12 year old, "Sikhs are Muslims, therefore, your bag is a bomb."
arrested boy, "If I'm a Muslim, then this bag is a bomb." or, "When I was shopping for it, the salesman said 'this bag is the bomb.'"
I can think of a thousand reasonable responses that would be "jokes" that would in no way imply that the device was a bomb. Without a recording of the interaction, one should assume it was a joke that doesn't imply in any way that the bag was a bomb.
Though, I'm reminded of a trip I took. The TSA agent made a joke about a bomb. I said, "I have a really good comeback, but you are allowed to make such jokes, and it's a crime for me to respond in kind." He had a shocked look, then a sad one. I think he realized the Nazi in his position in that moment.
Which is part of my point. We are trying to match the worst self-driving car to that top 0.1% of drivers. If we can get self drivers as good as the top 55% of drivers, it'll be shit, and still save thousands of lives every year. The average driver makes hundreds of errors a minute. Though, others expect and plan on those errors (though usually unconsciously), so most errors don't end in a crash. Having 1 error a minute seems to be unacceptable for a self-driver, even if 1000 times better than a human.
Yup, it's not even unexpected for humans. If you have never thought about what you'd do if a couch fell from an overpass, or a tire jumped the median and headed towards you, you are an incompetent driver. Cut up your license and take the bus. "Unexpected" is a crutch for idiots. Only the impossible is unexpected.
The whole idea is that cars will have inhuman reaction times coupled with greater sensory perception and awareness. This whole 'steer into 5 people or murder the driver' is probably such a complex thing for a machine OR human to even sense in the amount of time that an accident occurs. At least if a machine could see actually determine it in time, you damn well bet the machine had time to make a more informed decision than a person would.
The machine would be programmed with a default "in case of fan struck by unidentified fecal mater, brake hard, stop everything, call home, and figure out what's going on." Car is driving 30 in a 35 mph zone, a soccer team runs out from behind cover and stops in the road, 11 people blocking the road completely. The car can't stop before hitting at least one of them. The system should default to stopping as fast as possible. It doesn't matter that you'll hit 3 if you go straight, and there's a steering that would hit only 2 (or even one). You can try to stop as best you can. It reduces the damage to whatever you hit, and reduces the chances of secondary damage.
Automated cars don't have to be perfect. They just need to be statistically better than humans, and that's a pretty low bar. The Luddites on Slashdot claim that cars need to have 100% success, when humans aren't even close to that. Why hold an automated system to a higher standard? Deploy it with 10% better, and improve that 10% every year. Eventually, we'll get to 1% of the deaths of today's roads or less. That's achievable with basic automated cars we have today.
So, you've never been in an accident that was not your fault on the highways?
Sometimes, going at speed and a deer jumps out means hitting the deer and possibly killing the driver, or swerving off the road and killing the driver, or serving into another car and killing others. Often, coming 'to a full and complete stop' isn't possible. Or may be on train tracks.
99.99% of the time the best course of action is to stop as quickly as possible within your lane or in a straight line. AI isn't necessary for panic stops. ABS and brake assist is a solved problem. Yes, 0.01% of the time, the full stop would leave you on a train track, with a train coming in the next 3 hours. But once you are to 20 mph or below, hold the last stop until you roll the 6 feet past the train tracks. Hitting a deer at 20 will scare it, and not much else. The better pseudo-AI will solve that much easier than a human.
It's funny to me how so many want to solve the unsolved issue. Until a computer has an answer for a meteor hitting the road 7 feet in front of the car, we can't let computers drive for us, when they are safer 99% of the time.
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/... "Basic" is defined by the FCC. Some may break the law and call it "limited basic" and "enhanced basic" but I go by law, not marketing departments. Nearly all have a sub-$20 basic. And that gets you in the door for Internet, phone and the other services. If they mess with basic, they fuck with FCC law.
Yeah, nobody should ever try for "change from within". If you think you are working for someone you don't like, you should burn the place down and rot in jail. Any other option is obviously unethical.
