I agree with you about the BDSM, but in my opinion that's more a matter of what is the law than the way the crime is prosecuted. However there plenty of instances apart from murder where this makes sense:
Where the victim is a young child unable to make a clear decison themselves
Where the victim might be initimidated
Where the criminal is rich and might buy off the victim
Where the victim is embarassed
There are many reasons to prosecute crime, but one very important one is to protect the next potential victim, stopping the criminal after the first crime. That person can't be represented by the existing victims.
That is so wise. Your doctor is, in the end, a tool you use in your own attempt to stay alive and healthy. Understanding doctors and how to use them is crucial. I mostly get great care from Doctors, because I ask them questions in their specialisation; try to be informed in advance. Assume that the doctor does have valid experience and knowledge. Do not assume that the doctor can do statistics (well over 90% of Doctors fail basic tests at explaining statistics in their own field!!!). Do ask questions, but do remain polite pretty much no matter what.
One of the biggest dangers is that doctors get many patients that come along and really don't listen, or, when they do listen, completely misunderstand the basic things the doctor says. If you go in and say something contrary to the doctor's experience, you have to be ready for the doctor to discount your opinion unless you are really good at explaining things.
Damnit people; please read the fine comments before responding. The hyperchondriacs are just so convinced that they don't have the disease, they'll never even open their computer, let alone Google it. Just getting them to the doctor in the first place would be a good start.
This sounds a bit like chemotherapy. The cure is mostly worse than the disease and, in fact, the only real advantage is the hope that you'll eventually be able to give up on it.
I see what you are doing little grasshopper. You are trolling the rtfa-troll by posting anon comments where you pretend not to have read any of the articles. You think I'll respond by trying to troll you. I like that; you've got style, but still you are nowhere near ready to take on the masters. Go over and clean windows at 4chan for a month or so.:-):-)
Normally, if you want to report a crime, you do it with an off the record quiet message to the authorities, which allows them to try to actually catch the people committing the crime in the act. Normally, if you want to get a project you are related to to stop doing something you worry might be a crime, you first contact the people responsible; especially those you believe aren't involved, and try to get them to do something about it. If, as it seems, Sanger went to the media first of all then that speaks volumes about his motivation.
Having said that; Wales is probably an okay guy, but his position in Wikipedia has been totally inappropriate since his personal life and finances intruded on the project. Once Wikipedia set its self up as an independent foundation all his power should have been derived from some clear democratic process in that foundation. The stupid thing (and the one which shows that he's a completely inappropriate person for the role) is the fact that he could probably have quite easily got himself elected president of the board or something and then none of the arguments against him would be nearly as effective. What Sanger has done may be a bit late, but it's definitely one of the strongest hopes of strengthening the Wikipedia project.
Right, but the thing is that, although that's what the patent is supposed to be for, in fact the way they set it up Apple is claiming patents on multi-touch per-se. This is inherent in the idea of patents on ideas (software / business methods / mathematics). It's very difficult to define good legal boundaries which don't have stupid implictions. For example, software patent advocates actually often claim not to be advocates for software patents. They just care about transformations of matter. Including the change in the output of your screen caused by their software! In other words, the boundary which is supposed to limit software to where it's used as part of a machine process instead becomes a tool in manipulating the debate.
I think the only logical end is a fairly hardline freedom of speech position. Patents, copyrights and trademarks should only be allowed where they demonstrably increase freedom of expression. With trademarks this is easy; if I don't have a proper name for a company which reliably means that company then it's difficult to discuss that company. For copyright, that's quite easy to show, as long as terms are short and DRM (of copyrighted material) is illegal. For normal physical patents, that's likely true as long as the development in the field of interest normally takes place over a term at least a few times as long as the term of the patent. For patents on abstract process that's never going to be true.
More importantly: netbrutality.com seems to be funded by freedomworks which is apparently a corporate lobby / astroturfing group.
