Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Glass? (Score 1) 175

There's increased costs, for maintenance (regular cleaning) and replacement (it still cracks when damaged, even if it stays in one piece).

Glass by itself isn't nearly as strong as steel, so it would either need bollards or a steel fence to protect against vehicles. Vehicles crashing through gates can be very bad.

Bollards may not be a good idea though, because a smaller vehicle such as a motorcycle might still be able to go between the bollards and break through the glass.

Perhaps the lower half of the fence could be the current steel fence (to protect against large and small vehicles), and the upper half could be glass (to reduce the aesthetic impact).

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:Your government at work (Score 2) 336

"Then again, killing civilians indiscriminately with drone strikes as "collateral damage" is pretty barbaric as well."

You are an idiot. The entire purpose of drone strikes is to carry out very targeted killings. If we didn't care about collateral damage and didn't mind indiscriminately killing people, expensive drones would not be necessary. All we'd need is some far cheaper cluster bombs. Maybe some napalm.

Comment: Re:Inproper influence (Score 1) 83

by pete6677 (#49161411) Attached to: Oracle Sues 5 Oregon Officials For 'Improper Influence'

That's not just Oracle. That's every IT consultancy. I've never heard of a large outsourced IT project that wasn't overbudget, behind schedule, and ultimately did not do what it was supposed to do. Of course most in-house projects suffer the same fate. And there's positively zero correlation between certificationed personnel and project success.

Nothing in progression can rest on its original plan. We may as well think of rocking a grown man in the cradle of an infant. -- Edmund Burke