No, I've seen people do that and they give up as soon as Windows says "Applying this to folders and files..." and the progress bar crawls along as it touches each file on their HDD. Due to their impatience, they realize sharing one folder is a much better idea.
Security through laziness... I like it!
I agree; that's an entirely valid concern as well. But since the comment in the summary was dealing specifically with the difference, if any, of abuse to robots versus living things I thought I'd weigh in on that issue directly. Nonetheless your point is valid.
Know, however, you're on a dangerously slippery slope. Video games are fast becoming the ultimate "violence simulators" -- so real, it's almost as if you're really gripping that Flak Cannon and blasting away your buddies. Does that mean violent video games encourage real-life violence? (Hint: The black-and-white distinctions made in video games are largely their salvation in this respect, however might this dichotomized thinking be exploited in the future to make the populace less resistant to violence against "the bad guys?")
Anyway, I better stop before I get too far offtopic.
Can you cite any studies that refute it besides worthless personal anecdotes and a scene from a movie?
Go ahead, try. I am not going to do your googling for you, if you think random violence is a good way to vent then by all means go ahead and try to back that up. And if you don't agree with me, research it yourself.
You've only moved the problem around, you haven't solved anything. Now, define "damage".
Irrelevant. All that matters is the intent of the one who inflicts damage on an object out of rage. The point is that you are trying to express anger through violence.
The point here is not whether you're hitting a real animal or a virtual one, that's just a vehicle for the real problem.
You shouldn't vent your frustrations by damaging things, living or otherwise. It's not good for your mental health and it's not an effective way of expressing anger, in fact it tends to make it worse.
But, of course, a "robot dog" is just a program -- a program running on a box with some wires in it. It is clearly not sentient since it does exactly what it is told and feels no pain (since it is not programmed to do so). It may masquerade as consciousness, but in the end it is still run by a wholly deterministic set of instructions executing according to a fixed program.
Now, the question of whether that is also an accurate description of a human (albeit with a far more complex program) is an open question indeed, but for now you're safe if you forget to feed your Tamagotchi for a few weeks. I doubt you'll have the ASPCA... err... ASPCR?.. pounding on your door.
Perhaps at first glance, but it could still easily be a trap. The IE6 might, say, render webpages purposely incorrectly so that when viewed in IE6 in reality they look quite different, forcing people to still upgrade to IE7 and thereby install WGA-SuperSpywareDeluxeCeilingKitten edition.
The Borg is tougher to apply, but perhaps the IE6 has linking capabilities to connect with other VirtualPC's running the version and create a control network across...ok, so maybe that one's a bit of a stretch.
The chair-throwing could be Ballmer violently opposing to certain sites being rendered properly in IE6 and IE7.
Nice try, but you are sadly wrong thanks to your slippery-slope fallacy.
As long as you have a data collection policy and follow it, you're fine. Documents/data that have been shredded prior to discovery or litigation aren't your problem. If your policy is "shred every 60 days" and you follow it, and the court requests something 120 days old, your policy will stand up in court.
This rule applies only to those who are currently under federal litigation or think they soon might be.
Welcome to the wonderful world of scare-mongering!
This only applies to compaies under federal litigation, but I'm sure it'll get a lot more pageclicks if you make it sound terrifying and scream things like WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
Truth time, kiddies! You absolutely must hold on to email and IM data... IF it is part of a subpoena or a discvoery process, and so on. But there's nothing requiring companies to hold on to such data for any specified period of time.
Not in societies where personal gain is elevated to a godlike stature and is the sole purpose of individual existence. European societies tend to focus more on manners and personal responsibility, so this clearly wouldn't work in the US.;)
Seriously though, I think that the most worry is caused where drivers are unsure of what to do. That's the whole point -- at a traffic light, you (supposedly) know what the other drivers are going to do. Stop at red, go at green, etc. No worrying about someone cutting you off, no need to make a dangerous left turn through six lanes of unregulated traffic, and so on.
In the US, I see much more risk-taking in these situations -- people cutting each other off, etc. The road rage and anger (and occasional killings) not only point to a deep-seated inner hatred of everyone but oneself, but also show the ubiquitous "me-first" attitude manifesting itself. Given this psychological state, could a plan like this ever work? I think not.