The high sports salaries are being paid for by high sports channel monthly fees that everyone has to pay because ESPN is part of basic cable.
You and I define "basic" differently. Basic cable is the $10 or $20 per month package that gets you the local channels and a few shopping channels that pay the cable company to include them in "basic". Then "standard" is 50 or so channels. It used to have Discovery and SciFi, but those got popular, so "standard no longer has the popular things. Even AMC has outgrown "standard" in some places. USA, TNT, and the news channels are "standard". Separate again are "family" and then "sports". You have to pay well above "basic" to get ESPN, or pay for that premium.
Though I've seen a number of places where "basic" isn't advertised, and you have to know it exists and order it directly and explicitly to get it, as they are signing up people for "standard" who ask for "basic". So maybe that's where your confusion comes from. I've never had ESPN, but I've had cable, when it was the only option for decent Internet.
If we stopped flying tomorrow, completely 100% no more flying it'd not make much difference. 9% of oil use in the US is flying. The answer is really simple, just unpalatable. Raise the tax on fuel to $5 per gallon ($0.50 per year for 10 years, indexed on inflation after that). You don't need complex rules against cars and such. Just make the cost direct. You want to use less fuel? Tax it heavily. People will stop driving when they don't need to.
The indirect nudges to people don't work. Make fuel expensive, and the only people driving F150s will be people who absolutely need them. People will drift to more efficient vehicles, and drive them less. Use the taxes collected to fund high-speed trains for commuting and travel. It should be faster to train between Dallas and Houston, or Boston and DC than to fly. When you have that down, flight will fall without having to over-regulate anything.
They will stop when we stop paying them to produce concrete and steel. Those things (and the things made from them) are power-intensive. And industry is the user of power in China, and that's been sent to China from the US by US companies. We still mine materials in the US, to ship to China for processing, for return to the US for sale. It was a way of exporting pollution when Nixon started the EPA. That's when exporting pollution started. Though, as it takes a while for industries to turn, it took a few years for the change to happen. The cost of drinking water and rivers/lakes that didn't catch fire was moving some of the most dirty industries off shore (then, apparently blaming them for not being as "clean" as us).
If the US stopped buying products that require pollution to make, China would stop polluting. Yes, it is that simple.
Ah yes, the long list of lies. Bill Clinton lied. He lied when he truthfully said he didn't touch Monica's vagina (effectively the specific question he was asked, after "sex" was clarified). And Hillary lied because Benghazi. There were more hearings on her emails than 9/11, and still no direct lies uncovered.
But Trump says he will ban all Muslims from entering the US, even returning US citizens, then re-states to say only non-citizens. And claims he never said he'd ban "all" or citizens, even when faced with recordings of him saying it.
The Democrats need to outline eloaborate lies. Like Fair Tax, a pile of lies, fabricated by insane people as to a wish of what they hope would happen, without any basis in reality for the revenue and expenses. Single payer health care, like England's, is much cheaper than private health care, and with better results. Why aren't the Democrats pushing for single-payer as the next step after ACA? A federal insurance company, started now, and listed on the insurance exchanges of all 50 states, operating at 50% of the cost of all the private insurers, and showing a profit would cut taxes and improve care. Any missing details? Make them up, and make them good.
But no, we get reality. Gun control statistics nobody cares about. You can't argue someone out of religion with facts, and gun-nut is a religion. The cure for religion, is another religion, not facts. But the Democratic Party doesn't see that and attack dogma with dogma, so they always lose.
Reagan committed Treason in 1980, paying Iran to keep US citizens hostage. The Iran-Contra scandal was the payment. And a separate count of Treason.
The Carter efforts for rescue were likely directly sabotaged, though I've not seen that proven, as the other Treasons I've mentioned have been detailed by people too old to care about prison, and focused more on cleansing their soul as they die.
