I understand that fallacy and its role in building the myth. I genuinely do. I also understand the difference between a drive by and an actual bot net. You should as well.
Extortion is illegal, organizing a ddos attack from a botnet is illegal. Just showing up and clogging the place? Good luck prosecuting anyone on that.
Note the bolded portion. If you think there are enough inspired individuals on 4chan to merely hit 'Refresh' on their browsers over and over and cause any sort of impact at all - well, which of us is clueless here after all? Even slashdot only brings sites to their knees for a short period of time, and then usually only the low-dollar ones. Professional stuff generally sees little impact from our visits.
So, your premise, "DDoS as done by 4chan isn't hacking" is clearly based on the flawed assumption that no one in that group is utilizing a bot net. Not only do you not have enough information to make that claim, but the observed impact to the sites doesn't match it either.
He is a biased source, yes. He's also the only source capable of 100% knowing the truth of why he decided to do something.
That's actually not true. Observe...
movie-makers “can’t wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things.”
So it follows that Zuckerberg is claiming that he built Facebook because he likes building things. Okay. So what has he built since? He likes building things, so the profit, the fame, the success, etc, isn't driving him, it's the building of things. Reminds me of Leonardo da Vinci. The difference, though, is that da Vinci's notebook was filled with things he started and never completed. He loved working for the work, it would seem. Where's this in Zuckerberg's behavior?
I'm not seeing it. Therefore I put forward that there can be more than one primary source on why it happened, and I'd also surmise that it is possible that there are psychological constructs at work that could be preventing Zuckerberg from coming to terms with his own identity. Otherwise his behavior would likely match his recollection, but in reality it clearly does not.
What's going on here. He's over 60, and a musician, didn't he do a lot of drugs in his youth? Why isn't he dead yet?
I was kind of hoping darwin would have taken care of these old pro-RIAA musicians already with a gentle dose of death.
Did you ever consider that the ENTIRE thing was a front? Not just the costumes, but the drug lifestyle and the whole thing? Real junkies-turned-rockstars OD early. As do rockstars-turned-junkies. But there's really only a certain personality type or two that would genuinely flush everything down the toilet like that. It isn't as common as you've been led to believe, and it selects contrary to the traits that make someone a rock legend.
Anonymous doesn't care. They are doing it for the lulz. To assume they have any agenda besides lulz gives them too much credit. Honestly, have you ever visited 4chan? Does that user base strike you as political or activist?
The issue, though, is that 'Anonymous' is a myth. These are real people committing actual crimes, and since they're being so brazen about the conflict, there's an excellent chance that someone WILL take the fall for all of it. It would be one thing to launch an attack at a site unannounced, but to repeatedly use the same methods at the same target, that's just stupid. A scapegoat will be produced if this continues, I promise you that.
So agenda or not, Parent is right. This is not the way to prove Gene wrong. Not today, not in this manner.
What is it about old rock stars who disavow their youthful ways?
Money, and the pursuit for more of it. Plus an inflated ego. Everyone must love Gene!
This genuinely isn't Gene's fault. It's yours. You're the ones thinking that his youthful endeavors were EVER about anything other than becoming a successful, AND WEALTHY, musical icon.
He doesn't lead the choir at his local church here, folks. He's a rock legend. The distinction is greatly about how far you're willing to go to make a buck.
This is a popular fallacy, but not all antibiotics are effective on all forms of bacteria -- as anyone who has had to get a prescription for antibiotics from a doctor knows. Doctors choose the antibiotics to use based on the family of bacteria they want to destroy.
Don't be pedantic, it's contrary to good discussion. The point, that you're likely to be unable to deny, is that antibiotics could well be killing off stuff that we'd be better off keeping. Unintended consequences and all that.
It's right there in TFS:
If further evidence bears this out, medicine is about to undergo a profound paradigm shift, and medical treatment could regularly involve kindness to microbes.
Whether this means no antibiotics or just better ones, remains to be seen.