Microsoft's worst enemy and toughest competition has always been previous versions of Microsoft products. Word, Excel, and the like haven't changed much in quite some time save for esoteric features 99% of the population doesn't even know about. Same with Windows, lots of people run 2000 and they're just fine. Obviously the adoption of any new Windows OS isn't going to be immediate and overwhelming; it takes time as people purchase new computers with Vista preinstalled and games begin demanding Vista only (just as they began demanding 2000 only, etc.). Windows OSs always creep into popularity rather than gaining overnight ubiquity. I myself didn't like XP and really didn't think I'd ever upgrade (hearing the same "DRM OS" arguments being lobbied today), but eventually I found myself liking it more and more and finally moved over entirely. It's great; I like the stability and performance it provides versus previous versions. It took some time, however, before my PCs were up to the challenge. I feel the same will gradually be true of Vista and the hardware requirements we're all so worried about will, again, fade. Microsoft likely put high requirements on purpose to ensure the operating system has a decent lifecycle. Like buying a shirt that's too big for a child since they'll "grow into it" anyway.
Interestingly enough, it's illegal to perform "the birthday song" publicly as it is copyrighted material. This is why all the restaurants sing their own home-made birthday songs when they embarrass you needlessly. So, while it may seem absurd, there is already precedent in the US for this type of thing.
Yes and no. The concept of an "operating system" is becoming increasingly outmoded as everything moves to internet applications. Probably we'll see the internet becoming more tightly integrated -- we'll all own "hubs" that connect to the 'net and suck our computing power from somewhere else. Most things will be web-based, making our dumb terminals cheap and just about everywhere. Appliances, too, will be connected allowing complete control over our homes remotely and within the home. (Cue the "self-aware" and SkyNet jokes...)
But, seriously, Microsoft's worst enemy and toughest competition has always been previous versions of Microsoft products. Word, Excel, and the like haven't changed much in quite some time save for esoteric features 99% of the population doesn't even know about. Same with Windows, lots of people run 2000 and they're just fine. Obviously the adoption of any new Windows OS isn't going to be immediate and overwhelming; it takes time as people purchase new computers with Vista preinstalled and games begin demanding Vista only (just as they began demanding 2000 only, etc.). Windows OSs always creep into popularity rather than becoming overnight successes. I myself didn't like XP and really didn't think I'd ever upgrade, but eventually I found myself liking it more and more and finally moved over entirely. It's great; I like the stability and performance it provides. It took some time, however, before my PCs were up to the challenge. I feel the same will eventually be true of Vista and the hardware requirements we're all so worried about will, again, fade away. Microsoft likely put high requirements on purpose to ensure the operating system has a decent lifecycle. Like buying a shirt that's too big for a child since they'll "grow into it" anyway.
Exactly. So many comments by analysts and armchair politicians seems to reflect a certain mindset that Google is so blindingly stupid that they bought YouTube for 1.65 billion after a six-week bender, and now their lawyers are crapping their Dockers screaming "oh crap, I forgot! We could get sued!"
Obviously Google knows there is copyrighted content on YouTube. It also knows that YouTube is what people want. Before the idea of capitalistic humility was eroded by monopolistic content producers who unilaterally decided they had consumers by the proverbial balls and would take them for all they're worth, companies actually tried to give consumers what they wanted. Google, I think, understands that. Yes, people want everything for free, but we all love YouTube. And why? Ignoring the vlogs and random jackass-style videos that everyone likes to watch, YouTube is on-demand content. It's a service that is realizable within today's technological constraints and universally desired among consumers. If Google can find a way to get the money machine going on this, the possibilities suddenly become immensely attractive.
This is all very ironic nonsense; Google showed us just how easy it really is to catch up with "the big guy." Back when Yahoo and Altavista were king, Google overthrew those powerhouses like it was Superbowl III. The key was Google knew what people wanted, and gave it to them. Now, certainly, it doesn't seem like Google is going to forget that anytime soon, and no, it's also not likely at this point that a little guy could wipe out Google, but who knows?
Look at the way great ideas have grown quickly: YouTube, digg, and so on.
And you can bet that if someone came up with a radically new search algorithm that provided noticeably better search results than Google (which is actually falling a bit behind, which is a dangerous mistake...) you can believe that most people would quickly migrate to their new engine of choice. (Of course, if it had little to no ads, speedy and reliable service, etc...)
You're right, and I think at the heart of it this really has to do with a natural progression sensationalism in a culture where individual achievement is treasured above all else -- everyone needs to be the best, have composed the greatest work, or (here it comes...) done breakthrough research in order to get noticed. Hence all the insanity in China with students trying to get into college.
