Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Revolution, Flashmobs and Brain Implants in 2035

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the some-a-lot-sooner-than-others dept.

Sci-Fi 327

siddesu writes "Marxist revolution, WMDs, flashmobs and other sci-fi items are coming soon in a country near you, according to the UK Ministry of Defence. 'Information chips implanted in the brain. Electromagnetic pulse weapons. The middle classes becoming revolutionary, taking on the role of Marx's proletariat. The population of countries in the Middle East increasing by 132%, while Europe's drops as fertility falls. "Flashmobs" — groups rapidly mobilised by criminal gangs or terrorists groups. This is the world in 30 years' time envisaged by a Ministry of Defence team responsible for painting a picture of the "future strategic context" likely to face Britain's armed forces.'"

cancel ×

327 comments

Thay read too much bad science-fiction (4, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662267)

Or watched too much television or other media ''predictions''. This strikes me on par with the typical predictions made 30 years ago. Allmost none of them have come to pass.

Bottom line: These people should be liable for wasting taxpayer money.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction (3, Insightful)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662291)

Or perhaps it's because people like this wargame worst-case scenarios that such have been avoided for the most part?

William

Not such a worst case (3, Funny)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662807)

Well at least the EMP will take out the brain implants, solving one problem.

The problems with "probability" in this case... (3, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662421)

They have absolutely NOTHING to base these predictions upon. Probability is based upon either analysis of the possible options (how many cards in the deck) or analysis of past events with similar features (45% chance of rain tomorrow).

The events they're commenting upon have not happened in the past (45% chance of rain) and are just one possible option of an effectively unlimited number of options (how many cards in the deck). And many of them seem self-contradictory.

An increased trend towards moral relativism and pragmatic values will encourage people to seek the "sanctuary provided by more rigid belief systems, including religious orthodoxy and doctrinaire political ideologies, such as popularism and Marxism".

So we see more extremism. But ...

Iran will steadily grow in economic and demographic strength and its energy reserves and geographic location will give it substantial strategic leverage. However, its government could be transformed. "From the middle of the period," says the report, "the country, especially its high proportion of younger people, will want to benefit from increased access to globalisation and diversity, and it may be that Iran progressively, but unevenly, transforms...into a vibrant democracy."

So the democracies become extremists and the extremists become democracies.

What the fuck ... ?

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction (3, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662531)

Where's the prediction of people flying cars into parking structures?

Middle-class (2, Insightful)

frisket (149522) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662667)

Almost none of them have come to pass.

You fuck with the middle classes at your peril. A large, prosperous middle-class is the best guarantee of social stability -- unfortunately in the past it has accompanied appalling treatment of classes below, and neglect of the classes above.

If you can somehow engineer middle-class contentment along with opportunity and encouragement for those less fortunate, and keep the rich or aristocratic in their place at the same time as letting them use their wealth, you'll have solved it. But somehow I don't see either a surveillance UK or a fundamentalist USA as the places for this Brave New World to arise.

Re:Middle-class (4, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663359)

You fuck with the middle classes at your peril. A large, prosperous middle-class is the best guarantee of social stability -- unfortunately in the past it has accompanied appalling treatment of classes below, and neglect of the classes above.

If you can somehow engineer middle-class contentment along with opportunity and encouragement for those less fortunate, and keep the rich or aristocratic in their place at the same time as letting them use their wealth, you'll have solved it. But somehow I don't see either a surveillance UK or a fundamentalist USA as the places for this Brave New World to arise.


We have such a world now in the US. It's called the public school system. The rich can afford to send their kids to private schools, where discipline is enforced and kids are motivated, almost guaranteeing entry into college, which they can also afford. All the kid has to do is put forth the slightest effort.
Meanwhile, public schools suck. There is no discipline and if a kid falls behind, they get left there. The kids that "get it" have to sit there and wait while the teacher has to explain it over and over to the kids that don't understand or don't care. Teachers have no choice but to teach to the lowest common denominator in every class, ensuring the entire class learns at the pace of the slowest minds. Granted, if a students wants it bad enough, he or she can learn. They do more than is required of the class and learn all the material before the class is even held. For these kids, the class itself is a waste of time, but they still have to be there. These kids graduate high in their class and score well enough on standardized tests to get admitted to college on scholarship or loans. This is where the middle/lower class opportunity comes in. It's rare, but it happens and it allows for poor kids to climb out of their "class".

Of course, you have the occasional entrepreneur that makes it as well, but even Gates dropped out of Harvard. Not a whole lot of community college drop-outs make it to the billionaire club.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662805)

Or watched too much television or other media ''predictions''. This strikes me on par with the typical predictions made 30 years ago. Allmost none of them have come to pass.

Actually, the increase of population in the middle east isn't much of a prediction, and the depopulation of europe in general isn't a 'prediction', it's pretty much fact barring genocide, or something of that nature. Demographics is destiny, and europe is dying. The US would be the same way if it weren't for immigration.

Many of the first world countries have population implosions coming their way, which will be much more destructive than the 'population bomb' that was predicted in the 70's and harder to fix.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction (3, Insightful)

arcite (661011) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662967)

I would wager that most predictions from good sci-fi from the past 30 years HAVE come true...short of the ones where we are all living in space.

Frankly, I would be less worried about social unrest, insurgents, ect... and more worried about consequences of global warming, freakish weather (flood, drought), and the threat of a world wide disease pandemic...or epidemic. The world is overdue for a real superbug.

