Slashdot Mirror
Semper WiFi
Roblimo writes "Armed Forces personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan increasingly use the Internet to communicate with their familes back home, but there are not nearly enough computers and connections for them. Lt. Phillip Geiger, Medical Officer with the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines, suggested using a privately-funded, long-range WiFi network to help troops stay in touch. The idea has grown from there, all funded privately with cash and equipment donations. Joe Barr has the details on NewsForge (which, like Slashdot, is part of OSTG)."
Because one effort, the forced compliance with UN regulations, is an effort being made by the federal government.
The other effort, charity morale for the troops, is privately funded.
And yes, yes you are trolling.
This sounds like an Operational Security nightmare. Unless it is well secured (and fully encrypted end-to-end), it could well be a valuable source of information for the Bad Guys.
Remember, information wants to be free...
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Probably because most people know a guy down the road or from school or in the family who's over there, and especially those who have family in service know what it's like to be out of touch for long periods of time and would want to fix that. It's human nature to care more about people who are closer to you. Also I'd guess most people have a mindset that makes them think whatever they put in would be so small as to be a drop in the bucket in the rebuilding effort (whether that's true or not i can't say)...with this wireless thing you can donate equipment and know you put a piece of it in place.
That said, even though you're trolling you have somewhat of a point...
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Having received e-mails from a friend in Iraq....I think this a great idea. Their time is often limited when they can gain any kind of Internet access and the access points are few. I was happy just to hear a few words from him when he was able to have access.
The logistics and security of a WiFI system obviously would take a lot of work; let's hope independent developers can work it out instead of our ummm "thrifty" federal government.
--- There is a man in a smiling bag.
Yes. The Harris company has produced a WiFi network that is capable of carrying Top Secret data. You need a waiver from an appropriate authority to even get this gear, and you'd best be government.
That said, they aren't talking about deploying one here. This is commercial off the shelf equipment they are talking about in the article. Grossly insecure.
In Iraq, this might work. Good line of sight and all. In Afghanistan - listen, i've seen pictures people brought back from Afghanistan in the last 2 years. It looks like Mordor with the high black mountains surrounding you. Line of sight is a big issue. IOW, this is a half baked scheme for Afghanistan.
There are issues here that I can't discuss regarding the lack of bandwidth available to the deployed personnel except to say that the DoD is seriously delinquent in lofting more comsats for itself.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
As a non-military-type (hell, I'm Canadian, we don't even know what a tank is) I'm curious how the US military is able to rein in information of a militarily-sensitive nature, as they did with letter censors in previous conflicts? Is this still something that is a concern for the US military? How do they restrict information in the digi age, when any lowly private can jump on gmail or hotmail and send off messages?
And, in response to the article, does anyone see a security issue with a "privately-funded, long-range WiFi network" in a battle zone?
What does it mean to wake out of a dream
and be wearing someone else's shorts?
BNL, Born on a Pirate Ship (1998)
Governments spend unbelievable ammounts of money on military equiptment, can't some of it be appropriated to communications?
The military views this much like entertainment, it is not an operational priority, and for the DoD that is in a massively spending spreed yet knows it needs to limit it's spending, it cuts from the bottom of "non-operational" activities not the top like Space Weapons.
I thought 'battlefield' communications would be very good - I am utterly mystified how a country can have so many troops in a place and not have a solid redundant communciation netwrok that could be accessible to the troops.
This is an independent network from their operational computer network, it has to be because the morale traffic is unclassified, and knowingly sent to output networks (the Internet).
Perhaps this could be an oppourtunity for some community aid? Let the students get involved in configuring the units (after all, we are talking email and video messaging, nothing secret?)
Invite possible sucide bombers into an area with lots of military personnel on a US military base on foreign soil. I hope not. That's a death wish.
...it would be nice if they left the network in place, if this were at all possible. I'm sure the Iraqis could make great use of it.
Well, some people went into the military because it was the best choice for them. They're not blood-thirsty or enjoy killing. Most were likely just poor, were trying to escape a bad household, or just were not suited for a regular school. Some were just fooled into believing that the military is just piloting million dollar equipment and having honor.
They took the risk of having to hurt someone to get what they wanted. There is no way you can blame their youthful ambition or ignorance. If you are young, you have it. And if you are older, you laugh at yourself for having so much of it (but you still miss it).
With all due respect, I think you have it backwards. The Army and military in general is NOT trained for rebuilding infrastructure or even for "peacekeeping" or law enforcement. The military is trained for one thing: Achieve their military objectives as quickly and efficiently as possible. Military objectives generally fall into 3 categories.
