×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

106 comments

North Korea too, and it's not new (5, Insightful)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38139936)

North Korea has hosted their govermental websites (for outsiders, anyway) in Spain. For example korea-drp.com [korea-dpr.com] is hosted on IP 91.142.218.24 in Malaga, Spain. It's been there for years. (I know because I've planned visiting there, and looked it up a few times)

And seriously, hosting services assisting in "crimes against humanity"? They are informational sites about countries. It makes sense for them to outsource their hosting. Hell, even United States uses Akamai. If you want to do censorship against countries or things you don't agree with, sure, go ahead and silence their websites. But country having a website has nothing to do with "crimes against humanity".

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38140018)

Do you not understand what sanctions are for or how they work?

You plan on visiting Spain or N. Korea? If the latter then can I assume you're a sympathizer? That might explain a lot.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140210)

Do you not understand what sanctions are for or how they work?

Sanctions work?

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (4, Funny)

MasaMuneCyrus (779918) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140302)

Do you not understand what sanctions are for or how they work?

Sanctions work?

Of course they work. Sanctions were great against Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Iran, and Cuba. Before sanctions, they all had terrible crimes against humanity. After sanctions, look how quickly the people came to love the United States and then overthrew their evil regimes to impose new democratic governments with freedom for all!

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (4, Insightful)

Shatrat (855151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140564)

The alternative to sanctions would be Saudia Arabia where you have terrible crimes against humanity and the perpetrators live like gods.
Just because it's not a panacea doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141118)

I have yet to see a 'True' democratic government.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (2)

elgeeko.com (2472782) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141542)

Who wants to live in a democracy? Rule by the masses? No thanks. I'll keep my Republic, thank you very much.

Rule by the richest 1% for the richest 1% (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38142008)

Except many republics become a plutocracy, rule by the richest 1% for the richest 1%, because politicians need to fund their campaigns somehow.

Re:Rule by the richest 1% for the richest 1% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38144530)

Except many republics become a plutocracy, rule by the richest 1% for the richest 1%, because politicians need to fund their campaigns somehow.

yeah! like the US!

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38147686)

Who wants to live in a democracy? Rule by the masses? No thanks. I'll keep my Republic, thank you very much.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Republics are democracies too, just not direct ones. Otherwise, you wouldn't bother to have people voting in elections.

But no doubt you are American and think your definition of Republic and the US political systemis is uniquely different from the rest of the world's

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141314)

Sanctions work when you don't hear about them. The threat of sanctions does in fact keep a lot of places in line. However once a nation decides to take whatever action results in sanctions, further sanctions don't do much. But the threat has to be backed up with follow-through. It's messy, like everything else in international politics is.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (2)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140024)

Planned visiting the IP address, Malaga Spain, or North Korea?

The first is easy to do. The second and third doesn't explain why you would whois the IP.

I'd love to see North Korea for curiousity sake; darn me for getting my US citizenship that makes it illegal for me to visit now.

Supposedly one of the safest countries in the world to visit despite (perhaps because of) the communist ties.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (4, Funny)

egamma (572162) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140064)

Planned visiting the IP address, Malaga Spain, or North Korea?

The first is easy to do. The second and third doesn't explain why you would whois the IP.

I'd love to see North Korea for curiousity sake; darn me for getting my US citizenship that makes it illegal for me to visit now.

Supposedly one of the safest countries in the world to visit despite (perhaps because of) the communist ties.

And I hear they have a great visitor's facility where you can stay for free, for years at a time!

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (0)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140086)

North Korea of course :-) And yeah, I want to see it just for the experience and because it's something so little amount of people have done. Would make awesome small talk subject too.

I also have heard it's really safe country to visit, actually. If you're being an idiot, they don't punish you. At most your guide will get punished for it. There's really interesting video guide to north korea in YouTube (and vbs.tv) about it, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG4gL3eAHVs [youtube.com]

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (3, Interesting)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140122)

You are quite the sadist aren't you. "They might imprison your guide and rape his family but think of the small talk". How about you visit South Korea instead. Or even go to Cuba.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (1)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140150)

I didn't say I'm gonna act like an ass and get my guide punished. I was just pointing out that it's safe from foreigners to visit there, as many might be wondering about that.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (0, Flamebait)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140184)

But why even go there? I mean would you thought it to be quite the lark to visit a concentration camp in Hitler's Germany? I mean these are impoverished, repressed people - do they really need you gawking at them? Try to dig up some human decency somewhere.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (1, Interesting)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140360)

Are you seriously comparing whole North Korea to concentration camp in Hitler's Germany? Frankly, it's not like that. While it's true that Kim Jong is the sole leader of the country, it's not really that bad for the people there. They have it much like rest of the world, and people seem really happy. Sure, some of it comes from the fact that they don't know better, but to compare it to concentration camp is ludicrous.