No need to dream up high-tech threats when it will most likely be the low

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction (1)

TodMinuit (1026042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663537)

This strikes me on par with the typical predictions made 30 years ago. Allmost none of them have come to pass.

Can someone dig up those predictions, compile a list, and publish it on their blog? I'd really like to see how many predictions from 10, 20, 30, and 50 years ago have come true.

Population in middle east increasing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662287)

pssseesssseeeeessseeeessssssseeseeeeeseooowwwww

KABOOOOOOOM!

Problem solved.

Isnt the world going to run out of oil any day now, though? When that happens, what threat would the middle east be? They have absolutely nothing else.

Re:Population in middle east increasing? (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662323)

Dubai is building itself up as a major economic and tourism hub. Even if oil's gone, much of the world would still do its banking and resort holidays there.

Human Trafficking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662409)

There's a lot of Human Trafficking there, too.

And this is why we need Trident? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662297)

So Britain's answer is to spend more money on nukes? I'm no hippy, but I think some innovation is needed here by the folks at the MoD

This is a Dup from 1986 (2, Informative)

prgrmr (568806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662307)

Re:This is a Dup from 1986 (1)

Floritard (1058660) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662535)

William Gibson wrote Johnny Mneumonic?! Is the book better than the movie?

Re:This is a Dup from 1986 (1)

prgrmr (568806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662655)

It's a short story that's part of his Sprawl Triology. It's been too long since I've read it to remember the differences, I'll have to see if it's in one of the issues of Omni I still have around somewhere and reread it. I'm actually in the middle of reading Count Zero, and just going by Gibson's quality of writing, I'd say that the story almost has to be better than the movie.

Re:This is a Dup from 1986 (1)

PresidentEnder (849024) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662683)

Story, actually; it's not long enough to be a book by itself. Yes, it is better. Much, much, better.

Re:This is a Dup from 1986 (3, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662709)

William Gibson wrote Johnny Mneumonic?! Is the book better than the movie?
For starters, the book doesn't star Keanu Reeves. I leave that up to you as to whether that qualifies for an "Excellent!" or a "Whoah!".
 

Sigh... (5, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662327)

The middle classes becoming revolutionary, taking on the role of Marx's proletariat.
You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires.

The population of countries in the Middle East increasing by 132%
And the threat in 2035 will be from an unseen quarter.

Information chips implanted in the brain. Electromagnetic pulse weapons. ... Flashmobs" -- groups rapidly mobilised by criminal gangs or terrorists groups.
At least they've kept up on their pop reading.

Re:Sigh... (2, Funny)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662403)

You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires.

Yeah. One trick is to nationalize all the businesses and turn them over to the lowest-level workers at those businesses. That'll stave off those Marxist revolutionaries!

Re:Sigh... (2, Insightful)

kubrick (27291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662569)

You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires.

Name one state that has ever worked that way.

Re:Sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662797)

Most of northern Europe.

Teach the Failures of Marxism, Get Rid of Envy (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662645)

That will reduce the amount of Marxists running around.

Re:Sigh... (1, Insightful)

Corbets (169101) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662687)

You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires.
Anyone who believes that, unfortunately, has their head up their ass. You simply can't please everyone. Even if you try to please the majority, you'll have a vocal - and dangerous - minority attempting to subvert the system.

I'm not defending any particular system of government, but simply saying that this "running the country for the benefit of the people in general" that you envision is impossible.

Re:Sigh... (1)

WindowlessView (703773) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663091)

"people in general" != "everyone"

just as

"common good" != "always good for me"

Re:Sigh... (1, Insightful)

mstahl (701501) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662841)

You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires.

That's one of the single best things that any country could do to prevent long-term instability and internal conflict, but politicians (at least here in the US) typically work for short-term benefit—usually their own short-term benefit.

You can actually extend that concept to the entire world. The income and quality-of-life disparity between, say, the US and Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq/etc. is enormous. Someone needs to tell Bush that they don't hate us because they hate freedom, a growing number of them hate us because they want a piece of the pie.

That's the $64,000 question, though. (5, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663099)

You can actually extend that concept to the entire world. The income and quality-of-life disparity between, say, the US and Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq/etc. is enormous. Someone needs to tell Bush that they don't hate us because they hate freedom, a growing number of them hate us because they want a piece of the pie.

This, I think, is the crux of the disagreement. On one hand, you have people -- usually but not always social liberals -- claiming that the source of the world's problems are mostly economic, and that terrorists are produced by folks envious of our plasma TVs, SUVs, and 40-hour-workweeks.

On the other hand you have others -- usually but not always social conservatives -- claiming that the source of terrorism and related global instability is philosophical, religious, and dogmatic: e.g., what the terrorists hate isn't our conspicuously consumptive lifestyles per se, but really they hate the concept of a secular society in general, and really only hate McDonalds, etc., as a symptom of this essential problem.

I don't think the differences between these views can be overstated, because they lead to vastly different ways of visualizing and dealing with the threat of Islamic radicalism and terrorism generally. If the problem is economic imbalance, then you could theoretically correct it through trade and economic-aid programs. But if the problem is philosophical, then by fixing the wealth disparity, you're just enabling terrorism; giving people whose motivations are fundamentally opposed to secularism the means with which to really attack us.

I've seen little convincing evidence and lots of rhetoric on both sides. The fact that people like Bin Laden came from wealthy families, not poor ones, would seem to at least partially substantiate the theory that you can't just give radicals a house, a car, and a front lawn, and suddenly transform them into happy little proto-Americans.

I would much prefer to believe that the problem is economic rather than religious or philosophical, because that to me seems like a tractable problem. However, I'm not particularly upbeat on that being the case.