Registrant: FreedomWorks
601 Pennsylvania Ave NW Suite 700 North Bldg Washington, DC 20004 United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: NETBRUTALITY.COM Created on: 11-May-06 Expires on: 11-May-11 Last Updated on: 12-May-10
Administrative Contact: Keeley, Tom tkeeley@[deleted by rtfa-troll to avoid spam] FreedomWorks 601 Pennsylvania Ave NW Suite 700 North Bldg Washington, DC 20004 United States 2029427615
Technical Contact: Keeley, Tom tkeeley@[deleted by rtfa-troll to avoid spam] FreedomWorks 601 Pennsylvania Ave NW Suite 700 North Bldg Washington, DC 20004 United States 2029427615
Domain servers in listed order: NS27.DOMAINCONTROL.COM NS28.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Basically they probably can't really do that in theory, but you have to remember the law does not really apply to IBM (their lawyers are too good), this is them being ethical and warning you in advance. You'd probably find that if you forgot something and went to your manager and explained, they would look it over and let you add it to the list later. If, however, it became an issue of conflict, they would assume you were lying and their lawyers would proceed to prove it, no matter what the truth was. So in a way it's really them just looking after you and making sure you have no illusions in the matter.
Once he has an independent income, he can volunteer work on open source projects until he gets to the point of being a well known maintainer for an important part of something valuable. At that point he should be able to pick up plenty of freelance work.
P.S. Don't you love the moderation on my original post. 50/50 insightful/trolling. Perfect. I really really want to get a +5 troll one day. I hope it's possible (7 or 8 underrated + 2 troll moderations I guess?)
1) - I'll admit "largely" was clearly trolling.. but I think if we change it to "has a large responsibility for" and we look at Microsoft's new and planned data centres, you'll see that there's a point.
2) - Yes; I read about that before. However Uranium based fission is horribly dirty normally and the main thing we've learned so far is that people who promise safe nuclear systems tend to have made a miscalculation or be lying. I think Gates also realises this which is why you'd need a backup plan ("in case you get caught", says a voice inside me, I'm not sure if it's cynical or just trolling)
3) More likely he just wants a way to build a faster yacht to beat Ellison. Interesting rotary sails on these boats.:-P
The problem with Gates is that whenever you look too closely at something he does which supposed to be for good, it always turns out that it's all a little bit to close to his own interests. When I found out that he makes lots of money from pharmaceutical patents and that the B&M Gates foundation goes in specifically in places which might decide to bypass those patents, I got alot more cynical about the man.
You don't know that. You are just guessing. He was "hired" but what does that mean? What does his contract say? Lots of people are hired to work on things which don't belong to their employer. He says "I did start the project on my own. And, since no written or verbal agreement was ever made to transfer copyright over to my employer"; that means that their software is a derivative work of software which is legitimately his copyright. Who owns the development after that point may be more complex. Most likely them. Depending on where he is he should probably resign now and send a cease and desist notice asking them to immediately destroy all unlicensed copies of his software. It's probably a complex decision which will depend exactly on what who said to who when, but on the information in the summary you can't make that decision.
Any work done before he worked for them is his copyright and he could release that but any work done after his hire is theirs and as long as they keep it in house, there is no violation.
This varies very much from country to country. In many European countries the work you do outside work is your own. In the US that should also be true, but your employer is allowed to create contracts which take away everything you should own. So, the summary doesn't give us enough information. You need to know a) where exactly this is happening b) what contracts were in place c) what exactly the guy did; what discussions he had and exactly what comments are in the code. Generally he shouldn't post that information since his posting would be discoverable in any lawsuit. He should discuss everything with his lawyer since, in civilised countries, that kind of discussion protects any speculative things he may say that might be harmful to him from being available to his opponents.
Honest question: does distribution internal to an organization count as distribution as described by the GPL? That is, if I have code subject to the GPL, and I distribute it to my employees without allowing them access to the source code, am I violating the GPL?
