411–420 of 462 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We are talking about a country funding lots of militant groups that kill lots of people. No, that's Saudi Arabia, our partners in peace.
It's always confused me... Why do you supply weapons, money and military training to the country which 9/11'd you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When 80% of traffic from an IP is malicious and the other 20% is regular traffic, but both sources look like the same traffic (impersonating browser headers, sometimes running headless chromium), what else can you do? Cookies and stateful cookie-like objects, such as privacy pass. Can anyone report how well privacy pass works nowadays?
> When 80% of traffic from an IP is malicious and the other 20% is regular traffic, but both sources look like the same traffic (impersonating browser headers, sometimes running headless chromium), what else can you do? Accept the traffic, taking the bad with the good. We all know the ills of visitor profiling regardless of effectiveness.
All of these things have a cost, and they should be balanced against the benefit seen by allowing open access.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When 80% of traffic from an IP is malicious and the other 20% is regular traffic, but both sources look like the same traffic (impersonating browser headers, sometimes running headless chromium), what else can you do? Cookies and stateful cookie-like objects, such as privacy pass. Can anyone report how well privacy pass works nowadays?
So uh, why does “malicious” traffic need to be blocked?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [...] is as worse as hanging them > I know that Iran is worse Which one is it?
Do you ask which is worse of the two?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have to take the statements of the USA. All I have to do is listen to the claims that Iran makes, about who it funds, the actions it is taking, and planning on taking. The stuff that Iran itself says it wants to do, such as that it wants to wipe Israel from the face of the map, is bad enough.
> All I have to do is listen to the claims that Iran makes, about who it funds, the actions it is taking, and planning on taking. So what sources are you quoting? Any link would be good.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-assembly-ahmadinejad/i...
It is very easy to find multiple insano statements that the leaders of Iran make. I found this one in a couple seconds.
You can also just look at their involvement with the Assad regime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_involvement_in_the_Syr...
The modern computer world is so interwoven in the internet now. It was only 20 years ago when every company I worked had physical computers, no internet access (except email) and every piece of software had to be installed from CD. I wonder if/when a big war or disaster occurs much of our computer world will just break. We've built an extremely fragile system now.
This is also a subject of intense interest to me. We're in uncharted territory here, and the most relevant historical example imo is WW1 where all major participants began the war without giving any real thought to oil and left the war knowing oil (and the vehicles it powers) was arguably the single most important strategic factor in wars during that time period (and still today really aside from speculation). It see…
I don't think we'll see a paradigm shift. Energy will still be the single most important strategic factor in electronic warfare. People love to harp on wind/solar/bio/etc... but even though they're growing in acceptance, they won't overtake the primary traditional means of energy production for many decades to come.
I do not know how others feel. But I feel resentment towards embargoes (and calling their poodle countries to follow suite) placed on other countries just because they don't tow your line. Going to Iran's backyard and threatening them and then cry when they retaliate (a pretext to start war)...its so...pathetic. In fact most of the 20th century wars were started using this kind of baiting.
Most of the comments below you are correct in the scope of the last 10 years, but in the context of the last 50 are absurd. For those curious about how and where the whole "Iran thing" started: A freely elected Iranian president decided to nationalise oil fields. This irked British Petroleum (Anglo-Iranian Oil Company at the time..) and the USA, so they initiated a coup to overthow the government [1], complete with C…
Unless you're gay, in which case they reserve the right to execute you. Seems worth mentioning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What it boils down to for me is which side do you want to win? Being fair and impartial doesn't mean considering that both of the nations are the same and the outcome will be the same if either side wins, with only a different name and flag for the victor. Your argument makes sense, but it starts with a very flawed assumption: that Iran wants to dominate the world. The reality accepted by everyone except the US and…
Iran is already part of an agreement (called the NPT) to not have any nukes ever, and has already violated it. It has no justification to ask for any concession from any other country for it to honour its original signature, much less from countries they have sworn to annihilate. It sounds like they want others to disarm their intended victim for them.
Iran's position makes logical sense, and the best way to ensure they have no reason not to abide by the NPT would be to actually uphold the NPT, not to selectively enforce it against Iran but not the country threatening it.
I’m always caught by surprise when I see intelligent, educated people ignore the nature and actions of Iran to justify their adversarial feelings towards the US administration. Iran is on an unprecedented aggressive and violent push towards dominating the Middle East. They are deployed in Syria, building forward bases to threaten Israel, destabilize Lebanon and pushing it closer to another war with Israel by funding…