I would even rather be mistaken for an Anonymous Coward than subscribe to the urban legend that cookies are safe. Anyone who thinks cookies are harmless obviously doesn't know much about them.
I would argue that anyone who thinks cookies are some sort of security hazard doesn't know much about them. The RFC describes them as a mechanism for maintaining state across HTTP transactions. They are an HTTP header with a specific function, just like Content-type, Date, and any other header you choose to put in your requests and responses.
I never said heavy armor on Commercial 747's, i said transportation of some light armored units in commercial 747 cargo planes.
It wouldn't matter if it were trucks and motorcycles. You can't "quickly" unload large cargo from a 747. Let's say it does get to land. Then what? Do you think this "light" armor just jumps out the back, fires up the engine, and starts shooting? That cargo has to be unloaded. Even assuming that the crew comes in on the airplane, and is able to find and operate the equipment necessary to unload the gear, how much time do you suppose that will take? Enough time to actualy take down an airport? You might want to compare your method to the method used by guys that actualy do take down airports, Army Rangers, and see where the differences lie.
And where do you suppose all this "light" armor is going to load? In Hong Kong? A direct flight from China is going to be inspected with a closer eye than one from Fairbanks, don't you think?
Second, transporting armor in a car carrier is not going to be sunk if as far as everyone knows it has a legitimate manifest and is due to dock legally.
Oh, I see. The customs official that goes out and boards the boat and checks the manifest, then checks the cargo, doesn't know the difference between a Huyndai and a Howitzer? "Gee Capn', is that the new model SUV? It sure is big!" And, again, lets assume that the customs official is a complete moron, and our ship is allowed to dock. Do you suppose all that armor will just jump right out of the cargo hold, fire up the engines and start shooting? How long before that boat is on the bottom? I'd give it about 30 minutes to get it holed and roling by the boys at the local military air station.
Yes the US would know that China would be massing vehicles at ports and airports by satellite data, but how many times has China had excercises near taiwan? Quite often. Especially involving army/navy amphibious deployments. Satellites are great for taking photos, but they dont tell you what the enemy intends or thinks 90% of the time.
Actualy, you're quite wrong there. If we observed China loading up for "excercises against Taiwan" by loading heavy armor into commercial car carriers (China has a booming auto export trade, I'm sure) and infantry into commercial 747's, the most raw analyst right out of school could tell you it's unusual, and warrant's closer observation. It is because China often has these "excercises" that we know what they look like, and more importantly, what they don't look like.
I dont believe you have read the document and all the related posts that have added to the entire plan thoroughly.
Actualy, I have, and it is clear to me that most of the comments are from people who get their ideas about military tactics and operations through Tom Clancy novels, and Soldier of Fortune magazine. I would wager there are few, if any with formal military training, or experience with military intelligence beyond "Red Storm Rising."
If you believe the US has absolutely no vulnerabilities at all on any border, I would politely suggest, you are deluded.
I don't believe I said that. Only that the concept you proposed is not "highly unlikely" but militarily impossibile. Fiction. It would make a great Steven Segal movie, but would never accomplish anything but annoy the locals, and give us all something about which to shake our heads.
This is fiction for a number of reasons. There is a better chance of the Montana Millita invading Canada than this ever happening.
Commercial 747s can't carry heavy armor without significant modification, and they still require special loading and unloading equipment to make it go. Remember a few years ago there was a big brougha about wheather or not to buy 747s or C-17s? The deal was the 747s were cheaper, but they couldn't do what the C-17 does. You make it sound like they just drive those tanks up the ramp and back off again, and it just ain't so.
The first time a track in a commercial air lane doesn't respond to IFF, they get a visit from the local air forces, which can scramble in about 15 minutes. On deployed carriers, there is a fueled and armed interceptor on deck at all times. It can scramble in 5 minutes, which is why it's called the "Alert 5 aircraft."
A ship unloading hostile armor at a US port would be on the bottom of the harbor as soon as US aircraft got in the air, if it ever got to dock. Every incoming vessle, including US military ships, gets a visit from the local customs office. If they are denied access to the ship, they can have the Coast Guard available in minutes.
What you are talking about is "sneaking" a few armored divisions into the US overnight. That is a military impossibilty. The mobilization in China alone would attract the attention of intelligence communities. Armored divisions don't move as quickly as you would like to believe, especialy with missing logistical assets like, say, fuel. And they definitely don't do it quitely
It's a nice story, and might work in the context of a Tom Clancy novel, but the military requirements are, well, fictional.
Does anyone think TRUSTe could exist without Microsoft, RealNetworks, and any of their other "licensees." You, the consumer, are not TRUSTe's customer. Microsoft is TRUSTe's customer, and you don't go trashing your customers. What you do is publish nice reports about how collaborative they are.
Lets assume TRUSTe did pull the trustmark (nice word!) from Microsoft. Does anyone here think it hurts Microsoft more that it hurst TRUSTe?
