read the thread you just replied to - you inferred (incorrectly) that I cited him as an author of The Tragedy of the Commons, when in fact I referred to the existence of the incidents upon which said book much later was written, but which was an established event at the same historical mileau as his writings.
My point is that Adam Smith's writings and commentary at the time of his works show he was biased in favor of the small entrepreneur, not the soulless (his words) corporations and institutions.
Arguing with Stalinists like you is a waste of my time.
What are the odds of being killed by a terrorist? What are the odds of being wrongly imprisoned by the FBI due to an overzealous wiretap? In 2001 the U.S. suffered the loss of 3,000 of its citizens from a single terrorist attack. How many people last year had their lives wrongfully ruined by a loss of privacy?
The odds of dying while travelling on London's tube are still lower than driving a car in London, even with terrorist threats.
The odds of them catching al-Qaeda are pretty close to nil if they keep assuming they: a) aren't trained; and b) are stupid.
Privacy is what makes us Americans. The loss is incalculable, especially when it isn't going to help in any way shape or form.
Call me crazy, but if the FBI needs 10 minute wiretapping on a WIFI setup to keep my plane from being blown up by a bunch of Islamic radicals, then so be it. It's better to be a live chump who's email was intercepted by the feds than a dead one who's viagra spam remained a secret.
OK, I'll call you crazy.
None of these measures will actually work to deter the attack of a well-trained group that adapts to circumstances and is patient.
As al-Qaeda has been shown - repeatedly - to be.
Now go back to Russia and take your comrades in DC with you.
The most effective defense against hijacking, and the reason why another one has not been attempted since 9/11, is vigilant passengers that will no longer cooperate with a hijacker.
That and the use of a towel, coat, or blanket to subdue them ASAP.
If you need weapons aboard a plane, you obviously have no idea what you're doing.
Great idea. Ought to work wonderfully for those terrorists who send each other e-mails with "We will attact the Great Satan today with UA Flight 255 at 10:33 exactly!" in plaintext.
How it will work with a one-time-pad set of coded messages is something else again.
I can't decide whether I'm more disturbed by my government's attempts to get more power over honest citizens or over their apparent dependence on the Bad Guys all having IQs in the room temperature range. Celsius.
Or an even easier agreed to code book that has something like "Dang, that hot girl in 25B is giving me that look again! Wish she was going to Acapulco with me, we could laze on the beach after days of good hot fun, with martinis on ice!" sent over ICQ...
Which could carry all the info needed and not be sniffable since the data is embedded in the code words.
Seriously, why do we employ these morons at Homeland Insecurity?
Because this will also magically stop terrorists from using inflight phones, USB-cellphone internet connections (with the cellphone hidden in onboard luggage), or any other number of less than covert communication channels.
Not to mention, it seems the last time, they did just fine working independently of each other.
Think you forgot to use the [SARCASM] [/SARCASM] tags...
But they don't need a cellphone, they are permitted to carry on laptops that have USB ports and there are commercially available devices that can fit inside a briefcase and are totally legit that could do the same thing, without attracting suspicion.
Once again, the bureaucrats try to fight the last war, while the enemy adapts and moves on.
A wise and well-trained group will use the time-old technique of publicly accessed itinerary and flight plotting sites, combined with a local calculator on their permitted laptops to estimate location, and reading easily plotted alert info available to the general public.
Hacking inter-group messages won't detect or deter such a group and they'll still accomplish their mission objectives, provided they don't need to survive the mission - which by definition, they won't.
Sigh. Always assuming the enemy is stupid and ill-trained is half of why we have no effective defenses. They train, they adapt, and they are willing to go beyond the bounds of what acceptable risks are considered to be.
To defeat such an enemy first you have to understand how they think - and black and white Us Good They Bad And Stupid thinking won't work.
But, hey, what do I know from my counter-terrorism ops and training anyway, or my field combat engineer experiences...
I can get a TigerDirect reconditioned AMD 3.0 GHz laptop with 2 Firewire ports, USB, and top of the line wireless with 512MB RAM for about 25 percent less than the Intel version that runs apps at about the same speed (accounting for differences).
So the reason noone respects the Intel chip you mentioned is it's still too expensive.
switching between Qwerty and Dvorak keyboard layouts.
I find when you do this you get confused for a few days at most. But if you learned to touchtype with Qwerty, it might behoove you to get a Dvorak typing software game to hone your skills and make it second nature so that you don't have to hunt and peck.
My guess would be that if you were an 80 words per minute Qwerty typist on your keyboard, you'll probably turn into a 40-50 words per minute Dvorak typist without such typing software games to bring you back up to speed fast, since you're using finger-to-brain pathway neural networks that were forced to type quickly with one schema.
