Slashdot Mirror
Air Force Seeking Geeks For 'Cyber Command'
An anonymous reader writes "Wired reports that the two-star general in charge of the US Air Force's new Cyber Command is looking for hacker-types to beef up its cadre of cyber warriors — no heavy lifting required. 'We have to change the way we think about warriors of the future,' General William Lord says. 'So if they can't run three miles with a pack on their backs but they can shut down SCADA system, we need to have a culture where they fit in.' The Cyber Command is the Air Force's first new Major Command since the early 1990s. Its purpose is to be able to win an electronic war with China and other potential adversaries."
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
they could be called GeekSquad
?giS
But don't they realize that people smart enough to do their hacking are also smart enough to see through their sorry attempts to recruit them?
Careful What You Wish For....
Just seeing that the name of this new command is the "cyber command" makes me want to run right out and hack a Gibson.
Man, the surf is ripped out on that information wave today. I mean gridlocked, on that information superhighway...?
HACK THE PLANET!
I question their ability to attract the best hackers. Military culture is kinda sorta the complete and total opposite of geekdom. It is encouraging that they realize that some culture change on their part is necessary, but change comes very slowly to the military (with good reason! who wants a flaky military?)
expandfairuse.org
Admiral Ackbar: It's a TRAP!
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
People will go for this. Cracking some of the worlds most secure systems from behind the protection of the US goverment? sounds like a pretty cool deal to me.
I would be interested to know what the new "physical requirements" are going to be for this type of command?
What will the recruiters say? "And guess what?, You will get a free 6-pack of Jolt *or* Red Bull *or* even Bawlz with every root account compromised?
What are the new parameters are going to be for the "boot camp"? Here are the current ones: http://www.baseops.net/basictraining/airforce.html
I'd be pressed (these days) to meet the BMT physical requirements: http://www.baseops.net/basictraining/airforce_fitness.html
If they want us, they can bring us in as civilian contractors. Why would anyone want to take a low paying job they can't quit?
Commander: They did what?
Lieutenant: They fell down and started rolling around, keyboards in hand.
Commander: And this was suppose to say what exactly?
Lieutenant: They were gibbering something about he who lives by the keyboard dies by the keyboard. I think they thought it was funny or clever. You have no idea what the men have been dealing with. These geeks have no social skills whatsoever.
Commander: So I've heard....and they absolutely refused to perform that first strike.
Lieutenant: Yes, sir. But it gets worse. They started muttering some inane dialog and sniggering at each other. "Burn the building" and such. We thought they were making threats at first, but then one of them laughed at me for not watching some cult film they all worship. Office Farce or Office Day or something.
Commander: I told them this would never work. Damn geeks.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
...to win an electronic war with China... To win an electronic, heck any kind of war, all China has to do is to stop shipping electronic and any other goods to the US. After all, that is were all of the stuff comes from these days. Not to mention that most of the corporates have either sold or licensed almost all intellectual property to China in one form or another. Talk about giving a potential enemy all of the sticks they need to beat you over the head with.how would they control the inner geek urge to hack EVERYTHING?
commanding officer: "Dammit, someone emptied my bank account - AGAIN!"
second in command: "It's those cyber warfare officers, sir, they keep hacking anything connected to the network"
CO: "WELL COMMAND THEM TO STOP DOING IT!"
SCO: "I can't sir, the rerouted all communications through a local brothel..."
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
Article has recruiter contact information for wannabe cyber warriors. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080209-12.html
Commander: "We're at war" Geek: "Huh? I was on my break, just playing counterstrike on my station."
Your pointy-haired boss has a gun.
Great Intellect...
because the real hackers and crackers - not the shitty scene ones, but the ones that are genuinely good. Are going to go join a government joint right?
Right.
We've gone from "don't ask don't tell" to the military hiring geeks to cyber.
What is the Air Force doing in charge of America's cyber warfare abilities?
It seems to me that we should have a specialized agency, or perhaps even a military branch, for cyber warfare.
http://www.aaplblog.com/ - News about Apple Inc.
I take it you graduated from Berkeley. Our soldiers, not counting the rare psycho who slips in, do not target civilians. You must be thinking of Hamas and Al Quada who consider babies a perfectly legitimate target.
Every single soldier I know would be appalled at the very idea of attacking civilians. Every single one of them would refuse an order to do so.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Detonate an EMP bomb. Welcome to the stone age, troops, you just lost all of your nav/GPS/FoF systems, and if your vehicles are not hard-shielded, you're screwed.
If an EMP bomb tested out in the Pacific could affect both Hawaii and Japan coasts, one EMP could effectively cover China. We already have the weaponry to win an electronic war.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
BARKSDALE AFB, La. -- The perception that "legal" restrictions hinder the freedom of the Department of Defense to maneuver in cyberspace
They might as well just put sarcasm tags around it
China and other potential adversaries.
I can't be the only dude from the EU who has noticed a slow rise in anti-China stuff on slashdot?
Do other news sources in the US have this slant? Because looking at it from the outside, it's like the US^H^H^H^H Fox News is seeking a new bogeyman now the cold war is over. Unfortunately some of this is rubbing off on a more intellegent news source like
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
ahahahahahahaha
you do not know many soldiers I take it
I'm not exactly sure if you're referring to just the current or recent wars of the US, or if you're talking about any war whatsoever...
But what utopia do you live in, may I ask? I'm sorry, but war is sometimes necessary. I'm not defending any particular war of any particular nation, but only saying that war is sometimes necessary. If someone is out to blow *your* country to bits, it doesn't do much good to talk to them or give them a philosophical (and well thought out, too) argument about why killing you would really just incite more killing, etc. There are even people that simply enjoy the carnage.
As long as life exists, there is going to be anger, hate, and malice; and as long as anger, hate, and malice exist, there's going to be bloodshed.
I'm all for peace and not war, but it is an unfortunate necessity at some points, in order to save life from those who WANT to destroy it for whatever reasons. It is from those "wanting to be guilty of murder and death" that more moral nations and armies are to protect the innocent.
You really do eat the propaganda from the military don't you. As the Iraq and other recent Wars has demonstrated there are many ways that innocents get killed, so your intentions or the intentions of the soldiers is irrelevant.
However, I wasn't just speaking of the innocents. Killing begets more killing. You kill them. They are motivated to kill you. Again your side kills members of their side. On and on it goes.
The forever war is just what those in power want - which ever side they are on. The only answer is to stop the killing by all those involved using communication and other methods.
"Woohoo! Where do I sign?"
"Great! Now pack your bags, you're going to Iraq"
"Butbutbut, that's not what I signed up for!"
"Too bad, we need people on the ground in Iraq NOW. That's where you're going."
War is never necessary except for those who's purpose it serves. For the rest of us - the other %99.9999... war is not necessary. To keep people such as Bush, Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, etc... in power they need wars. War is the best thing that drives their mission. It defines them. It drives them forward. It gives them power. It sucks the life out of everyone though. It is futile.
You obviously have bought the mainstream propaganda about war. War is all about death and power. Killing others so that you have power. That is evil no matter what side you are on.
I don't live in utopia. I live in a world at war. Death and destruction everywhere. Indroctrination into the death cult occurs from birth whether it's into the death cult of a suicide bomber in the middle east or the honor macho death cult of the west. They are the same - death to others at all costs.
Murder, death, kill. There are other solutions and your the one in the dream world if you think that killing is the answer to the problems facing the world.
Turning raw meat into the cyberwarriors of tomorrow -- the drill sergeant at Fort Ran:
ALL RIGHT YOU MAGGOTS LISTEN UP! EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU IS A PERFECT SPECIMEN OF WELL-MUSCLED MANHOOD, BRIGHT-EYED,
NEATLY DRESSED, AND HIGHLY DISCIPLINED. WELL STARTING TODAY I AM GOING TO TURN YOU ALL INTO SLOVENLY, SARCASTIC,
ANTI-SOCIAL LOSERS! DO YOU HEAR ME SOLDIER??
Sir, Yes sir!
NEVER CALL ME SIR! YOU ARE TO SHOW NO RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY! DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME MAGGOT?!
Sure, whatever dude.
WHAT'S THAT AROUND YOUR NECK SOLDIER??
It's a tie s..., er dude
WELL TAKE IT OFF! YOU WILL WEAR T-SHIRTS AND LOOSE SHORTS AT ALL TIMES! IS THAT CLEAR?
I really don't like people shouting at me.
DAMN RIGHT YOU DON'T. AND WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN SOMEONE LIKE ME PISSES YOU OFF?
Uh, replace your desktop with a screenshot and then watch you trying to click on it while I snicker from my cubicle?
I THINK WE GOT A REAL GEEK HERE! IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE MAGGOT? A REAL GEEK???
I guess so.
OH YOU GUESS SO? WELL WHEN I'M DONE WITH YOU THERE WON'T BE ANY DOUBT! EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU WILL BE ABLE
TO LIVE FOR DAYS ON NOTHING BUT JOLT COLA AND DORITOS! YOU WILL LEARN TO LOVE THE WARM GLOW OF YOUR MONITOR
MORE THAN THE LIGHT OF THE SUN! YOU WILL BE ABLE TO WRITE NETWORK PENETRATION CODE IN THE DARK, IN MACHINE CODE,
USING A MAGNETIZED NEEDLE AND A STEADY HAND! YOU...WILL..BE...WARRIORS!! HOO! HOO! HOOOO!
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
And cut it out with that Al Qaida bullshit, they haven't done squat in years. There's a civil war going on in Iraq, and the people there want freedom both from US occupation as well as from the Iraqi government. Civil wars where civilians don't get hurt are an exception, because usually one side of the conflict consists of a group of people who want freedom from the central government.
Actually, they do. The military has no problem hiring the very best if they want to. Half the best physicists and electrical engineers I knew at MIT -- and the better half, typically -- went either directly into the military (via ROTC) or worked for defense contractors. Why not? It's where the really interesting physics and engineering was being done, the pay and benefits were great, and you weren't hassled by dumbass marketing suits wanting you to make your product cute or cheap.
The military wants their tech to work and be way cooler and better than anyone else's stuff, cost to them is no object, and they don't give a fuck what it looks like or whether it "appeals" to the critical 18-25 Facebook demographic. It's going to be painted olive drab anyway, and soldiers will be told to use it, not begged. Fairly ideal working conditions for a really smart technical person, I'd say. The only drawback is the various amounts of bureaucratic bullshit you have to cope with, which tops the level in a good private firm.