It seems rather silly, given that there is a whole school of war that says misinformation is a valuable weapon. It's not like we didn't intercept, decode and rebroadcast encrypted enemy signals during WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, and Iraq.
What is the difference between the falsehoods "Our troups will be a coordinants X" and "Your leader has raised the white flag?" I don't belive the rules of engagement say anything about being honest with the enemy.
I have battle damage assesment photographs, on film and digitaly rendered, from the gulf war. If we had not bombed the piss out of the road to Basra, but instead mocked up some images showing the total distruction of the highway, leaked them to the enemy, and it served to divert Iraqi troops elsewhere, would I be a war criminal?
For instance, holder's of AT&T have done incredibly well since the breakup in 1984.
In fact, no company that the US has brought anti-trust lawsuits against has done poorly, even after a breakup. One thing an anti-trust lawsuit says is "This company is dominant in their market," and investors like that.
Katz Bash If Jon had done some homework, instead of his typical poor job, he'd know Microsoft's "Fat" shareholders (of which I am one) realy aren't all that worried.
When you come across a site that is incompatible with your browser, fire off a letter to said company's VP of marketing, pointing out that the developer they chose to build their site has made technical decisions that deliberately exclude 25-80% (depending on how severe the platform-specific nature of the site is) of their potential audience.
I haven't met a marketing VP yet who has said that they want their site anything BUT 100%-cross-platform.
It has been my experince that it is usualy the Marketing VP who has to have that cool visual fluff, not the designer. Most marketing people will agree 100% with anything you say. It is the nature of marketing to be on board and with the program, so if you say the program is 100% browser compatability, then its a priority!
My wife, Trish, makes the perfect example of the typical desktop user.
I will give her a Windows computer, but will offer nothing in the way of technical support or training assistance.
I will give her a Linux box, and will give her complete technical support and training assistance.
Your wife does not represent the typical PC user. The typical PC user has no support options available to them at all. They call Dell, or Compaq, or head off to Sears, and buy what they see. They figure out how to adjust their wall paper, they figure out how to get on-line, because there is a "Get On The Internet" icon right there on the desktop they can select.
Rarely, do they have experienced professional technical assistance sitting on the couch watching football.
The real battle will not be fought on consumer desktops. It will be fought in corporate datacenters, where concerns are not related to a servers ability to display Macromedia fluff, but on ROI, price/performance, scalability, high availability, development tools, and ease of integration. This is where development resources need to be focused, as it is the battle where Linux can win.
Don't worry about the desktop. Microsoft owns it. Big deal. Worry about the computers that serve all that content. I wouldn't put Linux in front of a general user any more than I'd put Solaris, HP-UX, or Irix in front of them.
The web was initially created as a completely open environment where multimedia can be viewed, regardless of your platform.
This is incorrect. The web was created as a place where resources could be easily indexed and referenced. Multimedia had nothing to do with it.
Hmmm, I see a real bias in the comments. Dare I risk being flamed and suggest ISAPI and C++? OOh! A Micro$oft solution!
No, but you should be flamed for suggesting server API's are a Microstoft solution. Netscape Enterprise has them (NSAPI), Apache (Apache API) has had them longer than IIS, Java Web Server is built on the concept, using servlets to extend the server (as the whole thing is servlet based).
Passing a request off to a handler is a grand thing, and avoids much overhead. They do require a level of expertise beyond your average application developer, though. Server API's require the developer to be pretty familiar with the web server in question, and most don't care to become proficient, especialy when there are other, easier to implement solutions available.
Isn't CGI (common gateway Interface) a protocol/standard?
No. CGI, as the acronym indicates, is an interface. Also, as the acronym indicates, it is a common method to access (like a Gateway) server resources.
Cause a Java Servlet is still a CGI-like program, it just doesn't use Perl.
Other than running on the server, servlets and CGI spawned processes are nothing alike. One is always in state, threaded, and represents an actual API, the other isn't. They are quite different technologies.
However, if you are doing a smaller application, especially a form input-type program/script, I don't think even the fastest Java coder could beat the ease of Perl.
Nothing can beat the ease of implementing anything in Perl. But that doesn't address the overhead of the fork needed for CGI, regardless of the language used. Servlets, mod_perl, Fast CGI, and similar technologies are designed to overcome that weakness.
I don't know if satellites can read your watch, but I have worked with optics that could pick up the dashboard lights of an aircraft six miles out, and that was pre 1993.
If it can't read your watch, it might be able to see your house from there!
RSA isn't realy "proprietary" in the true sense of the word. The patent on the RSA algorithm is held by MIT, where it was developed, and licensed exclusively to RSA Security.
Fortunately, it expires next year, so you can look forward to more open imlementations in the furure.
Having dealt with RSA on this very topic, all I can say is "Thank God!"
The bad news is that if "The War In Heaven" sells, expect a slew of Christian (and soon, no doubt, Jewish and Muslim) save-the-soul games marketed by greedy Web entrepeneurs who want to appear wholesome while raking in big money. Sunday school might be in for some radical change.
