So...the optimal outcome is that MS will be able to perform this kind of tactic more quickly??

Sometimes the best way to solve a big problem is to just get a bigger hammer.

I had a problem once that I could probably have solved using some very pretty, complex, elegant formula. But after examining the problem space, I figured I could brute-force it, with a basic fitness algorithm, in about 2 seconds. The overall process it was a part of took between 90 and 300 seconds. The other benefits were, it was quite readable, and didn't require any advanced math or knowledge of the problem to see what was being done. The fact that the pretty formula would have improved performance at most about 2% made it an easy choice.

I personally like 'sneaking up' on them. Move your hand in slowly and flick them with your finger while thinking, "Stupid fly! I bet that hurt!" Then they buzz around like they're all drunk, because it won't kill them...the first time.

That sounds like an excellent business model. Hire yourself out to follow wealthy people with high security requirements, and hit them with a Nerf bat if they use their electronics in an insecure manner. Sure it's a somewhat small market, but who wouldn't want a job like that?

I've never had a wing man, so I'm not sure, but I don't thing the expectation is that they'll be engaging in reacharounds.

I'm not sure how applications have anything to do with the OS being open source. I have a linux install where I run closed source applications. Does this somehow negate everything that Linus (and Stallman) have done?

And I'll say to you now what I said either the day of or just days after the 9/11 attacks. You can win a war against a nation, but how do you win a war against an idea? What territory do you have to conquer? Which leaders do you have to depose? The War on Terrorism is a never-ending war because there is no scenario where it can be won, only lost. Exactly how many angry people do you think you'll have to kill before there won't be any more angry people?

From what I've read, bin Laden didn't take part in any typical terrorist attacks - he left the dying to other people. And now that he's dead, is Al Qaeda still around? Are they still a threat?

If you want to reduce terrorism, the idea is really simple: Give people something they're unwilling to lose. Give them the ability to live in reasonable wealth, have a home and family that they are confident won't be destroyed any day of the week, take away their hopelessness and misery, and for added security make it possible for them to be complacent in their lives. You'll still have some kooks that are so into their beliefs that they will be willing to be a part of some anti-establishment group, but even most of those won't be willing to die for their cause. Then you'll have what you see in the United States - huge swathes of people just living their lives, and if they have beliefs that are being affronted, the vast vast majority of them will do nothing more than talk about it. Clearly, from the goals I've listed, this isn't something that is achieved by any military action. At most, military action can lay the groundwork where such things can be achievable.

And in general, I agree. Especially about things that happened before I was born or my parents were old enough to do anything about them. But the other half of having a healthy sense of nationalism is doing what you can to move your country in the direction you want it to go. That's why I've written letters to politicians, and feel a certain amount of shame to belong to a group, no matter how big it was, that would do such a thing. I don't stay up at night because of it, but I want to keep these actions alive in my thoughts, so I can beware of having some group I'm a part of do something that horrible again.

Which just makes me wonder why he doesn't get on that FTP and get his data back? Wasn't loaded to FTP yet? Poor backup policy!

No, you're just one of the countries that turned away Jewish refugees from Germany before the concentration camps were opened. Don't be too offended - my country did the same. I'm ashamed, as well.

Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.

Every year, ten times more have their lives abruptly cut off from car accidents alone. That means, as of this anniversary, the deaths from the greatest terrorist attack on American soil cost 1% of the lives as the outcome of something people happily (and not-so-happily) do every day, with little or no concern for their safety. If each of these people had $100,000 insurance, we would be about a third of the way to the same economic cost as the terrorist attack, assuming the only burden their death brought was the insurance payout.

Face it. There are only two reasons you care about this event. First, it's an affront to your (false) sense of security. To assuage that, you do other things to improve your sense of security. The evidence indicates they only return you to that false sense of security. Second, they all died in one small area over a short period of time. Kill each of them, with 9 of their friends each, over the span of a year, and it's just a somewhat upsetting fact of modern living. That's an emotional response with no logical basis on the safety of the average citizen. And yes, that means that a vehicle safety improvement that reduces risk of death by 10% will save more lives than those lost in the Twin towers. Each year. So, which one seems a better use of our resources, and yields a better quality of life?

Well, I can hardly disagree. So that explains about 70 confiscations per year that the TSA has performed. Now, please explain to my why this applies to nail clippers, but not a nice pen with a reasonably sharp tip and a nice long metal body? Or 3 ounces of fluid? Even breast milk in a baby bottle, accompanied by said baby?

I'm not saying 9/11 wasn't a tragedy. It certainly was. All the daily activities in my life stopped for about 2 hours, as it did for everyone else in the office where I was working. And I was half a continent and a different country away. And I'm not saying reasonable precautions shouldn't be taken. It's the myriad unreasonable ones I'm frustrated with, and the attitude that there is no such thing as too much intrusion in order to stop the next really big terrorist attack, even though it took about 40 years of hostage takings on planes to get one of this significance. I swear, people won't be happy until airplanes look like they did in The Fifth Element (which was actually a spaceship, but the form factor and purpose was identical).

Wrong. The big problem is the government wants a way to see your data, unconditionally, whether or not you have ever done anything wrong, preferably without you knowing. Their willingness to store the keys somewhere, probably unsafely, for their convenience, rather than putting a back door that someone else might stumble upon is a very minor thing, comparatively.

The Clipper episode doesn't give you insight into technique, in this case. It gives you insight into intent.

The difference is, we have plenty of evidence that the NSA is more than happy to weaken cryptography, and the security of its nation's citizens, to simplify their task. Remember Clipper. Never forget Clipper. They've already proven they can't be trusted with the citizenship's security. We must assume they will not change until they prove otherwise.

I think that's just typical German engineering mentality. It's kind of like designing a new bridge. You think it will work, you try it out, and it collapses. Now, was the design bad, or was it the workmanship? Let's try it again and see if this one stays up!