Comment Re:Resources (Score 1) 662
What resources involved? This was done apparenty with only one or two people diddling around on the internet and probably a database.
What resources? What you just mentioned: a couple of people, some sort of network access, and a database. The concept isn't that it is a solution to the problem, as I indicated, but that it is yet more work for them to have to do and it is a piece of the solution. Also, I'd hardly call PhD thesis work "diddling around on the internet". At least, I'd expect that it took much more than that.
The problem with your idea of denying information to the enemy in this case would require classifying every telephone pole, phone book, and building permit in existence now and in the past for the entire USA.
No, if you'd have taken the time to try and understand what I wrote, you might have seen that I see some merit in securing the compilation of the information, so as to deny easy access to a more complete database of the information in a single location, causing them to have to exert energy in finding this information on their own, thus eating resources (however small, they eventually add up), delaying action, etc.
The only reasonable way to defeat the "terrorist enemy" is for the US to learn to live in harmony with the other 95% of the world's population, thus not giving them a reason to hate us with such fervor.
This is such a tired concept. News flash: the United States does much for this world. A lot of what we do isn't appreciated. No, we're not perfect, but that doesn't mean that we're entirely bad either. I'm not a champion for every action that my country undertakes, as a matter of fact I don't like a good deal of it, but to imply that the United States goes around only causing problems with other countries is to ignore the truth. Here's another news flash: there are people out there that hate the US simply becuase it is, and also because most of the US has a different philosophical outlook on life than they do. A country cannot and should not appease every point of view, and that therefore means that a given county, at least one that has static principles, it seems, will always have enemies.
I don't see where your concept is based in reality.
If you truely believe that majoprity rules, then we're screwed.
Your rant and assumptions have reached a new level. Where, exactly, did I even begin to mention any concept that had anything to do with majority rules, anti/pro-american anything, or further, politics of any nature? I didn't.
What I did make was a very simple, limited point, and that was to deny information in any amount to an opposition causes them to exert resources, however small, in order to gain that same information, and this is what helps one's own effort.
For those that do have a brain and can follow what I'm saying, here's another anology: Consider an ongoing battle. If one simply shoots and kills an enemy soldier, you have removed one resource from the enemy. This is, in war, needed, of couse. However, if one doesn't kill the enemy soldier (one simply wounds him), then, presumably, this not only denies that resource to the enemy (at least for a time), but also causes the enemy to expend resources in caring for that wounded soldier (medics, hospitals, medical materials, training, etc). Which do you think will help win the "war" better?
What resources? What you just mentioned: a couple of people, some sort of network access, and a database. The concept isn't that it is a solution to the problem, as I indicated, but that it is yet more work for them to have to do and it is a piece of the solution. Also, I'd hardly call PhD thesis work "diddling around on the internet". At least, I'd expect that it took much more than that.
The problem with your idea of denying information to the enemy in this case would require classifying every telephone pole, phone book, and building permit in existence now and in the past for the entire USA.
No, if you'd have taken the time to try and understand what I wrote, you might have seen that I see some merit in securing the compilation of the information, so as to deny easy access to a more complete database of the information in a single location, causing them to have to exert energy in finding this information on their own, thus eating resources (however small, they eventually add up), delaying action, etc.
The only reasonable way to defeat the "terrorist enemy" is for the US to learn to live in harmony with the other 95% of the world's population, thus not giving them a reason to hate us with such fervor.
This is such a tired concept. News flash: the United States does much for this world. A lot of what we do isn't appreciated. No, we're not perfect, but that doesn't mean that we're entirely bad either. I'm not a champion for every action that my country undertakes, as a matter of fact I don't like a good deal of it, but to imply that the United States goes around only causing problems with other countries is to ignore the truth. Here's another news flash: there are people out there that hate the US simply becuase it is, and also because most of the US has a different philosophical outlook on life than they do. A country cannot and should not appease every point of view, and that therefore means that a given county, at least one that has static principles, it seems, will always have enemies.
I don't see where your concept is based in reality.
If you truely believe that majoprity rules, then we're screwed.
Your rant and assumptions have reached a new level. Where, exactly, did I even begin to mention any concept that had anything to do with majority rules, anti/pro-american anything, or further, politics of any nature? I didn't.
What I did make was a very simple, limited point, and that was to deny information in any amount to an opposition causes them to exert resources, however small, in order to gain that same information, and this is what helps one's own effort.
For those that do have a brain and can follow what I'm saying, here's another anology: Consider an ongoing battle. If one simply shoots and kills an enemy soldier, you have removed one resource from the enemy. This is, in war, needed, of couse. However, if one doesn't kill the enemy soldier (one simply wounds him), then, presumably, this not only denies that resource to the enemy (at least for a time), but also causes the enemy to expend resources in caring for that wounded soldier (medics, hospitals, medical materials, training, etc). Which do you think will help win the "war" better?