The real reason Americans are overweight is because they have been convinced to switch to a primarily sugar diet, and when that leads to being fat, they are told that they should starve themselves, try to make up for the effects of starvation with muscle building exercise, and eat an even higher ratio of sugar to other foods. This has been a vicious circle of ever worse diet since sometime around the early seventies when someone had the brilliant idea that since sugar has less calories for it's mass than fat, people will take in less calories and be thinner if they just eat sugar.
No offense, but what part of "paradigm shift" did you miss? Parent is correct to wonder, and could be on to something. The problem with a reply like your own is that you're completely ignoring the topic, the idea behind it, and any possibilities therein. That's fine, but sticking with the existing knowledge and assumptions without paying even lip service to the idea in the topic is just, well, odd.
Well put. Insulting, rude, and based on wildly incorrect assumptions, but you communicated your ignorance and contempt in a very eloquent manner. Have a great night!
I'm looking for specific numbers here, on direct effects, not secondary ones.
Let's not be pedantic, these effects are more direct than you seem to be willing to realize.
This being the template response when there's no other way to defend the statement.
So there was no Tea Party until Glenn Beck decided it was cool enough to embrace? Really?? It gets hard to defend a statement that's materially false. And even if it weren't, does John Stewart set the liberal agenda? Or is he merely an entertainer on a TV show?
I'm willing to continue, but you're really going to have to try harder than this, or we're both just wasting our time.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Go write that on a chalkboard twenty times so you don't forget it.
If the States wanted to mandate health insurance, they'd have that power. The Federal government, however, is EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED from it.
Well, that or the fact that Congress passed an *actual* Bill Of Attainder to defund ACORN?
Somehow, I think that he was less worked up about that, an actual clear-cut and dry Constitutional violation than the health care bill, so I respectfully doubt his Defender Of The Constitution credentials.
This is going to hinge on whether or not ACORN was "punished" by being cut off from government funding. Does that mean that my organization "Give Tax Dollars to Bob" is likewise "punished" when I do not receive funding? Does ACORN have a right to funding that was removed by this law?
This doesn't appear to be anything to as close to clear cut as the healthcare constitutional issue is.
How does this experiment hold up against the Militia Act of 1792 whereby Congress mandated that every able body male between eighteen and forty five years of age purchase their own musket? Mind you, they weren't provided a musket, but were mandated to buy one.
Well, I'm not aware of this ever facing SCOTUS review, are you?
Further, the law seems to only apply to actual members of the militia:
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
Further, the law may not have provided you with a musket, but it does appear to allow you to claim it on your taxes:
...and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes
If I'm reading that right, you might not even have to pay for it at all, if it were a debt, but I digress...
So the law said that 'if you were drafted, you had to come prepared to fight'.
This is really the same thing as saying 'if you are alive you must buy exactly this kind of insurance'? HCR mandates a LOT more than just 'a musket' and applies to everyone, not just those males who were drafted. These are apples and crab apples.
But that being said, I doubt this law would have been found in keeping with the Commerce Clause, either. Particularly not once the nation had a standing military of the scope and power that we now possess.
they are ALL bullshit artists. pushing bones and joints around will accomplish NOTHING for any disorder, except a dislocated joint..and I'd really recommend going to a REAL doctor for one of those.
That's not true. They're scientifically proven to be effective at pain relief, at a minimum. I'm not willing to take it so far as the other claims, but if you're out of whack and in pain, they can certainly help you. "NOTHING" is proven false. Look it up.
They can also potentially kill you. Friend went and let a chiropractor adjust her neck.
Ended up on warfarin (rat poison) for 2 months... which was better than the alternatives.
Yes, chiropractors can do something; you may not like the result.
What, exactly, does Glenn Beck have to do with the Tea Party? You're demonstrating an inability to separate it from the rest of the right. That's going to prove problematic.
The Tea Party is neither small nor ineffective, and that's what scares me.
This is a non-sequitur, though. On the one hand you have violent terrorism, and on the other words and ideas. Those shouldn't ever equate.
Let me ask you this: how many people would be directly affected by increasing the rate of the top tax bracket?