If you're really curious about this subject, read Don Watson's Death Sentence: the decay of public language (link to an article about the book). Watson, incase you don't know, was Paul Keating's (former Aussie PM) speech writer.
A quote from the book: "everyday we are confronted with a debased, depleted sludge: in the media, among corporations, the public service, cultural institutions, out of the mouths of our leaders, at work, and even in the locker room. It is a dead language: devoid of lyric or comic possibility, incapable of emotion, complexity or nuance."
Powerful stuff, and an interesting read. I'm not sure he has a great idea for a solution, but that's irrelevant. The point is, our language has been increasingly watered down. I wish I would remember the famous quote that said it so elegantly...something about "don't use the word beautiful where pretty will do, because when something is actually beautiful you won't have a word to use." (It may not have been pretty/beautiful, I don't recall.)
Really? You honestly can't find anything interesting to do with a 3.2 GHz Cell engine, HDMI ports, etc? That's a lot of computing power that you claim is only useful for gaming...
I don't think you fully understand how this is supposed to work. You see, Sony is selling the PS3 consoles with the expectation that someone is going to buy them (at a loss to Sony) and then buy games (i.e., big profits for Sony).
Think of a generic fast-food restaurant. Imagine they have a "value menu" with the Stinkburger Deluxe for only $0.99, but it costs $2.99 to produce. Drinks, however are $2.50 and cost about $0.15 to produce. Similarly fries are $0.99 but cost only $0.10 to produce. The restaurant will go out of business if every customer enters, purchases one Stinkburger Deluxe, and leaves. But most people aren't satisfied just downing a Stinkburger, they want fries and a drink too. That's the idea here; it's called the "razor and blades business model."
So if no one buys a PS3, Sony obviously won't produce six million. If people buy them and buy NO games, NO blu-ray discs, and NO accessories (extra controllers, etc.) then Sony will be in quite a bit of trouble.
You just load new software and it's a whole different beast. Basically anything you could want to do with a radio you can. Obviously there are hardware limitations (max hoprate, available memory, etc.) but generally you could turn your SDR into a toaster if you wanted.
I was writing my comment as you were writing yours. Brilliantly put, yours blew mine out of the water.:-)
I'd like to propose that the issue is the people desire music as a public good, like a state park. It currently has the characteristics necessary: non-excludable, and non-rival (you can't exclude others from enjoying it by your consumption and your consumption does not decrease the overall amount available).
The problem is, labels and artists are accustomed to making absurd amounts of money since Americans generally value entertainment above all else (which is why they'll find anything, anything else on TV when the President is giving a speech).
The anonymous poster previous has outlined the ideal public good strategy: instead of paying the artists for their completed work, the public should hire the artist to create a work for them to enjoy. Then the work, being work-for-hire by the public, becomes a public good for all to enjoy. Money really wouldn't be much of an issue, there are 300 million people in the United States alone (suddenly giving a few bucks adds up).
Hence I say music should be like other work-for-hire art forms. That seems to be what the people want, at least. Obviously the issue here is only your fans will provide money, and the market strategy might be insufficient to support artists if they don't have a large enough fanbase (ie, smaller artists may die off).
Let me start by saying I have no issue with the preceding comment, however that same "demanding idealist" attitude is often echoed by those who are, quite simply, addicted to free content and use their perceived moralism as justification for continuing their actions.
Trust me when I say I am no fan of the RIAA's tactics regarding their customers, but at some point they need to make money. If you're willing to buy a DRM-free CD that is rippable, burnable and whatnot and don't mind paying $9.99(on sale)-$13.99+ for a CD, then by all means go ahead. (Unfortunately this means they will be able to again use their common sleazeball tactic of 11 filler songs + 1 decent piece). For those who complain about being "too poor" but still want to enjoy music, I think this is an excellent service idea, so long as it remains non-invasive (ie, no required spyware download).
At the very least they're trying to meet the consumer halfway, it's a lot more than previous offerings which have been akin to "sell us your children, listen to the music in a confined soundproof chamber for no more than 95 seconds and then commmit suicide." Again I remain cautiously optimistic about this latest offering but am acutely aware of the slime-baggery that sometimes sprouts from these services, like invasive spyware, unreasonable terms, or even charade services that are just completely unreasonable phony attempts that they know will fail, so that they can say "we tried, it didn't work!"