I swapped the 3G wireless and WiFi wireless cards in my Lenovo and saw no issues. They do lock down drivers for security, but I had no problem with loading up the new cards, once I properly loaded the manufacturer drivers. I was planning on going from my current E530 to a new Y70. Maybe it's different across their different lines, but the Thinkpad E530 had no issues with 3rd party wireless and RAM (I never swapped the battery. 3+ years, and still working well, and never found anyone who made a larger capacity batter, including Lenovo). http://www.newegg.com/Product/... 17.3" touchscreen and 960M, not many in that category, most gaming laptops don't do touch screen. But we got a tablet-like http://au.pcmag.com/acer-aspir... for cheap on sale and liked it, and having a touch screen, so wanted to go touch-only going forward. I can't find anything with a 17.3" or larger touchscreen and a 960m or better video card anywhere else, at any price, and the Lenovo Y70 is only about $1000 on sale.
If that many disagree with me, it's no a matter of "right" or "wrong" as you try to reduce it to, but it's about the desire to be surrounded by idiots, or the desire to not be surrounded by idiots.
If I think the Earth goes round the Sun, and others disagree, it's not up to me to agree with them to fit in, but to leave that destructive environment if I don't want to be subjected to it. Voting can't determine fact. And so much of what's being debated is "fact". The "best way" to fix a problem isn't a matter for opinion, it's fact. There's only one "best way". There may be millions of not best ways to get a similar result, but only one "best". Since most domestic terrorism in the US is White Christians, banning Muslims from entering would decrease, rather than increase, safety for Americans. One needn't accept it, even if we don't agree with it. Everyone in the middle class should leave the US. Though technically in the upper class in the US (based on income, not social structure), I left to join the middle class elsewhere. Everyone with the means to leave should move to Europe, Australia, or anywhere else they can that's away from the US. The war on the middle class will only get worse. Flee while you can.
Denmark would be top of the list. The list of countries better than the US is about as long as the list not better.
And no, so long as the US military is stronger than all the militaries of all non-allies combined, there's nowhere on the world that's "safe", so best to ignore "safe" and just get away to someplace better.
Pandering to social conservatives and authoritarians has been enormously successful.
Being correct (and practical) doesn't work. The Democrats need to grow up and start lying. The ideal Democrat is Jimmy Carter. Great man, bad president. The ideal Republican is Reagan. Alzheimer's, and senile, but a good orater, and told us who to hate and why.
The Libertarians are not a party. The official LP documentation indicates the LP is pro-choice, as the government shouldn't be dictatorial in choices like that. But every LP candidate I've seen with an official abortion stance was anti-choice. When the pro-choice party runs only anti-choice candidates, how can they be taken seriously when they can't even find candidates that believe in their own platform? And no, I don't need the list of pro-choice candidates ever run by the LP. I've been to party meetings and tried to get involved in politics and seen who ended up running, and watched those running in races near me. They were universally anti-choice, but I've usually lived in "red states", so perhaps that's the issue.
Define "herd". To a rancher, a "herd" is the sum of heads of cattle. So if you have all of your cattle in a single group, and they are wandering (or driven) towards a pen called "ISIS", that's a herd focusing on ISIS. Now, some of them split. There are now two groups. You can't count the number in each group, but you can see there are two. One is going towards "ISIS" pen, and the other towards "Trump" pen. They are all the same rancher herd. But, to a casual observer, they may be two herds. And the progress of one group towards pen Trump in no way impedes the original destination of pen ISIS.
The problem with you putting them into pigeon holes, is that you are trying to fit round pegs into square holes.
Some cows must be at the front of the herd, but the fact that they are a leader at that moment doesn't imbue them with any mystical or special qualities of permanence. Generally they don't even moo unless they see that there is sufficient other cows around them that they are a herd in and of themselves. Government only works when people agree. And Anonymous is anarchy, which obeys the same rules. So long as enough want the same thing, it is the will of Anonymous. When you have to start spending money to convince people that they like you when they don't, you have modern democracy, not anarchy, and Anonymous has enough cows in the herd that they don't need to pay people to march with them to look stronger than they actually are.