I like traveling. I have also spend time in rest of the Asia, including Laos, Cambodia and Thailand. Not just visit there, but actually living. I find that the people are really friendly, and interesting. Seeing the world opens your eyes.

What? (4, Insightful)

scheme (19778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140542)

Are you seriously comparing whole North Korea to concentration camp in Hitler's Germany? Frankly, it's not like that. While it's true that Kim Jong is the sole leader of the country, it's not really that bad for the people there. They have it much like rest of the world, and people seem really happy. Sure, some of it comes from the fact that they don't know better, but to compare it to concentration camp is ludicrous.

It sounds like you'd be fine with visiting Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge or Soviet gulags as well. Between 1990-1997 Korea lost between 5-12% of the population to starvation with the military getting preferential treatment in regards to food rations and everyone else being effectively left to fend for themselves. North Korea is still suffering from famine and according to reports people are getting about 700 calories a day of food. Also, north koreans are apparently about five inches shorter on average than equivalent south koreans.

Either you're woefully misinformed about the situation in North Korea or you're intentionally blinding yourself to it or you simply don't care. If the problem is the former, I'd suggest reading up on things before saying that things are fine and dandy. If it's the latter, well, you should spend time trying to find some compassion and humanity within yourself instead of traveling so much.

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140698)

And what does their food amount per day or length have to do with me visiting there? If anything, I help the general population by visiting there. Sure, that 2000-3000 euros it costs me to do so doesn't matter much, but the people get to see more people from foreign countries. Maybe it indirectly helps in something, I don't know. What have you done, exactly? And again, as I've previously noticed how people (especially those from US) tell how other nationals are suffering so and so much, and when I've visited there it's been nothing like that, I don't really take everything I read on the internet not so seriously. Usually the people are happy, and would be unhappy if things were different. Other people, especially US ones, for some reason like to think they "know better" and try to impose their views on others.

Re:What? (1)

scheme (19778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141434)

And what does their food amount per day or length have to do with me visiting there? If anything, I help the general population by visiting there. Sure, that 2000-3000 euros it costs me to do so doesn't matter much, but the people get to see more people from foreign countries. Maybe it indirectly helps in something, I don't know. What have you done, exactly? And again, as I've previously noticed how people (especially those from US) tell how other nationals are suffering so and so much, and when I've visited there it's been nothing like that, I don't really take everything I read on the internet not so seriously. Usually the people are happy, and would be unhappy if things were different. Other people, especially US ones, for some reason like to think they "know better" and try to impose their views on others.

You're not going to be helping the general population by visiting. The money you spend goes directly to the north korean government and not the people. It's not as if your guide/escort is going to let you interact significantly with the average person or buy anything from them.

If you look at reports and studies by a variety of sources (south korean, us, UN, NGO, chinese, etc), they all pretty much paint similar pictures of what's happening in north korean. I suppose everyone could be lying and you magically have the truth of the situation but it's doubtful. Based on a reasonable interpretation of the reports and evidence, the north koreans do have it pretty bad and aren't doing fine and wouldn't be unhappy if things changed. Honestly, it sounds like you're willfully blinding yourself to the evidence out there or are hopelessly naive.

Re:What? (1)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141730)

Note how I said my money probably doesn't count much. Still, what does it have to do with me visiting there? Should we avoid all countries where things aren't as good as in our home country? I live in Scandinavia and the cost of living here is almost highest on entire earth. Does that mean I cannot visit any other place? I also live in a city. Can't I visit the countryside because someone thinks they have it worse than us who live in cities?

Re:What? (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38147026)

I visited the USA, and spent about £2000. But I don't approve of lots of things in your country -- was I wrong to visit? Should I only visit the handful of countries I think are nicer than mine?

I'd like to visit North Korea, but not just yet. It's a long way away, so the flights are too expensive. I have some vague plans to visit Cuba with a friend though, although the travel agent she asked said she'll have problems as she has dual citizenship (here and the USA).

Re:What? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#38147886)

I visited the USA, and spent about £2000. But I don't approve of lots of things in your country -- was I wrong to visit? Should I only visit the handful of countries I think are nicer than mine?

Well said, I was jjust going to post something similar. I find the US's invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan absurd, its adherence to capital punishment offensive and its tolerance of religious extremists ludicrous.

But my kids wanted to go to Disney World, so hello and welcome from the TSA.

Re:What? (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38148296)

I "had to" go for work (I wouldn't have refused going anywhere, but I didn't choose the country). I stayed an extra week for holiday.

I don't yet drive, and hadn't planned to go to the USA until I'd learnt. So, I walked and used public transport, and as a result met more poor people than most tourists probably do. At least twice a day, on some days four or five times, I was asked for money. One guy said he'd got a job, and needed the money to take the metro to it. I wasn't sure whether to believe that, and I'm not sure why he couldn't have walked if there was no other option (1½ hours walk), but I did believe that the government didn't give anyone any money to help them find/get to a job, and that the police would give him a $200 fine and jail time if he begged for an unwanted day pass at a station. The Americans at the hostel didn't see a problem with this.

