I'm jealous - we should be offered the same deal here in good old North America
Yeah.. or at least as many browser choices as we get when we buy Apple's machines. And next, we can go after Microsoft for bundling Windows with Windows Media Player... they shouldn't be allowed to use their monopoly to push their media management and playback software on us! We should get to choose iTunes if we prefer it. And notepad?!? I want Notepad++ bundled with my OS!
I, for one, won't be happy until Microsoft is forced to remove any and all useful, desirable applications from their OS, so that otherwise uncompetitive companies can get free exposure at Microsoft's expense and have their product presented to us--unsolicited--in hopes that we will install their software without any requirement that they actually earn our "business".
No, the fix is to reduce the power that lawmakers have over us so there is no "need" or desire to buy them. A flat tax or some other simplified tax system--which does not allow lawmakers to carve out exemptions to this that and the other thing for anyone with enough campaign cash--would be the most effective thing we could do to eliminate corruption.
If you want to give the government the power to take care of you from cradle to grave and provide health care and affordable housing and yada yada yada, you are creating corruption.
...it doesn't bother any of you that this is an entirely inaccurate claim? The order wasn't changed at all, and whoever alleged that it was is smoking crack.
I couldn't live without being able to transfer money in my back accounts, send email, etc. You don't have to spend $500 to get that stuff. The iPhone is actually inferior to most phones out there (except for the display size)... most people just buy it because they think it makes them look cool or, ironically, anti-establishment. Apple is very good at marketing to that susceptible demographic.
No, it isn't useless. Their opinion is INFINITELY more valuable than yours, which seems to be based solely on what you think will make you "cool" on slashdot. Oh, and 1996 called... they want anti-Microsoft hyperbole back.
What about Firefox, (Open)Solaris, Perl, Python, PHP, MySQL, PostgreSQL, BIND, Sendmail, Postfix
You make good points, but I think my original observation was made more from the perspective of a consumer who is part of the mass market, not from the perspective of a developer (which I am). Sure, Perl, Python, PHP, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Java, Apache, etc... those are great free products, but one thing that all of those--as well as most of the other things people here have been listing--have in common is the fact that they aren't really end-products. They are development tools that are used to create end products, or tools that are used to deliver the end products to consumers. Consumers, for the most part, will never have heard of those things... they are only competing for use among people who are making products to be consumed.
The topic originated with Tetris, which was a massively consumed product. Could it have been written in Perl, Python, PHP, Java? Sure, and it has been. Could it be served to customers on an Apache server from a MySQL database? Sure. But in the end, those things are all simply there to allow someone else to create and distribute the commercial Tetis product... it is, ultimately, their reason for being. It is almost always true that somewhere down the line an expensive server operation or marketing operating or something else is involved, which absolutely requires a profit-motive. Very rarely are all of those "free" tools employed for purely altruistic reasons... they exist, primarily, to write software which will ultimately profit someone. You did mention some good exceptions, though... like Firefox. Wikipedia and other similar products also come to mind--slashdot itself is part of such a product I suppose.
I've always thought that the Open-Source movement was an intriguingly odd phenomenon. Basically, you have an inherently capitalist bunch of innovative people in the software world who are dabbling internally in communism.
In reality, the "free" stuff is not really all that competitive with products that are expensive. The vast majority of people use Windows. Linux, despite an enormous amount of work and evangelizing from the community, is simply not competitive with Windows on the desktop. Sure, they've made inroads and Linux is actually becoming fairly usable for the first time, but generally speaking Linux--as a brand--is getting its ass kicked. The same can be said for most "free" products.
There are some exceptions, of course, like apache, and linux is obviously successful in the server market. However, the notion that any commercial products are having a hard time "competing with free" is bass ackwards.