Anyway, I've never heard of a good technical job in the military or one of its prime contractors, or one of the defense-associated national labs, not drawing a huge raft of top-notch applicants. It's agencies like the EPA which pay terribly, have hideous civil-service and union rules weighing them down, and which, frankly, involve boring and outdated technology, which end up desperate to hire even third-rate people.
If they hire you you can start when they want you to. Nothing to do with me. I, of course, encourage you to find other solutions that supporting those who kill your fellow human beings.
Intelligence gathering is a support activity for those that kill and as such anyone involved is guilty of murder no matter how little they contribute. The only measure is how many people are hurt, injured, killed as a result of your actions and resulting hacking or intelligence.
While the goals that you state might sound lofty to yourself you are in fact contributing to the problems in the world. It's likely that your support will make this a thousands year conflict rather than finding solutions that resolve matters without any more killing.
Stop the killing now.
For people interested the real draw back is that the HQ is in Sheveport, Louisiana.
Yea you have gambling, a cheap cost of livings, and a Bass Pro Shop.
The downside is you have Louisiana, lots of rain and hot temperatures and the people who shop in a Bass Pro Shop.
As much as members of Scientology are indoctrinated into their delusional cult you are deep into the cult of death of your country. Break free of your cult blinders and free your mind. Take the red pill and enter the real world where death of any human being is a tragedy.
It won't be easy, and if you think it is that's simply more of your cult delusion.
There are no simple answers except that killing isn't the answer, it never is.
Break free. Take the red pill.
Well, yeah, that's a tautology. War is only useful when its useful.
No, it doesn't solve all problems, or even many. Truly the threat of war is a far more useful tool than actual war, which has high costs for both sides.
But if the problem is some group of people coming into your territory with weapons demanding your women and property, then yes, war is good at solving that problem. If war is serving the purpose of not having someone show up and kill your family, then 99.999% of people think that's a purpose worth serving.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
That is the nature of war. Us vs Them. They are playing the same game. You must either play it or loose.
...the current electronic stuff coming from China is already equipped with self destructing parts that just wait for the signal.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Soldiers maybe, the regular G.I. Joes. Those Special Ops people on the other hand, crazy as hell. My dad, he is in Iraq working for Haliburton, said one of them gave a speech where he pretty much thanked all the civilian workers for being there to help them kill all these men women and children.
He also mentioned that one of the most relaxed places to be around base was in the Special Ops buildings, so maybe they are not all bad.
Personal self defense is one thing, war is quite another.
Oh, wait, the Iraq War was the USA, Britian, et. al., invading and killing people in Iraq. Oops. Your argument back fired. Those in Iraq were defending themselves!!!
Either way war isn't the answer.
You've identified a problem that needs solutions other than killing. When someone comes into your country with weapons demanding your women and property there are other solutions than killing them or surrendering to them.
Solutions will not be easy. Killing will only beget more killing. Haven't you read history?
... with my karma anything a modern military (let alone the one claiming Overlord status on the planet) does, sign me in... I've got karma to burn... good times ahead...
Communication and other methods? I'm amazed such naive idealism was modded up. There are always going to be competing interests, and the voice of violence is the loudest of all.
I think the [MS Word] paperclip is a great idea. - Miguel de Icaza
These "cyber warriors" will spend the vast majority of their time hacking into the computers and tapping the phones of what is now 700,000 US citizens on the FBI watch list mostly because they are active in Democratic Party or Green Party politics.
Must defend America from the threat posed by senior citizen Quaker non-violence activists, right?
Yeah, our soldiers are STILL appalled at the very idea of attacking civilians and say they wouldn't do it. They have now process for destroying two Afghan villages :/
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
Yes, the voice of violence is very loud since it's a very easy solution. For sure the politicians and military are quick to resort to violence. That is why they need to have their power checked and revoked. Now of course this only works across the planet so it will take time. It also doesn't solve the problem with those that take up arms without being governments.
Solving issues like gang violence and the violence of the mafia are similar. While you might think that they are at a smaller scale they are essentially the same, except for scale.
Anyone who chooses violence to solve a problem - except in personal self defense - IS the problem and not the solution.
The cultural shifts needed are many.
It isn't about idealism, it's about moving towards a planet where murder, killing, death and power over others are unacceptable solutions for all human beings everywhere.
There are many steps that you need to take in your deprogramming from your cult of death. If it's acceptable for you to kill someone then it's acceptable for them to kill you. Where we need to get to is that it's unacceptable for anyone to kill anyone for any reason.
Equally, the US, having been useful in providing markets during Chinese industrialisation, is now a threat to the Chinese government because of its preoccupation with democracy and its desire to control access to commodities through military means. My guess is that war between the US and China is inevitable, and that initially this war will be entirely electronic and barely visible. It will be a war of destabilisation, possibly using control of Scada systems to shut down power stations and create hydrological crises. How those systems ever got connected to the Internet is a failure of basic strategic thinking.
Anyone familiar with the history of WW2 will know that, when necessary, the military can very rapidly absorb geeks into its culture. Think Alan M Turing and Richard Feynmann, surely both geek's geeks. And when it turns out they have a prospect of creating conditions for military success, you get things like Churchill's memorandum: "See they have everything they want and report to me that it has been done."
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Yes one can take that meaning however it just proves the point that killing doesn't solve anything.
You are deep into the cult of death, as were the Nazis, and as is the Government of Israel and it's current enemies.
One task it to choose the cult of life over the cult of death.
One task is to have the Government of Israel choose the cult of life and make choices that don't involve taking lives.
One task involves having Israel's enemies choose the cult of life and choose actions that don't take lives.
This takes communication. It takes work. It takes creative thinking. It takes relationships. It takes thinking that isn't at the level of thinking that you are thinking. It takes you going beyond your level of thinking. Take the red pill and choose the cult of life.
Well, war can be, essentially, lots of personal self-defense at the same time. How do you think primitive wars took place? It was 50 guys showing up with rocks and clubs demanding tribute from another group they thought was weaker, and the second group all getting out their rocks and clubs and fighting them off. I don't know many people who would honestly argue the second group had much of a choice but to go to war, or that if they won they hadn't achieved their purpose.
I don't know why you assume it "back fired", I never claimed all war was good, you're the one who claimed all war was bad and served no purpose to the participant. Indeed, many Iraqis do think they are defending themselves and their families from invaders. If they manage to chase the US out of their country, then waging war might have been the best choice for them to make for their families, depending on what their goals are.
Well, I'd love to hear your other guaranteed solution if someone comes in with a gun and demands they he be allowed to rape your wife, enslave your children and set fire to your property. Humanity has been waiting many thousands of years for the solution to war and violence, we're ecstatic but a little surprised to find out it will be revealed to us on slashdot.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I can see the Air Force running 3 miles to GET a SIX pack, but that's about all I could see the AF running for. To be sure, once the AF GETS the SIX pack, the running is done and over with. There is no more of a pussy branch than the AF.
Good luck getting geeks to move to Barksdale Louisiana - nearest major town is Shreveport, and it's about 3 hours from Dallas, 5-6 from New Orleans. They may be building a big shiny building, but if they want to hire geeks, they'd have a lot better luck locating this at Livermore Labs or Moffett Field or somewhere around Boston or NYC.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It's typical of those members of the cult of death to make statements such as those above when confronted with the possibility of other approaches other then their coveted death based solutions.
If you play it you lose. Remember, the only winning move is not to play.
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
Must fight... urge... to feed.. troll.....
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
Human society is based on violence. What you're suggesting is that we all just stop being human. Good luck with that.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I suspect we're all a little bit guilty of a lot of bad stuff, if you're willing to peel back enough layers.
(I wonder who owned "my" land 500 years ago, and how many people got killed in the sequence of changes in ownership that ultimately put it in my hands.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
- The Army sends a bunch of guards armed with automatic weapons to make sure nobody steals the computer.
- The Navy ties the machine down with netting so it won't bounce around during shipping, tightens the screws in the rack, coils the cables neatly and attaches them with cable ties.
- The Air Force cuts a purchase order to buy another one.
Our lab was _much_ neater once Dave got there - plus he did a good job on router ACLs, installing OS patches, etc.You'd think the NSA would be more involved in this kind of thing, but usually when I hear about people getting funding for cyber warfare boondoggles as opposed to computer security, it's the Air Force.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Yes, by extension paying taxes to Governments that kill is a direct form of support for death, murder, kill, injustice, repression and other crimes. So yes, that's why it's important to stop Government death cults and encourage your political representatives to support life based policies. To do otherwise brings responsibility to bear upon you, although people like Bush have a lot more responsibility to take (such as a life sentence for the hundreds of thousands of people he has murdered - or by extension ordered to be murdered - as President).
Do the math. Count the dead. Society must change otherwise we'll all end up under the nuclear cloud of death.
Choose life. Choose death. It's up to you. and you. and you. and you. and me. I choose life. What do you choose?
You obviously have bought the mainstream propaganda about war. War is all about death and power. Killing others so that you have power. That is evil no matter what side you are on. So if the Mongols come around burning your people's villages and raping their donkeys, you shouldn't take up arms against it?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
So it's necessary to kill those who think killing others (you in your reasoning here) is justified?
Using the same mindset that created the problem in order to solve it, will not exactly lead to solving the problem.
Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
It's about evolving out of the cult of death into the cult of life with no one left behind.
Again your being indoctrinated into the cult of death since your birth limits the possible thoughts that you can come up with. A cult belief system is a limiting straight jacket. I invite you to take the red pill and choose the cult of life.
Yes, indeed. A question is: how to have everyone not play? That's the trick, isn't it.
Step 1: Write everything in Chinese
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Win!
Ask this at the recruitment fair:
"So, how many people will die if I take a job with you?"
A friend tried this with the organisation that makes atomic weapons for the UK and also the Royal Air Force -- both just ignored him, then gave some we-don't-kill-real-people crap.
Are you aware that last year's drop in US casualties in Iraq was the result of switching from ground engagements to air raids, which are up by a factor of five since a year ago? Our leaders are happily trading Iraqi babies for a reduced anti-war sentiment back home. Every single soldier I know would be appalled at the very idea of attacking civilians. Every single one of them would refuse an order to do so. Yeah, you can tell by what has been going on in Iraq, and how determinedly the top brass go about investigating an incident when the public finds out.