Almost without exception, everyone on the metro was black (often, I was the only exception). No official racism, but a socio-economic status quo exists, and everyone knows their place. It's like the British class system, but worse.

Re:What? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38143910)

I can give you the example of Myanmar (Burma). Western tourists visited and were interested in seeing prostitutes so the military dragged some women in from the countryside to be literal sex slaves. Later tourists complained about sleazy women hanging around outside their hotel so there was a sudden change in policy and the unpaid, forced prostitutes were all executed.
Totalitarian governments are not about being nice and they will cut unimaginable corners to achieve their goals.

Re:What? (1)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38144080)

And care to show any source for that? I've actually visited Burma a few times.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38147878)

Why would you visit Burma? Don't tell me you had to shill for Microsoft over there.

Re:What? (1)

szilagyi (633672) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141890)

The scary part is the effectiveness of the indoctrination, if documentaries like National Geographic Inside Undercover In North Korea [youtube.com] can be taken at anywhere near face value. Of course, with any visit, there is staging, but it really seems like there are too many cataract patients too believably thankful to Dear Leader to be under duress. Anyway, they're effective enough to scare me.

It's scary because of the idea that you might need to kill a large fraction of the country in a conflict, that they would throw themselves on your sabers for no good reason.

One hopes that they were just very effective at choosing the best actors for the cataract surgeries. Everyone involved is surely in constant fear for their families and would act thankful to the best of their ability. But you're not quite sure, because a couple of generations have been raised under this indoctrination now, so there is the real fear (to the lay person such as myself) that Kim Il Sung simply got it "right".

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38143858)

Are you seriously comparing whole North Korea to concentration camp in Hitler's Germany?

It's different, but in some ways worse. I know somebody that probably has close relatives there but has not been able to make contact (from China) for more than twenty years so they have no idea if they are alive or dead and no way to get in touch. The refugees they have spoken too have shocking stories.
Deliberate policies that result in mass starvation and large numbers of executions for arbitrary reasons is different to large numbers of executions of people from a single ethnic group but you can put both at the same end of the scale.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (1)

Anonymus (2267354) | more than 2 years ago | (#38146758)

It's not really that bad for the people there? Are you fucking kidding? It's not bad for the families and friends of government workers but for the other 95% it's living hell. You visiting North Korea for an "awesome small talk subject" is just giving money to prop up one of the most evil regimes since Hitler's Germany.

Watch nearly any documentary on North Korea. It's hard to find good video because anyone caught recording in non-approved areas is tortured to death, along with all of their family members, but some people care about more than small talk and have taken those risks.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (0)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140418)

It's a beautiful country- and the culture is quite unlike anywhere else. It simply would be an experience you can't get elsewhere. The people are not being "tortured.

Yes, they'd be better off with a less ill Kim Jong ruling them and granting them more freedoms- but visiting would not give any legitimacy to Kim nor increase their hardships.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38140176)

Just buy the book: http://www.amazon.com/Pyongyang-Journey-North-Guy-Delisle/dp/1897299214

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (1)

Incadenza (560402) | more than 2 years ago | (#38143136)

North Korea of course :-) And yeah, I want to see it just for the experience and because it's something so little amount of people have done. Would make awesome small talk subject too. I also have heard it's really safe country to visit, actually. If you're being an idiot, they don't punish you.

This stamp collector from the Netherlands> [yahoo.com] (lame Babelfish translation, but Googles one is even worse) visited North Korea 24 times. His last visit however ended with weeks and weeks of interrogations, a forced confession to a crime he didn't commit and a judge that absolved him (but that might just as well sentenced him to decades of jail).

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140706)

Supposedly one of the safest countries in the world to visit despite (perhaps because of) the communist ties.

I realize that a lot of what gets said about various countries is propoganda by other countries who dont' like each other, however, if you believe this statement, you are an idiot of the highest order.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (2)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140772)

Actually, because they have such a harsh military dictatorship and they have eyes on you all the time it is very safe to visit.

Living there- perhaps not so much.

I think it was the BBC that did a survery of the safest countries to visit several years back and North Korea was surprisingly ranked amongst the top 2 or 3 in the world.

Will have to hunt for that link.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141370)

It's not illegal for a US citizen to travel to the DPRK (I've done it). It's actually easier than Cuba (where you can legally travel to as well, but can't spend money without permission from the Department of the Treasury).

You have to travel with an authorized tour group, and your guides/translators won't let you out of their sight. You will only see preapproved things, but it's still an amazing and very unique experience.