This question may be easily answered by another read-through of the GPL, but I'm too tired to do that myself right now...
First / correct answer: ask your lawyer. This is a question for lawyers
second, more general useful and helpful but speculative answer. You probably don't mean "distribute it to my employees" you mean "install it on my computers which my employees use". In which case it's not a violation of the GPL. This is because it doesn't count as distribution because it is on your own computer and so you (the company) still really posses it. Full details of this may well vary from one state/country to another.
It was discussed some time ago on Schneier's blog, but I can't find the proper reference. This is pretty close along with this but I can't find the long term impact on people's travel habits which is needed to get the total up the the level of the casualties on the day. Also the extent to which it's security measures rather than fear of flying is really needed to back up the statistic I stated.
The real auction is coming... who gets to control the weather?
There; fixed that for you. Deeply scared myself in the process too. I guess that you just run these a few hundred k upwind of any holiday resorts that are competing with your own ones.
when I stuck my tongue out when it rained, I didn't taste any salt at all,
If I was choosing my nick again I would be the RTFT-TROLL (yes; that loud)
Here it is; the article title again, but this time a bit marked up for those of you so bloody stupid you can't see it.
Science: Bill Gates Funds Seawater-Spraying Cloud Machines on 2010-05-10 23:35
and a marked up an excerpt from the summary.
[...] The Microsoft founder recently announced plans to invest $300,000 into research for machines that suck up seawater and spray it into the air, seeding white clouds that reflect rays of sunlight away from Earth. [...]
P.S. Typical of Gates, that he's investing into a speculative solution into solving a problem he has a large responsibility for (just like drugs and vaccines for people who've been deprived of them by his IPR policies) still, better than a kick in the teeth. Many of our tycoon overlords don't even bother with this level of "largesse".
The way I read it is that things without ownership are being replaced by things with ownership. The reason, I think, is a tragedy of the commons situation. If nobody owns a particular part of the internet, there's seldom somebody who feels it's their duty to clean it up when needed and those that do seldom have the power. When someone like facebook "owns" "your" information they know that they can use that against you later, so they are motivated to keep it valuable for you now.
This is a real problem since the common data we used to have was much more valuable. People trying to solve this really need to think carefully about what facebook is really providing and how to provide it in a decentralised way:
an extremely simple interface to:
extremely effective spam protection
and easy to build interactive groups/sites/forums/etc.
and effective identity management
and so on
Proposed alternatives just don't do the same. Sure; you might be able to set up a spam protected usenet group, but your technophobic great aunt has no chance. OpenID may provide identity, but it doesn't provide a decent simple clear interface to it. I have no way to navigate to and identify your OpenID etc. etc. Without this there's no easy way to get people to move over.
The whole Estonian system is based on having secure systems connected to the internet. It's possible to do a mass attack on the voters systems and/or servers on the day of the attack. The study you give simply ignores this possibility by "assuming" that the chance of an attack is low. However, it bases this assumption on total falacies. If you assume that your enemy is well funded (likely in the Estonian case; it may well be the Russian government) then they have a zero day exploit ready to go just before the election. They can then either manipulate the individual voters systems during election period so that when the voters select one candidate in fact the attacker's candidate is selected. This corrupted vote looks identical to a normal one and so is counted as such. It's possible they get caught, but they can minimise that risk (e.g. by only attacking PCs in real voter areas, reducing the risk of attacking a security expert's PC). Anyway, if they do get caught cheating, it's likely they don't actually get caught physically. They can just try again next time in a cleverer way.
The answer is a) obviously; If the terrorists were capable of increasing their activity they would do that already. They might begin to stretch themselves too much for a little while; which would cause more failed missions and weaken their organisation even more quickly. Very quickly the number of attacks would reduce since you can't recruit if nobody sees you doing anything. In fact, the strategy which worked against the IRA; a group who carried out many more, often larger and more definitely more effective terrorist attacks than "Al Queda" was specifically and deliberately ignoring them. Margaret Thatcher, used to talk about "denying the terrorists the oxygen of publicity". This isn't even a new an controversial thought. Minimising the media success of your opponent is one of the basics of almost any counter-insurgency manual.
