Slashdot Mirror

A) My friends who are most vocal about defending Obamacare are progrressives, not classic liberals.

Sure man, we're supposed to believe you about your friends, and their self-labels? Maybe your friends are just deluded, not wanting to recognize that actually they're third-way Democrats stuck with a moderate position?

Or maybe they're your friends at all.

B) Enron was never a utility company. Stop lying.

Yes, because Enron never owned power generation facilities, and sold them on the California market, then used that position to create an artificial scarcity. Right. Despite that being documented and recognized, though at the time, they were selling a story about it being the environmentalists.

C) Beautifl strawman with the argument that a government utility has had some failures, therefore stealing frrom others is good.

Nope, you need to work on your reading comprehension. I'm actually advising you what you need to do in order to show your credibility. Since you avoided such, and instead picked a deliberate misreading, I guess you're preferring otherwise. No big surprise there. You pretend to care about one injury, but others? You just fume and rage.

And yes, it's been on the order of a trrillion dollars blown just on the DoD budget for solar and wind.

Man, you sure like to make things up. That isn't helping you. why don't you just claim you meant Zimbabwe dollars?

As someone who has done purchasing for the government, part of the training emphasizes accountability to the public. The whole reason there's so many signatures for approval for every penny spent with a GPC is to be able to report this sort of thing when presented with a FOIA. Not to mention being able to tell Congress (through command chain) just how much money was spent and on what. There's more transparency than many realize. With that transparency comes more paperwork validating and approving every step of the process (and thus, more 'wasted money').

That said, there's definitely room for improvement. GPC folks are encouraged (mostly forced) to shop through GSA Advantage, since prices are "pre-competed". Which if you look, you'll find inflated prices for damned near everything. The Gov will gladly spend $150 on a $90 software license because it's through GSA and not NewEgg.

So no history, or involvement in guidance , and no external applications justifying NASA involvement eh?

looks like mobile.slashdot and "reply to this" is borked, at least on kubuntu mozilla; so I'd say it's more alpha quality than beta quality still.
Back on topic, I'm listening to Skinny Puppy now on pandora, I can see how Military Brass would think it would be good torture music; it would get pretty agravating playing 24/7. As far as getting paid, I don't think they should hold their breath, I'm sure that the DoD will just say it's covered under their American Forces Radio and Television Service lisences.

Besides the fact that the DoD already incorporates climate change in their threat assessments (see http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/green_energy/dod_sustainability/2012/Appendix%20A%20-%20DoD%20Climate%20Change%20Adaption%20Roadmap_20120918.pdf and http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/green_energy/dod_sustainability/2012/Appendix%20A%20-%20DoD%20Climate%20Change%20Adaption%20Roadmap_20120918.pdf), there's the bleedingly obvious conclusion that if an area goes through enough environmental changes that mass migration is better than staying put, conflict with the surrounding areas is guaranteed.

I mean, when New Orleans was evacuated during Katrina, that already sparked enough conflict. Now imagine that the change is permanent and that it's not just a major city evacuating, but an entire geographical area. We'll find out just how far we have evolved from chimps (hint: not very much).

Besides the fact that the DoD already incorporates climate change in their threat assessments (see http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/green_energy/dod_sustainability/2012/Appendix%20A%20-%20DoD%20Climate%20Change%20Adaption%20Roadmap_20120918.pdf and http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/green_energy/dod_sustainability/2012/Appendix%20A%20-%20DoD%20Climate%20Change%20Adaption%20Roadmap_20120918.pdf), there's the bleedingly obvious conclusion that if an area goes through enough environmental changes that mass migration is better than staying put, conflict with the surrounding areas is guaranteed.

I mean, when New Orleans was evacuated during Katrina, that already sparked enough conflict. Now imagine that the change is permanent and that it's not just a major city evacuating, but an entire geographical area. We'll find out just how far we have evolved from chimps (hint: not very much).