Now, THAT is an excellent question. The short answer is, a lot. More people, in fact, than you'd help. Here's how it works for the upper income bracket in most of the world:
1) Guy has business, is wealthy, and earns 'X' dollars to support his lifestyle.
2) Laws are passed, demanding guy pay an additional 'Y' dollars in taxes.
3) Guy shuffles things around in the company he owns, and his new salary becomes 'X+Y'.
4) Company cuts overtime, lays off, refuses to hire, raises employee premiums, and/or otherwise cuts expenses to make up the difference. Further, if difference cannot be made up, company reports a loss to the IRS, and pays fewer taxes.
It's really, really easy to look at the fat, lazy rich and want what they're squandering. I totally get that. Compassion is not at all foreign to me. However, you're not able to do that, as you lack the power. You can mandate this or that, but not the internal workings of the companies themselves. Nothing short of total socialism can actually make these guys take a bigger paycut than they are going to wind up passing on to their employees.
So you take money from the working guy, even though that wasn't what you wanted to do, and give it to the poor. The working guy is now poorer than the poor guy. This tends to piss people off just a bit, ergo Tea Party.
Tea Party heads will explode when SCOTUS decides that the Interstate Commerce Clause makes the HCA Constitutional.
Indeed. You'd see a grassroots Amendment process if this were the case, because SCOTUS would be granting Congress a brand new power - the ability to compel you to buy a product of their choosing, and penalize you should you disagree. This goes beyond prohibiting a given economic behavior to actually mandating one. And it doesn't just specify compliance in the general sense, but for the first time ever requires that the government itself maintain oversight over the entire segment of the economy. Were the court to decide that this is ambiguous, I could easily see a mandate from the people clearing that up. A lot of people, myself included, see the Interstate Commerce Clause as a structure for mediating disputes between the states, as opposed to a 'write whatever laws you want' power.
Could you imagine a Federal law of this type in any other sense? Mandating that you eat only beef, and never chicken? Wear Nike shoes bought only at WalMart? It is absolutely unprecedented, and therefore unconstitutional, at a minimum. Were the court to decide otherwise, there will be a lot of shocked and surprised people, myself included.
Most would advocate resolving these in the most simple manner possible, usually resorting to mere property rights. E.g if my factory pollutes your land, I have diminished your property and owe you restitution. You, and only you, and only for the measurable impact. I have a wonderful grasshopper/ant story to share with you, if you're genuinely interested in discussions of redistribution of wealth.
stops making excuses for bad behavior
Such as? And even given examples, are we to assume that liberals, Republicans, and/or Independents never behave badly?
ejects the religious wing of the party
Reject Christian religion in favor of Atheist religion? Why? Or pretend that religion doesn't exist? Again, why? Again, clarity, please.
generally stops inventing rhetoric that has no basis in reality
Such as? I'm unaware of anything within the realm of unicorns and leprechauns - which, by the way, have at least some basis in reality. Please do speak up. Let's have a dialog, rather than your just spewing hate all over the place.
Also, armies tend to think 2-dimensionally. The two were split for a reason.
Well, then, it's a damn good thing the enemies never invented flight. Otherwise our ground forces would be totally screwed! Oh, wait... That's total BS dude. Please, try again. Or just drop it. Both would work fine.
You're picking at nits, and not genuinely making any points. If you really believe that adding IPv6 support is innovation enough to warrant the OP's comment, then I suppose we'll just have to agree that we use that word with differing connotations.
You're taking it too far, though. If they fear it may be harmful, and they don't actually need it for their core business (as in teaching kids), then why NOT eliminate it?
Slashdot Mirror
Some musicians play music because they enjoy playing music, not strictly becaus they see it as a beeline to being ludicrously rich.
They do. But those are not 'rock legends'. This level of notoriety requires a certain level of ambition.
I understand that fallacy and its role in building the myth. I genuinely do. I also understand the difference between a drive by and an actual bot net. You should as well.
Extortion is illegal, organizing a ddos attack from a botnet is illegal. Just showing up and clogging the place? Good luck prosecuting anyone on that.