It's kind of like thinking in a foreign language - you can wait 3-5 years until you start to do it and suddenly are good - or you can force it more quickly by moving to a foreign country, falling in love with the appropriate gender native speaker, and learning by constant daily usage and some formal classes how to speak and think in that language.
The tragedy of the commons is an historical event, and refers to actual events that are in the House of Commons transcripts and many newspapers and opinion magazines - mostly broadsheets and letters - going on at the time of Adam Smith.
if you actually grokked history and economics instead of failing to use your brain, you'd know that.
Wow, you can do a lit ref search but you have no conception of the underlying principles - and why they were created - you probably don't even know what a sabot is - a wooden shoe - or that it is used to refer to saboteurs due to its use in the anti-mechanistic movements against modernized machination of factories. Or why it became such a word.
Put down the laptop, stop searching online - and get thee to a library. RTFM and stop pretending you understand economics, when you have no concept of what the words mean.
I'd be harsher, but I doubt you have the intellectual bravery or fortitude to actually do the research and understand the actual core concepts of capitalism.
when a certain lab releases it's groundbreaking work on literally raising temperature inside human cells to destroy cancerous cells, while non-cancerous cells survive quite nicely.
I was at a talk about this a month ago, and we're talking about 50 percent of all cancers.
Now, as to how one delivers the temperature, that's actually not as hard as it sounds.
When cell phone service costs $10 a month in the EU and $100 a month in the US, you know that listening to the large monopolies and oligopolies is anti-capitalistic.
Capitalism is founded on the existence of many players with equal entry costs into the market. Barriers from the large players create inefficiencies and sap the energy of the nation.
Guess what, public libraries are not cost-effective.
Public parks are not cost-effective.
And when cities such as Tacoma, WA, can provide full digital cable and broadband for half the cost of the monopolist anti-capitalistic players, you know that true competition doesn't exist, or the invisible hand of the marketplace would have driven the cost down to true cost, which at most would be 5-15 percent higher than the municipality could possibly provide it, especially since Tacoma is a unionized city.
It seems the monopolists have been smoking too much big government and forgot that capitalism was founded in small municipalities which provided common goods to all players.
The only true capitalistic response is to provide WiFi to all players to give all entrepreneurs an equal chance to compete, at cost. Just as happened with many water and telephone services.
So, your idea of real competition is to have a government monopoly establish free muni wi-fi networks?
You might want to look up competition in the dictionary.
Economics 101, my friend.
When the Father of Capitalism published his theory, it was prefaced on the municipalities providing common goods to permit all players to compete equally in the marketplace.
The provision of a common good such as WiFi permits small capitalist entrepreneurs to compete head to head with large soulless [his words, not mine] corporations equally, allowing capital formation and the success of better ideas without the natural tendancies of monopolistic anti-capitalist forces from crushing them.
Face it, common WiFi for an entire municipality is the essence of true competitive advantage for a nation of small wily entrepreneurs to bring forth the competitive pressures of the marketplace and encourage higher yields of productivity.
Let the competition of free ideas and the outwards-facing nature of Open Source versus Closed Source be the hallmark of the debate, not the Us versus Them false debate the Dark Side of Closed Source wants to create.
It's like deciding if you're a Rebel or a Wookie. Why decide? Neither side likes the Empire.
It's the cult of the Imperial CEO versus democracy, when you come down to it.
Here in Seattle, two of our neighborhoods are going free WiFi - the University District - since the University of Washington is also providing campus-wide free WiFi - and the Downtown core.
Where I live in Fremont, there's tons of free WiFi everywhere already.
Three neighborhoods in Seattle unafraid to provide services to citizens.
That will tell you how the study will be distorted.
Hint: it wasn't paid for by municipalities interested in providing WiFi, but by firms that want to stop competition, and crush capitalistic competition by any means necessary.
You're either in favor of making sure everyone can get WiFi - or the Net - or Telephone - or Cable - or you just want to let those who care nothing for real competition and real access win.
Slashdot Mirror
TPAA!
...
I'd be more worried about RIAA, considering.
That and norty flash videos
as practised in Vail will now include:
1. I spilled coffee on my keyboard [and, yes, they do drink caffeinated beverages at that age];
2. My dog drolled on my laptop and shorted it out;
3. My sister deleted my homework cause she hates me;
and my fave:
4. I got a worm/virus when I went to a website to research my project and it ate my paper.
read the thread you just replied to - you inferred (incorrectly) that I cited him as an author of The Tragedy of the Commons, when in fact I referred to the existence of the incidents upon which said book much later was written, but which was an established event at the same historical mileau as his writings.
My point is that Adam Smith's writings and commentary at the time of his works show he was biased in favor of the small entrepreneur, not the soulless (his words) corporations and institutions.
