The distance from NZ to the USA is about 12500 km (7800 miles).
(12 500 kilometers) / the speed of light = 41.6955119 milliseconds

So, about 42 ms. is your lower bound on latency. If you add the routers and such into the mix, you're probably looking at about 100 ms. Not bad, but not great.

(Ballpark figures -- not rigorous, but enough for discussion.)

In an attempt to lock in the 2.25% at a lower price.

For example, let's say Apple were to create a company named Apple Phone Sales Inc., and then Apple would sell phones to Apple Phone Sales Inc. for $100 each, to which Apple Phone Sales Inc. turns around and sells them to distributors and the retail market for their current ~$500ish prices. Apple could then argue that they were only required to pay $2.25 on the $100 sale price. I'm sure there are other principles at work, but the short version is that is doesn't work like that.

Regardless of terminology, a massive attack on the virtual infrastructure is a different class of attack and requires a different class of defense. The term 'cyber Pearl Harbor' is ridiculous and disrespectful to those who were at the real Pearl Harbor. Also, DHS is probably the worst department to be in charge of, well, pretty much anything. The NSA would be a much better choice.

With that said, I think it's not too bad of an idea once you realize what the proper response is to a massive attack on the entire Internet. Technical support. Calling up (or visiting in person) millions of users and sysadmins and walking them through the process of securing their systems. A phone call might not do it, because you can't flash a badge over the phone, so (rightfully) nobody would trust you.

OTOH, targeted attacks such as "break into a wastewater treatment plant, use the SCADA controls to prematurely dump a tank of sewage into the clean water intake" mentioned by the AC, are yet another class of attack, and you don't need the extra manpower of a reserve force in order to deal with the technical fallout of such an action.

And, of course, if someone were to find something a new class of bug similar to SQL injection, wherein the only solution would be to update huge amounts of code all over the Internet, well, even a reserve force might not be enough to fix that kind of problem. Look at how long it took to resolve Y2K.

Personally, I would consider signing up for this type of "cyber-reserve", but I would hesitate doing so under the DHS. Also, I wouldn't sign up unless I knew ahead of time what was expected of me, and that there would be no bait and switch.

As Apple would be the one licensing the patent, it would be 2.25% of the price Apple charges. And following the principle of patent exhaustion, whoever buys it from Apple can resell it without needing to re-license the patents. And to jump further ahead, reselling to yourself may be fine if judges were computers, but they aren't, so they tend to see through that sort of thing.

That is very interesting. Can you provide some references? I had difficulty Googling it up and a starting point would help me figure out what kind of search fodder it requires.

Likewise.

I'm sorry. I did not intend it as an insult, and I was worried that it would be taken as such. Hence my qualifications in the rest of the paragraph. I guess the better way to phrase it would have been that if I had said that we have different definitions of the words, which leads to misunderstandings on both sides.

Yeah, it wasn't a very practical solution. I only posted it because I couldn't think of any other way to resolve the issue other than the default of just not talking about it. I also agree that attempting to aggressively convert someone is the quickest way to get them to dislike you.

As for the problem being an active dislike, I would like to know why. I like to solve problems, and unsolvable problems can be fun to think about as well. I would think that the reason for theists actively disliking atheists may be that it seems all atheists look down upon theists as being irrational and mentally inferior. That they have no respect for theists. That theism is a mental problem that needs to be corrected because it's unhealthy.

I'm having trouble understanding why an atheist would actively dislike someone solely for being theist. I'm not saying that there is no reason for it, just that I'm having difficulty empathizing with the atheist's viewpoint and I would like to better understand it. Is any of the above stereotype about how atheists feel true? Is there a stereotype among atheists about theists?

I also apologize if any of this or my previous post came across as preachy. It was not my intention. I realize that nobody will ever convert from an argument on the Internet.

I'm a theist, and I think you make an excellent point. Even among rational people, there seems to be some kind of communication gap. It doesn't help that the loudest voices on both sides are the extremists. Teaching faith as science is one example, and another is the prohibition of state funding for religious charities that are there to help the less fortunate, and not to convert anyone.