Not every soldier is a monster, but you have to drink some powerful kool-aid to think wars don't bring out the monster in a lot of otherwise decent people.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I'm sure they'd listen to reason and realise what jolly bad chaps they are, if you presented your argument in the right way. It's not like they're barbarians or anything, their culture is just as valuable as yours and who are you to judge?
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
War is the reflection of Man's naturally competitive nature. We're made -- programmed -- to be this way. We are born with the physical and mental abilities that allow us to defend ourselves and to attack those who would hurt us.
Agreed, it has now become an industry. And sick people lie and find ways to profit from it. But still, war has always been and will always be.
Feelings aside, it has actually driven humanity forward. It has forced people to think harder and find better strategies. To work harder and become stronger. To study more and have better technologies...
I hate wars. And I hate the current American farce of a foreign policy. Yet, I still think that's the way we are. If it wouldn't be the US doing it, it'd be some other nation. War did not change the face of history. War made history.
We are competitive among each other. We're being hypocrite with some people. We have the ability to lie. We have fists to punch someone in the face. And we do just that on a greater scale when we wage a war.
Though many died as a consequence of war, we may each of us consider ourselves alive as a consequence of humanity's previous wars. The world is how it is today because of everything that happened before -- including war.
I'm sure a world without war would be a nice place. But there would be no human around to enjoy it.
We are war.
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
Yes, war is evil, and I'm sure that no-one here would say that war is a good thing - both sides always end up killing innocents and causing suffering. But sorry, it's a fact of life that war is necessary, and no amount of talk about peace and love and how killing incites more killing will change that. Take WW2 for example - if the Nazis were killing off Jews and other minorities, would you just sit there and say "please don't do that, it's not very nice?", or would you try and stop them using force? Or if your home town gets invaded - will you have a peaceful protest at your loss of freedom or will you try and protect what is yours?
If you're on the winning side of the cult of dealth, doesn't that mean you're in the cult of life?
Could you please stop posting the same thing over and over?
The only answer is to stop the killing by all those involved using communication and other methods.
Like appeasement? Or bribery? Or lying to avoid conflict? Or global adoption of your philosophy? How do you plan on convincing people to not want "your stuff" or to not want you dead or worse? Are you going to inform them that it is hurtful?
I'll suggest that communication alone may never bring peace, because communication does not address disagreement at the philosophical level. It just defines the boundaries of the disagreement.
You really do eat the propaganda from the military don't you.
Way to communicate. I'm sure your patience, empathy and understanding will bring love and peace to /. in no time.
Oh wait, maybe I misinterpreted that statement as being condescending. Either way, maybe you should consider improving your communication with people you do not agree with.
God I love irony.
But no sense of morals required too. Those geeks won't have to do what they think is right or what the common sense says it's right, but what their government orders them to do, or face martial court.
If I was an US citizen my answer would be "thanks, but no thanks. I'm too intelligent and too respectful for the world I'm connected to, that gave me so much information and knowledge, to thump my chest like a monkey while I send malicious packets through it at the sound of a trumpet".
What's the bigger problem: The person that wants to kill you -or- the act of killing itself. If Country A declares war on Country B, then Country B has no choice but to either (a)surrender immediately, or (b)negotiate for peace, or (c)fight back. In fantasyland option b would work out every time. Unfortunately, the real world isn't as kind. If you don't fight back, you'll lose.
I guess you meant to post that somewhere else, as I wasn't advocating killing or nationalism as solutions. :)
What soldiers are you referring to? Perhaps the draftee's of the vietnam era? I'll never be naive enough to say that the things that branded soldiers in that time as "baby killers" have never happened since or won't happen again. And nothing can excuse that behavior. But since when is that different from society as a whole?
Also, understand that in the vietnam era, thousand of men who were never fit to wear a military uniform let alone fight in a war, were drafted into service. There are too many cases where a convicted criminal was given a choice to either serve jail time or join the military. That is no longer the case. EVERYONE in the modern military is a volunteer. I personally served 4 years in the air force during the original invasion of Iraq back in 2003. When I was enlisting, I couldn't even tell you how many times I was asked if a judge had ordered me to be there or if I was was forced to be there because they asked it all the time. Even when I made it to basic training they still kept asking.
And for the record, you have no right to slander those soldiers who protect you and your way of life. You might as well go live in France. Public servants are underpaid, overworked, and perform some of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Who are you to think you are better than them?
DISCLAIMER: I served 4 years in the US Air Force. I have a brother who is currently serving his 6th year in the Air Force and two younger brothers who are in the enlistment process for the Air Force. My Grandpa served in the Army during world war II and was awarded the silver star for action during the battle of the bulge. I may be slightly biased....
Bleeding hearts never did anything to advance the country they live in, what with generally being leeches and the rotten fifth column inside the nation.
Much of the technology you enjoy today exists as a result of the military industrial complex. Honestly, I think people like you would enjoy seeing our lifestyle evaporate and us going back to living in hunter gatherer societies, with 30 year life expectancies.
Oh, and before you label me. I'm Democrat, I just happen to take offense to fags like you being apologists for people who you wouldn't ever support if you knew what they did. Anything but America right? You don't like it, try to change it from within, you have that option, living as you do in this country. It's fucking easy to snipe from the sidelines while you sip your latte and type away on your PowerBook from your airconditioned room.
You make me fucking sick. You don't advance alternative ideas or options, but just take aim at the soft targets. We need less of you and more of the kind of people who love their country. Not blindly...but you seem to hate it. Don't like it, move the fuck to one of the countries who is your pet cause.
I have two very serious issues with the bullshit babble you are saying (bullshit babble herein defined as repetitive, dogmatic, emotive, moralistic language with a high degree of abstract imagery that does not respond to criticism against itself except by further repetition).
1. There are situations where the only outcome of the philosophy you propose is that you are highly likely to die yourself, together with other people that should not be dead.
Simply because, as several here point out, few other people think the way you do. There will be cases when buying new shoes leads to someone seeing those shoes and wanting them and be very willing to use violence to take them. There will also be cases where having a good country leads to the head of a different country seeing your own country and wanting to be able to decide everything that happens within it, and direct its population as they see fit.
I absolutely and clearly agree that "thinking creatively", such as considering the interests of everyone involved and how they can alternatively be satisfied in a just way, can lead to better conflict resolution. But this is far from saying that _all_ conflicts can be avoided.
Consider the situation in Ethiopia. I would very well imagine that there are many who have similarly been taught a creative-avoidance mindset. They would have their arms chopped off with machetes. They would quickly be dead.
The problem with you, however, is that you actively criticise those who do think differently. You say their thinking is not at the same level as yours. Hence, although in MANY cases your view would be an improvement on the world, there are also SEVERAL cases when it would not, and hence criticising others like you do is clearly unfair and unwarranted.
The alternative thing you could do would be to say that "even if the other party is bent on conflict is it better to be killed by them than take part" - hence, a moralistic view that death is preferred to killing - but you don't even recognise that option, the potentiality of situations like those. You assert situations like those will never arise and ridicule and criticise people for thinking they do.
In fact, seeing what you write makes me LESS appreciative of humankind, and MORE acceptive of the inevitability of civilian deaths in any conflict, because I recognise the staggering stupidity that abound. If there is a conflict in an area and many flee and the rest remain, and the remainders are killed, I would shrug and imagine them to be people like yourself, inevitable death attractors whom it would be unwarranted to consider lives lost.
2. The 'system of responsibility' that you assert with extreme confidence is lacking, inconsistent and flawed..
You assert that most people belong to 'the cult of death', and that George Bush is the head of this cult, directly responsible for murder, and that anyone paying taxes in the US are also paying for murder. I have an issue with the morality and causality implied.
Consider immigration. My home country has an ambivalent immigration policy, though many parts of it is highly liberal. It is fully the case that anyone who comes to my country have a significantly lower chance of themselves being exposed to unpleasantness, including being raped, than if they were not allowed to immigrate. Yet I also know two females who have been raped by immigrants. Those immigrants would not have been in my country without those liberal immigration laws, and hence those females would not have been raped. Thus, the immigration policy and the people implementing it caused the rapes.
If I were to apply a similar system of judgement, I would say that the current prime minister is "the head of a rape cult". I would hold him directly and personally responsible. I would say that anyone supporting him is 'paying tax with the currency of rape'. That 'those who join become rapists' Which in some ways they undeniably are, because the laws they are responsible for making have
Aye, that's the trick alright. And what a trick it is. Short of forcing people not to play (which, of course, would be to play) there doesn't seem to be a way to stop it. There's always incentives for individuals to step outside the rules (c.f. the tragedy of the commons), and with a bit of demagogy they'll soon get a following and the ball is rolling again. Everyone loses. Again.
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
And it's typical of some people to ignore that sometimes, just sometimes, violence really is the answer. or at least the fastest, surest one.
Ironically enough (given this conversation), I'm pretty much a pacifist. I've never struck anyone in anger in my life, I don't understand the obsession with violence, I can talk my way out of most any situation by making an aggressor understand that violence won't achieve his goals (and have, in several different countries across a number of continents). I am happy to simply walk away from most any perilous situation, because it's generally unfulfilling for an aggressor to engage with someone who doesn't resist, and my ego is firm enough that I don't care if some random people I'll never see again think I wasn't "a man" by fighting some drunk or distressed idiot.
But I'm also a realist, and know that there are some situations where a person would honestly have no acceptable alternative but to beat an aggressor to death with whatever blunt object was handy. It's (thankfully) unlikely I'll ever encounter one of those situations in my life, I'm much happier to travel the world providing health care to remote villages where the locals are happy to see me and the greatest danger I really face is robbery by outsiders who see a wealthy westerner (which of course has happened, but a couple thousand dollars in computer equipment ultimately isn't that big a deal to me -- the annoyance is when they get your passport, because that is just a real inconvenience).
I'd love to have a universal solution to violence. I don't expect one to come down the pike anytime soon, though I agree 99% of the violence that occurs could be avoided if people and leaders would just chill the fuck out a little bit.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
What is the action you believe a nation should take when attacked? Ignore the invasion, just try to keep business as usual? War is not a good thing, but you need only one opportunist to start one. The best evidence is the number of wars between democracies, which is very low (one? only the 1812 war, as far as I remember).
I'm an Israeli, so will you tell me how could my government avoid war in 1948 (and 1973, even 1967)?
