I only highlighted this because of sabri's reply:

He doesn't know if you are able to work for him, but he does have the power to permit you to work for him.

My Uncle used to get me and my cousins with this nuance all the time. So it was kind of reflex to highlight it here.

Obviously, that's what you're hearing, because that's what you think. But there's a huge difference between this and the interstate highway system: the interstate highway does not tell you what to do (well, unless you're on it, or you happen to be one of the properties condemned in order to build it...)

Using the freeway is optional. Food, clothing, shelter to the degree required isn't as much. The moment you abstract basic human needs/wants away from the source the more chance there is for misery: since the person most in tune with what they need is the person himself. Someone else in a far away city through malice or negligence sooner or later is going to get it wrong.

IMO, government control should have an exponential scale. Tyranny begins at home, and should taper off from there precipitously.

1. As an individual I should have exclusive rule over my thoughts, my speech, my body, and my property. (kids you don't get that until your old enough to have some common sense!)
2. My neighborhood and town has lots to say over how things should be conducted. That's fine: though it should do as little as possible about my property. And next to nothing about my person.
3. Even less control at the county level.
4. My state should have even less control.
5. Finally the national/federal government should have the very least amount of control over my person.

All levels should defend me, the individual. So two major caveats for the federal level: they get to repel foreign invaders, and they may see to it that no level of rule may be enacted at other level that deprives me of my ability to move freely or to defend my own body. (Civil war kind of decided that one: except hello Obama Care! Oh the irony of history...)

Okay, we're a stone's throw from the east side of Jupiter on all of this right now in the United States. But that's the way I think it was suppose to run.

Central planning that has direct control of the individual is courting equal misery for the common man: the author of TFA is promoting a way to achieve it.

i.e.

We the central planners will determine what you need, because anything you think you need, is just a want -- at least that's what we think -- and since we're in charge, we decide. This is just not something you little citizens think about enough!

BOARD MEMBER 1:

Our profits are flat. We need a way to boost our income, but with this economy we can't raise prices much more. We're already getting heat from the state for last year's tuition rates.

BOARD MEMBER 2:

We could lower admissions requirements: you know, expand our market.

BOARD MEMBER 1:

What? And degrade our reputation as an institution of high academic integrity! Impossible.

BOARD MEMBER 3:

What if everyone lowered their admissions standards?

BOARD MEMBER 2:

Everyone?

BOARD MEMBER 3:

All the colleges.

BOARD MEMBER 1:

Impossible!

BOARD MEMBER 3:

We float the idea that colleges are missing creative and talented people, who just aren't good at testing: old standards were just to rigid and old fashioned. Out with the old, in with the new: that sort of thing.

BOARD MEMBER 1:

And then what?

BOARD MEMBER 2

Profit!

BOARD MEMBER 3

Exactly!

Citation please.

Yeah, but the government would have made zero monies had it prosecuted a hacking charge. This route was way more profitable for them (even if it wasn't technically their purview).

Could they have made more? Probably...

The Marriott was hacking the competing networks, not jamming them.

Hacking is a federal offense in the United States.

However, since there probably wasn't any money to be made by prosecuting some Marriott employees with a felony, they somehow roped the FCC into this so they could collect some sizable fines instead.

What the Marriott was doing was HACKING not JAMMING.

To the end-user it might appear they were effectively jamming: but they were not doing so by drowning out or canceling radio transmissions: instead they created a hostile network that more or less "hacked" the other networks in its range. I can see why the FCC got the call, but technically this is probably more one for the FBI.

I should probably take offense at this a bit, since I did a bit of multicast programming back in the day, but hey, just because I know how to use implementations of UDP and TCP over IP doesn't mean I understand the underlying layers. So I'm sure this must be in your wheelhouse.

And while I can see the advantage of sending more traffic over an already open socket, in the web-world isn't this just another name for a single-threaded browser?

I must concede the NSA doesn't need home-sourced traffic capture when they already control all the gateways.

Now we can report your activities to the NSA at the same time as the request: all right from your own computer! (pay no attention to those extra binary headers, they're there for your safety!)

Exactly. But this is from the company who though zip-ing Excel files was a good idea (XLSX). You spend more time waiting for the file to decompress than actual loading into memory.

Obfuscation of headers into binary is going to put a lot of AJAX code out of business.

Makes one think none of these programmers ever encountered the adapter pattern.

I think the difference here is we aren't just talking about Zeus, The Tooth Fairy, or The Big Purple Elephant in the Sky®, we are talking about an entity responsible for reality vs. some sort of accidental or self-establishing reality.

Personally, I find the latter preposterous, to others the former is unnecessary: therefore that entity need not (or more often) must not exist.

To me, the single largest philosophical proof of intentional design is the fact these ideas can and are considered at all; in a purely consumptive evolution such discourse need never occur.