Slashdotters are educated enough to apply the mean value theorem to convert this from a quesiton of "does it ..." to a question of "at what level ...", which changes it from an existence question to an at what level question. However, the real question is whether anyone with any political audience is doing these analyses while incorporating a strong demographics and growth component (of course there is, but is anyone listening DoD Systems 2020). It is one thing for a person to owe 4x their annual salary when they are buying a house at age 25, compared with a 60 yr old buying one at 1x annual salary. The 25yo has a major factor that works in their favor, which is that their income should (in theory) increase during the payoff period, making it ever easier to pay off that debt. The political equivalent to this is the growth-based economic model, which assumes that the economy will grow every year, forever. It is when this assumption fails that we suddenly get very uneasy about debt, just as you might be very uneasy extending "125% of value" mortgages to a 70yo (fair lending and FannieMae, FreddieMac aberrations not included). The Keynesian model sort of works in the exponential part of the economic growth curve, but it fails catastrophically in the Limits to Growth part of the economic universe. The Adam Smith model of economic growth does not fair much better in this region.

but the corporations that make the juiciest targets should also be capable of at least some self-defense.

You might think that, but apparently no. For example, here's this January 2013 report from the Defense Science Board, which I'm surprised hasn't made it to Slashdot yet. It's very sad and sobering reading.

After several months of researching best practices of cyber metrics in commercial, academia and government spaces, the Task Force determined that no metrics are currently available to directly determine or predict the cyber security or resilience of a given system. .... Even knowing if a system is compromised is very difficult. ...
In the process of conducting this study, it became apparent that the full spectrum cyber threat represented by a Tier V-VI capability is of such magnitude and sophistication that it could not be defended against. ...
Organizations in the Department today, however, do not generally share details about cyber attacks that have compromised their systems. Instead, system compromises are often classified, keeping people in the dark who must be aware so they can anticipate similar attacks. Consequently, DoD organizations are trying to field defenses based only on partial knowledge of what kind of vulnerabilities are being exploited. ...
For more than 15 years, the Department has invested significant resources (people and funding) in an effort to prevent, detect and respond to a full range of cyber threats. ... Strong authentication based on the Common Access Card (CAC) and Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) capabilities and other Defense in Depth mechanisms added to the overall “assurance” of the networks. Then, based on a significant infection of the Unclassified but Sensitive Internet Protocol (IP) Router Network (NIPRNet) and the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) in 2008, deployment of additional technologies, e.g., Host Based Security System (HBSS) and other hardening and situational awareness tools were accelerated.

While well-intentioned and strongly supported, these and subsequent initiatives have not had the desired impact on the overall IA posture of the Department. Defensive measures implemented at the boundaries between the NIPRNet and the Internet proved to be only marginally effective in blocking successful intrusions or reducing the overall attack surface of DoD networks and systems. Mobile platforms (smart phones, tablets, etc.) exacerbate this already challenging problem. Red teams, conducting operations during military exercises or at the request of Military Department and Agency officials, continue to have a nearly perfect success rate breaking into the systems.

Within classified networks, once thought to be safe for military command and control traffic, our adversary has successfully penetrated vulnerabilities created by poor user practices and a lack of discipline at all levels of the command structure. Operation BUCKSHOT YANKEE was clearly a wake-up call, suggesting that every system relied on for the conduct of war fighting operations is at risk of exploitation by an increasingly sophisticated adversary; an adversary ready and able to exploit any technical or human weakness to achieve their objectives.

Emphasis mine, but this is scary stuff. Even the classified US military IP networks have lousy security and have been infected by viruses.

I've never seen this announced before, but it's basically game over for network defense. The DoD can't keep their boxes patched. That's why they're talking about offensive cyber and nuclear first strike.

December 2008 Iraq/Afghanistan combined: 208,700
June 2011 Iraq/Afghanistan combine: 203,400

In three years, Obama managed to reduce the number of troops at war near the time Bush left office by 5300.

I'm SO IMPRESSED. Naturally, it's fewer now that we got kicked out of Iraq. And it will be fewer still now that Obama's War, aka Afghanistan, is proving to be pure folly.

Data from: http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/miltop.htm

It's probably not hooey.

DARPA tends to put blue-sky stuff like this into SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research). You'd be amazed at what comes out of these grants.

Disclaimer: In a previous job, I worked for a company that did work under SBIR.

This isn't a defense of Valador, just trying to get people a fair-minded picture of how this stuff works.

People starting a business in this area generally have some cool idea and genuinely want to make something real and useful. They then get bogged down in trying to convince someone in the government with the authority to take action that they aren't yet another business with a cool sounding idea that can't actually deliver. If you aren't, at least on paper, woman owned, minority owned or veteran owned, forget about it, you simply won't get any contracts.