Re:Sigh... (0, Offtopic)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662873)

You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires.


I'm not sure that's quite right. Or at least it needs more precision. As conservatives like to point out, the level of physical well-being in western societies has reached a point where even most of the poor are better off than the middle class of a generation ago.

It's interesting to think what Marx would have thought if he had access to twenty first century science; his viewpoint is distinctly 19th C. But stripped of its utopianism, Marx has some interesting points about the tendency of power relationships to become exploitive and the stability of that situation when the powerful are completely dependent on the exploited.

The way the power inequalities between the super wealthy and the middle class could lead to stability would not be based on the powerful enjoying profits at the expense of the middle classes material well being. Wealth today after all is largely gotten and maintained by selling luxuries to the middle class. But it is also clear that the middle class is not happier than the middle class of a generation ago, despite being much more abundantly supplied with luxury goods.

I think there is a potential for revolutionary instability in the middle class, but it won't come from their being unshod, unhoused, or unfed. It will come from their feeling that their lives are not in control, and that that control lies more in than hands of others inimical to their interests. It will come from anxieties and the feeling of powerlessness.

Will my job be offshored? Can I ensure entry of my children into the middle class? If somebody gets sick in my family (supposing I am American), will I lose my job or be unable to change my job? Will I lose my house because interest rates drive my mortgage too high? Will my pension fund go bust because my employer borrowed from it?

Arguably, some of these problems are due to bad planning by Mr. Middle Class. You should have considered international labor competition when you chose your job. You should set money by for your kids education, and not worry if you can't afford a private university. If you're worried about losing your health insurance you should work for a company that is large enough to absorb the cost of illness. You should not buy more house than you could afford within the historical ranges of interest rates (or go fixed rate). You should not count on your pension for you retirement.

But whatever the strength or weaknesses of these arguments, if there is enough middle class insecurity is there, and if enough of the middle class feel that others, who have an exploitive interest, have more control in the outcomes of these anxieties than they do, then the middle class will become revolutionary. And despite having a lot more education than the workers of the early twentieth century, they won't be too picky about the intellectual pedigree of the revolutionary theory they follow.

In the end, that is what FDR style big government liberalism was about. FDR was an American aristocrat, the kind of blue blood who could have the King of England to dinner and feed him hot dogs without being the least bit anxious. His policies are basically "hair of the dog" socialism: not actual socialism, but an enlightened self interest in limiting the appeal of the whole socialism package.

What did you do, Ray? (5, Funny)

Azathfeld (725855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662341)

Information chips implanted in the brain. Electromagnetic pulse weapons. The middle classes becoming revolutionary, The population of countries in the Middle East increasing by 132%, "Flashmobs" Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!

...futurama ref? (1)

arcite (661011) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662673)

Classic

Re:...futurama ref? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662829)

Try again, but this time, clear your mind.

Re:...futurama ref? (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662875)

Nope. Ghostbusters.

Re:...futurama ref? (2, Funny)

painQuin (626852) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663553)

Modded: +1 for effort, -2 for failure

Hey, I can do that too. (4, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662345)

Well, let me quickly write a scenario for my boss. What will happen in 10 years if they dont immediately fund my division with an additional 3 million bucks and 22 new engineers. Can I say our customers will come to the corporate headquarters and sack and pillage it and carry away the fetching executive assistant the CFO has hired? Nah, wont work. Our management is not as dumb as the UK DoD.

V for Vendetta ... (3, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662351)

... was just a movie people.

Re:V for Vendetta ... (4, Funny)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662445)

No

It was also a comic book!

Marxist revolution (1)

AxemRed (755470) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662371)

Since when is Marxist revolution a sci-fi item?

Re:Marxist revolution (1, Flamebait)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662399)

The fiction is for anybody who thinks Marxism is actually a good thing. I don't know where the science part comes in.

Re:Marxist revolution (3, Funny)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662479)

The science part comes from social science. Where social is synonymous with not-a-real.

Re:Marxist revolution (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662553)

He had a few good ideas on the financial aspects. The socialpolitical aspects though... Makes me wonder if he was deaf, dumb and blind.

Two words are needed disproove the main keystone of the social idea that holds up the sociopolitical aspect of his theories...
Baroom Brawl

The working class does not inherantly get along, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to cut down on the recreational narcotics.

That being said, crises of overproduction, business taking as much money as they can get, and abusing the lower classes (read: less wealthy), who cannot fight back in an organized manner (which would be needed with large corporations), are quite valid points that he made.

Re:Marxist revolution (1)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662767)

I have doubts about the possibility of the production of a classless society, but the fact that the working class is "rough" is no refutation of Marxism. He explicitly argued that the working class is rough because it is an oppressed, alienated class - and seeing what is happening to English society when the sense of social alienation grows, I'd have to say that it's a fair call.

Seeing the way that the autonomous workshops organized in Catalonia during the Spanish Republic gives some credibility to the idea that a working class that has political power doesn't act like the working class that doesn't. (It still doesn't act like the bourgeois, though.)

Re:Marxist revolution (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662549)

Well, there has been much sci-fi written about how changing technology or the difficulties of human space colonization could make a Marxist revolution more likely or more succesfully. Probably the best example I could think of is Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy beginning with Red Mars [amazon.com] , where the author has the revolutionaries who seek to break free from Earth speak at length about how certain Communist concepts may be applicable to their situation.

