×

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

1859 comments

That's a good boy... (2, Insightful)

Cytlid (95255) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543223)

...Johnny, and remember if those mean boys on the playground even think of taking your Tonka trucks, make sure to kill them first!

_Great_ analogy </sarcasm> (0, Troll)

XanC (644172) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543284)

If a small group of evil men want to kill Johnny and his family and destroy his country and his way of life, then yes, maybe he should see about stopping them ahead of time.

Re:_Great_ analogy (5, Insightful)

st0rmshad0w (412661) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543338)

By destroying the entire city the small group of evil men may or may not be in? What a winning strategy.

Pre-emptive? (0, Troll)

Deltaspectre (796409) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543225)

Crimey, let's just nuke them already so we don't have to worry about the fallout later on...

Re:Pre-emptive? (1)

wass (72082) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543314)

"Nuke them over there so we don't have to deal with the fallout over here."</sarcasm>

Mutual? (1, Interesting)

fuentes (711192) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543226)

"Mutual"? Who has the means anymore, besides the U.S.?

Re:Mutual? (5, Informative)

cybercomm (557435) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543273)

There are at leat 19-20 countries with some kind of nuclear program, of which at least 6-8 have a full long-range nuclear capability. Wiki [wikipedia.org] Has some interesting information on that one. Just because USSR is gone doesnt mean that all their tech has dropped off the face of the earth.

Uh? (2, Informative)

bluesoul88 (609555) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543282)

North Korea at the very least? Lots of places, sheesh. And there are a lot of old Soviet scientist with nothing in their wallets but nuclear warhead schematics. Come on, open your eyes a little bit.

Re:Uh? (3, Insightful)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543401)

North Korea at the very least? Lots of places, sheesh. And there are a lot of old Soviet scientist with nothing in their wallets but nuclear warhead schematics. Come on, open your eyes a little bit.

Opening your eyes and actually using them instead of mindlessly repeating the garbage that some war happy people in the White House are telling you might be a really good idea indeed.

In short, North Korea might have the capability to launch one or two nukes directly at the USA (actually they don't, but lets just assume they do, they probably do have the nukes for it), but is far from assured destruction of the USA. Don't come with the theory that that is only a matter of time, North Korea does not have access to the resources to come anywhere near.

Re:Mutual? (0, Redundant)

guyjr (180613) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543285)

China, France, the UK, probably North Korea, Israel, and what's left of the former USSR. (that we know of).

Re:Mutual? (1)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543296)

Apparently, no-one [wikipedia.org] ... there's a section.. Although it has no bearing on my original submission, I suppose it would have been nice to give a link.

Re:Mutual? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543305)

Russia also has twice the amount of nukes that the USA does.

such ignorance... *sigh* (2, Insightful)

everphilski (877346) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543333)

The biggest threat is the fact that the soviets had/have (may still?) sell weapons to other countries so long as the price is right. On top of that, many soviet scientist could be bought for a price.

That's the reason NASA can't pay Russia to launch more Soyuz's to station to compensate for grounded shuttles, the nonproliferation laws state that the US can't exchange money for services to countries that supply arms to our enemies...

-everphilski-

Re:Mutual? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543337)

Um, how about Russia, China, France, UK, India, Pakistan and possibly North Korea. Take a look at the numbers [wikipedia.org] . Plus, plenty of others have the capabilities. If I'm wrong, let me know.

Regardless of who launches and who dissipates into the radioactive ether, any nuclear strike (pre-emptive or not) will have it's effects on us, even if we aren't hit directly. Politically, economically, socially , etc.

Yeah, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543227)

if we're NEVER going to use it, how can we mean business?

Re:Yeah, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543243)

it's supposed to be a response to someone else's attack. Deterrant, dipshit.

Good-bye... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543232)

I'll be moving to Canada.

Oh, wait, that probably isn't far enough. How much is a space vacation now? $20 Mil?

Bad idea (5, Insightful)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543233)

Let me be the first to say that I think this is a really terrible idea.
The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
They've haven't been very accurate in the past about who has stockpiles of weapons.

Well, then, isn't it a good idea? (5, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543293)

No nasty reporters or critics can disprove any of the administration's claims for the next hundred million years, if the area's one gigantic radioactive wasteland.


(Me? Cynical?)