Only the old-timers will remember the days when we used spooky coloured one-character-at-a-time terminals,
No, old timers remember ECL logic card computers driving a Mod 28.
http://railroad-signaling.com/tty/tty.html
Were were really impressed when our first dot matrix KSR showed up, the DEC KSR Keyboard Send Recieve unit arrived.
http://www.recycledgoods.com/item/15910.aspx
A few years later, we got our first screen display.
The truth shall set you free!
He said "old-timers", not "petrified fossils".
He said "old-timers", not "petrified fossils".
Leave my dad out of it. He's the one with the "Older than dirt" ballcap. He's far from petrified. He does video editing. He has an Ubuntu machine, an Apple laptop, and a Windows box. I try to keep up with him, but I haven't picked up the Apple laptop yet. Maybe it'll be my next laptop if I get tired of Ubuntu.
The truth shall set you free!
That is NOT bittorrent running in the background.....
Those that command those that kill are also responsible for the deaths that they cause. /.).
Those that vote for those that command those that kill are also responsible for the deaths that they cause.
Those that pay taxes to those that command those that kill are also responsible for the deaths that they cause.
Those that are born into a country commanded by those that command those that kill are also responsible for the deaths that they cause (unless they spent all their time fighting the state and not hanging out on
(Apologies for the grammar, I couldn't be arsed to correct it.)
To kill, as it is to err, is human. To forgive, divine.
Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
Sorta cuts out a lot of folks. I'd consider it myself, if the whole military-age thing wasn't working against me. I'm 45.
Guess I'll have to find another way to be American with my resume, just like a lot of other folks. Slashdotters even!
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
"It's about evolving out of the cult of death into the cult of life with no one left behind."
Give me your lunch money, loserboy nerd. There have been a fuckload of turdbrains with those la-di-da lily-painted little fantasies and guess what, lily-painted shit is still shit.
Humans are what they are. We are predators. We are competitive. We have evolved to be this way and there's nothing besides a thin layer of pretense of civilization and delusion of morality to keep us from preying on each other.
Actually, we do: whether as criminals preying on citizens or as corporate predators perfectly willing to wreck the lives of thousands in order to maximize their own profits, we do it all the time. That's our nature. We can't change it. We can CONTROL it after accepting it.
Have you been to school? Probably yes. Then you know that school is the place where you learn to learn in order to live, or some other BS. In reality school is where I, as the biggest bully, will steal your lunch money and submit you to endless torture and humiliation just for the sake of it. Do you think there's a reason beyond my -and my peers' - acts of random meanness towards you? Do you think we have some plan "Hey, tomorrow we'll get this loser here, we'll bash his head against a locker, dunk him into the toilet and then shit on his face"?
No. We do it because at the moment we feel like it. It's not even personal.
And then, as adults, we do the same but this time with a reason. As boys, we were predator cubs learning the moves. As adults we prey on the weak.
That's our nature. That's humanity. That's all there is to it. Deal with it or suicide.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
sorry Airforce but I'm gay and not willing to hide it
While this sounds like a good thing for attracting gamers to the U.S. military while staving off the fears of entering into boot-camp hell or getting shipped off to Iraq, there is certainly much to be disturbed by with such a program. Think of it more as a military version of "no child left behind" approach to recruitment rather than a job opening within some air-conditioned day camp.
Eventually, this excuse to "lower the bar" on the recruitment standards could become a way to justify drafting *anyone* for combat, not just those with optimal health conditions. What better way to conserve your best troops for a major crisis than by simply replacing them all with four or five times as many people with substandard health and arm them all with guns. Anyone whose ever toyed with swarm theory can see the incentive of such an approach. In some sense this could even be considered a form of genocide as those in power send the less desireable of us to fight on their behalf, knowing that our lack of training and good health will probably result massive death counts, while at the same time freeing up resources previously used for these people to be consumed by the higher quality troops and desireables within our population.
8==8 Bones 8==8
Interesting. Very interesting. I wonder how you can make such a massive generalisation, especially when so many civilians have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. What about when that helicopter targetted a blown-up Bradley fighting vehicle in the middle of a peaceful crowd? Isn't that intentionally targetting civilians? They might not target civilians to make a point, but many in the military seem to not give a damn if they get caught in the crossfire. I fail to see how that's any better, at least those who attack civilians do it because they know it's bad. Those who don't even think about it seem to value life even less.
My Keyboard (The Creed of a United States Cyber Command)
This is my keyboard.
There are many like it, but this one is MINE.
My keyboard is my best friend. It is my life.
I must master it as I must master my life.
My keyboard without me is useless. Without my keyboard, I am useless.
I must type my keyboard true.
I must type faster than my enemy who is trying to hack me.
I must hack him before he hacks me. I will...
My keyboard and myself know that what counts in war is not the keys we type,
the noise of our modems, nor the trojans we make.
We know it is the hacks that count. We will hack...
My keyboard is human, even as I, because it is my life.
Thus, I will learn it as a brother.
I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, its accessories,
its sights, and its barrel.
I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage.
I will keep my keyboard clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready.
We will become part of each other. We will...
Before God I swear this creed.
My keyboard and myself are the defenders of my country.
We are the masters of our enemy.
We are the saviors of my life.
So be it, until there is no enemy, but PEACE.
As long as suffering exists, there is going to be anger, hate, and malice. Blowing stuff up creates more suffering, which continues the cycle. Saying "oh they just hate us" is contributing to their hatred, and not doing anything to stop it.
"War is never necessary except for those who's purpose it serves... war is not necessary."
This is incorrect, looking at ACTUAL history, those who've had the wealth, arms and power were one in the same, an they use fear of punishment to keep their power. We don't have the worker rights we do without our ancestors having fought employers (businesses), and against land owners (slavery), war is ABSOLUTELY necessary to gain your freedom and change society for the better in many instances, just look at the US government passing telecom immunity bill, that shit would not happen if an army of americans was going apeshit and destroying property, but most americans are too passified and too ignorant to understand their rights, easily lied to and mislead. Many things have never come without bloodshed. All wars are in the end mental in nature, an interest vs an interest, whether it be cultural oppression, or oppression based on resources.
Pacificism is a nice idea, but extremely unrealistic. There will always be some one or some group who does not share that notion. So the neccessity of a nation having military power is unavoidable. How else do you protect your country? Isn't the whole point of a nation that it is supposed to protect its citizenry.
It's very easy to take the moral high ground by claiming anyone who joins up is a killer. The fact is, all of us benefit in many ways from the existance of our own respective nation's various military organisations. Those who do not join, have just as much blood on their hands.
Evolving out of the "cult of death"? So in other words, we must forever abandon violence as a solution.
Your utopian fantasy of the future is like communism - it'd be great, but it will never work out in the long run, because it expects human nature to change. Even if this Disneyland future did exist, all it would take is one bad parent or improperly-raised child to fuck it up.
As the grandparent post said, good luck with that.
"no heavy lifting required" Enough with that stereotype? All the developers who worked at some time for military as developers I know were quite physical types.
Actually, like 30% of developers I know are quite physical.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
First of all, when those ignorant arrogent bastards attacked us on 11 Sept 2001 would you have asked us to just talk to them. What if someone in your family had been one of the ones killed, would you want to just sit down and have some tea and talk to them and tell them "that wasn't nice" Second, Comm Geeks supporting the military by offering their computer skills and knowledge are not killers just because they are working for the Military. That would be calling you a killer just because you pay taxes that pay our paychecks. If you think the Military is just all about killing people you my friend are ignorant to the world. The men and women charged with our nations security do try to do everything possible to keep from taking lives. They arrest people instead of shooting them, they give supplies to people when we have no money. I have seen soldiers go hungrey because they gave their own MRE (Meal Ready to Eat) to a kid in a war zone that had no food. The fact that you can sit here and talk trash about the men and women that ensure you are still free every day, the men and women that give you the freedom to say whatever you want while they are at war protecting YOU and everyone you have ever loved is true testament to exactly what is wrong with our country. Our nation has been in a steady decline because of people like you who want to only talk about the bad things you see on TV while you are living in your mom's basement while there are others out there fighting a fight that you never could. Please step up and preach more on why you think our military is so bad and I will show you a dozen ways that they are good. You spit in their eyes and curse the ground they walk on because you dont understand what they have to do and why they have to do it. All the while they smile and say no one will hurt you tonight, I will keep you safe. You make me sick, but it is your FREEDOM, (that others provide) so say what you want about anyone or anything.
mens sana in corpore sano (ablative)
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough :(
In a black and white situation, I agree with you:
If we're talking about an open declaration of war (pretty black and white as far as I'm concerned), then it may be that you actually have to wage war. Otherwise, while yes, you do have to take action, that doesn't mean necessarily waging war.
I don't see things as black and white as you seem to. Regarding a person that wants to kill you, it is indeed a problem. In your "real world" that seems to mean you have to kill it first. In my view (fantasyland?) you simply have to stop that person (have them detained for example, but don't grab a gun and make your own justice). History is full of examples where non-violent/lethal action has stopped or limited the aggression (Gandhi and Martin Luther King come to my mind).
To conclude, I see war as a last resort, and I believe strongly that you DO have other options, in most (if not all) situations. Also, what I said earlier still stands: you don't necessarily have to react with lethal violence for lethal violence (other options may be available), and if you do, you are probably creating the start of the next violence cycle (the enemy will react violently to your reaction).
Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
What good is a keyboard if it doesn't have a CPU?
How come personal self defense is okay say when someone is robbing your house, but when someone say blows up 3000 people and tries to destroy your economy you should turn the other cheek?
turning the other cheek would have worked for WWII? should i have wrote this post in German to give full effect of how different a world we'd be in with your philosophy.
I dont want war either but to think you can be passive in this world and not have your shit taken is not realistic. When people dont have, they take yours unless you're strong enough to defend it.
A BOFH with access to the red button.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The Air Force had Geeks... and to some extent retains a few of them. They just cut around 8,000 of their 3C0X1's (which fill anything from Help Desk to Systems Administration)so instead of giving them the boot, why not send them to "Cyber Command".
-This thought was brought to you by a former 3C0X1
Let's all sing "Kum ba ya, my lord, kum ba ya". That'll help.
winkystinky(149808) is clearly on another planet.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Some other tribe shows up with rocks and clubs and demands tribute from your tribe. Your tribe's course of action is _________.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
Yea, but how many of the thousands of soldiers who exist do you know?