One interesting speculation (5, Insightful)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662405)

in TFA is the following:

Tension between the Islamic world and the west will remain, and may increasingly be targeted at China "whose new-found materialism, economic vibrancy, and institutionalised atheism, will be an anathema to orthodox Islam".
This is really the most interesting bit of speculation in TFA (aside from the technological and scientific guesses, perhaps, but these are probably also the least credible, if the past is any indication). Indeed, the rise of China will eventually bring it into possible tension with Islam. If the US is a state of 'infidels', then China is far more so, from a fundamentalist Islam point of view. At least the US has some religion, allowing interfaith talks, in theory at least; China is something else completely.

Islamic fundamentalists currently fume against the shower of western culture entering their lands - TV, movies, etc., and the presence of US soldiers. Fairly soon they will face (or already face) a torrent of goods and products from China, which will surely bring with it some cultural impact. Perhaps this will not be of critical impact until Chinese soldiers are stationed outside of China, but that too may occur, as China becomes the main consumer of middle-eastern oil and other resources, prompting it to secure those resources, if only by token military presences in various locations.

Re:One interesting speculation (4, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662601)

Nah, Already chinese imports are flooding the Arab countries. But all China exports are material goods. Islam has no problem with the goods. Infact the Arabs have been taxing goods flowing through the Silk Raod via Samarkand deep into China, into Turkey for a long long time.

The problem Islam has with the West is that we export our culture. We impact their way of life and embolden the youth to question their authorities. For every suicide bomber you hear about in Iraq, some 5000 of his brothers are standing in line to get a visa to USA. China, OTOH, loves authoritarianism and knows how to placate the rulers so that it can continue to make money. So I dont expect any serious confrontation between China and Islam. Only if Islamists decide to attack China and try to take it over there will be a problem. And China will react with violence which the Islamists understand very well. Fundamentally there is no difference between Arab rulers and Chinese rulers. Both are authoritarian. Both control their masses with a mixture of ideology and ruthlessness.

Re:One interesting speculation (3, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663245)

Islam's problem is more that we export our influence to Muslim countries. Usually it has nothing to do with the countries being Muslim, and more to do with their location. Oil is a big example - many of the countries it's under are primarily Muslim in belief, so if we are interested in Oil, we seem to be interested in Islam and its followers. Couple that with the west's previous desire to make the middle east nothing but a colony (thanks Britain, France, and the US), and we have a history of us fucking with the middle east. No-one can expect anyone anywhere to behave or react rationally to such pressures, and many people may attribute the causes incorrectly - and it appears that the middle east is taking our "interest" in their oil as us wanting to fuck with them, just to fuck with them. Then throw in the cases of us fucking with non-middle-east Muslim countries (in Asia), and their paranoia increases. People who feel threatened, in any way, get insecure, and group together. It doesn't help that Islam has a notion of brotherhood between all Muslims in all countries (hard to believe when you look at Iraq, but it is the case for other Muslims not so severely threatened), which means any perceived "attack" on any Muslims in any country, by anyone, is an attack on ALL Muslims who feel fraternity with those "attacked" Muslims. I personally can't blame anyone for feeling insecure after their country has been plunged into chaos for reasons not explained, with motives that are rarely, if ever, altruistic in nature towards the indigenous population.

People are the same all over the world - when they get, or even feel, threatened as a people, they group together and fight back. It feels like the only thing to do - and it's not a purely Muslim trait. Northern Ireland saw Christian terrorists fighting each other, killing the shit out of innocent people, and each other. It's pressure, with no way to stop it peacefully, that causes terrorism, not one particular group of people.

I think the Chinese are smarter than that. (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662619)

If the US is a state of 'infidels', then China is far more so, from a fundamentalist Islam point of view.

Not really. Remember that religion is the excuse, not the reason. The reason is power.

There are only four paths to power:
#1. Political
#2. Economic
#3. Family/Tribal
#4. Religion

As long as there is flexibility in those, only the hard-core nut cases will become extremists. Once you start blocking access to any of them, you start creating more extremists.

Islamic fundamentalists currently fume against the shower of western culture entering their lands - TV, movies, etc., and the presence of US soldiers.

And look at that. The goods represent economic issues. The soldiers represent political issues (political power flows from the barrel of a gun). Crack those and the fundamentalists become just more street lunatics who don't bathe regularly.

Perhaps this will not be of critical impact until Chinese soldiers are stationed outside of China, but that too may occur, as China becomes the main consumer of middle-eastern oil and other resources, prompting it to secure those resources, if only by token military presences in various locations.

This is where I believe the Chinese will learn from our mistakes.

DO NOT make your presence visible in the volatile areas. Have them travel to see you.

DO NOT make your economic advantage visible in the volatile areas. Adopt their appearance.

Work with their family/tribal structures.

Keep your religious practices subdued. We have a big problem because of the Crusades. China doesn't have that issue.

Gotta go with Marx on this one (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662713)

I think the whole Islamic fundamentalist terrorism has little to do with religion and has everything to do with economics and power. Religion is just a cover for deeper issues.

I don't think the fact that China is a communist nation will make a bit of difference in generating the hostility . What will matter is that if China becomes powerful and influential in the Middle East, the average Mohammed will see China exerting its power, while the lives of his fellow countrymen aren't improving. Religion then becomes yet another justification for hostility and aggression directed towards someone else.

I think that religion is used in two ways as a justification for scapegoating and hostility. One, political leaders who are trying to motivate their populations to go to war will use religion as a justification, while the real reason is economic. Two, people who are having problems in their personal/economic life will rely on religion more, and see the world in more religious terms. When they perceive a threat, they will perceive it in religious terms. Of course, the real threats to our lives are military/terrorist and economic.