Many of the comments here question the ethics of Valador. Here's an interesting tidbit: the CEO, Kevin Mabie, is a U.S. military veteran, disabled in the line of duty. Check this out.. Which raises two questions:

1) How dare you people dishonor a distinguished military veteran, who lost his ... something ... defending your freedoms? Don't you realize that the moment he was discharged from active duty, he instantly became a paragon of virtue, unable to lie, cheat, or defraud, and thus this accusation by SpaceX is not only baseless, but treasonous?

2) How difficult is it to fake this sort of thing? And does anyone in the Slashdot community care enough to go the extra mile to check his credentials, and possibly make some *real* news?

Speaking as a veteran myself, though not disabled in any way:

1) Do keep in mind that most of that attitude is a reaction to the disgraceful treatment Veitnam vets got. People basically took their frustrations with US policy out on veterans who had, overwhelmingly, served honorably.

And, generally, you can question a veteran's honor as much as you like; you just haven't actually earned the right to be taken seriously.

2) VA doctors do physical exams to ensure that you have a legitimate disability. The biggest disconnect is that people assume that their common sense idea of disability is even remotely close to the medical definition of disability. I know a guy out on Crohn's, but people tend to think, "how is having to go the bathroom a lot a disability?!"

There's no good excuse for a fishing expedition, nor would justice be well served by such. My recommendation: let the lawsuit be settled on the merits and don't demean yourself in this way.

Many of the comments here question the ethics of Valador. Here's an interesting tidbit: the CEO, Kevin Mabie, is a U.S. military veteran, disabled in the line of duty. Check this out.. Which raises two questions:

1) How dare you people dishonor a distinguished military veteran, who lost his ... something ... defending your freedoms? Don't you realize that the moment he was discharged from active duty, he instantly became a paragon of virtue, unable to lie, cheat, or defraud, and thus this accusation by SpaceX is not only baseless, but treasonous?

2) How difficult is it to fake this sort of thing? And does anyone in the Slashdot community care enough to go the extra mile to check his credentials, and possibly make some *real* news?

This question got me curious, so I did a little homework. What are the odds of a building in Maryland being struck by a tornado during its lifetime?

Found an AMAZING website: The Tornado History Project, which has statistics for all recorded tornadoes in the U.S., integrated with Google Maps and with a spreadsheet export function. So I grabbed the stats for every historical tornado in Maryland, used the site's track width and length data to find out the area of land affected by each one, and added them all up. The usual caveats about rounding error, reporting bias, etc. apply.

The result: about 43 square km of Maryland has been hit by tornados in the last 60 years. The area of Maryland is 32,000 km^2, so the odds of a random patch of land in Maryland being hit by a tornado over a 60-year period are roughly 1 in 750. (60 years happens to be roughly the useful life of your average building.)

Is this risk high enough to be worth redesigning the building for? I guess it depends on the consequences of loss. It's not a negligible risk, but if the data is backed up elsewhere, I wouldn't worry about it myself. I can think of plenty of other buildings in the area whose loss would be more of a concern.

This question got me curious, so I did a little homework. What are the odds of a building in Maryland being struck by a tornado during its lifetime?

Found an AMAZING website: The Tornado History Project, which has statistics for all recorded tornadoes in the U.S., integrated with Google Maps and with a spreadsheet export function. So I grabbed the stats for every historical tornado in Maryland, used the site's track width and length data to find out the area of land affected by each one, and added them all up. The usual caveats about rounding error, reporting bias, etc. apply.

The result: about 43 square km of Maryland has been hit by tornados in the last 60 years. The area of Maryland is 32,000 km^2, so the odds of a random patch of land in Maryland being hit by a tornado are roughly 1 in 750.

Is this risk high enough to be worth redesigning the building for? I guess it depends on the consequences of loss. It's not a negligible risk, but if the data is backed up elsewhere, I wouldn't worry about it myself. I can think of plenty of other buildings in the area whose loss would be more of a concern.

• eNavigation09
• TEXAS III (2009)
• TEXAS II (2008)

The Patriot has at least 8 confirmed kills. Granted all occured in the second Iraq war, but we should stop spreading lies.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-01-Patriot_Report_Summary.pdf

We lose as many if not more soldiers in training accidents during peace time as we've lost in our two current wars, and people are freaked out about it.