While I appreciate what you're saying, I think you're still missing the point. Yeah, if you can find pilots you can waste them in a bar, but if they're in a highly secured base (especially in their own territory, unlike the situation in Iraq) you're screwed.
Your factory example is intriguing, but our stockpiles are sufficient to quench any naysayers quickly and fear is the most powerful weapon of all. The point is the *only* way we could ever hope to win is if everyone simultaneously refused to kill anymore. Only if all the cogs were moving would the civil disobedience work. In that sense I agree wholeheartedly -- if the government were stupid enough to fight against the people in such a widespread way that everyone refused to work, they'd be done for. But greed has taken hold so massively, that I still can't believe wafting a few greenbacks in people's faces wouldn't be enough to quickly (and wholly) buy their undying support for just about any regime.
Insightful comments though, thanks. Good discussion.
You forgot a huge part of your "war of attrition" speech -- the attackers must care about loss of innocent life. If the innocents fled a certain city, and the US Gov't could be sure only opposing force was in that city, they'd turn it to rubble in a nanosecond.
So no, the population being "annoyed" with you isn't enough to fight off an organized military (and by the way, the Iraqis are getting slaughtered, it's only the sheer numbers of them vs. us coupled with our humanitarian "don't fire unless fired upon"-type rules that makes it seem like it's difficult for us to maintain ground).
The scary thing is, right now, the average joe has NO way to stand up to the government at all. If they decide to crush you, they can and no one can stop them. You're nuts if you think you and your drinking buddies hauling AR-15s around is enough to stop any organized military that wants you dead (so long as they don't mind taking out your neighbors, too).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm afraid you're mistaken; what you're seeing there is an unmistakable cone of ignorance.
Don't post that on your Myspace, you'll end up arrested.
You can't just spout off your opinions or feelings like you've got freedom of speech, you know.
No, I've seen people do that and they give up as soon as Windows says "Applying this to folders and files..." and the progress bar crawls along as it touches each file on their HDD. Due to their impatience, they realize sharing one folder is a much better idea. Security through laziness ... I like it!
Know, however, you're on a dangerously slippery slope. Video games are fast becoming the ultimate "violence simulators" -- so real, it's almost as if you're really gripping that Flak Cannon and blasting away your buddies. Does that mean violent video games encourage real-life violence? (Hint: The black-and-white distinctions made in video games are largely their salvation in this respect, however might this dichotomized thinking be exploited in the future to make the populace less resistant to violence against "the bad guys?")
Anyway, I better stop before I get too far offtopic.
Go ahead, try. I am not going to do your googling for you, if you think random violence is a good way to vent then by all means go ahead and try to back that up. And if you don't agree with me, research it yourself.
You shouldn't vent your frustrations by damaging things, living or otherwise. It's not good for your mental health and it's not an effective way of expressing anger, in fact it tends to make it worse.
But, of course, a "robot dog" is just a program -- a program running on a box with some wires in it. It is clearly not sentient since it does exactly what it is told and feels no pain (since it is not programmed to do so). It may masquerade as consciousness, but in the end it is still run by a wholly deterministic set of instructions executing according to a fixed program. Now, the question of whether that is also an accurate description of a human (albeit with a far more complex program) is an open question indeed, but for now you're safe if you forget to feed your Tamagotchi for a few weeks. I doubt you'll have the ASPCA ... err... ASPCR? .. pounding on your door.
The Borg is tougher to apply, but perhaps the IE6 has linking capabilities to connect with other VirtualPC's running the version and create a control network across...ok, so maybe that one's a bit of a stretch.
The chair-throwing could be Ballmer violently opposing to certain sites being rendered properly in IE6 and IE7.
Nice try, but you are sadly wrong thanks to your slippery-slope fallacy. As long as you have a data collection policy and follow it, you're fine. Documents/data that have been shredded prior to discovery or litigation aren't your problem. If your policy is "shred every 60 days" and you follow it, and the court requests something 120 days old, your policy will stand up in court. This rule applies only to those who are currently under federal litigation or think they soon might be.
This only applies to compaies under federal litigation, but I'm sure it'll get a lot more pageclicks if you make it sound terrifying and scream things like WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
Truth time, kiddies! You absolutely must hold on to email and IM data... IF it is part of a subpoena or a discvoery process, and so on. But there's nothing requiring companies to hold on to such data for any specified period of time.