It will not happen. (1)

master_p (608214) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663189)

China vs Islam will not happen, because the tension between the west and Islam is not religious, but political. Islamists are against Americans, British and others because it is Americans, British and others that exploit their resources, have encouraged or directly supported corrupted governments and leaders (The Saudis, Saddam) etc.

If the tension between the west and Islam was religious, the first target would have been the Vatican, which is the largest Christian Church in the world. And after the Vatican, we would see Muslims turn against Orthodox Christians, which are quite a lot in Eastern Europe.

The conflict between west and Islam is not even a conflict between west and Islam. It is a conflict between USA, UK and specific Islamic groups. Of course the media from either side tend to exaggerate and project the conflict as something big like 'good vs evil', 'east vs west' etc.

Finally, the Chinese are not the people that have conquered the world, in the past. They might have some conquests around their country, but nothing spectacular. On the other hand, most of Africa, south east Asia, central and south America have been conquered by Europeans or European descentants. So there is little reason to hold a grudge against the Chinese.

Lets Kill Marxist Revolution. (4, Insightful)

essence (812715) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662455)

I'm in favour of radical systemic change, but let's not make the mistake of 20th century revolutions. The main problem was creating an all powerful state that owned everything, including the people. In one word: centralisation.

The new goal should be the total opposite: decentralisation, community sovereignty, individual freedoms. Instead of creating a centralized state to control everything, lets create global networks of autonomous local communities and workplaces. No central authority, no presidents, effectively no nation-states. Democracy works best when people can meet in real life, face to face. Direct democracy, or horizontal democracy (no hierarchy) means everyone can have a say on issues that effect them. That means small scale is best.

A.K.A: Anarchism.

The system I've just described is not unlike the Opensource community. So we have an example already that works.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution. (3, Interesting)

kubrick (27291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662611)

Let's prove Bakunin [wikipedia.org] right, in other words.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662703)

I'm in favour of radical systemic change, but let's not make the mistake of 20th century revolutions. The main problem was creating an all powerful state that owned everything, including the people. In one word: centralisation.

The new goal should be the total opposite: decentralisation, community sovereignty, individual freedoms.


You mean like what the USA had when they started out. :P

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution. (1)

0olong (876791) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663009)

Have you viewed any Debian mailing lists lately? :-> But, yeah I agree... at least anarchy is more "fun"!

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18663509)

Anarchy only means the lack of a special "right" to employ coercion. In other words, a voluntary society, where coercion has no place except for self-defense. A society where the only mandate (so to speak) is voluntary association, and the only prohibition (so to speak) is coercion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anarchy does not mean "chaos" as government teaches you. It does not mean lack of morals, lack of rules, or lack of compassion. They have to tell you that. If the majority of the subject class believed that life without government was possible, let alone preferable, that wouldn't be very good for the people who built their fortunes on centralized power, would it?

The Amish are an example of anarchy (however small) which happens to lean towards socialism. Coercion has no place in their society: they are there because they choose to be there. They help each other because they choose to help each other, not because of a centralized power telling them what to do under the threat of force. The Amish are allowed to exist by the superpower government surrounding them, only because they pose no economic threat to organized coercion. You can bet that if the Amish started to practice anarcho-capitalism instead of anarcho-socaialism -- building actual economic presence -- they would be immediately destroyed by the US government. For now, organized coercion simply points and chuckles, "how cute".

In fact, if we pretend that government wasn't there for a minute, you practice anarchy every day of your life. Your relationship with just about everybody but government is anarchist in nature: your friends, your family, your employer, your mechanic, your waiter at the restaurant. You do operate on the principle of voluntary association, rather than coercion, don't you? ;)

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18663031)

What's in that for the power elite? Nothing, and that's exactly why anarchy won't be happening anytime soon.

I do agree with you 100% -- in fact I am a peaceful anarchist myself -- however it's impossible that it would happen in our lifetimes. Why? If a peaceful, productive anarchy were ever to emerge, it would be immediately destroyed by the current world superpower government. It would probably be attacked by several governments, probably with UN support, the whole nine. Centralized power has incredible momentum at this point in history, perhaps more so than ever before, and there is no way the power elite are going to to sit back and watch as a voluntary society discredits every single lie that the champions of organized coercion feed us.

No, the voluntary society won't have a chance until the majority of the world's governments move towards libertarianism, where centralized power is restrained enough -- both in revenue and power over the people -- to prevent imperialism. The world isn't even close to that today.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution. (1)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663211)

And then what happens when my autonomous collective needs a some of resource that another autonomous collective controls, but is unwilling to share?

Without some supra-collective authority, who mediates the dispute? One can assume that all parties will deal rationally with each other, but that would fly in the face of thousands of years of human history. You only have to examine the ongoing disputes over water in the American West to see how badly groups of people allocate "shared" resources when left to their own devices.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution. (2, Interesting)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663477)

Democracy works best when people can meet in real life, face to face. Direct democracy, or horizontal democracy (no hierarchy) means everyone can have a say on issues that effect them.

Um, laypeople are stupid. This is why direct democracy is not feasible.

That means small scale is best.

It also means that large-scale is impossible. I hope you don't need a road that extends beyond your own block.

the Opensource community. So we have an example already that works.

I suspect that most if not all Open-Source projects are either authoritarian regimes or highly-centralized pseudo-democracies.

Global Circumstances (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662465)

I don't intend to poke fun at the British peoples or anything, but I am inclined to express my concern. I began to toy with this idea after watching Children of Men, which caused my concern really started to reach its pinnacle, with this report solidifying it.