Do you have any evidence for that statement? DoD statistics at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/castop.htm would seem to refute your claim but perhaps you have some other source of information on training casualties.

Here: https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/scra/owa/home

That has a cert from DOD "CA-21"? I'd only been able to find certs for CA-5 through CA-18. How many CAs does DOD have? And how many does Firefox know about?

Secure Connection Failed www.dmdc.osd.mil uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is not trusted. (Error code: sec_error_untrusted_issuer)

Hmmm, should I add an "exception"? If I don't do it, I might get in trouble under the SCRA if the guy's on active duty. If I do do it, I don't get in trouble under the SCRA, but might stay up nights hoping I didn't just send some poor guy's SSN off to the identity thieves...

I seem to remember discussion here on

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/25/1738239

where the National Security Space Office (NSSO) of the US DoD wanted to open discussion on Space-Based power generation. The NSSO published an interim assessment:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/solar.htm

One of the points of the assessment is that the DoD is likely to be a big customer for Space-Based power, especially for powering remote facilities.

The U.S. Department of Defense's "Open Systems Joint Task Force" has some material.

Defining "open standards" is critical. Vendors with an open mouth will say they have an open standard. I'd go look at digistan.org for a more useful definition and justification.

European Interoperability Framework for pan-European eGovernment Services might help, too.

For statistics on why use open source software, see: Why FLOSS? Look at the Numbers!

The DoD put out several papers on using Open Source dating back several years. I believe one was mentioned on Slashdot at the time.

Here is one from 2006.

I've been using almost all open source, both for architectural solutions and for custom software, in DoD since joining in 2005, and I know there are plenty of others doing the same.

The link is just a one page overview and doesn't really tell you much. The idea in a nutshell: "The basic idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2) , collect gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power via direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as lowâintensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers." That's from National Security Space Officeâ(TM)s Advanced Concepts Office's report you can read it here: http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf

To all you retarded pro e-voting wacko's.

You are aware of this document right? That was 2005.
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-02-HPMS_Report_Final.pdf

You do understand that the USAF is very concerned about hardware hidden logic. Right? Red Team Blue Team

You do know that eeproms are FUCKING MISSING!!

Look idiots, it's not linux vs windows, it's not software only, it's HARDWARE at the doping level.

It's lots of money to grab power and the enabling bullshit fascist corporate media enablers who won't do the most basic of journalistic investigation.

These electronic vote tabulation devices are nothing but trouble, Avi Rubin is full of shit.

how long till the next 9-11? why don't you ask the people who planned it?
it sure wasn't Iraq, or Iran! Iraq has no capability to attack the US, this was known then and is known now.

Lookit me! I'm hacking the pentagon! And the CIA! And the FBI!

Hold on, one moment--someone's knocking.

What is the current / projected budget for Cyber Command, and what percentage / amount of that budget do you plan to offer to either the SBIR Program or X-Prize style challenge competitions?

Hydrazine has an auto ignition temperature "on iron rust surface" of 24 deg C. My suspicion(well it's not really a suspicion because IAARS) is that they probably didn't use steel. Maybe something like titanium which melts closer to 1700 deg C. You also forget that you can put a paper cup full of water next to a fire and it won't burn till the water boils off. Anyway, fuel tanks surviving are a real problem when things reenter.

The sad thing is, Kurt Vonnegut was right over 50 years ago when he predicted what life would be like the "future". Of course he made some errors, such as MBAs are the rich ones instead of engineering PhDs, and the obligatory mid 50's "massive vaccum tube supercomputer", but in general he was right on. In "Player Piano" most of humanity is either in the army or in the "Recreation and Reclamation", ie masses of unskilled laborers who dig ditches and whatnot. Really seems to describe the current situation in the US today quite well.

I don't know how long ago you were reviewing SBIRs but, yes, things have changed a lot. Your first message complains that you weren't allowed to judge a proposal based on the qualifications of the technical staff and their past performance. The current SBIR evaluation criteria is 3-parts: a) is technical merit, b) is qualifications of staff, and c) is potential commercialization. You can read more here. In regards to your second post about SBIR Data Rights, those expire after five years. So you and everyone else gets to use it after five years after the end of contract, regardless of whether they commercialize it or not. You can read more here.

This quote does not appear anywhere on the SBIR solicitation website. Where did you get it from?

