Nonetheless, the point he is making makes sense to most people. It's about perception. For if we, as a nation, cannot control our government, who is to blame but ourselves?

Figures that a guy named 'erroneus' would posit that human brain "errors" are the reason we're creative...

FWIW, I disagree. And I don't think either Answers.com or Reference.com quite hit it on the head, either. For example, what is the definition of "imaginative skill"? Sounds like Answers.com is pulling that one right out of their ass.

For certain kinds of information, perhaps mostly of the civil kind, I would agree wholeheartedly. But we cannot simply say "information" like we intend to mean all information. We must qualify the statement, define the scope, or we're simply being too ambiguous...

Four-Star General John Example has just learned of some vital strategic or tactical information in an ongoing conflict. He has two obvious choices: He can keep this information secure and not tell everyone, for however long it takes, or, he can tell everyone and render his information useless.

Which one do you expect him to choose?

From Dictionary.com:
"hoard"
–verb (used without object)
3.
to accumulate money, food, or the like, in a hidden or carefully guarded place for preservation, future use, etc.

To hoard does not imply to never use.

And of course there are exceptions. This is the reason I called her an idealist in the first place. Idealists see no room for exceptions. They don't live in the real world where perfection is defined not as something with no flaws but as something with as few flaws as we can practicably achieve.

The benefit of national security is a null hypothesis. If it's working you won't 'see' it, because the result is zero action. What you do see, in effect, could have been a result of lack of security, but that is the juxtapose of the original hypothesis and is therefore irrelevant.

In TFA she is quoted as saying,

“Governments shouldn’t hoard information. The information is there and it belongs to the people,” she says. “Information and the manipulation of information is the key to power. Those who can control the information can influence society enormously. The more accurate the flow of information the more productive we can be.”

By her own logic, governments should hoard information, at least in the traditional sense, to keep it hidden from other national governments. Unless you think every nation in the word should have the same information as every other, then you agree with the general concept here.

And how exactly are governments supposed to not hoard information, keeping it hidden from even their own citizens, if they expect to be able to keep it hidden from other governments as well? I don't see how it's possible. Either the government hoards information and by necessity keeps some hidden from its people, or the government is completely transparent and every country in the world knows everything.

She's advocating an idealist point of view, one that is not tenable, at least not in terms of national security.

*whoooosh*

Granted it is probably a long shot to get the "death ray" to kill anyone. It might be good enough to light sails on fire, though. And at the very least, I suspect it could blind the shit out of someone approaching, and that's not a bad way to gain the upper hand, not a bad way at all.

If you like Asher then I highly suggest Iain M Banks' "Culture" books. He is the master. Asher is good, but Banks is practically sublime.

I just finished book #4 last night. One left. Great series. And when I woke up this morning and read that Dragon was in orbit... I daydreamed a little.

Oh cmon, nobody else has read Neal Asher? :(

I predict another one will happen, someday, eventually, for sure.

There's a model.

Supposing this is true, how is it significant? Development and research will still be done on PC, workstation, cluster, or supercomputer, etc. None of which interface with a 4" screen and crap keyboard. And somehow I find it incredibly unimportant that someone who uses such methods has a smartphone for MS Outlook. Something tells me they collaborate with peers in a more... effective manner.

Maybe the only way this is important is if you're into the stock market and you time it right. Go short some Dell stock or something. That is, of course, if you don't think Dell is agile enough to join the new 'era'.

Apparently you aren't ready for university if you can't handle your gaming.

I can't fault them for playing, but some of them are failing school and divorcing over this game.

And you have iron-clad proof that these same people wouldn't be failing school or divorcing over something else, were it not for WoW being there?