I used Koryo Tours (http://www.koryogroup.com/) and had a great experience, there are other groups as well that organize tours.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (1)

Anonymus (2267354) | more than 2 years ago | (#38146712)

It's only "safe to visit" because you are literally only taken to areas approved by the government, where "normal" North Koreans do not live or frequent, and because you are with a government tour guide at all times. And that's assuming you don't do something stupid like bring contraband, take a photo without asking your tour guide for permission first, try to sneak away from the tour group, give the appearance of being in any way anti-North-Korean, etc.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140048)

If the website encourages violence against its citizens who are uprising then aren't they assisting?

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (2)

MasaMuneCyrus (779918) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140398)

IMO, the best way to undermine and/or overthrow crazy regimes and create true change in countries is not to discipline the enemy government, but to act as an example and lend out a hand of friendship straight to the people. Sanctions against governments always result in the enemy government finding new and innovative ways to continue enriching themselves while transferring the pain of sanctions down to the people.

All too often sanctions hurt the people of a country, and only barely the government. North Korea is a special case because the number of independent websites there is probably zero, but if we start censoring North Korean websites due to sanctions, we'd also quickly start censoring Iranian or Cuban websites for similar reasons, and all we'd be doing there is removing the last dissenting voices in those countries from the internet--hurting the people.

The best way to create change is to befriend the North Korean people, in any way possible. If they like the USA, then it would undermine the government that is trying to portray the US as a land of evil and badness. If we hurt the people through sanctions, it will actually run counter to the original intent; the people will suffer from the sanctions, grow to hate the US, and the DPRK government's hold on power will increase as their anti-US rhetoric will be legitimized.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38140510)

I had a look at the article, and it references websites like that of the Syrian Dept. of Irrigation, Electricity, Transport, etc.

I don't think they were inciting people to kill anti-government forces.

Regardless of what you think of the Syrian situation, it seems a dangerous precedent to censor websites because you don't like a government.

China killed a lot of people in Tiananmen Square, and AFAIK, .cn sites aren't being blocked.

The article is basically a rundown of how Syrian companies have reserved IP blocks and so on. Well, of course they're going to reserve IP blocks through non-Syrian companies because the Internet is an international network.

Besides, if Syrian government sites are censored how is it that you will determine for how long they are worthy of being censored? Who will determine that? Will they be blocked by DNS manipulation? Bad precedent.

Oh, and will the censors get special access to Syrian websites in order to determine if they are still supposed to be censored? Sort of like how access to western media is censored in some MidEast countries and N Korea, but the government can still access it so it can know what's going on in the world?

Or is a general block on all expression by the Syrian government (no matter how mundane) because they killed people? Is Bahrain also being censored in the same way? Algeria? Morocco? China?

If you attempt to access a Syrian site via a proxy, will you get a visit from the government (the way things are done in Syria or Iran)?

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38145146)

I had a look at the article, and it references websites like that of the Syrian Dept. of Irrigation, Electricity, Transport, etc.

I don't think they were inciting people to kill anti-government forces.

Take a look at some of the other stuff in the article. Even just the summary:

  • The Syrian TV station Addounia TV, which is sanctioned by Canada and the European Union for inciting violence against Syrian citizens, uses Canada-based web servers to host its website.
  • The website for Al-Manar — the official media arm of the Lebanese political party, Hezbullah — is hosted on Canada- and US-based web servers and employs Canada-based web servers to stream its TV broadcast globally. Al-Manar satellite broadcasts have been banned by the US, France, Spain, and Germany as well as the European Union. The United States includes Al-Manar on its Specially Designated Nationals List, a list of entities with which U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing, and the assets of which are blocked. Canada currently classifies Hezbullah as a terrorist organization.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140382)

Well of course the don't have Internet in North Korea.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (0)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140448)

Actually they do, they internal uni and web cafe network is really fast too. They also have internet access to government offices and large companies. It's getting more and more common for general populate to get connection at home too, though I guess it will take some time before they get access to the whole internet.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140646)

I've heard they have a national intranet but I don't think it's connected to the global network.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (2)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140788)

It is, but only to government personnel, large companies and foreign visitors. Their IP allocation has been really fucked though, so they only have 1024 ip's for the whole country (outside the intranet). But that's not their fault. Star Joint Ventures is the North Korea-Thai joint company that handles it mostly.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140834)

Not only do they have an internet in North Korea...their egotistical vice president claims to have invented it too.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (1)

sosume (680416) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140482)

What about DNS? Won't the TLD providers be required to shut down all of .ir for example?

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (4, Insightful)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140626)

It might not be popular but: If you want the Internet to be a bastion for free speech, you have to have free speech for all (however repellent), not just for those with whom you agree.

I just did a check, and some Iranian government websites (as given on Wikipedia) work, as they should, including those with a .com TLD.

So why the special attention to Syria? Iran also put down an uprising a few years ago.

If you don't agree with something, argue against it on your own website; don't shut down somebody else's.