But yes, in a world that ignores anarchy, defining it is hard. In practice (African government) anarchy=dictatorship by warlords, as a power vacuum is filled by evil. Power of controlling the people, there's a zero sum game. You control the people in a village, or someone else does. On the Internet, there is no zero sum game. Billions could follow you tomorrow, or none. And you can follow a billion people, or none. So the absence of power doesn't leave a vacuum. In that context anarchy can exist. And is becomes democracy (the mob rule kind). Anarchy is where everyone does what they want. So lots of people who want the same thing will find they naturally congregate. 5 people who go drinking together because they got in the habit of going to the same bar at the same time doesn't mean that they have to have a leader, or any structure. If one had to change his drinking day, he'd tell the others, and then do it. If the others did or didn't change their day to match would be from their free choice, not from force or coercion. So would that be democracy or anarchy?
Most people can't conceive of such an arangement. The meet-up sites all have to have a "leader" for an organization. Structure is assumed in everything so that people close their minds. Yes, that makes someone "stupid" if they can't conceive of Anonymous.
Anonymous is billions of cows. Some are off grazing by themselves. Others are moving in an identifiable direction. That they aren't all moving together doesn't make them not a "herd" in the eyes of the ranch owner. That they don't have a head cow doesn't make them disorganized. They are Legion. They are Everywhere, and Nowhere. They are Cow.
Slashdot Mirror
12 year old, "Sikhs are Muslims, therefore, your bag is a bomb."
arrested boy, "If I'm a Muslim, then this bag is a bomb."
or, "When I was shopping for it, the salesman said 'this bag is the bomb.'"
I can think of a thousand reasonable responses that would be "jokes" that would in no way imply that the device was a bomb. Without a recording of the interaction, one should assume it was a joke that doesn't imply in any way that the bag was a bomb.
Though, I'm reminded of a trip I took. The TSA agent made a joke about a bomb. I said, "I have a really good comeback, but you are allowed to make such jokes, and it's a crime for me to respond in kind." He had a shocked look, then a sad one. I think he realized the Nazi in his position in that moment.
Which is part of my point. We are trying to match the worst self-driving car to that top 0.1% of drivers. If we can get self drivers as good as the top 55% of drivers, it'll be shit, and still save thousands of lives every year. The average driver makes hundreds of errors a minute. Though, others expect and plan on those errors (though usually unconsciously), so most errors don't end in a crash. Having 1 error a minute seems to be unacceptable for a self-driver, even if 1000 times better than a human.
Yup, it's not even unexpected for humans. If you have never thought about what you'd do if a couch fell from an overpass, or a tire jumped the median and headed towards you, you are an incompetent driver. Cut up your license and take the bus. "Unexpected" is a crutch for idiots. Only the impossible is unexpected.
The whole idea is that cars will have inhuman reaction times coupled with greater sensory perception and awareness. This whole 'steer into 5 people or murder the driver' is probably such a complex thing for a machine OR human to even sense in the amount of time that an accident occurs. At least if a machine could see actually determine it in time, you damn well bet the machine had time to make a more informed decision than a person would.
The machine would be programmed with a default "in case of fan struck by unidentified fecal mater, brake hard, stop everything, call home, and figure out what's going on." Car is driving 30 in a 35 mph zone, a soccer team runs out from behind cover and stops in the road, 11 people blocking the road completely. The car can't stop before hitting at least one of them. The system should default to stopping as fast as possible. It doesn't matter that you'll hit 3 if you go straight, and there's a steering that would hit only 2 (or even one). You can try to stop as best you can. It reduces the damage to whatever you hit, and reduces the chances of secondary damage.
