Posts by ForthIsNotDead

Re: Won't Someone Think of the Children

Surely there a lot of Chinese hackers looking to install child pron on anti-chinese activist's computers and anyone that is critical of the Chinese regime?

FIFY :-)

Re: We reinvented thin-client terminal servers again!

Yes, Active Desktop.

And ActiveX.

And Visual Basic 6.

:-)

Re: "This case entirely distorts" . .

>As a Trump-led US company...

Downvoted for the superfluous and unnecessary Trump reference. What the hell has he got to do with Facebook? They hate the guy. Trump is leading Facebook, is he? Has anyone told Trump?

Re: I've taken out union and some other things that I rarely use

>This choice definitely needs much more examination before I'd try it.

Being a bit negative there. I mean, your argument about needing to free up large chunks of memory sounds perfectly reasonable. Why not engage with the guy and suggest it rather than ignore what could be a good solution to memory safety in C?

Re: Variable Names : Case Sensitivity

Variables shmariables. Just use a stack, then you don't need any variables at all - they're on the stack, baby!

Okay, you might need to do a bit of stack juggling to access the variables you're looking for - but that's easy.... TWO STACKS!

Just pop from one, and push to the other until you get to the variable that you need.

You're all very welcome :-)

No. I don't agree, sorry. Though for the record, I upvoted you because at least you were polite.

I'll see your Aleksandr Dugin's 1997 book 'Foundations of Geopolitics' and raise you Zbigniew Brzezinski's 'The Grand Chessboard' (1997). It's quite clear, just from the text of that book alone what America's geopolitical aspirations were/are. Couple it with the PNAC documents, first published in 1997, and it's beyond debate that America's foreign policy was centered around the strategic capturing of resources, by fair means or foul. It's right there in black and white in Brezinski's text. And that lies at heart of America's deliberate invoking of conflict within Ukraine (though deeply buried beneath layers of noise and propaganda from subservient and spineless water-carrying western media and press that simply parrot the party line, in echoes so ironic of the Soviet Union itself!).

The Ukrainians are nothing more than pawns on the chessboard, same as the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Syrians, and the Libyans.

I've also heard Putin talk of Peter the Great and reclaiming Russian lands, but only in the context of Crimea, the gifting of which to Ukraine by Brezhnev in 1954 was controversial (from the Russian standpoint). I guess Russia never considered the Soviet Union would collapse, and so the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was seen as healing and symbolic, though of little real consequence. All that changed when the Soviet Union, fell, or course. I suspect that Putin is being dishonest when he refers to taking back Crimea to protect ethnic Russians. He's more likely interested in the significant oil and gas reserves that are sloshing around under Crimean soil, as noted by this article from 10 years ago: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Russia-Eyes-Crimeas-Oil-and-Gas-Reserves.html

In this regard, his behaviour would not much different to that of the western nations that seek to capture and exploit Russian reserves through the break up of Russia.

I'm inclined to agree with you regarding Putin to some extent pandering to his home audience, though I do not think his actions are related to 'old wounds' such as the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 as you infer. Sending countless thousands of Russian male conscripts to their death over such an old issue is political suicide. No, I think his actions are solely pragmatic, based on current geopolitical events as he sees them.

>Ukraine, whatever it's putative alliances, never represented a threat to the integrity of Russia - that is complete bullshit.

You're quite right. I agree with you 100%. Ukraine does not pose any threat to Russia. But becoming a NATO member, and thereby allowing the installation of NATO controlled nuclear weapons next to Russia's border, and American/Allied bases with Ukraine's border is very much a threat to Russia. In exactly the same way that America saw the installation of nuclear weapons in Cuba in 1952, 90 miles off the American coast, as a threat. Can you not see it?

And thanks for the casual 'Putinista' slur.

>Are you suggesting the Western nations should have sat back and sucked their thumbs as Russia annexed the entirety of Ukraine? And do you think Russia would have stopped there?

As with the vast majority of the Western public, you have missed the point entirely. The conflict only started in the first place because of the NATO states proposing to bring Ukraine into NATO. Had that not ever arisen, or had the NATO states/Ukraine backed away from admitting Ukraine into NATO, then Ukraine would not be the wasteland that it is today.

_We_ did this. And it was done deliberately - seen a means to embroil Russia into a bankrupting war, which would fracture Russia into a number of independent states, leaving the West free to come in like a knight in shining armour in those newly created states, offering development loans (ha! - read the book 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman') in return for their resources. That was the plan. And it has failed, leaving dead Ukrainians, dead Russians, and an entire western continent worse off for it.

> while completely ignoring the faults of your own governments (who had been warned multiple times by people like Nemtsov and Kara-Murza about exactly who they were dealing with).

Exactly 100% - yet our (the Western) governments went ahead and did it anyway. Knowing that NATO membership was a red line for Russia, and would likely lead to war. They went ahead and did it anyway. One is therefore forced to conclude that the actions of the Western governments was not born from stupidity. It was deliberate and pre-calculated. They wanted war with Russia - well... They wanted a proxy war. They knew they wouldn't have the support of the public to send their own soldiers into a direct confrontation with Russia. So they decided to get Ukraine to do it themselves. Afterall, they can fund it with endless fiat currency, and give arms contracts to all those weapons manufacturers. It's good for the economy, you know!

It's not good for the people of Ukraine though - the country now lies essentially ruined, and definitely one, maybe two generations of Ukrainian males has been wiped out. It will take Ukraine more than 50 years just to recover their population, if it ever does. The cost to rebuild the country? Incalculable. But there will be plenty of fiat currency available to fund interest-bearing loans to rebuild, enslaving the people of Ukraine for another 100 years or so. Just like we did to Iraq. This is what we do.

Meanwhile, far from breaking Russia up into pieces, as was their aim, Russia is arguably stronger, and more united than ever, at least since 1991. Russia and the BRICS nations are divorcing themselves from the US dollar, which will lead to an eventual dollar devaluation - all of this initiated by West through its actions. What choice did Russia have but to accelerate the BRICS programme?

Meanwhile, the Western nations continue to kiss the hand of the USA while it punches them in the face. Nord Stream, I'm looking at you.