Can all of these circumstances be viewed as a cry for help?

What I mean is, so many movies out of Britain really paint a dismal picture of the future with urbanization and then the fall of society. That with near daily Orwellian reports about the copious amounts of surveillance the British citizens put up with, and it starts to feel like we, be it the United States or whomever else as a third party should be taking some cues here to help.

If by "help" you mean "annihilation," sure. (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662879)

That with near daily Orwellian reports about the copious amounts of surveillance the British citizens put up with, and it starts to feel like we, be it the United States or whomever else as a third party should be taking some cues here to help.

Seeing how we "helped" the Iraqis, I'd say that countries should probably be very careful about crying for help from the U.S., lest they end up getting some.

Re:Global Circumstances (1)

ltjr (1066984) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662887)

Hrmm.. you're right. We need to free them from their oppressive regime and inflict democracy on them. Do they have oil?

Re:Global Circumstances (1)

Chemicalscum (525689) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663535)

Yes - They do have oil, North Sea oil.

2035 == no oil (1)

xmedar (55856) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662469)

When the military has no oil for its war machine what is it going to do? I guess they missed the elephant in the room there.

Also -

and even what it calls "declining news quality"

Maybe they shouldnt be letting their personnel sell their stories [bbc.co.uk] then... pot, kettle, black.

Re: 2035 == no oil (1)

wes33 (698200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662775)

oh ... I wouldn't worry about the *military* getting oil supplies in 2035; I'd worry about the rest of us.

Re: 2035 == no oil (1)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662979)

You are living in a dream land if you think there won't be an oil around in 2035.

Don't let them distort the term! (3, Interesting)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662471)

The media, regardless of whereabouts, cannot be allowed to distort the term "flash mob" like it has so many other terms, i.e. "hacker" and the like. A flash mob is a group of people that rapidly assembles with a minimum amount of preparation which generally is done via the Internet and with the intent of a peaceable prank or bragging rights. I did some research on this term [westminster.edu] while working on my college graduation project.

Re:Don't let them distort the term! (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662795)

Right... and "war" is a term where two armies line up on opposite sides of a battlefield in single lines and then march towards each other, trying to kill as many on the opposing side as possible.
 

Bright side? (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662489)

But on the up-side, at least by 2035 my mortgage will be paid off. From the tune of TFA, a lot of good THAT will do me.

Time to blow it all on hookers and blackjack, I guess.

Karl Marx? Quick! (1)

Centurix (249778) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662501)

One final question Karl and the beautiful lounge suite will be yours... Are you going to have a go? (Karl nods) You're a brave man. Karl Marx, your final question: who won the Cup Final in 1949?

Re:Karl Marx? Quick! (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663093)

The workers' control of the means of production?


So you say you want a revolution? (4, Interesting)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662503)

If you want a revolution, you're a dumbass. Forget communism, with the implications of violent overthrow of the ruling class. We've already had that, and it didn't work. Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, we HAVE thrown off the ruling class, and we're letting them back into their old jobs by small measures, through tax cuts and corporate welfare.

This is how socialism and eventually communism will happen - by default, naturally, no revolution. The cost of capitalizing a new activity will eventually drop to near zero for everything. I don't know if this is going to happen through a universal nanotech assembler, or through ubiquitous robotic slaves building shit for us in exchange for duracells, but it's going to happen. Everything is going to eventually be so cheap that it won't be worth selling. When you can get your robot to build you a car of your own design, and all you have to do is plug it in, you won't be going to Ford to buy a piece of shit Tempo-like ugly box. No, you'll design your own, or you'll download a GNU car schematic of something cool like the Linux-go-cart and tell your robot slave to build it for you. Richard Stallman will finally become relevant to everyone when his ideas move up a level of implementation from computers to the real world. It'll be just like Second Life where you use a computer editor to change your house - and your REAL house changes into a castle. Plus you can edit the length of your own cock to keep up with the Jones's. Hell, your wife could edit the length of her cock too!

That's my fantasy. Now, who's written a nice sci-fi novel about that?

Re:So you say you want a revolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662677)

Rudy Rucker - *ware series. Read em.

Re:So you say you want a revolution? (1)

delt0r (999393) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662739)

Iain Banks in his Culture series would be at the mark. The Culture have everything you want, you just ask and poof, you receive.

Re:So you say you want a revolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662839)

Stephenson -- Diamond Age, Snow Crash

Re:So you say you want a revolution? (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662927)

In The Diamond Age there was a ruling class that was more powerful than ever. Its protagonist was an urchin or sorts, for pete's sake. The novel isn't at all like what the OP describes.

Re:So you say you want a revolution? (2, Interesting)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663067)

I read them. Not the same. I think if you've got a world where anybody can make anything they want for essentially no cost, you won't need enclaves like Wong's. Why would you be a criminal when it's easier just to have your robot make you all the bling bling bling you could want? The only thing in short supply would be pussy, and that's a separate topic. I went into the pussy shortage conspiracy in one of my old journal entries. I don't see any kind of socialism fixing that.

Missing prediction... (2, Interesting)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662513)

It talks about the declining European population, but NOT the rising population of muslims in Europe (particularly France). Plenty of kowtowing is going to Muslims in Europe as well, with little pressure to become "westernized," and therefore allowing more extremist sides of Islam to enter Europe. We're already seeing pockets where Sharia law is allowed in England, France, and Germany, and we're probably not to far from seeing an "Islamicization" of Europe, which will be an interesting mix. Australia is taking a different approach - it seems like they're making sure that Sharia law is not going to be imposed, but Australian law. America is going to be an interesting bag - most muslims here are VERY westernized and stay within urban areas or college towns; however, it is very difficult for them to use Sharia law unless it is done somewhat "off the books." I think that we're going to see some try and impose Sharia law within a community here in the states, but at some point there is going to be a backlash.