Automated cars don't have to be perfect. They just need to be statistically better than humans, and that's a pretty low bar. The Luddites on Slashdot claim that cars need to have 100% success, when humans aren't even close to that. Why hold an automated system to a higher standard? Deploy it with 10% better, and improve that 10% every year. Eventually, we'll get to 1% of the deaths of today's roads or less. That's achievable with basic automated cars we have today.
So, you've never been in an accident that was not your fault on the highways?
Sometimes, going at speed and a deer jumps out means hitting the deer and possibly killing the driver, or swerving off the road and killing the driver, or serving into another car and killing others. Often, coming 'to a full and complete stop' isn't possible. Or may be on train tracks.
99.99% of the time the best course of action is to stop as quickly as possible within your lane or in a straight line. AI isn't necessary for panic stops. ABS and brake assist is a solved problem. Yes, 0.01% of the time, the full stop would leave you on a train track, with a train coming in the next 3 hours. But once you are to 20 mph or below, hold the last stop until you roll the 6 feet past the train tracks. Hitting a deer at 20 will scare it, and not much else. The better pseudo-AI will solve that much easier than a human.
It's funny to me how so many want to solve the unsolved issue. Until a computer has an answer for a meteor hitting the road 7 feet in front of the car, we can't let computers drive for us, when they are safer 99% of the time.
So "A car drives, carries, and transports people" is improper English because you can't have a list of verbs?
You can't have a list of two items?
So commas can't be used to separate lists?
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/... "Basic" is defined by the FCC. Some may break the law and call it "limited basic" and "enhanced basic" but I go by law, not marketing departments. Nearly all have a sub-$20 basic. And that gets you in the door for Internet, phone and the other services. If they mess with basic, they fuck with FCC law.
The shuttles were exciting at first too and it seemed we were on a track that could lead to ordinary people getting into space.
The shuttle program was designed to appear like an airplane with booster was able to reach high orbit. The image was more important than the reality.
Yeah, nobody should ever try for "change from within". If you think you are working for someone you don't like, you should burn the place down and rot in jail. Any other option is obviously unethical.
The high sports salaries are being paid for by high sports channel monthly fees that everyone has to pay because ESPN is part of basic cable.
You and I define "basic" differently. Basic cable is the $10 or $20 per month package that gets you the local channels and a few shopping channels that pay the cable company to include them in "basic". Then "standard" is 50 or so channels. It used to have Discovery and SciFi, but those got popular, so "standard no longer has the popular things. Even AMC has outgrown "standard" in some places. USA, TNT, and the news channels are "standard". Separate again are "family" and then "sports". You have to pay well above "basic" to get ESPN, or pay for that premium.
Though I've seen a number of places where "basic" isn't advertised, and you have to know it exists and order it directly and explicitly to get it, as they are signing up people for "standard" who ask for "basic". So maybe that's where your confusion comes from. I've never had ESPN, but I've had cable, when it was the only option for decent Internet.
Drive a lot lot less. Fly a whole lot less.
If we stopped flying tomorrow, completely 100% no more flying it'd not make much difference. 9% of oil use in the US is flying. The answer is really simple, just unpalatable. Raise the tax on fuel to $5 per gallon ($0.50 per year for 10 years, indexed on inflation after that). You don't need complex rules against cars and such. Just make the cost direct. You want to use less fuel? Tax it heavily. People will stop driving when they don't need to.
The indirect nudges to people don't work. Make fuel expensive, and the only people driving F150s will be people who absolutely need them. People will drift to more efficient vehicles, and drive them less. Use the taxes collected to fund high-speed trains for commuting and travel. It should be faster to train between Dallas and Houston, or Boston and DC than to fly. When you have that down, flight will fall without having to over-regulate anything.
They will stop when we stop paying them to produce concrete and steel. Those things (and the things made from them) are power-intensive. And industry is the user of power in China, and that's been sent to China from the US by US companies. We still mine materials in the US, to ship to China for processing, for return to the US for sale. It was a way of exporting pollution when Nixon started the EPA. That's when exporting pollution started. Though, as it takes a while for industries to turn, it took a few years for the change to happen. The cost of drinking water and rivers/lakes that didn't catch fire was moving some of the most dirty industries off shore (then, apparently blaming them for not being as "clean" as us).
