clear soon enough.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  53. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    Maybe he's confusing it with being part of the British Monarchy? But I guess just because the Queen is the head of religion in the UK doesn't make her the head of religion in Canada - only the head of state.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  54. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Canada has a state religion?

    Yes. The main sacramental objects are beer, sticks, a hard rubber disc, and beer.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  55. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I stand corrected :-P

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  56. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

    With burkhas that's the only fetish you have left.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  57. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by Bardwick · · Score: 1

    Actuall, "Moosehead" is not a beer at all, it's a misdemeanor.

  58. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Take your prejudice elsewhere AC troll. While it may possibly be a shit-hole, it has nothing to do with their state religion.

    But it may have something to do with the state of their religion.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  59. How many monkey virgins does he get? by trout007 · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure what the exchange rate is.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  60. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    You lack discernment. If the place is a shit-hole, it is due to the authorities or lack thereof. Since Iran has authorities, it's on them. And since the authorities are religious, it is the state religion at fault.

    If I were referring to another state, I would be referring to that state's authorities.

    You assumed I was making a generalization. Wrong.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  61. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    Not sure about the others, but Canada doesn't have a state religion.

    The wikipedia article you linked to notes that certain religious schools, most notably Roman Catholic, receive public funding, but so do various other specialty schools, including some Islamic ones.

    Your point is well taken though - there's a difference between a technical state religion that hangs around for historical reasons and what the GP meant by "state religion" implying more of a theocracy.

  62. Now you understand why we watch wearrily the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now you understand why we see with a bad feeling : the bullshit with Christian fundamentalism and "we are a Christian nation" with the US having already a nuclear fleet of missiles, and also some of their politics expecting the apocalypse in their lifetime.

    1. Re:Now you understand why we watch wearrily the US by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 1

      Ahh, so you fear what you don't understand. Very human of you. Doesn't make you right, just afraid.

  63. Monkey pushed the wrong button by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

    Monkey pee; monkey doo.

    --
    Their they're doing there hair.
  64. Expect nukes within 20 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course if the Iranians are going to ignore the non-proliferation treaty, who's to say they'll honor any others?

    Of course Iran will not honor any treaty.

    1. Re:Expect nukes within 20 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Iran has honored most treaties, including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If we're gonna crack down on countries, Israel has violated more UN resolutions with regards to settlements and won't even consider signing the NNPT.

  65. Re:Ahmadinejad / Monkey jokes by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

    It's an insult to monkeys.

  66. Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of the Monkees

  67. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, only douche bags from texas hyphenate douche bag.

  68. Wrong Species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should have tried a goat

    1. Re:Wrong Species by Subgenius · · Score: 1

      Yes....the goat. That reminds me to make sure my phone is clean.

      --
      Toil is Stupid. Don't be Stupid.
  69. Know-how is only part of the equation by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

    It's hard to understand how Iran or any other country with the same level of technology have trouble reverse-engineering and producing systems that were first built in the 60's. Iran like all the other 2nd or 3rd tier countries when it comes to developing technology have more than enough scientists and engineers (most of whom were educated in the West) capable of working on this type of technology.

    Reverse-engineering and re-building up to specs (including testing in - duh - adequate testing facilities) is not cheap and it is extremely time consuming. There are a lot of qualified scientists in many countries, but they are forced by necessity to carry out experiments with a higher risk of failure. Without the wherewithal with which to carry their R&D to a degree sufficient to minimize error, one might as well ask them to re-build Persepolis with nothing more but spoons and silly putty mixed with buggers and poop. Technical know-how can only take you so far.

    1. Re:Know-how is only part of the equation by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      Additionally, they have the intelligence services of several powerful countries working to make sure they fail.

  70. Re:Ahmadinejad / Monkey jokes by pluther · · Score: 1
    There was also a whole series of "Bush or Chimp" pictures comparing the two. (I'd find the URL but I'm at work.)

    But, yeah, racists sometimes compare people to monkeys (or chimps). It does not follow that therefore everyone who compares a person to a monkey is a racist.

    --
    If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  71. Where's PETA? by slapout · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't PETA be protesting this?

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    1. Re:Where's PETA? by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Animal rights fanatics vs religious fanatics... That could be interesting.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  72. ICBM by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

    Inter-continental Ballistic Monkey

    --
    Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
  73. US killed three monkeys and a mouse before success by Animats · · Score: 1

    The US killed three monkeys and a mouse in rockets before the first successful landing.

  74. Space Monkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    John Prine could update his song:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d20zUw57lgs

    Space Monkey, Space Monkey
    What you doing out there?
    Why it's dark as a dungeon way up in the air
    Come gather round me you little monkeys and a story I'll tell
    About a brave young primate, outer space knew him well

    He was born at the top of a big old tree
    Way back in 1953.
    He could swing through the jungle and hang by his toes
    Till they took him to Russia cause they could I suppose
    They dressed him up in a spacesuit and it started to snow
    Shot him off in a rocket where no man would go

    Space Monkey Space Monkey
    What you doing out there?
    Why it's dark as a dungeon way up in the air
    There'll be no one to greet you when you get back home
    No hammer or sickle you'll be on your own.

    He had plenty of Cuban bananas and loads of Spam
    But he found great difficulty trying to open the can
    One day he slipped on a banana peel and the ship lost control
    It spun out of orbit and shot out the black hole
    It's been four decades now, that's nine monkey years
    That's a long time for a Space Monkey to confront all his fears

    Space Monkey Space Monkey
    What you doing out there?
    Why it's dark as a dungeon way up in the air
    There'll be no one to greet you when you get back home
    No hammer or sickle you'll be all on your own.