Perhaps you should try reading the summary? Or even the title on the discussion? This is a discussion about safety. If terrorism doesn't even register on the death statistics, that's because it is irrelevant to your safety. Now, it might influence your fear. A large number of misinformed people or cowards might mean it has economic consequences, but it would be completely irrelevant in a discussion about safety.
(N.B. I don't accept that terrorism causes some vast number more injuries per person killed than e.g. car crashes; feel free to provide statistics to show I'm wrong)
Do you even know what a straw man is? It's an argument nobody makes. I'm making the argument about the TSA, so even if it were wrong, stupid, entirely malicious and just generally fucked up, it still wouldn't be a straw man.
We do not live in the era of horses and five week mail delivery any more. Before you put up stupid shit like this, how about at least making sure we can't easily check it. If you look at basic cause of death statistics for Israel, terrorism isn't even listed it's such a minor issue. Please come back when you've realised that Google exists.
In fact the only good thing about your post is it was less stupid than it's parent post. At least there really are some suicide bomb attacks which kill people in Israel; the Real IRA kills practically nobody.
The thing is, that this is a stupid straw man argument that's been put into Schneier's mouth. 9/11 may or may not have made "us" more likely to be killed in terrorist attacks. However terrorist attacks are almost completely irrelevant to the lives of anyone living anywhere except for Iraq. If you've read Bruce's blog, it's pretty clear that he believes 9/11 and more importantly the over-reaction to it in the USA has made pretty much everyone less safe. Just one statistic: more people have died travelling by car to avoid travelling in a plane through dislike of the TSA than died during the 9/11 attack. More importantly, taking away freedom has reduced our security because often the government can be the biggest threat. Since people no longer know what their rulers are doing it is more difficult to make sure they do the right thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you about the BDSM, but in my opinion that's more a matter of what is the law than the way the crime is prosecuted. However there plenty of instances apart from murder where this makes sense:
There are many reasons to prosecute crime, but one very important one is to protect the next potential victim, stopping the criminal after the first crime. That person can't be represented by the existing victims.
That is so wise. Your doctor is, in the end, a tool you use in your own attempt to stay alive and healthy. Understanding doctors and how to use them is crucial. I mostly get great care from Doctors, because I ask them questions in their specialisation; try to be informed in advance. Assume that the doctor does have valid experience and knowledge. Do not assume that the doctor can do statistics (well over 90% of Doctors fail basic tests at explaining statistics in their own field!!!). Do ask questions, but do remain polite pretty much no matter what.
One of the biggest dangers is that doctors get many patients that come along and really don't listen, or, when they do listen, completely misunderstand the basic things the doctor says. If you go in and say something contrary to the doctor's experience, you have to be ready for the doctor to discount your opinion unless you are really good at explaining things.
Damnit people; please read the fine comments before responding. The hyperchondriacs are just so convinced that they don't have the disease, they'll never even open their computer, let alone Google it. Just getting them to the doctor in the first place would be a good start.
Apply Bing twice daily
This sounds a bit like chemotherapy. The cure is mostly worse than the disease and, in fact, the only real advantage is the hope that you'll eventually be able to give up on it.
I'm pretty sure that the ....
I see what you are doing little grasshopper. You are trolling the rtfa-troll by posting anon comments where you pretend not to have read any of the articles. You think I'll respond by trying to troll you. I like that; you've got style, but still you are nowhere near ready to take on the masters. Go over and clean windows at 4chan for a month or so. :-) :-)
Normally, if you want to report a crime, you do it with an off the record quiet message to the authorities, which allows them to try to actually catch the people committing the crime in the act. Normally, if you want to get a project you are related to to stop doing something you worry might be a crime, you first contact the people responsible; especially those you believe aren't involved, and try to get them to do something about it. If, as it seems, Sanger went to the media first of all then that speaks volumes about his motivation.