If the US stopped buying products that require pollution to make, China would stop polluting. Yes, it is that simple.
If nobody, then you are lying about the alternatives.
import masses of people who strongly believe in a totalitarian anti-freedom ideology (with some religion attached)
You know you are describing the Puritans, right?
Ah yes, the long list of lies. Bill Clinton lied. He lied when he truthfully said he didn't touch Monica's vagina (effectively the specific question he was asked, after "sex" was clarified). And Hillary lied because Benghazi. There were more hearings on her emails than 9/11, and still no direct lies uncovered.
But Trump says he will ban all Muslims from entering the US, even returning US citizens, then re-states to say only non-citizens. And claims he never said he'd ban "all" or citizens, even when faced with recordings of him saying it.
The Democrats need to outline eloaborate lies. Like Fair Tax, a pile of lies, fabricated by insane people as to a wish of what they hope would happen, without any basis in reality for the revenue and expenses. Single payer health care, like England's, is much cheaper than private health care, and with better results. Why aren't the Democrats pushing for single-payer as the next step after ACA? A federal insurance company, started now, and listed on the insurance exchanges of all 50 states, operating at 50% of the cost of all the private insurers, and showing a profit would cut taxes and improve care. Any missing details? Make them up, and make them good.
But no, we get reality. Gun control statistics nobody cares about. You can't argue someone out of religion with facts, and gun-nut is a religion. The cure for religion, is another religion, not facts. But the Democratic Party doesn't see that and attack dogma with dogma, so they always lose.
Reagan committed Treason in 1980, paying Iran to keep US citizens hostage. The Iran-Contra scandal was the payment. And a separate count of Treason.
The Carter efforts for rescue were likely directly sabotaged, though I've not seen that proven, as the other Treasons I've mentioned have been detailed by people too old to care about prison, and focused more on cleansing their soul as they die.
So a better economy doesn't help people? And more money in their hands doesn't help them either?
The older face of "social justice" wore white hoods and burned crosses. Enforcing their ideals of a social justice.
Or those feminists wanting the vote and such.
I swapped the 3G wireless and WiFi wireless cards in my Lenovo and saw no issues. They do lock down drivers for security, but I had no problem with loading up the new cards, once I properly loaded the manufacturer drivers. I was planning on going from my current E530 to a new Y70. Maybe it's different across their different lines, but the Thinkpad E530 had no issues with 3rd party wireless and RAM (I never swapped the battery. 3+ years, and still working well, and never found anyone who made a larger capacity batter, including Lenovo). http://www.newegg.com/Product/... 17.3" touchscreen and 960M, not many in that category, most gaming laptops don't do touch screen. But we got a tablet-like http://au.pcmag.com/acer-aspir... for cheap on sale and liked it, and having a touch screen, so wanted to go touch-only going forward. I can't find anything with a 17.3" or larger touchscreen and a 960m or better video card anywhere else, at any price, and the Lenovo Y70 is only about $1000 on sale.
If that many disagree with me, it's no a matter of "right" or "wrong" as you try to reduce it to, but it's about the desire to be surrounded by idiots, or the desire to not be surrounded by idiots.
If I think the Earth goes round the Sun, and others disagree, it's not up to me to agree with them to fit in, but to leave that destructive environment if I don't want to be subjected to it. Voting can't determine fact. And so much of what's being debated is "fact". The "best way" to fix a problem isn't a matter for opinion, it's fact. There's only one "best way". There may be millions of not best ways to get a similar result, but only one "best". Since most domestic terrorism in the US is White Christians, banning Muslims from entering would decrease, rather than increase, safety for Americans. One needn't accept it, even if we don't agree with it. Everyone in the middle class should leave the US. Though technically in the upper class in the US (based on income, not social structure), I left to join the middle class elsewhere. Everyone with the means to leave should move to Europe, Australia, or anywhere else they can that's away from the US. The war on the middle class will only get worse. Flee while you can.