There are soldiers who commit atrocities like rape/murder not just in Iraq. Even a 14 year old girl in Japan got raped by the military there. I'm not saying the military is all bad, but nothing in this world is asolutely perfect nor homogenous for you to make a statement like that.
1973 I'll give you, but Israel's continuing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, its invasion of Lebanon in 1978, the disproportionate unpleasantness of the 2006 action aimed at Hezbollah and the current activity in Gaza doesn't mark Israel down as a very good neighbour, does it?
I think if I lived in the Middle East, I'd want a better neighbour than Israel.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
Quite simply, at least 6,000 years of recorded History simply disagrees with you. Man, by nature, is capable of evil deeds. Man, also by nature, is quite capable of stopping others in doing so. In that time, our potential for delivering death has grown in linear accordance by our means to deliver it. I fully understood during the 60s the threat of the Soviet Empire. We practiced the "turtle position" in school on mock nuke strike drills. In my youth, I always hoped "why can't we just shake hands and disarm entirely? Won't one man rise to the occasion? In the USSR? In America? I don't care which." It never happened. In fact, we tried various SALT disarmament treaties. They did not work. It was not until Reagan took office and recognized the Evil Empire. The Evil in man, or some men, or in some nations. We increased our capacity to destroy that Evil. And Evil understood. You, and your idealism, now enjoy the fruits of those efforts in the 80s. I can only imagine what your perspective will be like in your 30s, or 40s, or later. Their will always be another Hitler. At some point, someone will take Bin Laden's place. As sure as the sparkle streaks across your rose colored glasses now, it will happen. Convince Hitler or Laden to share in your idealistic measures, and I too will take comfort with you, underneath the shade tree, mid spring, with Bluebirds chirping, taking turns swapping our Rose colored glasses.
Peace.
Their guy with a scuba kit & a sharpened boat anchor didn't do the trick for them?
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
'So if they can't run three miles with a pack on their backs but they can shut down SCADA system, we need to have a culture where they fit in.'
Sounds like a contractor to me.
I've been noticing an increasing trend with the government advertising for the Army and armed services: recruit geeks.
From ads on websites geeks would browse to TV ads specifically targeted on shows and channels geeks would watch, they're trying to lure computer geeks into the armed services.
Why is the government now labeling us as geeks and targeting us for advertising? And I bet, if you are lured into the armed services as a geek, you could still be put in the front lines...
Last time I checked, the members of Hamas and Al Qaeda *are* civilians, or have they been accepted into a nations army, and if so which one?
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
I worked for a gentleman that was a Captain in the Navy. This guy was older than dirt, but surprised the hell out of me with how computer literate he was. He was fit, active, intelligent and an adept computer user. You might say so what, there are lots of older people who are in shape, intelligent and know their way around the keyboard.
He was 94 years old when he passed on and taught me plenty about computers. He was already 33 years old when ENIAC was unveiled. He was working until his last days because he enjoyed it so much. Perhaps the amusing part was at the funeral we had remind ourselves that we were shocked at his death at 94 due to his clear mind, and active lifestyle. If you met him, you wouldn't have thought he was a day older than 70. I'd say if someone is shocked at your passing at age 94, then you probably were doing it right.
Certainly a fossil, but far from petrified.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
the haditha massacre
that is the end of a journey that begins with 'they are inhuman monsters completely unlike us'.
It's a good idea to understand the ramifications before being "lured" into the armed services (that can, after all, stick you in the front lines). Joining up without understanding full well the probability of that occurring would be foolhardy.
Why do we have to settle for one or the other, why nopt both, I know many geeks that are also into hardcore training, they do exist, you would just have to try and sell them on working for peanuts.
If the army (navy, AF) were to pay better wages for the crap you go through, then it would not be a problem, they would have all the saps come out of the wood work, it's the ridiculous salaries people are avoiding all together, when they can get 6 figures consulting in IT!
They'll just go back to selling rice, and their economy will be hunky-dory.
Do you want to play a game?
It's You and I against the World... When do we attack?
I want to get on the Stargate project will they take any people form this project and put them there?
You really do eat the propaganda from the media/university, don't you?
Killing only begets more killing if there are still people around who want to kill you. ergo...
Winners of wars get to define terms, which has always been good for our politicians when we win.
How exactly do you explain that the forever war benefits those in power, without resorting to conspiracy or corporate greed?
How do you propose we communicate with someone who will not speak and cannot be affected by sanctions (terrorists), or who doesn't really need or care to talk because they are HEGEMON (China)? What are you going to do, laugh the 800 pound gorilla to peaces? People with competing interests and antagonistic culture can only ultimately coexist in one way - through violence.
If the Air Force (or DoD or whomever) is looking for contractors or civilian workers, great. There some nice benefits for working for the man, sorta like being a tenured professor at a not-bad/not-good school. Some of the neat stuff requires clearances, which can be a bother since the laws involving such things, I think, are at the felony level.
However, if you're thinking of the military itself, think long and hard about this. Talk about neat stuff and benefits sounds great, but the military's purpose is power projection. If you're not comfortable with that, just don't go there. Their's is also a culture when things like "no", sometimes, just is NOT a possibility - things have to be done.
Note, too, that history shows that the young die for the mistakes of the old. It's an honest, valuable career, but the good's and bad's are a bit more extreme than most.
We have always been at war with EastAsia.
-
1. It'll be a contractor job, probably for one of the big names like BAE, Northrup Grumman, L3, Haliburton subsidiaries, etc. 2. All those companies are knee-deep in corruption and war profiteering, and the blame always flows downhill. 3. The Pentagon has this nifty idea called total information warfare. They regard free speech online as some kind of war front, and you'll be helping them find ways to crush it. In general, mMilitary contracting is a bad deal, and I highly recommend avoiding it. The pay may look nice until they have you by the balls and then you'll wish you'd kept your civilian career.
"all it would take is one bad parent or improperly-raised child to fuck it up. "
So we gotta kill all the niggers before we even try, is that what you're saying?
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
If you met him, you wouldn't have thought he was a day older than 70. I'd say if someone is shocked at your passing at age 94, then you probably were doing it right.
I can relate to that. My dad is in the mid 70's and longevity runs in the family.
He was already 33 years old when ENIAC was unveiled.
I was 26 when the IBM PC was unveiled.
The truth shall set you free!
That's also forgetting to mention that we could do more damage by writing off any debt sold off to that country. Talk about giving a potential enemy all of the sticks they need to beat you over the head with. Well, does it matter that we have a far wider array of sticks capable of anything from headbashing to complete obliteration?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Damn it, they're using the old SAC symbol: gauntleted fist holding lightning and olive branch. The official slogan was Peace is our profession but within SAC it was subtexted with War is our Trade. /Tanker, Buff crew chief
I drank what? -- Socrates
Interesting OPENDNS is at 208.67.222.222 and 208.67.220.220 and the IP of the cyber AF is at 208.67.217.130 within 64K
Looks like our fellow "hackers on steroids" will finally be able to find themselves a job.
"Where we need to get to is that it's unacceptable for anyone to kill anyone for any reason."
The trouble with that sort of conditioning is that it is emotionally appealing but quite illogical.
Violence trumps "everything else", so the person/group who (all else being equal) is not prevented by
social conditioning from using violence has an advantage.
"Those who cling to the untrue doctrine that violence never settles anything would be advised to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.
-Robert A. Heinlein
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
"Murder, death, kill. There are other solutions and your the one in the dream world if you think that killing is the answer to the problems facing the world."
It is an answer to the problem of those trying to use those tactics against you. If you consider yourself unworthy of violence, you are welcome to opt out.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Try getting a clue about the subject before "informing" anyone. Canadian civilian gives advice on how slow advancement is in the US Air Force - ha.
You must be thinking of Hamas and Al Qaeda.
He might also be thinking of Blackwater mercenaries, who have fired on civilians; those guys are giving our military a bad name.
If we're worried that designing missile control software makes us responsible for the deaths that occur when the missile goes off...what are the ethical ramifications of paying the taxes that pay the salary of the missile control software designer?
When a nation goes to war, it seems to me that there's no such thing as an innocent civilian over the age of 18 (except, perhaps if someone's on the dole and not contributing even indirectly to the war effort).
The failure modes are too obvious. Here are the reasons for despair:
1. Political control
2. Incompetence at the top (rejection of Rand report on mistakes in Iraq)
3. Preference for sycophants
4. Authoritian society more interested in suppression than learning from mistakes (see 2)
5. Movers more interested in personal gain over protecting society
6. Rewarding failure, punishment of the successful (or merely critical observers)
Reasons for hope:
Our most potent enemies operate under the same bleak conditions.
a. Authoritarian regimes
b. Blinded by lack of openness, which give rise to similar set of problems.
I've found that going out into the woods with a pack on my back and wandering has helped me solve more coding problems then I can admit...
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
needs their cat scanned.
However, I have already accepted a position in Russia.
Fuck Bush.
Yours Sincerely,
Kilgore Trout.
I invite you to take the propaganda IV that is currently feeding nonsense directly in to your bloodstream out! The sad thing is, you don't even realize that you've been indoctrinated just like those of us in "the cult of death" but there is a fundamental difference between our indoctrination and yours: namely ours is the product of four billion years of evolution and yours is the product of some naive ideologue who asks questions like "Why can't we all just get along?".
Violence and life go hand and hand since day one; when the supply curve is surpassed by the demand curve violence is the outcome. This happens in every single walk of life; go to the oceans and it happens there. Go to the african plains and it happens there. Go to the amazon rain forest it happens there.
Even you madam or sir, are a product of this "cult of death" because you see at some point in the chain of life that lead to the birth of you, there was an ancestor of yours who had to fight over resources. Their ability to win, through the prism of 'the cult of death' has allowed you to be here today.
You want us to evolve beyond the cult of death? Go invent fusion power, and maybe then we'll have the ability to alter the nature of existence for all seven billion of us on this planet so we too can join your "cult of life" but until resources are even and ubiquitous this will never happen. Me, I'm going to go live in the real world, have fun in fantasy land.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling,
which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless
made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-John Stuart Mill
You mean he wears flared trousers and likes early disco music?
No, he was too old to get into the disco scene of the 70's. If I dig deep enough, I may find my polyester suit!
The truth shall set you free!
It seems most likely that this is just a ploy to get more people to sign up for the USAF.