I guess my question is, what do you, dear reader, think the reason is for the communication gap, and how do you think it can be resolved?

This idea isn't fully formed in my head yet, so please bear with me. I think it may be that atheists don't understand faith, while those they argue with don't understand science. By science, I mean the whole process of the scientific method, of publication, of winnowing out the incorrect hypothesis to find the truth of the matter. By faith, I mean the existence of a higher power as a postulate.

Maybe the resolution would be for atheists to prove that the existence of a higher power excludes other postulates that the theist can't discard. The other solution, would be to show overwhelming evidence of the existence of a higher power that the atheist can accept as valid. The typical method of confirming a postulate, that is, failing to disprove it, doesn't seem to work.

I'm going to backpedal a bit and say that it is important whether or not he was the Son of God. But, with that said, it is not relevant to how I choose to behave, and also that there is generally little point in discussing it as nobody will change their mind solely from discussion of his divine origin.

I view the teachings as being of a different quality of importance than the source, but not necessarily more or less important. I also believe that belief in his teachings is the key to salvation, and not belief in his divinity. (I know that puts me in conflict with many sects.) Therefore, I believe that convincing others to re-examine his teachings is more important than convincing others to believe in his divinity. I also find that belief in his teachings reaffirms my belief in his divinity, and I hope that others feel the same way, but I will be more than satisfied if people just forgive each other and treat each other with love and respect.

Extremists are crazy, film at eleven. I also share your wish that there weren't quite so many of them. I never considered it my responsibility to push religious extremists towards the middle. I never really thought about it. Much as a typical conservative or liberal never really thinks about pushing their extremists towards the middle. But maybe it's not as hopeless a battle as it seems. It's something worth thinking about.

My point is that discussing his philosophy and teachings is more productive than discussing his divinity, and that making his divinity the point of focus is doing a disservice to his teachings. I think that he would prefer that more people do as he preached, even if they don't believe in his divinity.

Also, I do believe in his divinity, but I don't think it's worth arguing about, because arguing won't change anyone's mind. It's far better to espouse his teachings, which can have a positive effect on people regardless of their beliefs. Further, understanding his teachings is the first step in becoming a Christian. Belief is not the first step. You simply "can't get there from here."

And I don't care if other people think I'm a Christian or not.

Thank you for saying this. I am a Christian. I understand the Atheist viewpoint and find it very tantalizing. However, what makes me remain a Christian is not the bible or creation stories or anything of that sort. It's the moral code that Jesus taught. It's an ideal to strive towards. "Love thy neighbor." "Turn the other cheek." If more people lived life to that moral code, the world would be a better place. Jesus saw that reciprocal violence just escalates into century long feuds, and that the only way to stop it is for someone to just let it go and forgive. He saw that, in general, cooperation leads to greater benefit than competition.

Whether or not he was the Son of God, is irrelevant. From a purely utilitarian perspective, his philosophy is what is important, and his philosophy is very sensible. There are, of course, aspects of the bible that are dated and were relevant at the time, but are no longer so. At the time, cloven hoofed animals were more dangerous to eat. At the time, circumcision did help prevent disease.

Anyway, that's my belief. I try not to force it on anyone, but Atheists who attempt to force their beliefs on the world irritate me.

Not to mention that when you do get that job, your arrogance will actually hurt you in a cooperative development environment. Your ego can get in the way of logic when it comes to debugging. You'll assume your code is correct and that of your peers is wrong, instead of looking at the code and logically tracing where the issue may lie. (Not that past experience isn't useful in determining which of your fellows probably made the mistake, but humans are incredibly bad at judging themselves objectively.)

I agree, however, 1.usa.gov can mitigate this attack by checking each link for a redirect before accepting it into their database.

You've never seen fsck on a mounted file system, have you? Blood everywhere, Even on the ceiling. However, they never did find the bodies.

A beaker made out of frozen acid!