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (1)

um... Lucas (13147) | more than 2 years ago | (#38142494)

Nk's website isn't run or paid for bythe n Korean government, but rather a 3rd party entity, the Korean friendship association. I know this because I'm also researching in hopes of visiting.

To the sympathizer accuser below: I'm not going to show support for the regime. Or disapproval. I'm just extremely curious about the place. There's an added kick that I'd certainly be within the first 10'000 americans to step foot there since the war. And I like non standard vacations. Forget France or Britain, gimme Bangkok, Cartagena or Pyongyang!!

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38148068)

Forget France or Britain, gimme Bangkok, Cartagena or Pyongyang!!

I think you should remove Bangkok from your list. Thailand is popular for Europeans to visit (probably others too?), especially rich, young ones. The usual reason for going is to do volunteer work, mature, etc (spoof video, meme in the UK [youtube.com] . Back at university, they recount stories of ordering a bucket of strong punch for $1 from a pretty woman on a beach, drinking it all, and partying until dawn, every day. (I'm sure it's a great place to visit, but I don't think of it as "non-standard").

"847,198 British nationals visited Thailand in 2010 (Source: Thai Immigration)" -- that's over 1% of the country (!). (source) [fco.gov.uk] . Less British people visited Sweden...
Compare "Very few British nationals visit North Korea and those that do are usually part of an organised tour." and "Around 23,000 visits were made by British passport holders to Colombia in 2010" (though purely by distance, Columbia must be more popular with Americans.)

Re:North Korea too, and it's not new (1)

um... Lucas (13147) | more than 2 years ago | (#38148292)

i already did bangkok. My first trip out of the country. Fun place, i'd go back and see the rest of Thailand (and buy more suits for $75 each), except its a 20-24 hour flight from NYC (which is a 3 hour flight from me already).

Went to cartagena this spring, very cool. I was expecting it to be a dangerous place, but (un)fortunately, nothing happened. I'm planning to return next year when i get some time off again.

Cartagena is actually fairly popular with Europeans, it's American's that don't go, owing to fears of colombia that have been fanned in the media. Case in point, i found that more of the people in the service industry there were fluent in french, german and other european languages than english. And not speaking spanish, it was a bit difficult to figure things out at first!

But yeah, started out taking baby steps. Now I have NK in my sights!

Capitalists only care about money, film at 11. (3, Interesting)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140034)

Someone's willing to take money from political despots in the name of making a profit? Really? This is news?

I'm not saying it's right, the number of Western businesses willing to sell repression tools to China, etc. really kind of makes me sick and I wish they could engage in more complex motivations than just "sales, sales, sales", but they're not.

Was it Khrushchev who said the west would sell it the rope to hang us with?

Re:Capitalists only care about money, film at 11. (4, Informative)

Osiris Ani (230116) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140088)

Was it Khrushchev who said the west would sell it the rope to hang us with?

"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." -Lenin

Re:Capitalists only care about money, film at 11. (0)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140998)

This from the guy who claimed "all you need is love". Seems he was wrong on both counts :p

Re:Capitalists only care about money, film at 11. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38140118)

Socialists only care about power and control, film at 11.

Oh wait

Sorry, your multifaceted and interdisciplinary approach naturally defies any categorisation.

Re:Capitalists only care about money, film at 11. (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140324)

no, he is right. capitalism is actually a system that enforces maximization of profit at the expense of anything. recall BP and gulf of mexico. what happened ? recall intel and the bribery case. what happened ? recall nvidia and the benchmark fraud case. what happened. nothing. this is not 'corruption'. this is what the system enforces.

Re:Capitalists only care about money, film at 11. (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140584)

And everyone knows corruption does not exist anywhere outside of capitalism.

Re:Capitalists only care about money, film at 11. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140708)

corruption exists everywhere. its only capitalism that encourages and enforces it. that's the difference. profit at whatever cost, as long as you can get away with it.

Re:Capitalists only care about money, film at 11. (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140752)

"only capitalism enforces" corruption - really? You should hit the history books more. Study up on the Russian Revolution for example and tell me how "only capitalism" enforces corruption. Sorry, but greed is a human trait and not simply a facet of capitalism. Greed is what causes corruption, not capitalism.

Re:Capitalists only care about money, film at 11. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141728)

fool. in soviet russia, corruption is a crime. in capitalist america, its a 'corporate risk' that is ACCOUNTED as a risk in accounting, and handled accordingly.

Re:Capitalists only care about money, film at 11. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141796)

Just becasue you are ignorant of actual history does not mean your obviously biased anti-capitalism rants are in any way factual. Do as the OP suggested and read up on history before you expose yourself to be an even bigger idiot than you already are.

