Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Spies are sneaky (Score 1) 202

by ArcherB (#49323727) Attached to: Leaked Snowden Docs Show Canada's "False Flag" Operations

That's a ridiculous argument, as surveillance has a chilling effect. It's not a hard restriction of freedom, but that doesn't really make a difference, and soft restrictions are easier to hide and deny.

First, don't think that I'm supporting spying on the general population. However, I don't feel it is the information that is bad, but what governments will do with it. For example, I don't see Google doing anything bad with the data they have on me. Yes, it's an invasion on my privacy, but frankly, I don't really care. What can they do? However, I can see governments abusing the data, especially given the recent IRS scandal where the government used information to punish groups opposing the president.

As for the "chilling" aspect of it, it's only a problem if 1) You know about it, and 2) You let it.

I can't say that a secret invasion of privacy limits my freedom in any way. How could it? I had no idea. That's not to say that it won't be used to limit my freedoms later. Everyone at one point or another is against the powers in Washington. Today, it's conservatives. In a few years, it will be liberals. Libertarians scare the bejeezus out of both parties.

Comment: Re:Spies are sneaky (Score 1, Interesting) 202

by ArcherB (#49322643) Attached to: Leaked Snowden Docs Show Canada's "False Flag" Operations

It's not a tradeoff at all. Our intelligence agencies are likely the biggest threat to our security today. We are giving up liberty to be in more danger.

You are confusing privacy with liberty. While I view I have a right to a certain level of privacy, it has no effect on my liberty.

For example, if I were to strap a camera to my head and stream my life 24/7 onto the web, am I any less free than I was before? No, even though I had given up 100% of my privacy. My liberty would only be limited if I limited it myself. For example, if i decided not to view porn because the camera on my head would broadcast it and the whole world would know that I'm into midget-barbarian porn.

Liberty is diminished, however, when that lack of privacy is used against you. For example, if the state puts a GPS on your car and sends you a fine every time you exceeded the speed limit, your liberty would obviously be diminished. Or if the state put a camera in your bedroom and arrested you for masturbating in an unapproved manner.

Privacy is nothing more than the securing of information. Information has nothing to do with liberty. However, it could be used to restrict freedom.

Comment: Re:HPV (Score 2) 740

by ArcherB (#48964063) Attached to: New Jersey Gov. Christie: Parents Should Have Choice In Vaccinations

I'm going to bet he's referring to the HPV vaccine. Because obviously if you vaccinate your kids against an STD (even one that causes cancer!), you're just promoting sex. Never mind that the stats don't back that up at all.

This pause in Republican bashing brought to you by a mandatory vaccination proposed by Rick Perry, a Republican.

Comment: Re:Backpedalled? (Score 0, Troll) 740

by ArcherB (#48964039) Attached to: New Jersey Gov. Christie: Parents Should Have Choice In Vaccinations

If your child is going to be attending a public facility, then yes, the government has every right to set the perquisites for attending.

Attending that "public facility" is mandatory per truancy laws. So, it works like this:
1) Government mandates that children must attend school
2) Government mandates that all children who attend a school must meet certain health requirements.
3) If children do not meet those health requirements, See #1

Now, I could get on board if the money the state taxed me to pay for my child's education would follow him/her to the school of my choice.

As for your bashing of anti-vaxers, I agree, but don't tie to a mandatory activity.

Comment: Re:Backpedalled? (Score 4, Insightful) 740

by ArcherB (#48963911) Attached to: New Jersey Gov. Christie: Parents Should Have Choice In Vaccinations

Actually, I think it has more to do with the state telling parents what shots their kids must receive.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all about vaccinations and feel that anti-vaxers are idiots, but I'm a little leery of government making health decisions for my kids. If the government can tell your kids what vaccinations they must receive, what's next? Can they tell parents what to feed them? Can the government mandate what TV shows kids are allowed to or must watch? Can government force kids to read certain books or attend certain functions? Where do you draw the line? Once you draw that line, why can't it be crossed or moved?

