Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Government to Jam Radio Signals
An anonymous reader submits: "According to this article, the Canadian government has given the military and RCMP permission to jam radio signals during the G8 summit and the Pope's visit. I suppose that the stated reason would be to prevent terrorists from communicating with each other, but I have to wonder whether it's also being done to keep those pesky protesters from effectively organizing at the G8. And if this action manages to block wireless 911 calls, and someone dies because of that, who's going to be willing to step up to the plate and take the blame?"
Because we all know how terrorists are the only ones who use mobile phones and drug dealers are the only ones who use pages.
While the above is not particularly insightful, it does touch on a good point. It's not just the bad guys who use mobile phones. Having been part of security details for a government organization in the past, our government issued radios don't always work, especially inside large buildings. (Think of the same folks who designed your tax forms trying to make a working radio.) I've found my mobile to be invaluable to make sure the car to pick everybody up is outside and waiting when the principal is ready to go.
Technology is tool that can be used either for good or for evil. By jamming the airwaves, you're preventing everybody from using it and trying to technology from changing the way you do business.
The lesson comes at a high cost for many Canadians (witness the breakdown of their health care system),
/. But I also recognize that health care, like food, clothing and shelter, is a basic human need whereas software is a luxury item. I think that difference in need versus luxury should have some bearing on a discussion as to the economic viability of solutions to a growing problem.
I am not totally familiar with the Canadian health care system. My understanding is that it's administered by the provinces, and that there has been a lot of discussion as of late of doctor shortages and so forth.
But recently someone on a local usenet newsgroup made this same claim you are making, and in the same note tried to imply that the US health care system is perfectly fine because of it's capitalist nature. (as opposed to the evil of socialism) So I was curious and started looking for some facts.
What I found is that life expectancy in the US is less than other G8 nations which have socialized health care(France, Germany, Canada, UK, Italy, Japan) with the exception of Russia. Furthermore the infant mortality rate is also higher in the US compared to the other G8 nations, again with the exception of Russia.
On top of that, the amount spent on health care in the US per capita is much greater... in the neighborhood of double. This despite(or maybe because of?) something like 40-60 million Americans lacking health insurance.
So I guess I'm puzzled. If Canada's system has broken down, what term do we use to describe the US system? A complete failure?
I'm a pretty big proponent for capitalism, as can be evidenced by my ridicule of the GPL proponents and the Microsoft antitrust trial on
If the best capitalism can do for healthcare is drive costs up without yielding any demonstrable benefits measured by statistical indicators perhaps we should be looking at alternatives?
i love my freedoms as a Canadian, and i love my cell phone, and i fully support peoples rights to peacefull demonstration.
I live in Ottawa. during the g8 conference a group of protesters has vowed to disrupt life in the city, and refused to talk to police, or make statements to discourage violence, infact they have encouraged it. Business are boarding up, and citizens are scared.
I do not like when people come to my home and destroy it for there own political goals. I understand the reasons not to block trafic, however, anything that can be done to keep my home from being destroyed by these protestors MUST be done.
civil disobediance is onething (gandhi practiced it, and never once struck out at anyone) wantan distruction of property is another.
before you comment, to this article about how your liberties and freedoms are being taken away by the authorities, think about what you would want if your home town was suddenly faced with thousands of violent protestors.
What really kills me is that the topic of whether or not Canada is a capitalist society or not.
/. would.
Who cares? Canadians? Great! They should!
American? Why? It's their freakin' country - they make their own decisions. What's right for use may or may not be right for them, but it's their freakin' decision!
/. is turning into society of nosy old women, poking their noses in everyone else's business and bitching and moaning when they don't do like
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
According to Israeli reports, a fair number of bomber-wannabes actually fail due to lack of nerve, being spotted and neutralized before being able to detonate the explosives, and so forth. Some of these causes could be worked around with a decent radio-controlled device and an observer with a trigger (who, for instance, could blow up the explosives belt if the bomber suddenly changes his mind and decides to surrender).
Also, they're not all suicidal. From what I've read, the authorities in Pakistan are at least considering the possibility that the recent car bombing there was remote-detonated... and it might be easier to get one smart, but non-suicidal electrical engineer with a talent for bomb-design into a Western country than enough wannabe martyrs to mount a really prolonged campaign. The Unabomber managed to send quite a few mail bombs, for instance, and probably was more effective due to apparent lack of death wish.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Yeah, it's called democracy, and it's alive and well, and overwhelmingly Canadians support "socialist" health care (which, in reality, means "We all agree to buy into the big health insurance policy"). The people who make the choices are the electorate which goes to the polls and makes its feelings known.
Of course, as I mentioned in another post, the only Americans who "choose" not to have health insurance are the very poor who can't afford it. What a great choice.