Re:Well, then, isn't it a good idea? (1)

Velox_SwiftFox (57902) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543344)

OTOH, biological weapons have the potential to cause more deaths than a nuclear war would. If not as many broken windows.

Re:Bad idea (1)

T(V)oney (736966) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543309)

Bad idea indeed.

Aren't there treaties [wikipedia.org] that are supposed to prevent this sort of thing from happening? I understand that it hasn't been ratified, but as supporters of CTBT, I think we should at least make an attempt to honor it.

Re:Bad idea (1, Insightful)

SetupWeasel (54062) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543368)

We were supporters of the Geneva treaties until a certain group of psychos decided they didn't want to follow them.

Honor does not exist in this country, does it?

Re:Bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543312)

Especially when they hit the red cross building, TWICE.

Re:Bad idea (1)

bluesoul88 (609555) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543360)

Feel free to file a complaint. Seriously, we as a people don't seem to have much of an impact on this decision making process. At least with Iraq (which was of course inferred) we got off our high horse after a while; we stopped pretending they were a threat and adopted an oil-for-food program. Damn, pretty blunt to me. And we wonder why there are "pockets of resistance" scattered throughout the region.

Re:Bad idea (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543362)

you know, I think I saw some shifty looking Arab type (they all look the same, and are evildoers, arent they?) hanging around Crawford and Cheney's new multi-million dollar house. I recommend we pre-emptively nuke those two sites, just in case. I think I even saw some WMD around there! I have satellitely photos proving all this!

Pre-emptive strikes... (4, Interesting)

Manchot (847225) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543239)

Yes, because pre-emptive strikes have worked so well in this country before. Oh, wait a minute...

Re:Pre-emptive strikes... (2, Insightful)

guyjr (180613) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543316)

Exactly... And I know that people here are probably just a weeeeee bit biased against conservatives, but jeez... at least Reagan got this point right: make them _think_ you're crazy enough to use the bomb, without actually _saying_ you're going to use it (well, hehe, except for that one little slip where he said in a live press conference, "We're launching the missiles in 15 minutes"). Mutually Assured Destruction only works if _neither_ side decides to actually use the g*d@mn weapons.

Can we start the civil war yet? Please? Pretty please?

Ugh.

Mutual? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543245)

The whole point of First Strike is so that it won't be mutual. We nuke them before they know what hit 'em. I say, go for it. One Nuclear Mailman on Mecca would solve a lot of problems.

Re:Mutual? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543378)


Why stop at one? One ICBM has 6-10 MIRVs, so make a nice patern of destruction. Hell, give em 2-3 ICBMs to be sure.

Interesting Thing about This... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543250)

Is that slashdot is a pathetic imitation of itself. Anybody who is anybody knows that Digg is the new slashdot, and slashdot is the new Ryan Leaf

Typical American bullying. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543252)

How typical, this country which "preaches" tolerance and peace to the world, never ceases to amaze me. Talk about hypocritical. How typical of the US.

So we could have avoided... (2, Funny)

e4g4 (533831) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543253)

....this whole Iraq mess in the first place by nuking them all? After all they "did" have weapons of mass destruction and intended to use them, right?

Re:So we could have avoided... (1)

e4g4 (533831) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543342)

Clearly the modder didn't see my tongue firmly embedded in my cheek. Troll? Sheesh.

And in other news... (4, Insightful)

Rob Carr (780861) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543257)

...scientists today believe they have finally solved the Fermi paradox. "Where are the aliens? Dead, all dead, in piles of radioactive rubble."

I believe you meant... (5, Funny)

bluesoul88 (609555) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543260)

A preemptive nukular strike, sir.

Re:I believe you meant... (1)

joe_bruin (266648) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543336)

You kid, but I'm currently working with the ATI/Nucleus operating system, and have heard colleagues in Texas refer to is as the "Nuculous" OS. ARGH, it annoys me to no end. Actually what annoys me is that I have to be professional and I can't give them shit about it.

Kids, just because the president does it doesn't make it right. Say no to nucular proliferation.

Re:I believe you meant... (1)

bluesoul88 (609555) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543405)

Sounds like you need to wear this shirt [t-shirthumor.com] to work one day. You know, because you don't really need that job, right? You don't have to put up with that shit.