Arguing with Stalinists like you is a waste of my time.
What are the odds of being killed by a terrorist? What are the odds of being wrongly imprisoned by the FBI due to an overzealous wiretap? In 2001 the U.S. suffered the loss of 3,000 of its citizens from a single terrorist attack. How many people last year had their lives wrongfully ruined by a loss of privacy?
The odds of dying while travelling on London's tube are still lower than driving a car in London, even with terrorist threats.
The odds of them catching al-Qaeda are pretty close to nil if they keep assuming they: a) aren't trained; and b) are stupid.
Privacy is what makes us Americans. The loss is incalculable, especially when it isn't going to help in any way shape or form.
Call me crazy, but if the FBI needs 10 minute wiretapping on a WIFI setup to keep my plane from being blown up by a bunch of Islamic radicals, then so be it. It's better to be a live chump who's email was intercepted by the feds than a dead one who's viagra spam remained a secret.
OK, I'll call you crazy.
None of these measures will actually work to deter the attack of a well-trained group that adapts to circumstances and is patient.
As al-Qaeda has been shown - repeatedly - to be.
Now go back to Russia and take your comrades in DC with you.
They are afraid terrorists will use the in-flight service to coordinate or remotely detonate bombs.
...
Why bother when they're in checked luggage or in-flight meal service anyway, with time fuses
The most effective defense against hijacking, and the reason why another one has not been attempted since 9/11, is vigilant passengers that will no longer cooperate with a hijacker.
That and the use of a towel, coat, or blanket to subdue them ASAP.
If you need weapons aboard a plane, you obviously have no idea what you're doing.
Great idea. Ought to work wonderfully for those terrorists who send each other e-mails with "We will attact the Great Satan today with UA Flight 255 at 10:33 exactly!" in plaintext.
...
How it will work with a one-time-pad set of coded messages is something else again.
I can't decide whether I'm more disturbed by my government's attempts to get more power over honest citizens or over their apparent dependence on the Bad Guys all having IQs in the room temperature range. Celsius.
Or an even easier agreed to code book that has something like "Dang, that hot girl in 25B is giving me that look again! Wish she was going to Acapulco with me, we could laze on the beach after days of good hot fun, with martinis on ice!" sent over ICQ
Which could carry all the info needed and not be sniffable since the data is embedded in the code words.
Seriously, why do we employ these morons at Homeland Insecurity?
Because this will also magically stop terrorists from using inflight phones, USB-cellphone internet connections (with the cellphone hidden in onboard luggage), or any other number of less than covert communication channels.
...
Not to mention, it seems the last time, they did just fine working independently of each other.
Think you forgot to use the [SARCASM] [/SARCASM] tags
But they don't need a cellphone, they are permitted to carry on laptops that have USB ports and there are commercially available devices that can fit inside a briefcase and are totally legit that could do the same thing, without attracting suspicion.
Once again, the bureaucrats try to fight the last war, while the enemy adapts and moves on.
A wise and well-trained group will use the time-old technique of publicly accessed itinerary and flight plotting sites, combined with a local calculator on their permitted laptops to estimate location, and reading easily plotted alert info available to the general public.
...
Hacking inter-group messages won't detect or deter such a group and they'll still accomplish their mission objectives, provided they don't need to survive the mission - which by definition, they won't.
Sigh. Always assuming the enemy is stupid and ill-trained is half of why we have no effective defenses. They train, they adapt, and they are willing to go beyond the bounds of what acceptable risks are considered to be.
To defeat such an enemy first you have to understand how they think - and black and white Us Good They Bad And Stupid thinking won't work.
But, hey, what do I know from my counter-terrorism ops and training anyway, or my field combat engineer experiences
If you say you have a specific list of mission goals, you can avoid actually practising the same goals in actual behavior.
Just more of the downsizing of morality in today's Soviet Amerika.
Pay attention to what they DO - not what they SAY.
.
I can get a TigerDirect reconditioned AMD 3.0 GHz laptop with 2 Firewire ports, USB, and top of the line wireless with 512MB RAM for about 25 percent less than the Intel version that runs apps at about the same speed (accounting for differences).
So the reason noone respects the Intel chip you mentioned is it's still too expensive.
switching between Qwerty and Dvorak keyboard layouts.
I find when you do this you get confused for a few days at most. But if you learned to touchtype with Qwerty, it might behoove you to get a Dvorak typing software game to hone your skills and make it second nature so that you don't have to hunt and peck.
My guess would be that if you were an 80 words per minute Qwerty typist on your keyboard, you'll probably turn into a 40-50 words per minute Dvorak typist without such typing software games to bring you back up to speed fast, since you're using finger-to-brain pathway neural networks that were forced to type quickly with one schema.