The Taliban must not read Slashdot, because I have been reliably informed by Slashdotters--who are, of course, the smartest and most reasonable and independent-thinking people in the world (and they'll confirm that if you don't believe me)--that the only reason that the US is interested in that sort of data managed and maintained by telecom companies is to spy on John and Jane Doe as they are making arrangements for picking up their kids at soccer practice. I have been assured that all of the government's very limited human resources is already allocated to "spying on Americans", so they surely aren't busy actually hunting down terrorists.
No, it is absolutely, inarguably true that they have "lost intelligence information". The original and incorrect characterization of the statement was that they had lost "important intelligence information", which was not what was said and which was used as a springboard by some moron (maybe you... I don't know) to fallaciously leap to the downright fucking retarded conclusion that they knew it was "important" therefore they must have been listening anyway--afterall, says the typical slashdot moron, how could they know it was important without listening to its contents? (It isn't "flamebait" or ad hominem to point out that most journalists are not very well educated, and, in fact, end up in journalism because they are only good at writing, for the most part--one need only watch the news on occasion to realize that reporters don't know what they hell they are talking about--nor is it "flamebait" to point out that most slashdotters are weak-minded juvenile group-thinkers who will misconstrue pretty much any story if they think they can win some "coolpoints" Bush-bashing for the rest of the clique.)
In any case, the bottom line is that you are still wrong, and I'm a bit embarrassed for you that you are reduced to pretending that a) Mukasey said something that he clearly didn't say and b) that you didn't use that slight difference in the quote to build a stupid conspiracy theory. Even if he HAD said what you say he said--which, again... he DIDN'T--it would be entirely appropriate in context and anyone with the most basic of logical reasoning skills would realize that it in no way implies that they were, in fact, listening to calls. This is because, of course, when you are looking for those nuggets of information in the phone calls made by jihadists in Afghanistan, and suddenly the calls themselves are made unavailable to you, then you have clearly lost "important intelligence information" in the calls themselves.
I am still astonished at the mindboggling stupidity of the assertion that the statement can be construed to mean that they were listening anyway--and you have the audacity to accuse ME of flame-baiting? My "air of arrogance and disdain" over you and others who subscribe to that silly conspiracy theory is very, VERY well founded, and others should feel free to express that view as well... you look stupid, and this community could use a little culling-through-shame on occassion. People like you are WAY too common on slashdot. You have cheapened the discourse with the childish cynicism... if you honestly took what Mukasey said as some allusion that they were listening to the calls anyway, then you should feel lucky that I even bothered responding to you.
I think you need to learn to take any characterization made by a reporter (most of whom aren't that intelligent in the first place) with a grain of salt. Just because a reporter's characterization the agencies' statements was that "they had missed important information" doesn't mean that they actually phrased it like that. What's actually a bit sad is that your comment was modded '5-insightful' for making that little fallacious leap.
People on/. are idiots. Imagine the outrage if Microsoft paid somebody $400M to ditch all formats other than their own. But when you are a simpleton, "Sony good, Microsoft bad" passes for solid, intelligent logic.
Unfortunately, the tone of the posted articles nowadays is just as naive and simplistic as the majority of the commenters--you are an excellent example. When commenters collectively and simplistically complain that 40% of people don't agree with their juvenile worldview and therefore "want to avoid thinking about abusive situations", you have a problem. Lay off the silly demogogic rhetoric and take a long look at yourself. Try to be a little more intellectually curious. Try to understand opposing views, rather than dismissing them. It may make you feel a little less "cool" on slashdot, but ultimately you will be a better and more informed person.
As an exercise, why don't you try to play devil's advocate right now, and explain in non-sarcastic, intelligent language why the court might have taken the position that the site should be shut down? Let's see how well you understand the issue, or whether you are merely one of the "X% who want to avoid thinking".
I don't know about "real" torture, but we know that waterboarding worked very well the 3 times it was used. Of course, waterboarding was only intended to take the detainee by complete surprise--during their training and past experiences they had become absolutely confident that the US wouldn't lay a finger on them, and suddenly they were doing THIS to them... now that the cat is out of the bag, it probably wouldn't work. Of course, that's probably why they only did it 3 times, the last of which was years ago.