1. Kill that guy.
2. Keep that guy from killing someone else (method: see #1).
3. Train for 1 and 2.
This is the reason Vietnam turned out the way it did. If you expect the military to effectively do anything but kill the enemy, be prepared to be disappointed.
IMHO, Civilian contractors, US, Iraqi, or otherwise, should be doing the reconstruction. It is the Iraqi government's responsibility to oversee this task and the US government's responsibility to assist as appropriate.
nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
Helpful Hints:
:D
Marines have dedication to the Corps, their fellow Marines, and to soldiers.
A Marine is only a Soldier if you're looking to get your butt kicked.
Grandpa was a career Marine, Dad was Navy. You learn these things early around my parts.
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
That has nothing to do with the troops. The troops, if you ask them, are fighting for their countrymen.
They didn't go over there to make money for someone, they went over there because they were told it would make the US safer.
Now, you can argue whether or not that's true, and you can certainly accuse the top of the chain of command of betraying the country, but don't blame the troops for it. They still want to believe they're doing it for us.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
The people there now are most certainly "fighting for us"
Now Saddam Hussain has gone, the occupying force has an absolute responsibility to hand the country over to responsible governance. The alternative would be balkanisation and the development of mini states led by fanatics. Many of these warlords would benefit greatly from supporting global terrorism.
Dont kid yourself, Iraq is most deffinitely a threat now and it is a vital responsibility of the occupying forces to support the development of the new government - for our sakes as much as for the Iraquis
For many people opposition to the war before it began was for this very reason - that we doubted that the US would be capable of returning Iraq to peace and prosperity after removing their vile dictator. In particular we doubted that the American electorate had the stomach to take responsibility for the winning of the peace after the war.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of starting the thing, it is now of vital importance to finish the job.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
However, US soldiers who enrolled (i.e. all US soldiers in Iraq), did so willingly. They didn't get that job to play tennis, they knew they could very well be asked to go do some killing on behalf of the government. So, I don't care if they went there to get money for tuition, or to make their families proud, or just to "see some action", they're hired killers and they're this administration's accomplices in starting this illegal war and invasion of a sovereign country.
So, what are you saying?
Are you saying that all soldiers in all armies in the world are "hired killers"? Is it your position that no good person should ever join the military?
Or are you saying that soldiers should independently evaluate each conflict that comes along and decide whether or not they think this one is "moral"?
Or are you saying that people should only join the military whey they know there's a war coming up that they think is worth fighting in?
Or are you saying something else? Please explain, so we can tell you why you're wrong.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Making money from an unnecessary invasion is not protecting your family. Your family is now in far more danger now that the U.S. government has invaded an oil-rich Arab country that was, at the time, not threatening other countries. Nothing a Madison Avenue advertising company could do would have given more support to crazed terrorists. It was an effective move for those who want more war, because there is profit in war.
I don't think you can claim that soldiers aren't killing people for pay.
So do cops.
Most soldiers never kill anyone. It's a possibility that comes with the job, just as it does with being a policeman. It's the unfortunate nature of the world that, sometimes, killing people is a good thing to do.
My suggestion is that should your country be invaded, then you arm yourself and fight - no one can hold a country when the populace is motivated to resist.
This is technically true, but the brutal reality of such an approach is much, much worse than keeping a standing army of soldiers who, if they do their job well and professionally during peacetime, will never have to fight anyone. Of course, that does create a risk that politicians may decide to use this force for evil, but it's the job of the *citizens* to keep their own government under control.
(Actually, it occurs to me that those who want to blame the soldiers are really trying to shift the blame from their own shoulders. They should have done more to stop their government from doing those things they disagreed with.)
Your suggestion also doesn't consider the fact that the whole populace will not be motivated to resist. A large portion of the populace will prefer to try to get along with the invaders, even if it means that they lose their freedom in the process.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You're a dumbass. The people in the military are made up of all types. The lower ranking people may come more from a particular demographic, but your assertion ignores the fact that there are more people in the military than just the low(er) ranks. Officers in almost all cases have to have at least a 4 year degree. Many of them do not, in fact, have "few other options". They view the military as a calling and have met that call.
Personally, I went in the military not as a poor person, as a person who thought it was simply my *best* option. I *wanted* to go in, my recruiter did not have to woo me. There were other options available to me, but the military one was where my thoughts were. I decided that it gave me as much or more than what I was looking for at the time.
"Cut the crap" indeed. If you'd take the time to follow your own advice, you'd find that it is *your* assumptions that are invalid.