Re:Capitalists only care about money, film at 11. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38143426)

Yeah. Accountants account for it. What a shock. Corruption costs money, and accountants (note: their job is to TRACK MONEY) keep tabs on it. Kinda like they keep track of losses by theft. You may be surprised to note that even though accountants track theft similar to corruption, theft is also a crime.

Wanna know something else thats shocking? Corruption is a crime in capitalist(ish) systems too. But goddamn, those silly accountants.. doing their jobs rather than doing the jobs of .. law enforcement. Crazy.

Your view of capitalism is woefully uninformed and dreadfully tunnel-visioned.

Re:Capitalists only care about money, film at 11. (2)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141278)

No, he, and you, are wrong. Capitalism only works the way you describe when it's not implemented properly (which is why the U.S. is so screwed up). According to capitalism, you are supposed to have capitalists and government as countervailing forces - a strong capitalist class, to promote efficiency, and a strong government to protect individuals. When the government collapses and sells out to the capitalist class, you get the US.

Re:Capitalists only care about money, film at 11. (1)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38144290)

"...when its not implemented properly..."?

Isn't it a little dubious to try to defend an economic system largely defined as markets free from regulation or control by claiming that its most common practice is "not implemented properly", aka regulated?

And if the implementation of capitalism is the regulation of markets, isn't that what we have now? How do you assure that capitalism is implemented correctly, and what is the appropriate regulatory framework for proper implementation?

And isn't by regulation of markets how we got to where we are now?

There are also no serious political or economic system theories that don't claim to maximize human welfare -- and they all do, in theory, but what matters are the real-world implementations. Fascism is a pretty neat political theory, but in practice it has problems. You can't use the theory to defend the practice.

Re:Capitalists only care about money, film at 11. (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38145396)

Isn't it a little dubious to try to defend an economic system largely defined as markets free from regulation or control by claiming that its most common practice is "not implemented properly", aka regulated?

Well, it would be, if that's how capitalism is defined. It isn't, though. What you describe is closer to laissez-faire - which is a type of capitalism, but not the the definition of capitalism. The definition of capitalism, as far as any such beast exists, is concerned with private (as opposed to public) ownership of the means of production, and of the use of profit and competition (as opposed to force, or good-will) to motivate useful labour. Regulation, and the degree of such, varies throughout capitalistic models. It is almost never absent entirely - for instance, most capitalist models assume that the government has the power to enforce contracts, police industrial saboutage, assassination, and so forth.

And isn't by regulation of markets how we got to where we are now?

Yes - you got here by regulating the markets on the behalf of, and for the advantage of, the players in those markets, instead of for the advantage of the public. You had (and have) a weak regulator that was subsumed by the entities it was supposed to be regulating. Lack of regulation would have been better than this. Arguably, regulation in favour of the people would have been better still.

and they all do, in theory, but what matters are the real-world implementation

True, but you also can't judge a theory simply based on those who claim to practice it. Judging democracy by the standard of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, for instance, is unlikely to give you an accurate estimate of the theory. Just because the US claims to be capitalistic, mouths capitalistic platitudes, and enforces those elements of capitalism that are beneficial to the corporations that fund the government doesn't make them a great representative of the theory.

Re:Capitalists only care about money, film at 11. (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140378)

One could argue, and I think pretty well, that that mentality was instrumental in bringing down the USSR and is rapidly converting China towards capitalism. The mere act of buying the rope to hang someone from them implies, in a certain way, that that person is superior to you (at least at rope building) and maybe we shouldn't kill them after all. Or at least become better at rope building. This metaphor is stretching thin, but the point is dealing with hostile countries can often bring about reform.

well, (4, Informative)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140046)

Surely you don't expect people to let a little thing like "crimes against humanity" stop someone from making a buck.

Re:well, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38140318)

Surely you don't expect people to let a little thing like "crimes against humanity" stop someone from making a buck.

Nah, that's the American Way!

Re:well, (0)

P-niiice (1703362) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140340)

One of our Atlanta recently caught a company making and selling fake smoke detectors to the Atlanta fire depatrment. the smoke detectors had fake UL labels and would pass the smoke detector battery test but had (I believe) fake boards in them.

Re:well, (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140848)

Let's try that again. One of our Atlanta TV news reporters recently caught a company making and selling fake smoke detectors to the Atlanta fire department. The smoke detectors had fake UL labels and would pass the smoke detector battery test but had (I believe) fake boards in them. Humans suck.

Re:well, (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38140420)

More like, you don't expect them to care/check what people are using their service as unless there are complaints(from powerful companies) do you? It's not like most companies would think of things like sanctions or whatnot. Also, how do you check if it's a person or a government doing the registering? Basically, it's alot of work to check for, for a insanely low occurring problem.

Re:well, (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140718)

Bayer

HIV, 1980s.

http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000647_Bayer_vaccines_HIV.html [naturalnews.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhs [youtube.com]

Not that anyone is going to hold them accountable....

Apple's production line does massive environmental damage....