Re:Missing prediction... - please mod down (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662621)

Any european will recognize this as plain extreme right tainted speech. French will recognize Philippe de Villiers. This is absolutely false.

Parent AC leftwing radical fundie, please mod down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662955)


Parent AC is a fundamentalist leftwing extremist doing leftwing liar speech. Please mod him down.

Re:Missing prediction... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18663043)

America is going to be an interesting bag

America will watch europe go through her death throes and learn from it. Good luck to those in francistan.

Re:Missing prediction... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18663179)

This is such transparent bullshit racist propaganda, I can't believe it got modded up.

Did you know that French Muslims are, on average, less anti-Semitic than Americans? One of the things I don't get about you Reich-wingers is on one hand you criticize Yurp for being so godless and secular and then on the other you talk about it going Islamic. Do you really think the decadent godless fags of Europe will stand by idle in the face of theocracy?

Re:Missing prediction... (2, Insightful)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663325)

Which continent is the one that allows Sharia law courts? Which is the one where Muslims nearly riot over a CARTOON?

I also believe it was France that had a ton of Muslim youths rioting all over the place. I don't recall massive Muslim riots in America.

The reason that parts of Europe are going to go Islamic is because of the attitude that all ways of life are equal - even to the point that it allows views as extreme as Sharia law which takes away basic civil rights.

Re:Missing prediction... (1)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663329)

"Do you really think the decadent godless fags of Europe will stand by idle in the face of theocracy?"

Yes. Much like WWWII with the Third Reich, France will roll over (they've already started) first and allow theocracy to gain a foothold in Europe makign it much easier for the Jihadist invasion to follow.

Sounds great (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662559)

Better than what I would have predicted given the fascist tendencies of Blairs government.



Even low-brow right-wing garbage like the Daily Mirror are flat out stating the truth, not that their readership (the proles) give a shit. [mirror.co.uk] Anyway, the MOD predictions sound great, can they provide me with assurances so I'll sleep a little better at nights?

"likely" (0)

radtea (464814) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662603)

The key falsehood in the summary is the word "likely". No one sane thinks any of this is likely ("having a high probability of occurring or being true: very probable").

Only someone as ignorant and dishonest as a journalist would suggest that strategic planners engaged in this kind of process of exploring the nooks and crannies of the future think the scenarios they are spinning are "likely." Possible, yes. Worth contemplating as worst-cases, certainly.

Likely? Only to an dishonest, ignorant journalist. But I repeat myself.

Well it was a really good movie (1)

wolff000 (447340) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662609)

If you are wondering which one just pick any of the multitude of movies that predicted such dire consequences to our current actions. I agree things are probably going to get a lot worse before they get better but people that make these predictions should really have a firm understanding of reality not just statistics and apparently an active imagination. If all the doom sayers were right the world as we know it would never have come to be.

Don't Worry About Iran, Though (3, Interesting)

MarkPNeyer (729607) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662613)

Nothing to see here folks. They kidnapped a bunch of our soldiers and our response was an embarrassment to the once proud history of the British navy, but real danger we have to look out for is communists...

The UK needs some Anarchy (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662643)

Wow what a waste of article space. Who cares what out of touch government official from the worlds most spied upon nation think?

When was the last time a politician knew anything about technology? (beside Al Gore)

If the Ministry of fucking idiots wants to play science fiction, that's fine, but the issues of 2035 aren't going to be vastly different from those of today. Humans and technology aren't really changing that fast. The computer is not exactly the revolutionary device that people see it as. If we keep going at this rate by 2035 we will have some awesome CPU power, but we will still not have intuitive interfaces or well written software. If anything more interpreted languages and less binary thought will result in the current trends of low performance bloated crap ware. Just like how everything is made out of plastic because it's cheaper even though metal lasts longer most of the time. The modern programmer is already less talented than programmers of 30 years ago. Without good quality programmers developing nations like China ane India are going to produce the next generations of great software because their cultures do vastly better in math.

and.. flashmobs... cmon. What makes that a reality in 2035 and not today? Are you guys sure it wasn't the Minister of Defense's grandchild that thought up this stuff? Technology dictates itself. The year 2035 will be shaped by the technologies of that year and that's all. Predictions beyond that are useless. Look at all the great leaps in technology that humans were supposed to have made by now. We should at least have fusion power and Star Wars lasers in space right. Well that's why you don't try to create technologies through some kind of funded prophecy like Reagan did for Star Wars, which in case you didn't know was a complete failure.

Obviously we already have implanted microcomputers in people so we are hardly waiting till 2035 for that.

Do these people have nothing better to do but make laughable predictions of technology and terrorism in the future.

They can't know the path of terrorism. Are they fucking retarded or what?

These people still think that terrorism is just like a season thing that just what started happening and now will require constant military attention ?

That's what they are hoping for. They hope that in 2035 they can convince the people that terrorism is a threat and warrants continued military spending.

They STILL don't realize that terrorism doesn't happen by chance, but for obvious and exact reasons. We can't plan for social movements like terrorism without planning the social happenings for the next two decades. All we can assume is that the current situation with arabs will not resolve itself by 2035.

30 years ago terrorism wasn't really a threat that scared Americans. No more at least than the common criminal happenings all throughout the world.