I don't know how long ago you were reviewing SBIRs but, yes, things have changed a lot. Your first message complains that you weren't allowed to judge a proposal based on the qualifications of the technical staff and their past performance. The current SBIR evaluation criteria is 3-parts: a) is technical merit, b) is qualifications of staff, and c) is potential commercialization. You can read more here. In regards to your second post about SBIR Data Rights, those expire after five years. So you and everyone else gets to use it after five years after the end of contract, regardless of whether they commercialize it or not. You can read more here.

This quote does not appear anywhere on the SBIR solicitation website. Where did you get it from?

I don't know how long ago you were reviewing SBIRs but, yes, things have changed a lot. Your first message complains that you weren't allowed to judge a proposal based on the qualifications of the technical staff and their past performance. The current SBIR evaluation criteria is 3-parts: a) is technical merit, b) is qualifications of staff, and c) is potential commercialization. You can read more here. In regards to your second post about SBIR Data Rights, those expire after five years. So you and everyone else gets to use it after five years after the end of contract, regardless of whether they commercialize it or not. You can read more here.

This quote does not appear anywhere on the SBIR solicitation website. Where did you get it from?

Huh, tell that to the Indians who are now managing the secure IRS and TSA servers I used to manage.

Drop a dime to the I.G. if that's the case; they're probably in violation of something if it's really classified stuff that's being managed by non-citizens outside the U.S.

http://www.dodig.osd.mil/hotline/

If you want to see improvements in research, stop having the state try to fund it.

Want to see the tripe crap that the State tries to push off as research? Just go to their Small Business Innovative Research pages.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/sbir/solicitations/sbi r071/index.htm (current DOD funded program).

Now some of the stuff that they want research on is cool stuff, but completely useless in 99 out of 100 applications.

Real progress/research comes from individuals who have an objective in mind (other than the government bureaucrat just wanting to spend his department's money before the end of the fiscal year). I'd be willing to bet that anyone here would be able to do more effective research individually if they were allowed to keep more than 60% of their earnings.

Plus, does anyone actually trust the government to know what they 'should' fund when members of Congress think that the internet is just a bunch of 'tubes'?

Reason #1. Halliburton is far more efficient than the US government (even though Halliburton is commonly seen as inefficient, it still takes 2 to 3 Government employees to do the amount of work 1 Halliburton employee does.). #2. Halliburton does have a reasonably good company, the Left-Wing (and the media is left wing, 40% of reporters are liberal, while only 15% are conservative) media just overplays every tiny mistake they make.

That should read Unsubstantiated Assertion #1/#2 surely? I couldnt find anything to back that up, can you?

Actually, Saddam did have WMDs. Few people heard about this, but there were hundreds of canisters of sarin and mustard gas artilery shells found in Iraq. Not as impressive as the WMDs we suspected him of having, but still WMDs none the less.

As someone else has already pointed out the few found were left over from the 80s, I can tell you as I have read the U.N. inspectors report on Iraqi WMD that their sarin was of such low quality it was only usable 4-6 weeks after production, after that it had broken down so much it was useless. Want a link, how about the US government-

SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS BEEN UNABLE TO PRODUCE HIGH
QUALITY CHEMICAL AGENT IN ITS PRODUCTION PLANTS DUE TO
POOR OPERATING PRACTICE.

TEXT: 1. SOURCE REPORTS THAT NERVE AGENT
PRODUCED AT SAMARRA IS OF POOR QUALITY. ESTIMATED SARIN
AGENT PURITY IS BETWEEN 20 AND 50 PERCENT. [ (b)(1) sec
1.3(a)(4) ]

2. [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ]

3. SOURCE ESTIMATES THAT STORAGE LIFE FOR SARIN
IS BETWEEN 4 AND 6 WEEKS WHEN PRODUCED IN THE IRAQI
PLANTS AT SAMARRA.

To a limited extent Saddam did provide some aid to AQ (though not much, it was mostly that Saddam knew AQ was there and offered them protection) and look who we are fighting in Iraq right now, AQ. Oh, but wait, there are no AQ in Iraq.

From the Cato Institute

Bin Laden, who views the rigid Saudi theocracy as insufficiently Islamic, has long considered Saddam Hussein an infidel enemy. Before Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, Bin Laden warned publicly that the Iraqi dictator had designs on conquering Saudi Arabia. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden offered to assemble his mujahedeen to battle Hussein and protect the Arabian peninsula.