Re:I believe you meant... (1)

AnonymousCactus (810364) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543357)

You're making fun of someone's accent, not their intelligence. I grew up in a rural part of the Midwest. Everyone around me said "nukular" and so I did as well, not thinking a thing about it until some jack@ss decided to make fun of me. I'm pretty smart, went to an Ivy League school and on the verge of getting my PhD.

Don't make fun of people because of where they're from - it's not nice.

Yippee kayay! (0, Troll)

jmcmunn (307798) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543261)


Why should we worry? It's not like we have a hair-trigger cowboy with his finger on the button...

This is so bad. Seriously, next time N. Korea decides to toy with us diplomatically we have more to worry about than negotiations breaking down. Next time W. says someone has WMD's, we could have him launching nukes?

Why not? (1)

Chordonblue (585047) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543304)

You think the wacko in charge of that nation gives a shit about doing it to us? Watch the BBC special on N. Korea and you'll understand that the ruling class of that country has less compassion than those in Orwell's '1984' (and they seemed to have borrowed a lot of tactics from him as well).

Seriously, N. Korea is a cancer and a WORLD security problem.

Re:Yippee kayay! (5, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543354)

Yes.


Furthermore, if North Korea had any legitimate reason to be concerned about America's intentions before (well, Iraq probably didn't help), they're certainly going to be paranoid out of their tiny little minds now. The further we go down this path, the less North Korea is going to believe it has to lose by launching a pre-emptive strike of their own, to pre-empt the American pre-emptive strike.


If you assume Iran actually meant what it said about their own nuclear technology being for peaceful purposes, you can be absolutely rest-assured they'll have no intention of sticking to that now. The only hope Iran has of NOT being nuked is to be in a position of nuking the USA.


All in all, this is a bad day for the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but one hell of a siesta for the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

If we all get blown up... (1)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543266)

I want to be near Ally Sheedy when it happens. It may not be the best way to go, but it ranks up there!

Oh deah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543267)

Captain, the hypocrometer is going through the roof!

The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using "or intending to use WMD" against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.

Ah yes, because the People In Charge have been so very accurate about this in the past. This is a GREAT idea! I TRUST MY PWESIDENT COMPLETELY.

And who has the authority to adopt this policy? (5, Insightful)

Eric Smith (4379) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543268)

I don't see how they think they have the authority to let the president authorize a first strike. The power to declare war belongs to the Congress, not the president, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 limits the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of the Congress.

Of course, since W's administration doesn't seem to think the Constitution is worth the paper it's printed on, this won't stop them.

And Congress doesn't seem to hold it in any higher regard these days. The Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war, not the power to issue an "authorization of force".

Re:And who has the authority to adopt this policy? (1)

Black-Man (198831) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543341)

Was there war declared in Panama? Was war declared in Grenada? NO.

Re:And who has the authority to adopt this policy? (4, Informative)

Quarters (18322) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543374)

Panama and Grenada both fell under the Monroe Doctrine and the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act was adhered to much more strictly than it was for Iraq. Both Grenada and Panama were over and done with in less than sixty days, which is the time frame granted to the President under the WPA.

Re:And who has the authority to adopt this policy? (4, Insightful)

gatzke (2977) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543406)

A good nuking could be over in less than 60 minutes (subs offshore). I assume the War Powers Act should let W do what he wants withing reason, no asking permission.

Re:And who has the authority to adopt this policy? (5, Informative)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543393)

You misunderstand what the law says. The Constitution says the President is Command in Chief of the United States armed forces. That power was more-or-less unrestricted until 1973, when the Post-Vietnam Congress passed the War Powers Resolution. That act says that the president cannot deploy the US military in the field for more than 100(?) days without congressional authorization. However, in this case (e.g, a pre-emptive strike) it has no bearing. The president is free under the law to do it, provided that he get congressional authorization within 100 days or withdraw the troops.

Let me be the first on Slashdot to say... (1)

notestein (445412) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543269)

I think this is a good idea.

Now congress needs to get off its ass and fund more nuclear weapons research, specifically, the neutron bomb, theater nukes, and the earth penetrating.

Re:Let me be the first to say I'm a moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543369)

While we're at it, we should spend another trillion or few on space-based neutron beams, nucular suppression fields, and of course don't forget to build an underground city well-stocked with a high ratio of (beautiful) women to men!