Re:This is slashdot, expect ignorant morons
on
Fidel Castro Resigns
·
· Score: 1
"Not to mention that consensus != groupthink."
The idea that slashdot discussions are dominated by objective and rational people who arrive at a consensus after careful thought is--literally--laughable. But that's fine... you're free to deny what is obvious if you like. I'm not the first to note that slashdot has devolved into a self-parody at this point.
There is currently an article on the front page about Microsoft giving away developer tools for free to students. That is, by any objective standard, an awesome program. What is the thoughtful "consensus" of the bastions of intellect that are slashdot readers? According to the tags listed, "thefirsthitisfree, education, it, microsoft, itsatrap". Nothing irrational, biased, groupthinky, or downright unintelligent about that! No, sir! I'm sure the "abouttime", "freestuff", or "ohgoodie" tags will be right behind. I'll be holding my breath while the coucil of wise ones thoughtfully comes to a consensus when they aren't busy calling everyone who disagrees with their naive world view "fascists".
Re:This is slashdot, expect ignorant morons
on
Fidel Castro Resigns
·
· Score: 1
Wow. I've never seen an AC commenter be accused of representing Slashdot group think. You sure you're not projecting your own insecurities here? Or are you too busy stating false dichotomies to notice that you're replying to an AC?
I think your emphasis on the anonymity of the comment sort of reinforces the point that Slashdot membership--being one of the "community"--is elevated to some ridiculous therapeutic importance... so, no. I disagree with you, and think you actually lent support to my point.
That point aside, I'm sure you can find no end of similar sentiments expressed in these comments by registered users if you bother yourself. It is a pattern of cliquish behavior, and neither begins nor ends with the one particular comment to which I was responding--or to this story, even. The monolithic thought-clique extends to patents, anti-Microsoft stupidity, belief that Obama is the second coming of Jesus Christ, absolutely unwillingness to understand the "other side" in debates about FISA and other counter-terrorism measures, etc. It is absolutely all-encompassing.
There is more diversity of thought at a Ku Klux Klan rally than is typically evident in Slashdot comments.
your comment is as much flamebait as it would be for me to say "as long as the dictators are sufficiently rightist, slashdotters are all about totalitarian dictators. Half of them want to make out with Benito Mussolini".
That would be stupid and make no sense, where as one need only search slashdot for "Hugo Chavez" to confirm that slashdotters, in general, are pretty big fans of hard leftist totalitarians. The love them some Che Guevara. They love them some Hugo Chavez. They love Castro, and will sing whatever praises of Castro that Michael Moore tells them too.
Of course, I'm speaking in generalities, and there are certainly exceptions. For example, you are clearly an exception. I am also clearly an exception... I don't love Hugo Chavez--I think he is a very stupid man--like a high school jock who bullied is way "up" until he found himself in way over his head--who appeals to the lowest common denominator intellectually. I think people who praise him are among the stupidest people on the planet (and I absolutely think that they are inferior to me in virtually every way... in case the tone didn't make that clear). Is that arrogant of me? No. It's what I think, and I'm pretty sure it is measurably true.
And that is my main point... slashdot is full of people who really aren't that bright. They are the target "lowest common denominator" demographic of most of the rhetoric coming from people like Castro, Chavez, et al, as well as their cheerleaders like Michael Moore. It is a lot of very insecure people who engage in the slashdot groupthink because they have a need to "fit in". They mouth platitudes and praises of brutal tyrants because all the cool kids are doing it, and the cool kids--who tend to also be intellectual lightweights--are also reflexively leftist.
Pointing out the circle-jerky nature of slashdot is not "flamebait", no matter how much you wish it were.
You should look out for your confirmation biases
on
Fidel Castro Resigns
·
· Score: 1
According to this official - who wished to remain anonymous - in a report handed over to the Committee, Washington acknowledged that the abusive treatment inflicted on prisoners at the hands of American forces could be considered torture in the sense of the International Convention against Torture.... "They said that it was a matter of isolated cases, that there was nothing systematic and that the guilty parties were now in the process of being punished."