So you see these are what we call known knowns as Rummy would say.

I am sure the EU will recognise the more robust economic model "Open" provides to the world economies with which we all compete for market share.

The USA Congress and GWBush may not understand "Open" economics and basic S&T+R&D to future market products; So, the rest of the world will bury the USA economy in about 10 or 20 years.
Who gives a shit (not polticians, televangelist, fools ...), I have no kids, and I'll be dead of old age in another 20 years; So, I no longer give a shit how US citizens vote ... It is all a big fucking joke on US).

!HAVEFUN!

http://www.opentechdev.org/index.php/Open_Technolo gy_Development_Roadmap
http://www.acq.osd.mil/actd/articles/OTDRoadmapFin al.pdf
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/1_1/daily _news/28963-1.html
http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/20 06/07/open_source_in.html

OH21 - Reality is self-induced hallucination.

The computer command circuits initiate detonation of the warhead by sending a burst command to the missile by the way of the missile tracking radar system. Upon receipt of the burst command, the command detonation control circuits activate the warhead detonation devices. In a surface-to-surface mission, the burst command does not detonate the warhead. Instead, the burst command arms the barometric fuze, which detonates the warhead at preset altitude above the target, and disables the fail-safe circuits. The fail-safe control circuits operate if ground guidance ceases or if a malfunction occurs within the missile. Should either condition prevail for approximately 2 seconds, causing interruption of the hold-off pulses from the transmitting circuits, the fail-safe circuits cause automatic destruction of the missile.

So, a federal law banning abortion, say, is liberal? Or one mandating prayer in schools? How does that work? You are confusing conservative philosphy on the structure of government with public policy.

The reason I say that current Democratic congressional leaders are more left-wing is because their opposition to Bush at almost every turn, even on things that would have appeased a Democrat-controlled Congress, has just pushed them further to the left (incidently or purposely). It has nothing to do with their perceived positions, it has to do with what it is they are opposing.

What kinds of liberal legislation are Dems in Congress opposing?

Just because you don't like Bush, but like FDR does not mean they were not very similar in the actions they took, although FDR undoubtedly was better at dealing with his opponents and PR.

And running the federal government and winning wars, but who's counting?

For a death count, here you go: http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates. pdf. Sorry the source is not as reliable as a Wikipedia article or blog posting.

The site is down. What are the numbers?

Bush is certainly to the left of his father and Reagan, similarities in a few left-wing acts notwithstanding.

Actually, legislating more Federal power over the states is a hard-left political act. Think Lincoln, FDR, etc.

The reason I say that current Democratic congressional leaders are more left-wing is because their opposition to Bush at almost every turn, even on things that would have appeased a Democrat-controlled Congress, has just pushed them further to the left (incidently or purposely). It has nothing to do with their perceived positions, it has to do with what it is they are opposing.

A good book on FDR just came out. Take a look at it and you might learn how much "worse" than Bush he was on many of the current left-wing oppositions. Just because you don't like Bush, but like FDR does not mean they were not very similar in the actions they took, although FDR undoubtedly was better at dealing with his opponents and PR. Playing the "Bush is a fanatic Christian" card is pretty damn old and amounts to petty rhetoric, especially when you consider how many of the most respected political figures in this country's history were devoutly religious.

Some big left-wing groups bailed out on support for Hillary in her senate campaign. Lieberman is very liberal. Do you think Gore would have chosen him for a running mate if he weren't?

For a death count, here you go: http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates. pdf. Sorry the source is not as reliable as a Wikipedia article or blog posting.

Haven't made it through the whole thing yet, but FTR:
The business model of purchasing physical goods and services has served DoD well in the past; but it falls short when applied to software acquisition. By treating DoD-developed software code as a physical good, DoD is limiting and restricting the ability of the market to compete for the provision of new and innovative solutions and capabilities. By enabling industry to leverage an open code development model, DoD would provide the market incentives to increase the agility and competitiveness of the industrial base. Currently within DoD, there is no internal distribution policy or mechanism for DoD developed and paid for software code. By not enabling internal distribution, DoD creates an arbitrary scarcity of its own software code, which increases the development and maintenance costs of information technology across the Department. Other negative consequences include lock-in to obsolete proprietary technologies, the inability to extend existing capabilities in months vs. years, and snarls of interoperability that stem from the opacity and stove-piping of information systems.