Denmark would be top of the list. The list of countries better than the US is about as long as the list not better.
And no, so long as the US military is stronger than all the militaries of all non-allies combined, there's nowhere on the world that's "safe", so best to ignore "safe" and just get away to someplace better.
Pandering to social conservatives and authoritarians has been enormously successful.
Being correct (and practical) doesn't work. The Democrats need to grow up and start lying. The ideal Democrat is Jimmy Carter. Great man, bad president. The ideal Republican is Reagan. Alzheimer's, and senile, but a good orater, and told us who to hate and why.
The Libertarians are not a party. The official LP documentation indicates the LP is pro-choice, as the government shouldn't be dictatorial in choices like that. But every LP candidate I've seen with an official abortion stance was anti-choice. When the pro-choice party runs only anti-choice candidates, how can they be taken seriously when they can't even find candidates that believe in their own platform? And no, I don't need the list of pro-choice candidates ever run by the LP. I've been to party meetings and tried to get involved in politics and seen who ended up running, and watched those running in races near me. They were universally anti-choice, but I've usually lived in "red states", so perhaps that's the issue.
He's the head of the stonecutters, not a rank and file member. That he is giving orders, rather than taking them doesn't make him any less Illuminati.
Define "herd". To a rancher, a "herd" is the sum of heads of cattle. So if you have all of your cattle in a single group, and they are wandering (or driven) towards a pen called "ISIS", that's a herd focusing on ISIS. Now, some of them split. There are now two groups. You can't count the number in each group, but you can see there are two. One is going towards "ISIS" pen, and the other towards "Trump" pen. They are all the same rancher herd. But, to a casual observer, they may be two herds. And the progress of one group towards pen Trump in no way impedes the original destination of pen ISIS.
The problem with you putting them into pigeon holes, is that you are trying to fit round pegs into square holes.
Some cows must be at the front of the herd, but the fact that they are a leader at that moment doesn't imbue them with any mystical or special qualities of permanence. Generally they don't even moo unless they see that there is sufficient other cows around them that they are a herd in and of themselves. Government only works when people agree. And Anonymous is anarchy, which obeys the same rules. So long as enough want the same thing, it is the will of Anonymous. When you have to start spending money to convince people that they like you when they don't, you have modern democracy, not anarchy, and Anonymous has enough cows in the herd that they don't need to pay people to march with them to look stronger than they actually are.
But yes, in a world that ignores anarchy, defining it is hard. In practice (African government) anarchy=dictatorship by warlords, as a power vacuum is filled by evil. Power of controlling the people, there's a zero sum game. You control the people in a village, or someone else does. On the Internet, there is no zero sum game. Billions could follow you tomorrow, or none. And you can follow a billion people, or none. So the absence of power doesn't leave a vacuum. In that context anarchy can exist. And is becomes democracy (the mob rule kind). Anarchy is where everyone does what they want. So lots of people who want the same thing will find they naturally congregate. 5 people who go drinking together because they got in the habit of going to the same bar at the same time doesn't mean that they have to have a leader, or any structure. If one had to change his drinking day, he'd tell the others, and then do it. If the others did or didn't change their day to match would be from their free choice, not from force or coercion. So would that be democracy or anarchy?
Most people can't conceive of such an arangement. The meet-up sites all have to have a "leader" for an organization. Structure is assumed in everything so that people close their minds. Yes, that makes someone "stupid" if they can't conceive of Anonymous.
Anonymous is billions of cows. Some are off grazing by themselves. Others are moving in an identifiable direction. That they aren't all moving together doesn't make them not a "herd" in the eyes of the ranch owner. That they don't have a head cow doesn't make them disorganized. They are Legion. They are Everywhere, and Nowhere. They are Cow.