Comment: Re:Action movies are boring. (Score 2) 332

One of them would be the Borg...
The Borg (sounds Swedish) didn't see themselves as evil or believe that their mission was unjust. They wanted to add other civilizations to their own, making both sides better. The Borg did not have the problems most civilizations have such as crime, starvation, jealousy, etc. Who wouldn't want that?

Another good example is the Emperor...
The Emperor wanted to bring order to a chaotic galaxy. Sometimes, the only way is with an iron fist.

The Reapers is one more...
Reapers were changed against their will. What they became was not their fault.

Any position can change depending on the perspective. People... or cyborgs... don't see themselves as evil They are doing what they think is best, twisted as it may be.

Comment: Re:Where are hurricanes? The other side of the wor (Score 2, Funny) 187

by ArcherB (#48594631) Attached to: Last Three Years the Quietest For Tornadoes Ever

Because that is all that matters right? 'Merica. And really only the East Coast of 'Merica.

Because that was the claim of various alarmist predictions about anthropogenic climate change made after Katrina. If they've made predictions about Asia, I hadn't heard them.

(For those keeping score, since 2005, the year of Katrina, the number of major hurricanes hitting the US mainland stands at zero. No doubt it will go up again at some point, and anthropogenic climate change will be blamed).

I think you are missing the point. Global Warming is the reason we have not been seeing as many hurricanes.

If it rains, it's global warming. If it doesn't rain, it's severe global warming.

Comment: Re:This is great news! (Score 1) 485

by ArcherB (#48304837) Attached to: Silicon Valley Swings To Republicans

There is practically nothing in common between Korea and Japan on one hand, and Iraq on the other hand.
Yeah! We have troops in Korea and Japan. We have none in Iraq. One of these three countries is having problems. Guess which one.

Let's do another analogy:
You buy a crappy house. There are guys paid to keep up the place, but they are doing a crappy job so you fire them. You put a lot of your own money, blood, sweat and tears into fixing the house up. Sure, it's not the greatest house, but it's a whole lot better than it was. However, it will require maintenance to keep it that way until everything is in working order. But, you have to move because the contract at your job is up.

The guy that bought the house hated what you did to it so he does none of the required maintenance. So without him doing maintenance, and the without the guys who used to do the job doing it, the house falls into disrepair. So what does this new owner do? He blamed YOU for firing the guys who used to maintain the place.

But here's the thing I find really disgusting
When Saddam was in power and filling mass graves with the bodies of women and children, you didn't care. Don't know why you didn't care, but you just didn't. Guess you don't like brown people or something. Maybe you thought those mothers with toddlers should have fought back against the guys putting bullets into the backs of their heads. Fortunately, someone did care and put a stop to that shit. Then the next guy took over America.
Now, we have guys running through the country, cutting the heads off of women, and children, and, again, you don't care. You think it's more important to blame Bush than it is to actually fix the problem that wasn't a problem when Obama took office. Frankly, I think you are happy to see the atrocities over there because it gives you an excuse to hate Bush even more. Even though you know that Obama is the one responsible for pulling our troops out, you won't let yourself believe it because you love hating Bush more than you care about lives of brown infants.

Comment: Re:This is great news! (Score 1) 485

by ArcherB (#48304619) Attached to: Silicon Valley Swings To Republicans

Iraq was not in "free fall" when Obama took office. It was doing fine. Think it's not "maintainable"? Tell that to N. Korea and Japan, where we still have troops from the 1940s and 50s.

The guy who takes over the rudder cannot be blamed when the plane crashes into the ground.
Actually, it's more like the pilot got up to use the restroom and the co-pilot crashed the plane. Your response? Blame the pilot.

The clusterfuck that is Iraq is solely the fault of Bush and his team of gung-ho democracy cowboys
Like I said in another post:
When Bush took office, living in Iraq was a 3 on a 1-10 scale. When Bush left office, it was a 7.
Now, after six years of Obama, that ranking has gone from a 7 to a 1. And you're blaming Bush for not keeping it a 3?

"The Street finds its own uses for technology." -- William Gibson