It's kind of like thinking in a foreign language - you can wait 3-5 years until you start to do it and suddenly are good - or you can force it more quickly by moving to a foreign country, falling in love with the appropriate gender native speaker, and learning by constant daily usage and some formal classes how to speak and think in that language.
The tragedy of the commons is an historical event, and refers to actual events that are in the House of Commons transcripts and many newspapers and opinion magazines - mostly broadsheets and letters - going on at the time of Adam Smith.
if you actually grokked history and economics instead of failing to use your brain, you'd know that.
Wow, you can do a lit ref search but you have no conception of the underlying principles - and why they were created - you probably don't even know what a sabot is - a wooden shoe - or that it is used to refer to saboteurs due to its use in the anti-mechanistic movements against modernized machination of factories. Or why it became such a word.
Put down the laptop, stop searching online - and get thee to a library. RTFM and stop pretending you understand economics, when you have no concept of what the words mean.
I'd be harsher, but I doubt you have the intellectual bravery or fortitude to actually do the research and understand the actual core concepts of capitalism.
Well this sucks, I HATE pineapples! any chance of a pill form?
Sure, we have a nifty pill, called PlaCeBo, but we're only issuing it to people who believe in Intelligent Design.
when a certain lab releases it's groundbreaking work on literally raising temperature inside human cells to destroy cancerous cells, while non-cancerous cells survive quite nicely.
I was at a talk about this a month ago, and we're talking about 50 percent of all cancers.
Now, as to how one delivers the temperature, that's actually not as hard as it sounds.
You heard it here first.
which is rated Mature, not for teens
then why are they complaining if it's Mature, not for teens.
Time to get out the cluesticks, we're in short supply here in Soviet Amerika.
ah, so you pretend that he never wrote anything about the Tragedy of the Commons or any other such letters to various people.
Ever thought about checking it out on ScienceDirect before making such attestations?
Face it, Adam Smith would love municipalities to provide WiFi to all citizens.
When cell phone service costs $10 a month in the EU and $100 a month in the US, you know that listening to the large monopolies and oligopolies is anti-capitalistic.
Capitalism is founded on the existence of many players with equal entry costs into the market. Barriers from the large players create inefficiencies and sap the energy of the nation.
Guess what, public libraries are not cost-effective.
Public parks are not cost-effective.
And when cities such as Tacoma, WA, can provide full digital cable and broadband for half the cost of the monopolist anti-capitalistic players, you know that true competition doesn't exist, or the invisible hand of the marketplace would have driven the cost down to true cost, which at most would be 5-15 percent higher than the municipality could possibly provide it, especially since Tacoma is a unionized city.
It seems the monopolists have been smoking too much big government and forgot that capitalism was founded in small municipalities which provided common goods to all players.
The only true capitalistic response is to provide WiFi to all players to give all entrepreneurs an equal chance to compete, at cost. Just as happened with many water and telephone services.
So, your idea of real competition is to have a government monopoly establish free muni wi-fi networks?
You might want to look up competition in the dictionary.
Economics 101, my friend.
When the Father of Capitalism published his theory, it was prefaced on the municipalities providing common goods to permit all players to compete equally in the marketplace.
The provision of a common good such as WiFi permits small capitalist entrepreneurs to compete head to head with large soulless [his words, not mine] corporations equally, allowing capital formation and the success of better ideas without the natural tendancies of monopolistic anti-capitalist forces from crushing them.
Face it, common WiFi for an entire municipality is the essence of true competitive advantage for a nation of small wily entrepreneurs to bring forth the competitive pressures of the marketplace and encourage higher yields of productivity.
BSD.
or
Linux.
Choose wisely, but choose one.
It's all about CHOICE.
Let the competition of free ideas and the outwards-facing nature of Open Source versus Closed Source be the hallmark of the debate, not the Us versus Them false debate the Dark Side of Closed Source wants to create.
It's like deciding if you're a Rebel or a Wookie. Why decide? Neither side likes the Empire.
It's the cult of the Imperial CEO versus democracy, when you come down to it.
Here in Seattle, two of our neighborhoods are going free WiFi - the University District - since the University of Washington is also providing campus-wide free WiFi - and the Downtown core.
Where I live in Fremont, there's tons of free WiFi everywhere already.
Three neighborhoods in Seattle unafraid to provide services to citizens.
That will tell you how the study will be distorted.
Hint: it wasn't paid for by municipalities interested in providing WiFi, but by firms that want to stop competition, and crush capitalistic competition by any means necessary.
You're either in favor of making sure everyone can get WiFi - or the Net - or Telephone - or Cable - or you just want to let those who care nothing for real competition and real access win.
but I thought that was already on /. in a prior article - if not, it was one of the bills signed into law this session.