Note the bolded portion. If you think there are enough inspired individuals on 4chan to merely hit 'Refresh' on their browsers over and over and cause any sort of impact at all - well, which of us is clueless here after all? Even slashdot only brings sites to their knees for a short period of time, and then usually only the low-dollar ones. Professional stuff generally sees little impact from our visits.
So, your premise, "DDoS as done by 4chan isn't hacking" is clearly based on the flawed assumption that no one in that group is utilizing a bot net. Not only do you not have enough information to make that claim, but the observed impact to the sites doesn't match it either.
Sugar cane is and has been a factor of their culture for a very long time. Not so much here.
He is a biased source, yes. He's also the only source capable of 100% knowing the truth of why he decided to do something.
That's actually not true. Observe...
movie-makers “can’t wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things.”
So it follows that Zuckerberg is claiming that he built Facebook because he likes building things. Okay. So what has he built since? He likes building things, so the profit, the fame, the success, etc, isn't driving him, it's the building of things. Reminds me of Leonardo da Vinci. The difference, though, is that da Vinci's notebook was filled with things he started and never completed. He loved working for the work, it would seem. Where's this in Zuckerberg's behavior?
I'm not seeing it. Therefore I put forward that there can be more than one primary source on why it happened, and I'd also surmise that it is possible that there are psychological constructs at work that could be preventing Zuckerberg from coming to terms with his own identity. Otherwise his behavior would likely match his recollection, but in reality it clearly does not.
Not only do I understand you loud and clear, but I'm already feeling empathy for the poor child whose life will be destroyed by this call to arms.
Hopefully they'll find the guy who called it.
Not only did you miss it, you're dismissing it.
Why do American suffer more from this than, say, Brazilians? Wouldn't they have greater access to cheap sugary products than we do?
There could be a microbial cause, and you're not discussing that at all. You already think you have the answers, do you not?
You're expecting these things to be contrary, but they're intrinsic.
What's going on here. He's over 60, and a musician, didn't he do a lot of drugs in his youth? Why isn't he dead yet?
I was kind of hoping darwin would have taken care of these old pro-RIAA musicians already with a gentle dose of death.
Did you ever consider that the ENTIRE thing was a front? Not just the costumes, but the drug lifestyle and the whole thing? Real junkies-turned-rockstars OD early. As do rockstars-turned-junkies. But there's really only a certain personality type or two that would genuinely flush everything down the toilet like that. It isn't as common as you've been led to believe, and it selects contrary to the traits that make someone a rock legend.
Anonymous doesn't care. They are doing it for the lulz. To assume they have any agenda besides lulz gives them too much credit. Honestly, have you ever visited 4chan? Does that user base strike you as political or activist?
The issue, though, is that 'Anonymous' is a myth. These are real people committing actual crimes, and since they're being so brazen about the conflict, there's an excellent chance that someone WILL take the fall for all of it. It would be one thing to launch an attack at a site unannounced, but to repeatedly use the same methods at the same target, that's just stupid. A scapegoat will be produced if this continues, I promise you that.
So agenda or not, Parent is right. This is not the way to prove Gene wrong. Not today, not in this manner.
All I can think is, 'poor, stupid, kid'.
What is it about old rock stars who disavow their youthful ways?
Money, and the pursuit for more of it. Plus an inflated ego. Everyone must love Gene!
This genuinely isn't Gene's fault. It's yours. You're the ones thinking that his youthful endeavors were EVER about anything other than becoming a successful, AND WEALTHY, musical icon.
He doesn't lead the choir at his local church here, folks. He's a rock legend. The distinction is greatly about how far you're willing to go to make a buck.
This is a popular fallacy, but not all antibiotics are effective on all forms of bacteria -- as anyone who has had to get a prescription for antibiotics from a doctor knows. Doctors choose the antibiotics to use based on the family of bacteria they want to destroy.
Don't be pedantic, it's contrary to good discussion. The point, that you're likely to be unable to deny, is that antibiotics could well be killing off stuff that we'd be better off keeping. Unintended consequences and all that.
It's right there in TFS:
If further evidence bears this out, medicine is about to undergo a profound paradigm shift, and medical treatment could regularly involve kindness to microbes.