Having said that; Wales is probably an okay guy, but his position in Wikipedia has been totally inappropriate since his personal life and finances intruded on the project. Once Wikipedia set its self up as an independent foundation all his power should have been derived from some clear democratic process in that foundation. The stupid thing (and the one which shows that he's a completely inappropriate person for the role) is the fact that he could probably have quite easily got himself elected president of the board or something and then none of the arguments against him would be nearly as effective. What Sanger has done may be a bit late, but it's definitely one of the strongest hopes of strengthening the Wikipedia project.
Right, but the thing is that, although that's what the patent is supposed to be for, in fact the way they set it up Apple is claiming patents on multi-touch per-se. This is inherent in the idea of patents on ideas (software / business methods / mathematics). It's very difficult to define good legal boundaries which don't have stupid implictions. For example, software patent advocates actually often claim not to be advocates for software patents. They just care about transformations of matter. Including the change in the output of your screen caused by their software! In other words, the boundary which is supposed to limit software to where it's used as part of a machine process instead becomes a tool in manipulating the debate.
I think the only logical end is a fairly hardline freedom of speech position. Patents, copyrights and trademarks should only be allowed where they demonstrably increase freedom of expression. With trademarks this is easy; if I don't have a proper name for a company which reliably means that company then it's difficult to discuss that company. For copyright, that's quite easy to show, as long as terms are short and DRM (of copyrighted material) is illegal. For normal physical patents, that's likely true as long as the development in the field of interest normally takes place over a term at least a few times as long as the term of the patent. For patents on abstract process that's never going to be true.
More importantly: netbrutality.com seems to be funded by freedomworks which is apparently a corporate lobby / astroturfing group.
Registrant:
FreedomWorks
601 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Suite 700 North Bldg
Washington, DC 20004
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: NETBRUTALITY.COM
Created on: 11-May-06
Expires on: 11-May-11
Last Updated on: 12-May-10
Administrative Contact:
Keeley, Tom tkeeley@[deleted by rtfa-troll to avoid spam]
FreedomWorks
601 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Suite 700 North Bldg
Washington, DC 20004
United States
2029427615
Technical Contact:
Keeley, Tom tkeeley@[deleted by rtfa-troll to avoid spam]
FreedomWorks
601 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Suite 700 North Bldg
Washington, DC 20004
United States
2029427615
Domain servers in listed order:
NS27.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
NS28.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Basically they probably can't really do that in theory, but you have to remember the law does not really apply to IBM (their lawyers are too good), this is them being ethical and warning you in advance. You'd probably find that if you forgot something and went to your manager and explained, they would look it over and let you add it to the list later. If, however, it became an issue of conflict, they would assume you were lying and their lawyers would proceed to prove it, no matter what the truth was. So in a way it's really them just looking after you and making sure you have no illusions in the matter.
Once he has an independent income, he can volunteer work on open source projects until he gets to the point of being a well known maintainer for an important part of something valuable. At that point he should be able to pick up plenty of freelance work.
P.S. Don't you love the moderation on my original post. 50/50 insightful/trolling. Perfect. I really really want to get a +5 troll one day. I hope it's possible (7 or 8 underrated + 2 troll moderations I guess?)
1) - I'll admit "largely" was clearly trolling .. but I think if we change it to "has a large responsibility for" and we look at Microsoft's new and planned data centres, you'll see that there's a point.
2) - Yes; I read about that before. However Uranium based fission is horribly dirty normally and the main thing we've learned so far is that people who promise safe nuclear systems tend to have made a miscalculation or be lying. I think Gates also realises this which is why you'd need a backup plan ("in case you get caught", says a voice inside me, I'm not sure if it's cynical or just trolling)
3) More likely he just wants a way to build a faster yacht to beat Ellison. Interesting rotary sails on these boats. :-P
The problem with Gates is that whenever you look too closely at something he does which supposed to be for good, it always turns out that it's all a little bit to close to his own interests. When I found out that he makes lots of money from pharmaceutical patents and that the B&M Gates foundation goes in specifically in places which might decide to bypass those patents, I got alot more cynical about the man.