In the UK, the television advertisements for the Army and the Royal Navy both feature people doing stuff with computers - in the case of the Royal Navy there's a guy who encounters a computer fault, and so he turns it off and back on again. A sign for anyone with a bit of intelligence that what they're really after are wannabes. It's much more fashionable and seems more empowering to be a 'geek' than it does to be a slightly anxious youth with minimal education who's about to be shipped off to Iraq or Afghanistan (hats off to them all though).
I might have to apply if they make Cheyenne Mountain their base. "I work with the Air Force ... in Cheyenne Mountain ... doing computer stuff. Stargate? What are you talking about?"
Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
"The Cyber Command is the Air Force's first new Major Command since the early 1990s."
So when did they create Stargate Command?
They don't tell you what they stick you with. Your body is theirs, completely. They could give you mad cow and you could never sue. You don't own what you sell to them.
I noticed some mentioned the low salary, which is absurd. here you can see the base pay, there are many allowances (such as food, housing, having a family, being stationed in a "war zone") which add up, not to mention the amazing pension from retiring after 20 years (after 20 years of service, you'd be about 40, allowing for the possibility of another job). Another benefit is respect. Yesterday, I was in line at a restaurant, and someone thanked me for my service, and paid for my lunch.
Also, AFROTC has great scholarships. They pay for tuition, give a $300 semesterly book allowance, and a monthly stipend (>$300). And recently, they started offering scholarships for electrical engineering students without competition. Also, there are great opportunities such as the ACE Program. Overview here (Warning PDF).
And as for the physical requirements, they aren't extreme. ~40 pushups in 1 minute ~40 situps in one minute, and 1.5 miles in ~12 minutes.
If you haven't realized, I am in ROTC, and this is my desired career field.
There's precedent.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
War is never necessary except for those who's purpose it serves. For the rest of us - the other %99.9999... war is not necessary. To keep people such as Bush, Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, etc... in power they need wars. War is the best thing that drives their mission. It defines them. It drives them forward. It gives them power. It sucks the life out of everyone though. It is futile.
You remember Hitler. Do you also remember what stopped Hitler? Do you really think than life in France in 1950 was in no way better than life in France in 1940?
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Actually, if they really want you, your contract (yes, you *do* sign a contract to join the military) can stipulate the job you are signing up for. It can also stipulate that the contract is null and void if they are unable (for whatever reason) to give you that job.
I expect that this would be a pretty rare event and only involve occupational specialties where they routinely train and place many individuals. Perhaps getting a guarantee of being sent to military police school after basic.
I happen to know, because that was the only way I joined. Of course, you have to have the balls to say - "Fine, I quit!" if they don't keep their end of the bargain. But, they don't have a legal leg to stand on if it's in your contract.
I'm sure that is your understanding of the situation, but unless you or someone you know actually exercised that option I am not entirely convinced that it is really so cut and dry. In other words is there something in the small print that gives the military a little "flexibility" should "national security" demand it.
Is retraining/re-designation prohibited, for example they train and give you the electronics job but later decide the retrain you for avionics?
How are conflicts between your contract and your oath to obey all lawful orders resolved? Your an electronics tech and all of a sudden your are told to grab a rifle, get in a foxhole, and defend this line. Things like this happened on numerous occasions during world war 2 and korea. Do you think the officer or NCO in the field is going to give a sh*t about your contract should similar needs and circumstances arise?
Finally, having a specialty such as electronics tech does not prohibit them from sending you into harms way. I once knew someone who was an electronics tech in the Marine Corp. He was stationed in Vietnam and was quietly and safely working on base. Once day he is given an *interesting* assignment. He is to accompany a Marine Force Recon team, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Force_Recon, to the Ho Chi Minh trail, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh_trail, and deploy electronic sensor to monitory enemy movements.
Maybe they should be looking for designers first - that site is a mess.
Killing begets more killing.
Pacifism begets killing too, the killing of the pacifists. Pacifism leads to death unless you have non-pacifists around to protect you. Being reasonable and fair is fine and good, and we should strive for that path, but one must also be willing and able to use deadly force in defense. Even in modern times, over a small number of generations, we have seen a population split, the two halves become isolated, one become pacifist, and when the two halves reestablish contact the pacifists are murdered and/or enlsaved by their blood relatives. Sorry, read about this in a book so I don't have a link handy, the people were Pacific islanders, timeframe 19th century IIRC.
...need to lose that attitude that just because you learned windows programming in college that somehow you're entitled to executive-level salaries at the highest tech companies for entry-level jobs. You're not that good. And you're not experienced at all, either. All you've got is the 'tude and a very narrowly focused skillset that is aimed at a computing platform that's stagnated.
Corporate management is sick of paying for the upgrade gravy train to vendors, and software apps that only have useful service lives as long as the attention span of a 20-something. The enterprise applications of tomorrow will be expected to have life cycles of 7-9 years, just like they did before 1995. The IT world is coming back around again full circle, and you kids are in for a rude awakening, because now guys like me (last of the Boomers, first of the GenX'ers) are in charge, you're not, and it's our prime directive to reign in control of the spending and enforce stability and long-term usefulness of the systems we manage.
Perhaps using the "interweb thingy" might help in this - just a thought.
| | War is never necessary
|
| Tell that to a European Jew some time.
Yes one can take that meaning however it just proves the point that killing doesn't solve anything.
Actually it did solve something. The killers got the land, property, and money that they wanted.
This takes communication. It takes work. It takes creative thinking. It takes relationships. It takes thinking that isn't at the level of thinking that you are thinking. It takes you going beyond your level of thinking. Take the red pill and choose the cult of life.
There is some truth in your words, unfortunately it is not the truth you think. The truth of your words is the use of the word "cult". Your extreme pacifistic views are very cult like. Let's hope that the protection that non-pacifists provide you never ends so that reality never intrudes on your fantasy. Best wishes and good luck.
They claim to have an urgent need for talent but they're crippled by their own entrenched practices. I just spent two years working as a "cyber security" contractor for USAF. Our family went heavily in debt to relocate to where the job was (in the current recession, we couldn't sell our house). This same debt was held against me as the reason I flunked my security clearance. Now I'm out of work and deeper in debt than ever. If I were you, and I were considering working there, I would run like hell.
And the enemy is laughing. They're not getting classified info by bribing people who have overdue Capital One accounts. They're downloading it from SIPRNET.
These men will be sent later in Iraq, I guess. Say, to protect the digital infrastructure of the Empire (guard a shack with a PC, in a desert, from which fellow-soldiers talk via Skype).
Laugh all you want at Teletypes, but after an EMP nuclear strike, they'll still be working, and your fancy-schmancy microchips will be little puddles of dirty silicon.
Chip H.
They are civilians only in a fantasy world. When you take up arms and attack people, both military and civilians, you cease to be a civilian. Do you actually expect are soldiers to say, "Oops, we can't attack them, they aren't wearing uniforms. I guess there's nothing we can do about them shooting at us."
I suggest you look at the Geneva Accords to see how they should be handled. If you use civilian clothing in an attempt to hide, you can be summarily executed. Thus, the US is being nice by only sticking them in prison. We don't have to do that. We could save ourselves a whole lot of trouble by just putting a bullet in their heads when captured. But we go by a higher standard than that. Additionally, if you use civilians as a shield (which Hamas and Al Quada tend to do), you are responsible for injuries and deaths to them, not the attacking force.
-- Will program for bandwidth
The vast majority of civilian deaths are the result of the terrorists blowing up civilians going about their daily lives, not our US military exercises.
Yes, civilians will be killed. That is unfortunate but often unavoidable (especially when the bad guys use civilians as shields). The difference is we try to avoid civilian casualties, the bad guys are targeting civilians.
And terrorists with bombs and guns are NOT civilians.
-- Will program for bandwidth
no reason at all they cant throw money at computer geeks, mercenaries with no ideological or national allegiance, no sense of esprit de corps or camaradery that is built in normal basic training or military service.
"It is now highly feasible to take care of everybody on Earth at a 'higher standard of living than any have ever known.' It no longer has to be you or me. Selfishness is unnecessary and henceforth unrationalizable as mandated by survival." (from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller)
This is a very interesting time where both the scarcity-based war system (that believes in "survival of the fittest" and a single authority as the only way to peace) and the rational, ethical, and scientific "living through truth" systems are benefiting greatly from the abundance we are already experiencing. I hope the hackers that the military tries to recruit instead choose to solve more interesting problems (although it is certainly possible for them to make positive change inside the military too).
Complexity Happens
I, for one, welcome our new pot-smoking overlords! Uh... what was I saying again? Pass that shit!
On another note, you know how Iran is always stoning people to death? The Air Force is curious, but unfortunately the term "stoned" got mistranslated...
Legalize it.
Never mind that there already IS a joint command for all IO/IA. They gotta grab more taxpayer $$ to do it their way.
Join us.
Travel the virtual world
Meet Exciting avatars
And hack their boxen!
Gives a whole new meaning to "Dude! I totally pwned you!"
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
I see lots of jokes. Some of them are awesome. However, what would it take to make a real 'serious' attempt at this? My thoughts:
:)
First off, you need total cooperation with the CIA or other covert espionage capabilities. You aren't going to be able to do much damage to 's critical infrastructure from thousands of miles away. Sure, a few systems will have access via public channels, but it would be a lot more effective if you have a resource on the ground. Such assets would physically locate assets you have identified virtually, and provide other support mechanisms.
Second, you need access to the systems you are going to attack well before you launch an attack. This could be done carefully from a remote location. What would be better is to have the above covert operations guys steal the actual gear you are going to be attacking, or otherwise duplicate it (plans, technical documentation, etc).
Third, you need devices and techniques that can give you access to closed networks from thousands of miles away. That means you need to have covert ops people with extensive technical training who are going to gain access to restricted areas on networks that are very closed, and install covert devices on those networks that give you remote access. In particular, you need your own local network that is very secure and has as low latency as you can get. That network would live inside that country and needs to remain undetected, with stop gaps to protect itself if part of it is discovered.
Fourth, you need to develop the right tactics. You have to attack inside out if taking out an entire nations infrastructure quickly. What you do NOT want to do is cut the cables or shut down 'net access first thing. Doing so could cut off your ability to attack them or locate other methods they are using to attack you. If you've ever examined several rooted boxes you will see that the non-script kiddies - the ones who are doing this hardcore - are staying hidden. They might live on your box for months carefully manipulating the box without your knowledge. In some cases it has taken them many months just to gain access, they aren't about to blow it by being found.