    Space Monkey, Space Monkey
    It's time to get real
    The space race is over, how does it feel
    Cold War's had a heatwave, Iron Curtain's torn down
    They've rolled up the carpet in Space Monkey town
    Now Leningrad is Petersburg and Petersburg's hell
    For a card-carrying monkey with a story to tell

    The Space Monkey was reportedly last sighted about
    A half a block off of Red Square
    In a karaoke bar having a few drinks with some of his friends
    There was the dog that flew Sputnik
    And a blind red-headed, one legged parrot
    Who had done some minor research for Dow Chemical
    They were drinking American Vodka
    Imported all the way from Paducah, Kentucky
    And reportedly had their arms around each other's
    Shoulders singing.
    Those were the days, my friend, we thought they'd never end

    Space Monkey, Space Monkey
    There's nothing to do
    But it's better than living in a Communist zoo
    There'll be no one to greet you when you get back home
    No hammer or sickle you'll be all on you own

  75. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi moron,

    Just so you know, Muslim is a religion, not an ethnicity.

    Hugs and kisses,

    Juan Epstein

  76. Re:US killed three monkeys and a mouse before succ by rwa2 · · Score: 1

    In Russia, Laika launch is still considered success!

    Is this what Tori Amos's Space Dog about?

  77. Million Monkeys Protest by brunokummel · · Score: 1
    --
    What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.
  78. Craigslist Iran Ad by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    For Sale - Used Low Earth Orbit Craft, with Crew. Used only once! Make offer! Owner Desperate!

  79. Church and state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess that's what happens when you don't separate church and state

  80. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Most likely it refers to the title of the Queen, which is:

    "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."

    Note that this is specifically the title as used in Canada - it's different from e.g. Australia, where "Defender of the Faith" is specifically omitted.

  81. Re:Ahmadinejad / Monkey jokes by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    I'd bad enough that I have to call this stuff out, before moving on to the anti-islamic sentiments.

    Oh gosh, someone is wrong on teh Internet? *gasp*

  82. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by silentbrad · · Score: 1

    First, Islam is a religion. A Muslim is a person who practices said religion. It's like saying "Scottish is a country." Second, he didn't say "racism," he said "predjudice." There is a difference - the first is specific, the second is general.

  83. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've just called the UK a shithole. Thanks.

    Also, Canada, Costa Rica, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, Greece, Denmark, Iceland, Norway.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

    Furthermore, although I do disagree with state religion, it's not all that defines a country. I'm certain Iran has some areas of outstanding natural beauty, magnificent architecture, foot, culture etc.

    All the non-Islamic countries with a state religion that you listed above guarantee freedom of, and from, religion. It's not that way with Islamic countries at all. In the same article you cited, it clearly states that 'Proselytism on behalf of other religions is often illegal.'. Not only that, apostasy out of Islam is either not recognized in some countries, such as Malaysia, or brings on it the death sentence, like in Iran.

    Oh, and before equal opportunity religion haters try and say that proselytization of all religions should be illegal, two things worth noting. One - proselytism on behalf of Islam is not only legal, but mostly encounraged, in keeping with Shariah law, which aims to make Islam the supreme religion of a country. Two - most atheists and agnostics are not recognized as such, but would be regarded as Infidels, and targeted for execution. In other words, a lot of pro-Iran /. posters, despite being anti-Christian or anti-Jewish, would be executed for their anti-religious views, unless they were hypocrites who made an exception for Islam. I personally am agnostic, but Islamic countries, unlike other countries in that list with state religions, do not allow freedom from religion. Even freedom of religion is a very loaded concept to them - it's there, so long as non-Muslims accept 3nd class citizen status.

    As for Iran, it had a great culture. It was before the Sassanids. The magnificient architecture that it has was something the Zoroastrians started, and the Muslims just adapted. Iran achieved little once Islam really set in.

  84. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong, dingle-berry. Muslim is to Islam as Christians are to Christianity.

    Hugs and kisses,

    Juan Epstein

  85. How is The United States not like that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been visitted by Muslims, unlike the average Slashdotter: they actually tried to convert and gave me an ultimatum. Because I have cracking skills, I was lucky they tried to convert me today and not before I read the book because I found all kinds of loopholes in their religous texts that I exploited to the fullest. My response to being converted can be summed up as saying: I'm a god,and get on your knees and worship me and give me your money or I'll make you feel like a lone tree on a hill among a lightning storm.

    The United States attacks countries for using any international currency other than US domestic dollars, it's main export is inflation, and is not known as a responsible collective. As far as I know, The United States induces countries around it into societal poverty that causes cultural retardation tracable to a long line of freemasons that use this as an exploit to gain foothold to overpower societies that weren't in it's control. How is The United States any different than Islam in this regard? They both don't let the people just be as they are.

  86. Obligitory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They shot their scratch monkey into space?

    To bad monkeys can't launch Iranians into space.

    Keep them coming....

  87. Re:the monkey was quoted as saying by silentbrad · · Score: 1
    That's what I said.

    First, Islam is a religion. A Muslim is a person who practices said religion.

    You said:

    Just so you know, Muslim is a religion, not an ethnicity.

    Not all that different from saying "Christian is a religion."

  88. When testing things like this, Always by cstacy · · Score: 1

    Always mount a scratch monkey!