All the work you did for them belongs to them.
You don't know that. You are just guessing. He was "hired" but what does that mean? What does his contract say? Lots of people are hired to work on things which don't belong to their employer. He says "I did start the project on my own. And, since no written or verbal agreement was ever made to transfer copyright over to my employer"; that means that their software is a derivative work of software which is legitimately his copyright. Who owns the development after that point may be more complex. Most likely them. Depending on where he is he should probably resign now and send a cease and desist notice asking them to immediately destroy all unlicensed copies of his software. It's probably a complex decision which will depend exactly on what who said to who when, but on the information in the summary you can't make that decision.
Any work done before he worked for them is his copyright and he could release that but any work done after his hire is theirs and as long as they keep it in house, there is no violation.
This varies very much from country to country. In many European countries the work you do outside work is your own. In the US that should also be true, but your employer is allowed to create contracts which take away everything you should own. So, the summary doesn't give us enough information. You need to know a) where exactly this is happening b) what contracts were in place c) what exactly the guy did; what discussions he had and exactly what comments are in the code. Generally he shouldn't post that information since his posting would be discoverable in any lawsuit. He should discuss everything with his lawyer since, in civilised countries, that kind of discussion protects any speculative things he may say that might be harmful to him from being available to his opponents.
Honest question: does distribution internal to an organization count as distribution as described by the GPL? That is, if I have code subject to the GPL, and I distribute it to my employees without allowing them access to the source code, am I violating the GPL?
This question may be easily answered by another read-through of the GPL, but I'm too tired to do that myself right now...
First / correct answer: ask your lawyer. This is a question for lawyers
second, more general useful and helpful but speculative answer. You probably don't mean "distribute it to my employees" you mean "install it on my computers which my employees use". In which case it's not a violation of the GPL. This is because it doesn't count as distribution because it is on your own computer and so you (the company) still really posses it. Full details of this may well vary from one state/country to another.
It was discussed some time ago on Schneier's blog, but I can't find the proper reference. This is pretty close along with this but I can't find the long term impact on people's travel habits which is needed to get the total up the the level of the casualties on the day. Also the extent to which it's security measures rather than fear of flying is really needed to back up the statistic I stated.
The real auction is coming... who gets to control the weather?
There; fixed that for you. Deeply scared myself in the process too. I guess that you just run these a few hundred k upwind of any holiday resorts that are competing with your own ones.
when I stuck my tongue out when it rained, I didn't taste any salt at all,
If I was choosing my nick again I would be the RTFT-TROLL (yes; that loud)
Here it is; the article title again, but this time a bit marked up for those of you so bloody stupid you can't see it.
Science: Bill Gates Funds Seawater-Spraying Cloud Machines on 2010-05-10 23:35
and a marked up an excerpt from the summary.
[...] The Microsoft founder recently announced plans to invest $300,000 into research for machines that suck up seawater and spray it into the air, seeding white clouds that reflect rays of sunlight away from Earth. [...]
P.S. Typical of Gates, that he's investing into a speculative solution into solving a problem he has a large responsibility for (just like drugs and vaccines for people who've been deprived of them by his IPR policies) still, better than a kick in the teeth. Many of our tycoon overlords don't even bother with this level of "largesse".
P.P.S. In case that wasn't enough of a troll to start a "discussion" I'll just post a link to someone who seems to have done the calculation whether this can help enough and found it can't; maybe we just need to start cutting down on fossil fuel use now??