Empty the Cities (0, Offtopic)

Baldrson (78598) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543270)

This is a theme covered in a work-in-progress titled Postcivil Society: Empty the Cities [kuro5hin.org] :

New Orleans may be rebuilt but there are good reasons to continue the trend and empty the cities. A pandemic in the coming weeks may make this all too obvious. Information technology has largely changed the neolithic basis of civilization and additional innovations will usher in a postcivil era of much richer human choice and sustainability. Postcivil society is coming. The transition will be rough. Empty the cities now to minimize human suffering during the transition...

Preemptive Impeachment (5, Insightful)

IcerLeaf (586564) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543278)

I vote for a preemtpive impeachment before the man in charge of the button can do anything dumb.

Err... anything else dumb.

What's that? We had that opportunity? November 2004, you say? Oops.

Misleading summary (5, Informative)

Infinity Salad (657619) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543279)

Did the submitter actually read the story?

The president already has the authority to launch a pre-emptive strike.* What the article is about is a new policy statement by the US (i.e. an international "FYI") about when the president will haul off and nuke something

*This, like the policy discussed in the article, depends on the situation being one where the President doesn't have to wait for Congress to declare war.

Once upon a time... (2, Interesting)

keraneuology (760918) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543280)

Once upon a time the US Army developed an atomic artillery shell that could be fired from your standard 155mm Howitzer. I have heard rumors that authority to use atomic shells was (to be) vested in field commanders, possibly as low as the regiment level.

Pre-emption a severe move with these weapons (5, Insightful)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543289)

The arguments for pre-empting action can be made long and hard, but in the case of nuclear weapons it just seems like a bad decision. The sheer destruction of these payloads, and devastating after effects they cause are not something that (in my opinion) be used without fully justified action. There's literally just too much at stake for the world community as a whole.

George W Bush (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543291)

George W Bush reminds me of the thug who was going to become President in "The Dead Zone"!

Nuclear War Doctrine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543299)

Actually... we have gone from MAD ( Mutually
    Assured Destruction ) to
    INSANE ( INStant ANhilation Everytime )

Canada (1)

G-LOC (742078) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543306)

It may be boring but hey no hates the Canadians, well except the French-Canadians, everyone hates them. Even the French. Still, if we WMD someone, I'm moving. Anywhere. Deepest darkest Africa sounds great.

And we should feel safer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543310)

Money can buy one anything from a hooker, to bozooka. but if that dont help. Money can also buy one a thermal nuclear device!!! Mutualy assured destruction will allways be a threat so long as we continue on to use money and out-play each other with greed as a direct result of money!!!
 


Now seen as how we use money we cant possible be living in democracy. We live in facism cause facism is corporatism, imperialisam and militarisam.
 


Untill that changes and people seaize to be slaves for the few. WE ARE FUCKED!!!

World is a dangerous place (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543317)


Liberal Pussies http://www.naturalstrength.com/pics/Pilots.jpg [naturalstrength.com]

Iraq is no longer a threat to mainland America. It is terrible that soldiers had to die, but Iraq was a nexus of terrorist activities. A democracy in the middle east is a good thing.

And they did find WMDs in Iraq, (google news for cyclo serin) just not large stockpiles. And the stockpiles probably got moved to syria or Iran.

More nuking, less talking. N. Korea needs to know that we are every bit as nuts as they are, maybe moreso.

Doesn't anybody read the news??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543319)

China threatened us with nuclear attack if we tried to stop them from taking over Taiwan. I know it was a low level general that said it but that's how the Chinese do things. And having lived in China I have no doubt that they would do it.

Times have changed (0)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543320)

Due to the hard-lined quotes from N. Korea about also being reserved the right to "First strike", and the obstinate Iran, this really should come to no surprise. What the announcement does is officially flex our muscle to the rest of the world along these lines of "Do NOT even fuck with us".

So to Iran and N. Korea, you better not be playing games. Nuclear proliferation will never be tolerated. If you sell those bombs on the black market, expect your nuclear reprocessing plants to be obliterated. And if you're lucky, we will spare your regime too.

Re:Times have changed (4, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543385)

Uhhm, we didn't do this with the soviets when they had enough firepower aimed at us to level the world 3 times over.