Whether this means no antibiotics or just better ones, remains to be seen.
The real reason Americans are overweight is because they have been convinced to switch to a primarily sugar diet, and when that leads to being fat, they are told that they should starve themselves, try to make up for the effects of starvation with muscle building exercise, and eat an even higher ratio of sugar to other foods. This has been a vicious circle of ever worse diet since sometime around the early seventies when someone had the brilliant idea that since sugar has less calories for it's mass than fat, people will take in less calories and be thinner if they just eat sugar.
No offense, but what part of "paradigm shift" did you miss? Parent is correct to wonder, and could be on to something. The problem with a reply like your own is that you're completely ignoring the topic, the idea behind it, and any possibilities therein. That's fine, but sticking with the existing knowledge and assumptions without paying even lip service to the idea in the topic is just, well, odd.
Well put. Insulting, rude, and based on wildly incorrect assumptions, but you communicated your ignorance and contempt in a very eloquent manner. Have a great night!
I'm looking for specific numbers here, on direct effects, not secondary ones.
Let's not be pedantic, these effects are more direct than you seem to be willing to realize.
This being the template response when there's no other way to defend the statement.
So there was no Tea Party until Glenn Beck decided it was cool enough to embrace? Really?? It gets hard to defend a statement that's materially false. And even if it weren't, does John Stewart set the liberal agenda? Or is he merely an entertainer on a TV show?
I'm willing to continue, but you're really going to have to try harder than this, or we're both just wasting our time.
It's not enforced at the federal level, but
but, nothing.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Go write that on a chalkboard twenty times so you don't forget it.
If the States wanted to mandate health insurance, they'd have that power. The Federal government, however, is EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED from it.
Well, that or the fact that Congress passed an *actual* Bill Of Attainder to defund ACORN?
Somehow, I think that he was less worked up about that, an actual clear-cut and dry Constitutional violation than the health care bill, so I respectfully doubt his Defender Of The Constitution credentials.
This is going to hinge on whether or not ACORN was "punished" by being cut off from government funding. Does that mean that my organization "Give Tax Dollars to Bob" is likewise "punished" when I do not receive funding? Does ACORN have a right to funding that was removed by this law?
This doesn't appear to be anything to as close to clear cut as the healthcare constitutional issue is.
How does this experiment hold up against the Militia Act of 1792 whereby Congress mandated that every able body male between eighteen and forty five years of age purchase their own musket? Mind you, they weren't provided a musket, but were mandated to buy one.
Well, I'm not aware of this ever facing SCOTUS review, are you?
Further, the law seems to only apply to actual members of the militia:
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
Further, the law may not have provided you with a musket, but it does appear to allow you to claim it on your taxes:
...and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes
If I'm reading that right, you might not even have to pay for it at all, if it were a debt, but I digress...
So the law said that 'if you were drafted, you had to come prepared to fight'.
This is really the same thing as saying 'if you are alive you must buy exactly this kind of insurance'? HCR mandates a LOT more than just 'a musket' and applies to everyone, not just those males who were drafted. These are apples and crab apples.
But that being said, I doubt this law would have been found in keeping with the Commerce Clause, either. Particularly not once the nation had a standing military of the scope and power that we now possess.
they are ALL bullshit artists. pushing bones and joints around will accomplish NOTHING for any disorder, except a dislocated joint..and I'd really recommend going to a REAL doctor for one of those.
That's not true. They're scientifically proven to be effective at pain relief, at a minimum. I'm not willing to take it so far as the other claims, but if you're out of whack and in pain, they can certainly help you. "NOTHING" is proven false. Look it up.
They can also potentially kill you. Friend went and let a chiropractor adjust her neck.
Ended up on warfarin (rat poison) for 2 months ... which was better than the alternatives.
Yes, chiropractors can do something; you may not like the result.
Quacks with an MD exist as well, you know.
What, exactly, does Glenn Beck have to do with the Tea Party? You're demonstrating an inability to separate it from the rest of the right. That's going to prove problematic.