Nearly every employer most people reading this have worked for always has these little 'keep this on the downlow SOPs' for ways they get around regulations/rules.....

Yeah... like ethics ever mattered in the pursuit of cash.

On a global scale, the view of success is measured wrong; like the Mayo clinic, the rest of the world can be modeled --- success and recognition going to those who have improved human life, not to those who are good at getting money off people (immoral or otherwise).

Re:well, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38145930)

Anyway, what's the problem? Free market will take care of this. The protesters just need to come together and buy a better hosting on a thicker channel.

Crimes against humanity (3, Insightful)

rickett81 (987309) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140080)

There is no way that I can say that hosting a website is akin to crimes against humanity.

Lets use this example?

Lets suppose that 3 people go in and rob a bank. During this heist, they shoot someone who later dies. After the robbery/murder, they jump in an F150 and drive away. Does this mean that Ford is assisting armed robbery and capital murder? No!
This is ludicrous.

Re:Crimes against humanity (1)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140134)

That story only makes sense if you tell it like "Lets suppose that 3 robots go in and rob a bank.".

Re:Crimes against humanity (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140206)

Your example has absolutely nothing to do with the actual circumstances. Syria is accused of crimes against humanity. As a result, sanctions have been placed on Syria. The purpose of the sanctions is to make life difficult for the government of Syria. By ignoring the sanctions, you are making their life a little less difficult.

Re:Crimes against humanity (4, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140262)

By ignoring the sanctions, you are making their life a little less difficult.

Back in the real world, 'sanctions' normally have two results:

1. They make the leaders rich as they control the supply of essential goods to the population.
2. They make the population hate the 'sanctioners' more than they hate their government.

Re:Crimes against humanity (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140374)

We are not talking about 'essential goods', we are talking about web hosting for the Syrian government.

Re:Crimes against humanity (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140700)

We are not talking about 'essential goods', we are talking about web hosting for the Syrian government.

Yeah, and? If sanctions against essential goods rarely work, why do you think sanctions against non-essential goods will work?

Re:Crimes against humanity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38142204)

We are not talking about 'essential goods', we are talking about web hosting for the Syrian government.

Yeah, and? If sanctions against essential goods rarely work, why do you think sanctions against non-essential goods will work?

By ignoring the sanctions, you are making their life a little less difficult.

Back in the real world, 'sanctions' normally have two results:

1. They make the leaders rich as they control the supply of essential goods to the population.
2. They make the population hate the 'sanctioners' more than they hate their government.

So, sanctioning essential goods hurts the general population and empowers those behaving unacceptably in the first place.

However, sanctioning luxury items available and helpful to only the people behaving unacceptably (communications with outside) is less effective.

I would agree that this is closer to censorship than is acceptable, so I do not get excited about the breaking of the sanction, but yours is a flawed enough argument I cannot accept it though it supports my position.

Re:Crimes against humanity (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140230)

Now imagine they hire a lawyer who convinces the world that they are the victims here. That they are fine, upstanding citizens who would never do anything remotely like what they're accused of. That obviously it's all a conspiracy instituted by the the guy they got into a fight with during college. And imagine that somehow the world believes them and they go out and do it again a week later. Did the lawyer assist them in robbery and capital murder? Well, legally no. But ethically many would argue yes.

Re:Crimes against humanity (2)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140368)

Did Ford know they were selling the car to a bunch of murderers? If so, then I'd say they're morally, if not legally, responsible. But of course, Ford wouldn't know that because no crime had yet been committed and there was no evidence crimes would be committed in the future.

In the case of Syria, everyone with more than a childlike understanding of the outside world knows that they have been committing and continue to commit crimes against humanity. In an effort to get them to stop, the governments of the world have said "we won't do business with you until you cut it out". Someone who knows this and chooses to do business with them anyway is tacitly condoning their actions.

Re:Crimes against humanity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38142696)

Did Ford know they were robbing banks, and told not to sell F150s to them?

Where are the Saudi Arabia sanctions? (4, Informative)

br00tus (528477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140200)

Protests have been happening in Saudi Arabia, although I would barely know watching the corporate media in the US. In Qatif, the police open fired on the demonstrators - they have been in fact, slaughtering people there continually. The Saudi police have killed organizers of protests like Abdul-Ahad. Where are the calls for sanctions on Saudi Arabia in the West?

Politicians keep saying there is a threat from radical Islam. Of course, Osama bin Laden, the mujahideen and nascent al Qaeda and Taliban were radical Islamists back when the USA was backing them to overthrow the secular Afghani government. Even before the Russians got involved. Israel complains about Hamas, but Israel used to secretly fund Hamas, as a bulwark against the PLO. And what about support for Saudi Arabia, probably more out there than Iran in terms of Islamic fundamentalism?