Etc... basically, the government has acknowledged that you could consider certain things to technically be "torture" if you carefully choose the definitions and if you were hellbent of finding torture where none exists. Based on polling in the past, I think most reasonable people with no political axe to grind are largely ambivalent about the 3 times the US has used waterboarding and whether it should be labeled "torture" (I personally think its absurd to consider waterboarding torture in light of actual torture techniques which are regularly used by others), and that seems to be the one technique which the left has irrationally latched onto in their attempts to convince the world that the US employs "torture" regularly and systematically.
Of course, if you are reasonably intelligent and thoughtful, you have undoubtedly noticed that even the article that *I* linked above merely cites some anonymous UN official. Here's a hint... if something sounds too absurd to be true, it probably is. If you keep that in mind, you will generally be perceived as a more credible voice. Try to think for yourself, and try to avoid letting biased sources tell you what to think. If you are forming your opinions based on uncorroborated anonymous sources from hostile organizations, you may want to take a few moments to reflect on how you got to that point.
I guess the truth hurts sometimes. The point is bare even arguable, but go ahead and label it flamebait.
This is slashdot, expect ignorant morons
on
Fidel Castro Resigns
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
People like that--the faux-intellectuals who engage in slashdot groupthink as a means of addressing their own intellectual insecurities--are the reasons I usually don't even get down into the comments. This one had too much potential to pass up... cognitive dissonance is always a good potential source of humor with these people.
What to do? Make silly, baseless, incredibly ignorant claims that the US is pretty much the same as Cuba? Praise Castro, and maybe tie the Che Guevara poster hanging in my cubicle into the conversation? Talk about how Hugo Chavez is the best thing since Castro? Or maybe just act like a normal, intelligent, rational human being? Of course, the latter is to be avoided at all costs on slashdot, so that's unlikely.
Slashdot nerds have a soft spot for dictators
on
Fidel Castro Resigns
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
So long as the dictators are sufficiently leftist, slashdotters are all about the totalitarian dictators. Half of them want to make out with Hugo Chavez, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah.. or at least as many browser choices as we get when we buy Apple's machines. And next, we can go after Microsoft for bundling Windows with Windows Media Player... they shouldn't be allowed to use their monopoly to push their media management and playback software on us! We should get to choose iTunes if we prefer it. And notepad?!? I want Notepad++ bundled with my OS!
I, for one, won't be happy until Microsoft is forced to remove any and all useful, desirable applications from their OS, so that otherwise uncompetitive companies can get free exposure at Microsoft's expense and have their product presented to us--unsolicited--in hopes that we will install their software without any requirement that they actually earn our "business".
No, the fix is to reduce the power that lawmakers have over us so there is no "need" or desire to buy them. A flat tax or some other simplified tax system--which does not allow lawmakers to carve out exemptions to this that and the other thing for anyone with enough campaign cash--would be the most effective thing we could do to eliminate corruption.
If you want to give the government the power to take care of you from cradle to grave and provide health care and affordable housing and yada yada yada, you are creating corruption.
...it doesn't bother any of you that this is an entirely inaccurate claim? The order wasn't changed at all, and whoever alleged that it was is smoking crack.
This will merely attract the obsessive ultra-right crusaders to dump "left wing bias" en masse on everything.
Yes, conservatives will certainly take over this site, just like they did Digg. LOL.
Get out more often. Seriously.
I couldn't live without being able to transfer money in my back accounts, send email, etc. You don't have to spend $500 to get that stuff. The iPhone is actually inferior to most phones out there (except for the display size)... most people just buy it because they think it makes them look cool or, ironically, anti-establishment. Apple is very good at marketing to that susceptible demographic.
Just get a different, better phone.
...because it reads like an advertisement.