These are just some of the things I think would be needed to be truly successful. The hardest part, of course, is getting those covert assets in the right places in the countries you might be attacking well in advance of actually attacking them. Strategies would have to be changed constantly so you don't develop a pattern the enemy could detect. And, you have to accept the fact that the most critical targets would be the most defended. The smart 'cyber-warrior' (gross) will know that those systems aren't important if you can take out the softer supporting systems. I could think of several attacks that could be effective. Most of them would involve some form of in-country asset. The trick is having the technical knowledge to know what to blow up, and where it a system is likely weak.
I've got some other ideas too, but I ain't sharing them while wearing combat boots. I'll tell ya that right now. And that is the second hardest part - attracting the people who are really capable of causing accurate and total destruction of a nations command and control infrastructure (both commercial and military). And that is why we are all laughing.
What they will get is people who can fool the commander in to thinking they are qualified. Probably some guy with a stack full of 'certifications' that 'prove' he is an expert. Those same people will moan and complain when they can't attack anything by the local library becuase those dawg on Chinese hackers are just too powerful. Of course, they will come up with their false victories to justify their large paychecks. Having the military handle this is a good idea, but only when you combine those assets with the tools to destroy specific targets quickly. And that means as a geek you need to be okay helping the military kill other geeks in a time of war. Geeks you might know. Even geeks you might respect. You aren't just shutting down computers here, you are going to tell them which buildings and targets to drop bombs on. If that isn't what this group does, then they will be totally ineffective.
Counterexample: Gandhi. Or does winning independence for an entire country nonviolently not count?
Counterexample: Dr. Martin Luther King. Or does civil rights not count?
Counterexample: Jesus. "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-41)
Do you live in Iraq? No society I've ever been a part of has seemed to be "based on violence". In fact, apart from fighting with my siblings when I was young, I've never been involved in a violent confrontation. Does that make me inhuman?
The people I most respect -- like MLK and Gandhi -- are those who advocated peace above all else. I cannot understand why anybody would claim that these people lacked humanity. I would say it's their defining characteristic. They were great people, but they were still people. You don't have to be superhuman to advocate peace in the face of violence.
There are people who think that society is based on violence. Fortunately they're in the minority. Unfortunately they have the ability to make their presence known far beyond their number. That just makes the rest of us so much more important. Don't lose your humanity to violence.
First, what you're asking is a redress of 10 million years of evolution; not going to happen in a single generation. Second, we have yet to shift out of the scarcity model; this will not begin in any form until we have incredibly abundant renewable energy sources. Solar energy isn't efficient enough yet, geothermal is only applicable in certain regions of the world, harnessing energy from the oceans is a possibility but the technology and infrastructure do not yet exist, fusion power is still just a pipe dream at this point.
Despite all the advancements in recycling, reuse and improved manufacturing we still are not keeping up with the exponential increase in population size; until we make major strides in manufacturing and energy production we simply will be unable to do so. You want evidence? The price of copper has quadrupled over the past decade and mostly because of the modernization in China and India. There simply are too many people currently on this planet for our level of technology to support your claim that we have shifted paradigms.
Now, what is the single most important resource in the world today (though it might be different in two decades but that's a different discussion altogether)? In my opinion, the answer is currently oil (and might be water soon). Why is oil the most important resource? Because our economies require oil to function at the most basic level (transportation).
Have we eliminated scarcity at some levels of life in some regions of the world? You bet your ass we have. Is scarcity gone and will it be going anywhere any time soon? Not unless we make some major major technological advancements.
If we're able to create sustainable fusion reactions and if we're able to harness nanotechnology to the extent that everyday goods can be broken down and constructed at the most basic levels, I believe we can see a shift to this paradigm of abundance that you speak of, but as I understand things neither of these technologies are going to appear on doorstep in the next decade or so.
Oh comon! The human society is based on CONTRACTS. Violence is a form of obtaining consent, not an art or philosophy of life. Open population annihilation wars are pretty much in the past. The moral penalties are too high. Nobody needs violence per se to survive. Although the indisputed existence BOFS would seemingly indicate the contrary, exceptions still prove the rule, right?
In any way this all will have taken much longer than it takes some Russian 18 year old to update his hardware. The point is, for fast cyber attacks you don't need certification and rigourous testing of your material. The army (I'm not from the US but it's all the same everywhere) seems to cannot do without.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
I could look it up if I needed to, but it doesn't really come up.
I'll go with whoever makes me the best offer. If you can't afford me, that's fine, but don't bitch about it.
I've never actually seen a Gen Xer in a position of power. The world seems to prefer to leap over you if at all possible. I guess flannel, suicide rock and meth addictions aren't actually valuable live skills.
Not sure who the AF Chief of Staff these days is but when I was in, I would have loved to see this guy go tell that to General Jumper. I was pretty much forced out of the Air Force due to back problems caused by the Fit to Fight program. The impact running had on my back would have cramped me up so much that it was hard for me to even walk sometimes so I was pretty much on permenant waivers. Due to me being on waivers, I could not attend Airman Leadership School and get the training I needed (pretty much required) to become a SSgt so I could no longer be promoted pretty much. The military docs pretty much gave me the option of leaving when my enlistment time was up or be medically boarded out cause of the Fit to Fight program. Anywho this General is dreaming if he thinks he can get any experienced personnel into the military these days as long as we keep up with our current foreign policies which are going to be around for a while since Americans are dumb for not electing Ron Paul.
</rant>
Looks like he's also been hiding under a rock since the early 90s...
My new blog
easy decision.
What is network domination anyway? Is that anything like air superiority or superior firepower?
Iraq billions
First, let me say that I agree with you. There will ALWAYS be a scarcity of resources as long as we, or our descendents, live in this universe. And violence is the most basic way to resolve a dispute over resources. No amount of 'talk' changes the simple physical fact that if it is profitable to beat someone up/kill them and take their stuff, you should do it.
And if you can't win that way, perhaps you can win by creating a vast, complex, "system" that distributes wealth in such a way that the winners get all the resources.
With that said...it looks like invading Iraq is NOT profitable. The total oil underneath Iraq is probably NOT worth the cost of occupation, especially since we can't just steal all that oil without looking bad in the eyes of the world.
And your snide remark about inventing fusion...you should realize that despite the perceived lack of progress, current fusion projects are almost at break even, having improved yields a million fold over 40 years. If in November Obama decided to withdraw all troops from Iraq and spend the billions on the war on a crash program to COMPLETELY replace imported oil in 4 years, I think it could be done. 200 billion a year is enough money to buy kilometers of solar panels, tends of thousands of windmills, investigate 5 different ways to improve electric cars and pay Detroit the money they need to switch to mostly plug in hybrids. AND, with that kind of funding, there could be 5-10 different simultaneous fusion projects, Manhattan project style.
A good, although expensive, way to bypass the inherent uncertainties in developing new technology is to spend enough money to fund ALL of the credible approaches instead of trying to see ahead of time which way is the most likely to work. There are at least 10 major fusion plant concepts that are inherently different from one another. Build em all.
Thanx for that, spares me the time to write pretty much exactly you just wrote.
"This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
A civil war is when the people inside the country are fighting each other. The majority of the attacks in Iraq are from assholes from other countries. Thus, this is not a civil war, as much as the main stream press wants you to believe it.
Why do you think the Iraqi government has been trying to seal their borders? They're trying to stop these assholes from sneaking in from other countries, mostly Iran and Syria. I'm sure a lot from Saudi Arabia, too (they may say they are our friends, but the Saudis, by their actions, have proven they are our worse enemy).
-- Will program for bandwidth
What did his headstone say?
I once saw a picture of a headstone that said "Respawn in 9..."
Actually you can quit up to 180 days without any legal repercussions, you don't get an "Honorable", but a Entry level separation (ELS), that isn't a big deal anymore either. On the 181st day a lot of veteran's benefits kick in and it's difficult to get out without a General Discharge, but it's possible to get a hardship discharge that avoids the bad papers of a General Discharge. After your military obligation is fulfilled you can then just resign, but that's a serious action.
Generally the contract will be fulfilled if they give you the training you want, assign you to the duty station you want and your in a unit that uses your Military Occupation Specialty. If the 1SG in the unit decides your a better asset doing something your pretty much SOL.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Who works in the same job for 20 years can't really be worth much.
I missed the part where I talked about Iraq but hey you know...
Regarding my 'snide' comment on fusion, you misunderstood me. I want fusion to work, I'm really glad to hear that it's almost at break even though I'm not up on the subject matter. I mentioned multiple sources because, I like you, believe that the more energy sources explored the better. Now, I think it would be impossible to reduce our dependence on imported oil to nil in the next four years. If we didn't have this war expenditure we could make huge strides in R&D and I would agree that in 20 years we could be completely off foreign oil but four is in no way reasonable.
In other words, the snideness was in regard to the cult of life and the cult of death nonsense and not with the science.
it is unfortunate that it is perceived to be impossible to find programmers or admin/security personnel that do not have vile personal habits. i am currently enrolled in a computer science baccalaureate program that includes an NSA approved security certification curriculum, and i have some work experience in programming and system administration. i ALSO enjoy jogging, large backpacks, lifting weights, and shooting rifles.
General William Lord says. 'So if they can't run three miles (...) we need to have a culture where they fit in.'this comment is a cheap shot. general lord implies that the military can't recruit intelligent people because nerds are afraid of gym class. there are _many_ reasons that i have not enlisted, but this is not one of them. in my experience, people with technical aptitude come in the same variety of shapes, sizes, and dispositions as people in any other job that requires one to spend the work day in an office.
while i agree (with previous posters) that workers should be judged by their productive output rather than by their appearance, i believe that the "geek culture" has unnecessarily perpetuated a slob stereotype. the notion that professionalism and good personal presentation (or even hygiene) are beneath the notice of intelligent people appeals to our hubris. "if people don't like my shit attitude or personal appearance," we say to one another "then i wish them the best of luck in finding another genius." this is ok when interacting with machines, but even self-employed persons must communicate with other human beings from time to time. i am all for casual clothes and forthrightness, but it is usually to our advantage to take care of our health and to be courteous.
sadly, the slob stereotype encourages the obese, sarcastic, mountain dew swilling, sweatpants wearing minority to hold up their attitude as a point of style. i work with a few individuals that might be leading happier lives today, if only their peers did not encourage this view.
we should end the slovenly-geek stereotype. it hurts a small but impressionable minority, and it makes the rest of us look bad.