Seriously though, I think that the most worry is caused where drivers are unsure of what to do. That's the whole point -- at a traffic light, you (supposedly) know what the other drivers are going to do. Stop at red, go at green, etc. No worrying about someone cutting you off, no need to make a dangerous left turn through six lanes of unregulated traffic, and so on.
In the US, I see much more risk-taking in these situations -- people cutting each other off, etc. The road rage and anger (and occasional killings) not only point to a deep-seated inner hatred of everyone but oneself, but also show the ubiquitous "me-first" attitude manifesting itself. Given this psychological state, could a plan like this ever work? I think not.
But I'm probably just as biased and cynical. :)
It's entitled "Mistakes" and says:
Microsoft's worst enemy and toughest competition has always been previous versions of Microsoft products. Word, Excel, and the like haven't changed much in quite some time save for esoteric features 99% of the population doesn't even know about. Same with Windows, lots of people run 2000 and they're just fine. Obviously the adoption of any new Windows OS isn't going to be immediate and overwhelming; it takes time as people purchase new computers with Vista preinstalled and games begin demanding Vista only (just as they began demanding 2000 only, etc.). Windows OSs always creep into popularity rather than gaining overnight ubiquity. I myself didn't like XP and really didn't think I'd ever upgrade (hearing the same "DRM OS" arguments being lobbied today), but eventually I found myself liking it more and more and finally moved over entirely. It's great; I like the stability and performance it provides versus previous versions. It took some time, however, before my PCs were up to the challenge. I feel the same will gradually be true of Vista and the hardware requirements we're all so worried about will, again, fade. Microsoft likely put high requirements on purpose to ensure the operating system has a decent lifecycle. Like buying a shirt that's too big for a child since they'll "grow into it" anyway.
Interestingly enough, it's illegal to perform "the birthday song" publicly as it is copyrighted material. This is why all the restaurants sing their own home-made birthday songs when they embarrass you needlessly. So, while it may seem absurd, there is already precedent in the US for this type of thing.
But, seriously, Microsoft's worst enemy and toughest competition has always been previous versions of Microsoft products. Word, Excel, and the like haven't changed much in quite some time save for esoteric features 99% of the population doesn't even know about. Same with Windows, lots of people run 2000 and they're just fine. Obviously the adoption of any new Windows OS isn't going to be immediate and overwhelming; it takes time as people purchase new computers with Vista preinstalled and games begin demanding Vista only (just as they began demanding 2000 only, etc.). Windows OSs always creep into popularity rather than becoming overnight successes. I myself didn't like XP and really didn't think I'd ever upgrade, but eventually I found myself liking it more and more and finally moved over entirely. It's great; I like the stability and performance it provides. It took some time, however, before my PCs were up to the challenge. I feel the same will eventually be true of Vista and the hardware requirements we're all so worried about will, again, fade away. Microsoft likely put high requirements on purpose to ensure the operating system has a decent lifecycle. Like buying a shirt that's too big for a child since they'll "grow into it" anyway.
Obviously Google knows there is copyrighted content on YouTube. It also knows that YouTube is what people want. Before the idea of capitalistic humility was eroded by monopolistic content producers who unilaterally decided they had consumers by the proverbial balls and would take them for all they're worth, companies actually tried to give consumers what they wanted. Google, I think, understands that. Yes, people want everything for free, but we all love YouTube. And why? Ignoring the vlogs and random jackass-style videos that everyone likes to watch, YouTube is on-demand content. It's a service that is realizable within today's technological constraints and universally desired among consumers. If Google can find a way to get the money machine going on this, the possibilities suddenly become immensely attractive.
Look at the way great ideas have grown quickly: YouTube, digg, and so on.
And you can bet that if someone came up with a radically new search algorithm that provided noticeably better search results than Google (which is actually falling a bit behind, which is a dangerous mistake...) you can believe that most people would quickly migrate to their new engine of choice. (Of course, if it had little to no ads, speedy and reliable service, etc...)
If you're really curious about this subject, read Don Watson's Death Sentence: the decay of public language (link to an article about the book). Watson, incase you don't know, was Paul Keating's (former Aussie PM) speech writer.
A quote from the book: "everyday we are confronted with a debased, depleted sludge: in the media, among corporations, the public service, cultural institutions, out of the mouths of our leaders, at work, and even in the locker room. It is a dead language: devoid of lyric or comic possibility, incapable of emotion, complexity or nuance."