The Tea Party is neither small nor ineffective, and that's what scares me.
This is a non-sequitur, though. On the one hand you have violent terrorism, and on the other words and ideas. Those shouldn't ever equate.
Let me ask you this: how many people would be directly affected by increasing the rate of the top tax bracket?
Now, THAT is an excellent question. The short answer is, a lot. More people, in fact, than you'd help. Here's how it works for the upper income bracket in most of the world:
1) Guy has business, is wealthy, and earns 'X' dollars to support his lifestyle.
2) Laws are passed, demanding guy pay an additional 'Y' dollars in taxes.
3) Guy shuffles things around in the company he owns, and his new salary becomes 'X+Y'.
4) Company cuts overtime, lays off, refuses to hire, raises employee premiums, and/or otherwise cuts expenses to make up the difference. Further, if difference cannot be made up, company reports a loss to the IRS, and pays fewer taxes.
It's really, really easy to look at the fat, lazy rich and want what they're squandering. I totally get that. Compassion is not at all foreign to me. However, you're not able to do that, as you lack the power. You can mandate this or that, but not the internal workings of the companies themselves. Nothing short of total socialism can actually make these guys take a bigger paycut than they are going to wind up passing on to their employees.
So you take money from the working guy, even though that wasn't what you wanted to do, and give it to the poor. The working guy is now poorer than the poor guy. This tends to piss people off just a bit, ergo Tea Party.
Tea Party heads will explode when SCOTUS decides that the Interstate Commerce Clause makes the HCA Constitutional.
Indeed. You'd see a grassroots Amendment process if this were the case, because SCOTUS would be granting Congress a brand new power - the ability to compel you to buy a product of their choosing, and penalize you should you disagree. This goes beyond prohibiting a given economic behavior to actually mandating one. And it doesn't just specify compliance in the general sense, but for the first time ever requires that the government itself maintain oversight over the entire segment of the economy. Were the court to decide that this is ambiguous, I could easily see a mandate from the people clearing that up. A lot of people, myself included, see the Interstate Commerce Clause as a structure for mediating disputes between the states, as opposed to a 'write whatever laws you want' power.
Could you imagine a Federal law of this type in any other sense? Mandating that you eat only beef, and never chicken? Wear Nike shoes bought only at WalMart? It is absolutely unprecedented, and therefore unconstitutional, at a minimum. Were the court to decide otherwise, there will be a lot of shocked and surprised people, myself included.
I have the right to point out whatever I want! How dare you try to infringe my constitutional right to freedom of speech!
Indeed. You have the right to be wrong, constitutionally, and naturally.
You're going to need to be more specific:
understanding what "externality" means
Most would advocate resolving these in the most simple manner possible, usually resorting to mere property rights. E.g if my factory pollutes your land, I have diminished your property and owe you restitution. You, and only you, and only for the measurable impact. I have a wonderful grasshopper/ant story to share with you, if you're genuinely interested in discussions of redistribution of wealth.
stops making excuses for bad behavior
Such as? And even given examples, are we to assume that liberals, Republicans, and/or Independents never behave badly?
ejects the religious wing of the party
Reject Christian religion in favor of Atheist religion? Why? Or pretend that religion doesn't exist? Again, why? Again, clarity, please.
generally stops inventing rhetoric that has no basis in reality
Such as? I'm unaware of anything within the realm of unicorns and leprechauns - which, by the way, have at least some basis in reality. Please do speak up. Let's have a dialog, rather than your just spewing hate all over the place.
Also, armies tend to think 2-dimensionally. The two were split for a reason.
Well, then, it's a damn good thing the enemies never invented flight. Otherwise our ground forces would be totally screwed! Oh, wait... That's total BS dude. Please, try again. Or just drop it. Both would work fine.
You're picking at nits, and not genuinely making any points. If you really believe that adding IPv6 support is innovation enough to warrant the OP's comment, then I suppose we'll just have to agree that we use that word with differing connotations.
You're taking it too far, though. If they fear it may be harmful, and they don't actually need it for their core business (as in teaching kids), then why NOT eliminate it?