Absolutely.

There are over 100,000 publicly available open source projects available spanning most functional areas.4 Many of these projects provide mature and robust solutions in their areas of focus. When possible, OSS components should be leveraged rather than funding the development of equivalent proprietary components for specific programs.

Damn Skippy!.

Challenges Culture and Process The primary challenges to this transition will be cultural, not technical. Over time, government acquisitions and development processes have built a bureaucracy and rewards system that encourages and supports the status quo. Careers are advanced primarily on program size, not necessarily overall efficiency. Furthermore, government contractors are measured by revenue; government program managers are measured by the size of their organization and their overall budget. The canonical government contracting process creates high entry costs for small innovative companies -- the established contractors attempt to control their positions through proprietary implementations and interfaces. The system is very good at protecting itself -- new approaches, such as OTD, will have to endure legal, security, and process challenges. The current infrastructure will attempt to delay change, claim they are adapting by trying to assume control of the innovative process.

My Favorite Quote is in the DOD report.
There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come.
-- Victor Hugo

All in All, I'd say the guy in charge of this report knows his stuff and I for one, welcome our new OSS-using DOD overlords.

This means that when a sheriff recently left his laptop in an unlocked police car and it was stolen, there was nothing sensitive on it.

UN Inspectors are going to find that thief, because that thief has URANIUM TESTICLES. Stealing a laptop from an unlocked police car? Holy shit.

Someone needs to warn his girlfriend: "When fired ... the exposed depleted uranium rod poses an extremely low radiological threat as long as it remains outside the body. Taken into the body ... depleted uranium may pose a long-term health hazard to personnel if the amount is large. However, the amount which remains in the body depends on a number of factors, including the amount inhaled or ingested, the particle size and the ability of the particles to dissolve in body fluids." http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du/du_factsheet_4aug98 .html

Ever read the facts about depleted uranium? I wouldn't want to be shot with it, but I'd daresay that things like radon, burning oil and their own countrymen blowing them up provide more hazards to Iraqi's (that is what you were alluding to, wasn't it?) than depleted uranium shells.

Common guys, "mysterious" force fields? if ed's had bothered to google the facts there wouldn't be a need for this post(same for that ABL article- currently neutered as a tech demonstrator).

Wired, aug/2002
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54641, 00.html

SecDef's Force Transformation
http://www.oft.osd.mil/

more info on Trophy(Rafael)
http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.ht m

similar effort using AESA(Raytheon's Quick Kill)
http://www.edefenseonline.com/default.asp?func=art icle&aref=02_14_2006_OM

info on AESA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Electronically _Scanned_Array

the need for such a system(fuel cost IS a factor but it's a fixed cost. See fob.gov
SP0600-06-R-0033 for example):
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2004 /Dec/SurvivalInCombat.htm

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this system used by Carnival cruise lines:
http://www.atcsd.com/lrad.html
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/ 2005-11-07-cruise-blast_x.htm

"mysterious" force fields? LOL. I'm moving my slashdot bookmark next to collegehumor and dumpalink.

I'm with you on the survivability of the M1 tanks and their crews, however 120mm depleted uranium slugs are completely different beasts. There are numerous examples of Bradley's getting hit by *multiple* 120mm M1 rounds in the first gulf war, and everyone or almost everyone getting out alive. The DU slugs form a thin pencil jet of molten stuff - if you're not directly in it's path inside the vehicle, you'll survive with burns.

http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/du_ii /du_ii_tabh.htm

So I wouldn't make that statment that "because it can survive this, it can survive IED's". They're entirely different beasts.

That being said, it doesn't take much to take a tank out of a battle and put it's crew outside the vehicle vulnerable to a second attack or even small arms fire. Throw the track off, the tank has to sit tight and wait for help/battle to die, or they get out to fix it and you can hit them again.

There are three different things here that we're all probably on agreement on in specific, but some of us don't care about situation one while others do.

  - Can the tank and it's crew continue to fight
  - Does the tank or it's surviving crew have to withdraw from battle
  - How severe are the injuries
  - How many crewmen die

Personally, I only care about the latter two. The former two would be important if we ever got involved in a BIG war, one where we have to kill 10 enemy tanks to each of our own lost to win (aka China).