We also have a system in place to respond in kind to wmd attack within 3 minutes with all out world-killing force.

the idea of "preemptive nuclear strike" is not just radical, it's insane.

Re:Times have changed (1)

bluesoul88 (609555) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543386)

"Nuclear proliferation will never be tolerated. If you sell those bombs on the black market, expect your nuclear reprocessing plants to be obliterated. And if you're lucky, we will spare your regime too."

And should you tell this to a regime that has nothing left to lose..?

Re:Times have changed (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543410)

Also.. precisely what about a single nuclear reprocessing plant requires a NUCLEAR STRIKE to destroy? don't we have about 2 quadrillion variants of cruise missile to handle that kind of thing. Oh my god!! a fly!! *whips out grenades and starts lobbing*

You think this is some sort of game?! (5, Insightful)

codergeek42 (792304) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543323)

Remind me again how having stupid people be in charge of weapons that could potentially destroy us all is something to laugh at?! GAAH...

History (5, Insightful)

TheCarlMau (850437) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543349)

This is one of those things that history classes 100 years from now will look back upon and someone will ask: "Why would they ever give the president so much power?" :-)

Re:History (4, Insightful)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543370)

... as they dash from shelter to shelter to retrieve the charred scraps of their history texts and get to the canteen before the Mutant Bullies beat them up.

We would have nuked Iraq. (2, Insightful)

neo (4625) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543353)

"The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using "or intending to use WMD" against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations."

GW was sure they had WMDs.

How About a Nice Game of Global Thermonuclear War? (1)

tiny69 (34486) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543355)

With China making recent threats of using nuclear weapons during a confrontation over Taiwan, this could get a little scary. Cold War II?

Here comes WW III.... (1)

rubberbando (784342) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543359)

I fear for we are Babylon and we (the U.S.)shall be the villians of this upcoming world war whether we the people want it or not.

Republican obsession with the Nuclear Option (5, Funny)

NetSettler (460623) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543365)

Is this really necessary? Can't we just threaten to place our enemies under the protection of FEMA? That seems to achieve the mass casualty effect just fine, and yet the environmental mess it creates will only take a few decades to clear...

A WEAPON UNUSED IS A USELESS WEAPON (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543380)

Send in the GLG20s.

it was already here (1)

Peter La Casse (3992) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543382)

The means for mutual assured destruction was already here. This new doctrine doesn't cause it to magically appear out of nowhere.

I'm not a big fan of MAD. It's fundamentally immoral to threaten to kill everybody. If it were possible for a first strike attack to be "successful", then a first strike doctrine might be morally superior to a MAD doctrine. Those are some big "if"s, of course, and obviously people will disagree about what constitutes "success", but it seems plausible that the current administration might believe that it has the ability to make what it considers to be a successful first strike attack.

To some people, the lesson of 9/11 is that ignoring international enemies doesn't cause them to go away, so you need to get them before they get you. The administration already has a "first strike" doctrine for the use of conventional military forces against perceived enemies, so it's only logical that they'd extend their doctrine to the use of nonconventional forces as well.

Uh, this is NOT a good idea (1)

Eric(b0mb)Dennis (629047) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543394)

So, we give the authority to launch a nuclear strike (possibly starting the end of the world) preemptively to the president... no voice from the people, et al.

I mean, nuclear weapons have worked FINE as a deterrant, but I don't think others are goign to go along with the..

"Do as we say or we'll nuke you back to the stone age" philosophy

anti-american sentiment will rise... how does a policy that seems so illogical (Use a nuke... a huge huge huge bomb, to preemtively strike someone) get through?

Just to spread the feelings worldwide (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13543397)

Awesome, use the guise of the proliferation of weapons to further the proliferation of hatred for the PEOPLE of your country...I can hear 2 words echoing on the wind across the planet even louder tonight...

FUCK america

Bush with a Nuke ? (1, Troll)

speedlaw (878924) | more than 8 years ago | (#13543409)

This is very scary. Bush and company have already shown how to botch a terrorist capture, attack a totally unrelated country, allowing an islamist theocracy to erupt, and sleep in while a major city is flattened by nature. Hell, doing something stupid with a nuke is about all that's left on the "to do" list. This group has already proven beyond a doubt they don't have what it takes to handle this sort of responsiblity.
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...