No, it isn't useless. Their opinion is INFINITELY more valuable than yours, which seems to be based solely on what you think will make you "cool" on slashdot. Oh, and 1996 called... they want anti-Microsoft hyperbole back.
What about Firefox, (Open)Solaris, Perl, Python, PHP, MySQL, PostgreSQL, BIND, Sendmail, Postfix
You make good points, but I think my original observation was made more from the perspective of a consumer who is part of the mass market, not from the perspective of a developer (which I am). Sure, Perl, Python, PHP, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Java, Apache, etc... those are great free products, but one thing that all of those--as well as most of the other things people here have been listing--have in common is the fact that they aren't really end-products. They are development tools that are used to create end products, or tools that are used to deliver the end products to consumers. Consumers, for the most part, will never have heard of those things... they are only competing for use among people who are making products to be consumed.
The topic originated with Tetris, which was a massively consumed product. Could it have been written in Perl, Python, PHP, Java? Sure, and it has been. Could it be served to customers on an Apache server from a MySQL database? Sure. But in the end, those things are all simply there to allow someone else to create and distribute the commercial Tetis product... it is, ultimately, their reason for being. It is almost always true that somewhere down the line an expensive server operation or marketing operating or something else is involved, which absolutely requires a profit-motive. Very rarely are all of those "free" tools employed for purely altruistic reasons... they exist, primarily, to write software which will ultimately profit someone. You did mention some good exceptions, though... like Firefox. Wikipedia and other similar products also come to mind--slashdot itself is part of such a product I suppose.
I've always thought that the Open-Source movement was an intriguingly odd phenomenon. Basically, you have an inherently capitalist bunch of innovative people in the software world who are dabbling internally in communism.
In reality, the "free" stuff is not really all that competitive with products that are expensive. The vast majority of people use Windows. Linux, despite an enormous amount of work and evangelizing from the community, is simply not competitive with Windows on the desktop. Sure, they've made inroads and Linux is actually becoming fairly usable for the first time, but generally speaking Linux--as a brand--is getting its ass kicked. The same can be said for most "free" products.
There are some exceptions, of course, like apache, and linux is obviously successful in the server market. However, the notion that any commercial products are having a hard time "competing with free" is bass ackwards.
The Taliban must not read Slashdot, because I have been reliably informed by Slashdotters--who are, of course, the smartest and most reasonable and independent-thinking people in the world (and they'll confirm that if you don't believe me)--that the only reason that the US is interested in that sort of data managed and maintained by telecom companies is to spy on John and Jane Doe as they are making arrangements for picking up their kids at soccer practice. I have been assured that all of the government's very limited human resources is already allocated to "spying on Americans", so they surely aren't busy actually hunting down terrorists.
They should just relax.
No, it is absolutely, inarguably true that they have "lost intelligence information". The original and incorrect characterization of the statement was that they had lost "important intelligence information", which was not what was said and which was used as a springboard by some moron (maybe you... I don't know) to fallaciously leap to the downright fucking retarded conclusion that they knew it was "important" therefore they must have been listening anyway--afterall, says the typical slashdot moron, how could they know it was important without listening to its contents? (It isn't "flamebait" or ad hominem to point out that most journalists are not very well educated, and, in fact, end up in journalism because they are only good at writing, for the most part--one need only watch the news on occasion to realize that reporters don't know what they hell they are talking about--nor is it "flamebait" to point out that most slashdotters are weak-minded juvenile group-thinkers who will misconstrue pretty much any story if they think they can win some "coolpoints" Bush-bashing for the rest of the clique.)
In any case, the bottom line is that you are still wrong, and I'm a bit embarrassed for you that you are reduced to pretending that a) Mukasey said something that he clearly didn't say and b) that you didn't use that slight difference in the quote to build a stupid conspiracy theory. Even if he HAD said what you say he said--which, again... he DIDN'T--it would be entirely appropriate in context and anyone with the most basic of logical reasoning skills would realize that it in no way implies that they were, in fact, listening to calls. This is because, of course, when you are looking for those nuggets of information in the phone calls made by jihadists in Afghanistan, and suddenly the calls themselves are made unavailable to you, then you have clearly lost "important intelligence information" in the calls themselves.