Until people learn that terrorism happens for a reason not random unpredictable chance we are fucking doomed.

Their long term plan is to blindly fight terrorism. How fucking retarded can you be people.
I mean HELLO... flashmobs. That doesn't sound like terrorism anymore. It sounds more like the government planning against citizens who want to protest and using terrorism as an excuse. You can't quickly assemble mobs because.. that's terrorism.

If they want to battle terrorism the first step would be to stop constantly contributing to it. For Briton the first step should be to DISTANCE yourself from America anytime we have a conservative as president because CONSERVATIVES = WAR. Now, this is nothing new. I mean even conservative college level professors will tell you when describing cons and dems that cons will be the ones who take you to war almost every time. It's not even something that cons have yet to see as a bad attribute of their party. They are proud to be the war party just ask them.

Anyway it's sad to see such government propaganda being displayed as news even on Slashdot. If you want put up a piece of technology fine, lets see one. This is just political BS. Like when the American government had scientists drawling up plans for future houses and cars and all that shit that never got made because its still not practical.

Seems to be that is the common flaw of long term technological planning. It's always built of dreams and not practicality. Technology is driven by cost. Many times the technologies exist or decades before their costs lower enough to get companies to even see the profit potential when coupled with mass production. Politicians are the worst at this because they are naturally more dreamers and less practical scientists just look at Star Wars or the Missile Shield. The experts say it can't be done, but conservatives push on anyway !!

I think what this article tells us is that it's about time for a new Parliament.

Re:The UK needs some Anarchy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18663265)

"CONSERVATIVES = WAR."

Yup, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson all proud conservatives!

Marxism! (1)

Canthros (5769) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662863)

Wait, didn't we already do that? Last century?

Wait, wait: I got it. He means the Marx Brothers, not Karl Marx. Clearly, Groucho will lead us into a new age of enlightenment. And cigars.

translation from NewsSpeak .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662885)

Translation: We'll reinvent the Red Menace to scare them enough to have a new pretext to introduce a police state them Stalin could only have dreamed of.

They talk about a 'vibrant democracy' and in the same breath explain how the middle classes, of all people, are a threat in this here democracy. If this is such a wonderous 'vibrant democracy' then why is its own middle classes threatening revolt.

You're right, there is a potential threat to the social order and it's you who has caused this by creating a society run by and for the benefit of trans-national organizations. Government being reduced to peerforming police action against its own people. Watch out for the Marxist-Islamo-Fascist-Middle class revolution.

"I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want everyone to remember why they need us!"

Adam Sutler, Lord High Chancellor of Greater England.

Population growth? (2, Informative)

jenesais (614180) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663017)

From the article: "The massive population growth will mean the Middle East, and to a lesser extent north Africa, will remain highly unstable, says the report."

Spengler from Asia Times has repeatedly argued that Middle Eastern countries face a different type of population problem, namely a large increase of the number aged. For example, Spengler says that "although the Muslim birth rate today is the world's second highest (after sub-Saharan Africa), it is falling faster than the birth rate of any other culture."

The demographics of radical Islam: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH23Aa01.h tml [atimes.com]

Crises of Faith in the Muslim World: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GK01Aa01.h tml [atimes.com]

Oo! Oo! I've got one! (1)

Peter Trepan (572016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663089)

In the year 2035, we'll have an IT and energy infrastructure that harnesses the well-understood properties of tachyons. Star Trek starts explaining away unscientific phenomena with Higgs bosons instead.

Neutron Bombs (1)

Peter Trepan (572016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663215)

The development of neutron weapons which destroy living organs but not buildings "might make a weapon of choice for extreme ethnic cleansing in an increasingly populated world".

We should do everything in our power to prevent these weapons from being used. Or, failing that, we should probably buy stock in ReMax and The Maid Brigade.

Obvious FUD (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18663243)

1. The MoD needs government funding.
2. The government needs proof for MoD funding.
3. MoD provides FUD that scares the citizens, businesses, and politicians
.
.
.
Profit! (Funding)

They just don't get it ... (2, Interesting)

jc42 (318812) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663297)

"Flashmobs" -- groups rapidly mobilised by criminal gangs or terrorists groups.

Oh, man; talk about clueless. What "flashmob" really means is that the PR guy at a local commercial outlet has hired a viral ad guy, who spread the rumor that Britney or Paris or a member of the latest hot local indie band has been spotted at said outlet.

Of course, one could classify the ad agencies as criminal gangs or terrorist groups, and then maybe you'd have a point.

(I live in the Boston area, which recently had a fun example of advertising being mistaken for terrorism. So I'm not surprised to read nonsense like this. And I'm looking forward to further entertaining mistakes along this line. Anything to make the Homeland Security people look even more foolish.)

Should read.. (1)

delire (809063) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663419)

"This is the world in 30 years' time envisaged by a Ministry of Defence team responsible for FUD mongering to the ends of securing their jobs for those same 30 years."

Reccommended reading [sonyclassics.com] .

Did it occur to anybody... (1)

devman32 (1086075) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663455)

...that the role of the british armed forces should NOT be to fight off marxist revolutions in 3rd countries, just as it's not in Britain's rights to say how those countries should be governed?

This seems like we're living 1948 all over again... and that we never learn from our mistakes.

The danger of terrorism (1)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663519)

TFA:

Terrorism

Casualties and the amount of damage inflicted by terrorism will stay low compared to other forms of coercion and conflict.


What? Terrorism is a comparatively minor threat? Help! My worldview is collapsing!
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...