The way I read it is that things without ownership are being replaced by things with ownership. The reason, I think, is a tragedy of the commons situation. If nobody owns a particular part of the internet, there's seldom somebody who feels it's their duty to clean it up when needed and those that do seldom have the power. When someone like facebook "owns" "your" information they know that they can use that against you later, so they are motivated to keep it valuable for you now.
This is a real problem since the common data we used to have was much more valuable. People trying to solve this really need to think carefully about what facebook is really providing and how to provide it in a decentralised way:
Proposed alternatives just don't do the same. Sure; you might be able to set up a spam protected usenet group, but your technophobic great aunt has no chance. OpenID may provide identity, but it doesn't provide a decent simple clear interface to it. I have no way to navigate to and identify your OpenID etc. etc. Without this there's no easy way to get people to move over.
The whole Estonian system is based on having secure systems connected to the internet. It's possible to do a mass attack on the voters systems and/or servers on the day of the attack. The study you give simply ignores this possibility by "assuming" that the chance of an attack is low. However, it bases this assumption on total falacies. If you assume that your enemy is well funded (likely in the Estonian case; it may well be the Russian government) then they have a zero day exploit ready to go just before the election. They can then either manipulate the individual voters systems during election period so that when the voters select one candidate in fact the attacker's candidate is selected. This corrupted vote looks identical to a normal one and so is counted as such. It's possible they get caught, but they can minimise that risk (e.g. by only attacking PCs in real voter areas, reducing the risk of attacking a security expert's PC). Anyway, if they do get caught cheating, it's likely they don't actually get caught physically. They can just try again next time in a cleverer way.
To be frank, a scary read.
The answer is a) obviously; If the terrorists were capable of increasing their activity they would do that already. They might begin to stretch themselves too much for a little while; which would cause more failed missions and weaken their organisation even more quickly. Very quickly the number of attacks would reduce since you can't recruit if nobody sees you doing anything. In fact, the strategy which worked against the IRA; a group who carried out many more, often larger and more definitely more effective terrorist attacks than "Al Queda" was specifically and deliberately ignoring them. Margaret Thatcher, used to talk about "denying the terrorists the oxygen of publicity". This isn't even a new an controversial thought. Minimising the media success of your opponent is one of the basics of almost any counter-insurgency manual.
Perhaps you should try reading the summary? Or even the title on the discussion? This is a discussion about safety. If terrorism doesn't even register on the death statistics, that's because it is irrelevant to your safety. Now, it might influence your fear. A large number of misinformed people or cowards might mean it has economic consequences, but it would be completely irrelevant in a discussion about safety.
(N.B. I don't accept that terrorism causes some vast number more injuries per person killed than e.g. car crashes; feel free to provide statistics to show I'm wrong)
Do you even know what a straw man is? It's an argument nobody makes. I'm making the argument about the TSA, so even if it were wrong, stupid, entirely malicious and just generally fucked up, it still wouldn't be a straw man.
We do not live in the era of horses and five week mail delivery any more. Before you put up stupid shit like this, how about at least making sure we can't easily check it. If you look at basic cause of death statistics for Israel, terrorism isn't even listed it's such a minor issue. Please come back when you've realised that Google exists.
In fact the only good thing about your post is it was less stupid than it's parent post. At least there really are some suicide bomb attacks which kill people in Israel; the Real IRA kills practically nobody.
The thing is, that this is a stupid straw man argument that's been put into Schneier's mouth. 9/11 may or may not have made "us" more likely to be killed in terrorist attacks. However terrorist attacks are almost completely irrelevant to the lives of anyone living anywhere except for Iraq. If you've read Bruce's blog, it's pretty clear that he believes 9/11 and more importantly the over-reaction to it in the USA has made pretty much everyone less safe. Just one statistic: more people have died travelling by car to avoid travelling in a plane through dislike of the TSA than died during the 9/11 attack. More importantly, taking away freedom has reduced our security because often the government can be the biggest threat. Since people no longer know what their rulers are doing it is more difficult to make sure they do the right thing.