I am still astonished at the mindboggling stupidity of the assertion that the statement can be construed to mean that they were listening anyway--and you have the audacity to accuse ME of flame-baiting? My "air of arrogance and disdain" over you and others who subscribe to that silly conspiracy theory is very, VERY well founded, and others should feel free to express that view as well... you look stupid, and this community could use a little culling-through-shame on occassion. People like you are WAY too common on slashdot. You have cheapened the discourse with the childish cynicism... if you honestly took what Mukasey said as some allusion that they were listening to the calls anyway, then you should feel lucky that I even bothered responding to you.
I think you need to learn to take any characterization made by a reporter (most of whom aren't that intelligent in the first place) with a grain of salt. Just because a reporter's characterization the agencies' statements was that "they had missed important information" doesn't mean that they actually phrased it like that. What's actually a bit sad is that your comment was modded '5-insightful' for making that little fallacious leap.
People on /. are idiots. Imagine the outrage if Microsoft paid somebody $400M to ditch all formats other than their own. But when you are a simpleton, "Sony good, Microsoft bad" passes for solid, intelligent logic.
What the hell would you know? You're talking out of your ass.
Unfortunately, the tone of the posted articles nowadays is just as naive and simplistic as the majority of the commenters--you are an excellent example. When commenters collectively and simplistically complain that 40% of people don't agree with their juvenile worldview and therefore "want to avoid thinking about abusive situations", you have a problem. Lay off the silly demogogic rhetoric and take a long look at yourself. Try to be a little more intellectually curious. Try to understand opposing views, rather than dismissing them. It may make you feel a little less "cool" on slashdot, but ultimately you will be a better and more informed person.
As an exercise, why don't you try to play devil's advocate right now, and explain in non-sarcastic, intelligent language why the court might have taken the position that the site should be shut down? Let's see how well you understand the issue, or whether you are merely one of the "X% who want to avoid thinking".
I don't know about "real" torture, but we know that waterboarding worked very well the 3 times it was used. Of course, waterboarding was only intended to take the detainee by complete surprise--during their training and past experiences they had become absolutely confident that the US wouldn't lay a finger on them, and suddenly they were doing THIS to them... now that the cat is out of the bag, it probably wouldn't work. Of course, that's probably why they only did it 3 times, the last of which was years ago.
"Not to mention that consensus != groupthink."
The idea that slashdot discussions are dominated by objective and rational people who arrive at a consensus after careful thought is--literally--laughable. But that's fine... you're free to deny what is obvious if you like. I'm not the first to note that slashdot has devolved into a self-parody at this point.
There is currently an article on the front page about Microsoft giving away developer tools for free to students. That is, by any objective standard, an awesome program. What is the thoughtful "consensus" of the bastions of intellect that are slashdot readers? According to the tags listed, "thefirsthitisfree, education, it, microsoft, itsatrap". Nothing irrational, biased, groupthinky, or downright unintelligent about that! No, sir! I'm sure the "abouttime", "freestuff", or "ohgoodie" tags will be right behind. I'll be holding my breath while the coucil of wise ones thoughtfully comes to a consensus when they aren't busy calling everyone who disagrees with their naive world view "fascists".
Wow. I've never seen an AC commenter be accused of representing Slashdot group think. You sure you're not projecting your own insecurities here? Or are you too busy stating false dichotomies to notice that you're replying to an AC?
I think your emphasis on the anonymity of the comment sort of reinforces the point that Slashdot membership--being one of the "community"--is elevated to some ridiculous therapeutic importance... so, no. I disagree with you, and think you actually lent support to my point.