If we look at history over the years, up to this very day without change, the west from the 1970s has always backed fundamentalist Islamists, and fought to overthrow secular regimes, of the Nasserite type - secular, with pan-Arab aspirations, talk of sovereignty from western powers and a vaguely socialist platforms, at least back when the Warsaw Pact was around. What governments has the west become involved since 9/11? Iraq, Libya and now Syria - all secular countries. Iraq has gone from a secular country, to one that with US troops on the ground has had its constitution changed to say its Islamic.

The truth is that people like Osama bin Laden were radical Islamists who the US built up and created, and never cared about his terrorists acts against the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. They in fact, funded them - flag-wavers like Sylvester Stallone made movies lionizing the Islamic radicals. Secular, pan-Arab followers of Nasser like Qadaffi, Saddam Hussein etc. who were concerned with sovereignty have been the main targets and enemies. We can see what the US has done in Afghanistan to secular regimes, in Iraq which is now Islamic according to its constitution etc. The Saudi government is built up. Yet we are told we have to fear the radical Islamists, although that has been who the US has been supporting up to this day against the secular rulers who want sovereignty.

Re:Where are the Saudi Arabia sanctions? (1)

ameen.ross (2498000) | more than 2 years ago | (#38146794)

And what about support for Saudi Arabia, probably more out there than Iran in terms of Islamic fundamentalism?

Iraq has gone from a secular country, to one that with US troops on the ground has had its constitution changed to say its Islamic.

How Islamic is "Islamic"? Are you talking about the outward appearance? Saudi Arabia allowed the USA to have military bases in it's country, something which is strictly forbidden in Islam, although some scholars bought into the war propaganda and made an exception. Recently, the Saudi king has allowed women in congress, something else which is prohibited. Or how about the discrimination of foreigners who'd like to settle in the country? I can go on and on about Saudi Arabia.
As for Iran, I'm surprised hardly anybody knows that the majority of the population of Iran are Twelver Shiites, whose Imami doctrine is significantly different from Sunni doctrine. These Twelvers consider Sunnis disbelievers and vice versa. They can therefore hardly be called "Islamic", as these Twelvers represent a minority of ~10% of all Muslims.
Ever heard about the Shiite death squads in Iraq, killing "suspicious" sunni youngsters, but even women and children? And these murderers have since become police officers?? LMGTFY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_squad#Iraq [wikipedia.org]

If we look at history over the years, up to this very day without change, the west from the 1970s has always backed fundamentalist Islamists, and fought to overthrow secular regimes,

Are you serious? Are you saying that the US in Afghanistan is drinking shai with the Taliban? Or what about Saddam Hussein, whose regime had been outwardly communist, but who slowly grew attached to his religion?

flag-wavers like Sylvester Stallone made movies lionizing the Islamic radicals.

You're joking, right? The amount of films demonizing Muslims as a whole dwarfs the amount of films "lionizing" them. And don't forget that this "lionizing" is in the context of the US' proxy was against Russia.

The Saudi government is built up. Yet we are told we have to fear the radical Islamists

Now you're starting to make some sense. Many of the oppressive Mid-East governments were actually instated and subsequently supported by the West! But why would they support these, many of which were/are dictators? I think I know why...

Fuck sanctions. (1, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140260)

"sanctions" now, and then "humanitarian intervention" later to bomb and install an american friendly islamist regime like in libya ? ironic that the SAME muslim brotherhood organization, which was behind the 'revolution' in libya, is also behind the one in syria. the same overarching organization. aaah, they are also the same muslim brotherhood which called for a sharia government in egypt, but thankfully, they were not in majority or power there after the revolution they effected.

Re:Fuck sanctions. (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140278)

I've never understood why America is working so hard to install Islamic governments throughout the Middle East either. I can only presume it's so they can immanentize the eschaton so the Christian nutters will be raptured away.

Re:Fuck sanctions. (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140390)

islamicization and then ruling of the masses in middle east through sheiks + dynasties works, and it is a policy that is being practiced since 19th century, when british first did it.

Re:Fuck sanctions. (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140396)

Well, obviously it's because Obama is a Muslim! It all makes sense now.

/joke (since slashdot seems to need it)

+5 Insightful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141592)

What joke? He IS a Mohammedan wolf in sheep's clothing. Actions speak louder than words, and his actions all point to the fact that he's trying to bring back the caliphate. Where's Osama's body? He's alive and well, but Obama wants to protect him by making everyone think he's dead. What of Libya and the Muslim Brotherhood? Obama was the one who instigated action against Qadafi, but convinced the Europeans to be the public face of their military action. When you start connecting the dots, the picture is obvious.

But they are not hosting copyrighted content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38140502)

So its OK.

US Should spend money on education instead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38144386)

I think US should spend its money on educating the 99.99% ignorant citizens, but hey it's easy to keep em dumb to consume and declare war in name of freedom. After seeing Libya all I can say is, fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...