How did this get modded "insightful"? Where is your data to support this claim? Human society as I understood it from my anthropology classes arose from co-operation and collective hunting and gathering societies. Gee, we got all this from violence? Wowzers!
It's funny how ignorant people are of it. Ever wonder why people pay their bills? Why they obey the law? Morals and ethics and all that stuff is just a crutch.. the real reason is that, if they don't, men with guns will come and take them away.
How we know is more important than what we know.
tell that to the Marine sigint community. brawn and brains are not mutually exclusive. the air force just likes to mollycoddle their lil pookies so they dont get butthurt. the Corps sets its standards high no matter what job it needs done. fuckin zoomies just dont want to man up to the fact that they are in fact supposed to be WARFIGHTERS. as in COMBATANTS. last thing i want to do is have to drag some fattie out of a firefight or from a flaming humvee and get picked off because i cant lug him to safety fast enough. or worse, be hit myself and have to rely on some scrawny pencil-neck that feels his flak jacket is too heavy so he replaces the SAPI plates with styrofoam, and hes still strugglin to move with any speed and intensity.
Counter examples to what exactly? All three of them were *murdered* because they couldn't convince everyone to agree with them. Without a doubt they did wonderful things, and are excellent role models. Is your post is meant to support my point by illustrating that even some of history's most power spiritual leaders could not convince everyone to agree with them? That they could not bring peace? (Spiritual peace, yes. But we're talking about lack of physical or economic conflict.)
Incidentally, Jesus's lesson to "turn the other cheek" is appeasement (maybe) or an example of "taking the higher road." Sure you would be a better person if you did this. But I don't see how that would prevent violence. In his case, it certainly did not.
Maybe restate what you are trying to say; I do not think I understand your post...
Foreign support for one or more of the factions is also a normal part of civil wars. As an example I present to you the Finnish civil war, which had everything from foreign military support to terrorism.
I'm not talking about terrorists, but the coalition forces. Terrorists don't even figure in this, as I thought the coalition held itself to a higher standard than that. My point about the attack on the Bradley involved absolutely no-one else with weapons, just the US army. I'm interested in hearing how you absolve the US army of any blame for targetting, and killing, unarmed civilians (including a journalist live on TV). I know civilians will be killed in war, but as soon as we start to actively target civilians in order to minimise our losses (as we did when we targetted Saddam's supposed hideouts before he was captured, which were in built-up areas, which killed a bunch of families), we get dangerously close to the same tactics as these "terrorists" (insurgents) you speak of - not caring about civilian casualties in order to help ease our own losses. Bowing to pressure at home has caused the US forces in particular to switch to airstrikes from fighting on the ground, which has significantly raised the levels of civilians killed, which demonstrates the US forces' preference for the very civilians they're fighting for to die before their own people. Just like the insurgents, just like Al Qaida. Your point?
I thought they ripped my old outfit - "the lightning fast chicken fookers" - off. But guess that izn't an eagle claw.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
I do actually know the Geneva Accords, and they do cover situations where there lacks an organized army, such as in an insurgency. When captured, such people are to be held in CIVILIAN custody, and prosecuted using CIVILIAN authority. Military prisons are strictly frowned upon for private citizens taking up arms against an occupying force.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Actually, I'm positive we could, although we'd have to replace fuel from imported oil with fuel generated from coal. Not a very efficient solution because it outputs just as much carbon or more.
BUT, I think with a 10-100x increase in R&D spending we could give a big F-U to the middle east. In 4 years we could certainly have a rock solid plan that would allow us to replace oil consumption in 10-20 years.
I'll suggest that communication alone may never bring peace, because communication does not address disagreement at the philosophical level. It just defines the boundaries of the disagreement.
Well, the parent post made an argument that the military does not kill civilians. The person you are replying to basically called B.S., and they made the argument that killing results in more killing.
You replied to this person with a vague argument - but one that seems to argue that wars and killing are necessary, particularly when we disagree with people on the philosophic level. I was pointing out three examples of people that had disagreements on a philosophic level and did not use violence.
Now, the problem for you is to indicate where their actions of submitting to violence - in the form of being sent to prison, physically attacked or what have you - that was the source of more violence. I don't think you can - which is why you moved the discussion to world peace or total agreement.
My counter-examples were attacking the way you changed the framework to suggest that non-violence (cast as appeasement, acting without integrity, etc.) leads to violence. I provided three counter-examples - where I don't think you can claim that the actions of these three men caused more violence. In fact, I think you can make a plausible argument that their efforts minimialized it. If true, that puts your argument on shaky footing and you have to do more work.
Wow, you finally got modded up! And "interesting", to boot! It is now time for you to retreat to your cave in the basement and jack off to the Microsoft certification study aids that you have been trying to master for the past ten years.
Then your mutant grandmother will shit on your face.
Or, ya know, the American Civil War.
Not quite as well taught, but the major powers certain took sides and offered support in that one.
...perhaps, instead of "stop[ping] being human", we could consciously change what "being human" MEANS?
OK. Sorry for the late response. I do not read much /. any more!
The short response is that you have assumed a claim or a conclusion that I never made: I never said that responding to conflict in a nonviolent way would increase violence. I also never said war or killing was necessary. I think maybe you meant to respond to a different poster?
I am arguing against the statement that "communication is the only way to stop violence." Your counterpoint examples *support* my argument. But I do not see how the challenges in your follow-up clarification counter my arguments in any way...
Here's the longer response:
My original point was simply that communication alone cannot resolve undebatable disagreements-- some of which lead to conflict. I did not at any point argue that wars and killing are necessary. I was merely pointing out that if you and I (for example) disagree about something worth killing each other over, all communication does is define the points of our disagreement. But it does not have to lead to violence as you seem to have wrongly concluded from my post.
My response to your counter examples was to agree that Jesus, Ghandi, and Dr. King did not use violence, but I noted that they were still killed. Again, I did not ever suggest that their nonviolent methods led to more violence in the large-- only that they were killed by people who chose to remain their enemies. This is exactly what I was arguing originally-- that communication and "other methods" are not guaranteed to stop the killing. Repeat: A nonviolent or peaceful response to conflict does *not* necessarily end the killing or violence. You can be 100% peaceful and still have enemies that want you dead or want to do you harm. Your three murder victims illustrate that point very clearly and support my point very, very, very well.
The other methods: lying, appeasement, bribery-- none of them are solutions for the points of conflict. They are all nonviolent options, but there is no reason why your enemy can't still hate you--or you him for that matter. The last option, "everyone on earth in agreement" is plain unrealistic, though some seem to think that it is possible on some issues.
I think I see where you are headed in your original response, but I really think that you should re-read my original post. Your arguments are based on conclusions and arguments that I never made-- which is why I found your post confusing.
If you are in fact responding to my post, then you have severely misinterpreted my arguments and have drawn the wrong conclusion. I was never arguing about the necessity of violence, nor did I try to justify violence and war. I was arguing against the statement that "communication and other methods" were the "only answer" to the killing. Since "the killing" can happen on both sides of the fight, one party responding nonviolently does not prevent the other side from continuing the violence or killing. Again, Jesus, MLK, Ghandi and their respective killers are perfect examples of this point.
In response to your clarifications: Since I never laid any framework suggesting that nonviolence leads to violence, or that violence is necessary, and since I never introduced any language related to world peace, I do not understand what you are asking me to argue. You have asked me to support conclusions that I didn't make and that are not even relevant to my original post...
So what. In Iraq, the MAJORITY of the insurgents (terrorists) are foreigners. This makes it an invasion, not a civil war.
If a bunch of US citizens snuck into Quebec and started shooting things up in a bid for that providences independence, would you call it a civil war?
-- Will program for bandwidth
If you're going to make outrageous claims like that, I would like some kind of source. And that source will have to be from outside of the US government, those jokers have zero credibility.
So 99.9% of those captured are Iraqi. That tells us --- well, that 99.9% of those captured are Iraqis. That's it. It doesn't tell us one bit about the nationality of everyone fighting. It doesn't tell us a thing about the nationality of suicide bombers (the fact that the terrorists started using mentally challenged Iraqis for suicide bombings suggests they ran out of mentally competent volunteers in Iraq).
Why are you arguing for these pieces of scum? What do people have to do for you to denounce them? Considering the evil shit you refuse to notice, my guess is the ONLY thing needed for a denouncement is "American". Maybe also "Jew".
I bet I'm right. I bet you automatically assume the worse about Americans and American policy, and would tolerate mass murder from anyone else.
-- Will program for bandwidth
That's not what I said. I said they do not TARGET civilians. I never said the military does not kill civilians. When you fight a war in cities and towns, it's impossible to avoid civilian casualties. The difference between the US military and the terrorist scum is our military tries to avoid civilian casualties. The terrorist scumbag (that so many here wish to defend) strategy is to target the civilians.
And as for the argument that killing causes more killing. I say this. The terrorists will not stop killing until everyone has been killed or converted to Islam. And even then I doubt they will stop since they disagree with each other about what is the "true word of allah". So not killing will result in the terrorists not having opposition.
Which do you pick? Slavery or death? Those are your only two choices if you reject the third choice of "fight back".
-- Will program for bandwidth
I've never bought into the nationalistic tribe mentality, so I don't denounce groups of people.
I've always been interested in history, and if there's something I've learned it's to never take the actions of countries at face value. I automatically assume the worst about the foreign policy of all countries, and consider information from governments with a vested interest propaganda.
There is no "Us" and "Them". There is literally thousands of different factions in the world working towards different goals, some of them cooperating, some of them fighting each other. Going around hating some of them will only give you high blood pressure.
Semantics. We have a long history of TARGETing civilians - Hiroshima and the firebombing of Japan being perhaps the best example. While there is a difference between a professional soldier and an insurgent, events like Abu Ghraib or turning Saddam over to vigilante justice, suggests that the line can, and frequently does, get crossed.
And your argument that the terrorists won't stop killing until everyone is killed or converted to Islam is not based in fact. For one, they don't have the capability, anymore than Christian Identity groups or militia groups can secede from the United States. In other words, they have neither the capability to enslave or kill, we only need to "fight back" in the same way we "fight back" other forms of criminal activity - by doing police work.
I served in the military, during the first Iraq War. It's been my experience that people most in favor of military solutions have never been in the service or in combat. Care to share what war you served in?