That point aside, I'm sure you can find no end of similar sentiments expressed in these comments by registered users if you bother yourself. It is a pattern of cliquish behavior, and neither begins nor ends with the one particular comment to which I was responding--or to this story, even. The monolithic thought-clique extends to patents, anti-Microsoft stupidity, belief that Obama is the second coming of Jesus Christ, absolutely unwillingness to understand the "other side" in debates about FISA and other counter-terrorism measures, etc. It is absolutely all-encompassing.
There is more diversity of thought at a Ku Klux Klan rally than is typically evident in Slashdot comments.
your comment is as much flamebait as it would be for me to say "as long as the dictators are sufficiently rightist, slashdotters are all about totalitarian dictators. Half of them want to make out with Benito Mussolini".
That would be stupid and make no sense, where as one need only search slashdot for "Hugo Chavez" to confirm that slashdotters, in general, are pretty big fans of hard leftist totalitarians. The love them some Che Guevara. They love them some Hugo Chavez. They love Castro, and will sing whatever praises of Castro that Michael Moore tells them too.
Of course, I'm speaking in generalities, and there are certainly exceptions. For example, you are clearly an exception. I am also clearly an exception... I don't love Hugo Chavez--I think he is a very stupid man--like a high school jock who bullied is way "up" until he found himself in way over his head--who appeals to the lowest common denominator intellectually. I think people who praise him are among the stupidest people on the planet (and I absolutely think that they are inferior to me in virtually every way... in case the tone didn't make that clear). Is that arrogant of me? No. It's what I think, and I'm pretty sure it is measurably true.
And that is my main point... slashdot is full of people who really aren't that bright. They are the target "lowest common denominator" demographic of most of the rhetoric coming from people like Castro, Chavez, et al, as well as their cheerleaders like Michael Moore. It is a lot of very insecure people who engage in the slashdot groupthink because they have a need to "fit in". They mouth platitudes and praises of brutal tyrants because all the cool kids are doing it, and the cool kids--who tend to also be intellectual lightweights--are also reflexively leftist. Pointing out the circle-jerky nature of slashdot is not "flamebait", no matter how much you wish it were.
Etc... basically, the government has acknowledged that you could consider certain things to technically be "torture" if you carefully choose the definitions and if you were hellbent of finding torture where none exists. Based on polling in the past, I think most reasonable people with no political axe to grind are largely ambivalent about the 3 times the US has used waterboarding and whether it should be labeled "torture" (I personally think its absurd to consider waterboarding torture in light of actual torture techniques which are regularly used by others), and that seems to be the one technique which the left has irrationally latched onto in their attempts to convince the world that the US employs "torture" regularly and systematically.
Of course, if you are reasonably intelligent and thoughtful, you have undoubtedly noticed that even the article that *I* linked above merely cites some anonymous UN official. Here's a hint... if something sounds too absurd to be true, it probably is. If you keep that in mind, you will generally be perceived as a more credible voice. Try to think for yourself, and try to avoid letting biased sources tell you what to think. If you are forming your opinions based on uncorroborated anonymous sources from hostile organizations, you may want to take a few moments to reflect on how you got to that point.
Yeah, those guys in Guantanamo bay are being tortured, those aren't just political prisoners.
Yeah, not so much. Who has been spoon feeding you that crap?
I guess the truth hurts sometimes. The point is bare even arguable, but go ahead and label it flamebait.
People like that--the faux-intellectuals who engage in slashdot groupthink as a means of addressing their own intellectual insecurities--are the reasons I usually don't even get down into the comments. This one had too much potential to pass up... cognitive dissonance is always a good potential source of humor with these people.
What to do? Make silly, baseless, incredibly ignorant claims that the US is pretty much the same as Cuba? Praise Castro, and maybe tie the Che Guevara poster hanging in my cubicle into the conversation? Talk about how Hugo Chavez is the best thing since Castro? Or maybe just act like a normal, intelligent, rational human being? Of course, the latter is to be avoided at all costs on slashdot, so that's unlikely.
So long as the dictators are sufficiently leftist, slashdotters are all about the totalitarian dictators. Half of them want to make out with Hugo Chavez, for example.