Powerful stuff, and an interesting read. I'm not sure he has a great idea for a solution, but that's irrelevant. The point is, our language has been increasingly watered down. I wish I would remember the famous quote that said it so elegantly...something about "don't use the word beautiful where pretty will do, because when something is actually beautiful you won't have a word to use." (It may not have been pretty/beautiful, I don't recall.)
Really? You honestly can't find anything interesting to do with a 3.2 GHz Cell engine, HDMI ports, etc? That's a lot of computing power that you claim is only useful for gaming...
Think of a generic fast-food restaurant. Imagine they have a "value menu" with the Stinkburger Deluxe for only $0.99, but it costs $2.99 to produce. Drinks, however are $2.50 and cost about $0.15 to produce. Similarly fries are $0.99 but cost only $0.10 to produce. The restaurant will go out of business if every customer enters, purchases one Stinkburger Deluxe, and leaves. But most people aren't satisfied just downing a Stinkburger, they want fries and a drink too. That's the idea here; it's called the "razor and blades business model."
So if no one buys a PS3, Sony obviously won't produce six million. If people buy them and buy NO games, NO blu-ray discs, and NO accessories (extra controllers, etc.) then Sony will be in quite a bit of trouble.
You just load new software and it's a whole different beast. Basically anything you could want to do with a radio you can. Obviously there are hardware limitations (max hoprate, available memory, etc.) but generally you could turn your SDR into a toaster if you wanted.
I'd like to propose that the issue is the people desire music as a public good, like a state park. It currently has the characteristics necessary: non-excludable, and non-rival (you can't exclude others from enjoying it by your consumption and your consumption does not decrease the overall amount available).
The problem is, labels and artists are accustomed to making absurd amounts of money since Americans generally value entertainment above all else (which is why they'll find anything, anything else on TV when the President is giving a speech).
The anonymous poster previous has outlined the ideal public good strategy: instead of paying the artists for their completed work, the public should hire the artist to create a work for them to enjoy. Then the work, being work-for-hire by the public, becomes a public good for all to enjoy. Money really wouldn't be much of an issue, there are 300 million people in the United States alone (suddenly giving a few bucks adds up).
Hence I say music should be like other work-for-hire art forms. That seems to be what the people want, at least. Obviously the issue here is only your fans will provide money, and the market strategy might be insufficient to support artists if they don't have a large enough fanbase (ie, smaller artists may die off).
Trust me when I say I am no fan of the RIAA's tactics regarding their customers, but at some point they need to make money. If you're willing to buy a DRM-free CD that is rippable, burnable and whatnot and don't mind paying $9.99(on sale)-$13.99+ for a CD, then by all means go ahead. (Unfortunately this means they will be able to again use their common sleazeball tactic of 11 filler songs + 1 decent piece). For those who complain about being "too poor" but still want to enjoy music, I think this is an excellent service idea, so long as it remains non-invasive (ie, no required spyware download).
At the very least they're trying to meet the consumer halfway, it's a lot more than previous offerings which have been akin to "sell us your children, listen to the music in a confined soundproof chamber for no more than 95 seconds and then commmit suicide." Again I remain cautiously optimistic about this latest offering but am acutely aware of the slime-baggery that sometimes sprouts from these services, like invasive spyware, unreasonable terms, or even charade services that are just completely unreasonable phony attempts that they know will fail, so that they can say "we tried, it didn't work!"
Your factory example is intriguing, but our stockpiles are sufficient to quench any naysayers quickly and fear is the most powerful weapon of all. The point is the *only* way we could ever hope to win is if everyone simultaneously refused to kill anymore. Only if all the cogs were moving would the civil disobedience work. In that sense I agree wholeheartedly -- if the government were stupid enough to fight against the people in such a widespread way that everyone refused to work, they'd be done for. But greed has taken hold so massively, that I still can't believe wafting a few greenbacks in people's faces wouldn't be enough to quickly (and wholly) buy their undying support for just about any regime.
Insightful comments though, thanks. Good discussion.
So no, the population being "annoyed" with you isn't enough to fight off an organized military (and by the way, the Iraqis are getting slaughtered, it's only the sheer numbers of them vs. us coupled with our humanitarian "don't fire unless fired upon"-type rules that makes it seem like it's difficult for us to maintain ground).
The scary thing is, right now, the average joe has NO way to stand up to the government at all. If they decide to crush you, they can and no one can stop them. You're nuts if you think you and your drinking buddies hauling AR-15s around is enough to stop any organized military that wants you dead (so long as they don't mind taking out your neighbors, too).