> they have IEDs that nothing we have can defeat

You can always build one of something that we can't defeat. So that statement by itself is *useless*.

Can they build enough of them to make us quit or walk away, or not fight to begin with. Right now the answer is no. In 95 percent of engagements, the tank crews walk away unharmed. We don't care about the tanks themselves. They can't even build enough big enough IEDs to kill enough up-armoured Humvee crew members to make us quit after 3-4 years straight of this.

I don't care if once this year they managed to build a 1 TON truck bomb that can force a tank crew to abandon it's tank. Talk to me when they're detonating 10 of those a week.

Rush Limbaugh (www.rushlimbaugh.com) - OK

Website of the Al Franken Show (www.alfrankenshow.com) - "Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion."

Cheers - that was extremely interesting, but hardly conclusive.

Taking your links one-by-one:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/05/iraq.mai n/
"U.S. Marines and Iraqi soldiers have uncovered a 503,000-square-foot underground insurgent hideout in central Iraq containing large stores of weapons, ammunition and supplies" - no WMDs there. I don't think anyone's trying to say Saddam didn't have underground facilities, but "Eek, he may have a few holes in the ground!" isn't doing anything bad, and the reason Bush gave for invading - WMDs (and terrorism!) were. No WMDs here, so it's pretty irrelevant. Finally, even worse, "it is not yet known if the bunker was built by Saddam Hussein's regime or if the insurgents created it from the remnants of the quarry".

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/cia/199605 17/cia_65175_65173_01.html

Direct quote form the article: "Subject: UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IN IRAQ
Not Finally Evaluated Intelligence... CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
WARNING: INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE".

Given the extremely dubious information typically initially reported in situations like this, and the humongous warnings plastered all over the report, isn't it just possible that this was an inaccurate initial report, that was perhaps proven wrong by later intelligence or analysis?

Wait a moment - I just noticed... This dates from January 1991 - it's from before the first gulf war. Saddam was known to have (and have used) chemical weapons (which, guess what, he got from the USA, amongst others - fourth paragraph). However, in the aftermath of the Gulf War, he was instructed to destroy all chemical and biological weapons, and cease any production or research of future ones. No-one's denying he had (and used) them fifteen years ago, but he was forced to destroy the lot, and this is simply not evidence that he still had them in the Gulf War II.

Did you not notice the date, or was this intended to be deliberately misleading? I don't mean to call your integrity into question, but so far you're 0 for two.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

I'll see your Fox News link, and raise you a statistically-proven right-wing propaganda bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News#Controversie s_and_allegations_of_bias
(Particularly the paragraph "Reports, polls and studies").

Hell, I'll also raise you a direct quote from the article: "However, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed. If confirmed, it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war". so, if Even Rumsfeld is casting doubts on the authenticity of the results, show me the article where it's confirmed, or I'll have to disregard this as a credible piece of evidence.

Oh, and if you want to dispute Fox's known and pronounced right-wing bias, please, please, please also read this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

"Monday's early morning raid found 11 precursor agents, "some of them quite dangerous by themselves," a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, said in Baghdad". This is very different to finding actual w

Stop attatching political affiliations with every idea, and stop treating people with disdain simply because they have opposing views to yours, it simply implies ignorance on your part.

As far as huge underground bunkers go, read this(present evidence) and this(past evidence).

As far as chemical warfare goes, read this(present evidence), this(more present evidence over a year later), and this(past evidence).

If you're still too stubborn to admit that my original response might have an ounce of validity, go read about Iraq's previous tactics in recent wars... the U.N. told them to be good and Iraq ignored them, what made you think that Iraq all of the sudden became this nice little peaceful nation over a decade of time? Saddam had it coming.
Regards,
Steve

Under former leader Saddam Hussein, the system was neglected as resources were diverted to the war effort and to fighting insurgencies

Yeah, that's why it fell apart.

Here's some relevant US Code:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/html/curren t/225_1.htm

Some items are purchased from qualifying foreign countries: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/html/curren t/225_8.htm#225.872

Anyone see China on the list of qualifying countries? Cause I sure didn't.

And none of these companies look foreign to me, let alone Chinese, but maybe that's just what the Chinese want us to think.

Of course it's a lot more fun to run around waving our hands in the air. Sorry I interrupted.