Actualy, John, thats the good news. In a free market, finding a niche is a Good Thing. Christan dollars spend just like heathen dollars.
If the appearance of "wholsome" helps me rake in big money by selling to Christians, Muslims, Jews or Heretics, then wholesome I shall be.
The other nice thing about free markets is if you don't like the game, you don't have to buy it.
Remember these sage words.
Greed is good. Greed is right. Greed works. --Gordon Gekko
Venture capital is the most expensive money you can find. They are going to want not a payback like a bank loan, but a share of the company, and usualy a substantial share at that.
They won't rip you off, though. If you can show prior art, no patent they file will hold up.
You are better off looking for a regular business loan from a bank, or trying to discover some other source of funding before aproaching a VenCap firm. If you do approach, make sure you have a solid buisness plan and a buisness model that can show revenue enough to be profitable. They generaly won't talk to you until you have at least that.
Always remember these sage words...
I see a hundred deals a day, kid. I choose one. --Gordon Gecko
Enterprise Java Beans do provide much of the same plumbing as COM (arguably, even better), and many Java tools vendors are working to support EJB's as seamlessly as ActiveX controls in VB.
Actualy, plain old JavaBeans compete with COM. It's for intra-process communications. EJB is an interprocess archetecture, and competes with DCOM.
But Java is not Open Source. It is controlled by yet another big company...
So what? The difference between Java and VC is that Sun provides a simple, useable API that does what it says it's supposed to do. Every JDK comes with a complete toolset for everything from documentation to profiling. Oh yeah, and it's free, too. The Java specification is open, so you can do your own implementation if you don't like what Sun has to offer.
Microsoft provides ever changing API's and interfaces, restricted platform availability, closed specifications, and bills big dollars for the priveledge of using it.
Open source is nice, but there is a lot of crap open source stuff, too.
Java ain't perfect, but it's leaps and bounds beyond anything Microsoft has come up with.
But why shouldn't Katz, or any other "media type", think they discovered something. They did. The mistake is assuming they discovered it FIRST.
Because it is indicative of the poor research that generaly goes into technology reporting, and assuming it is worth reporting at all. It is particularly pretentious to call it a revolutionary thing to do. Janes' attitude about review is nothing new, and hardly worth reporting on. They are a fine publication with a stellar reputation and a specific set of readers. They aren't a "mainstream media" publication, so any comparison of Janes to the Whereville Times is realy an Apples vs. Airplanes comparison.
A little research on Katz's part would have discovered that his story realy wasn't.
Further, if it's something that isn't common knowlege in their particular literature, importing it is still a useful and valuable act of reportage.
Well, I try to learn something new every day. If I tried to spin everything I learned as a revolutionary paragdim shifting bit of knowledge, and take credit for it, people would rightly think I'm cracked.
When I was in the service, Janes was always held in high esteem, everywhere I went. It was a handy resource, and copies of their publications were always on hand bolth in training facilities and operational units.
Janes' reputation is strong because they have always welcomed feedback from their communities.
Katz Bash It isn't anything new, although it doesn't surprise me that Katz thinks he discovered it. Most mainstream media types make that mistake about any story they write.
Is it truly freedom, when you expect to be (at least) socially blasted for expressing controversial ideas? I don't care about the legal structure, but about society. Sure, legally they can't touch you, but you become ostracized by your peers. Is that the mark of a free and educated society?
It absolutely is. Personaly, I find Singer's ideas sickening, and wouldn't have the man in my house. That isn't censorship, it is my right to control who I associate with. It is my right to choose what ideas I accept and reject. It is my right to speak against those things I oppose.
I do not believe all ideas are worthy of consideration. That is not censorship. I do not believe any idea should be supressed. That would be censorship.
I'm reminded of the people who think putting them in my killfile is tantamount to censorship.
This is a nice assesment of how things are now. It is a time honored tradition that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. It's true in almost all aspects of life. Education, health care, police and fire protection, etc...
I am completing my psychology Ph.D from ITT Technical Institute, and have written my thesis on the parralelisms in psychological profiles of bolth cops and acedemics. It seems that they have a deep seeded underlying need to appear technologicaly knowlegeable in the face of other pointy-heads and enforcment officers. When one can project the illusion of competence in one field, it releives them of an innate inferiority complex, derived from the fact that bolth psycologists and cops realy don't do much that requires deep thinking, analasys, or reason in their chosen profession.
Anecdotal evidence exists suggesting these traits in journalists.
Slashdot Mirror
I would argue that anyone who thinks cookies are some sort of security hazard doesn't know much about them. The RFC describes them as a mechanism for maintaining state across HTTP transactions. They are an HTTP header with a specific function, just like Content-type, Date, and any other header you choose to put in your requests and responses.
There is no bogey man.
It wouldn't matter if it were trucks and motorcycles. You can't "quickly" unload large cargo from a 747. Let's say it does get to land. Then what? Do you think this "light" armor just jumps out the back, fires up the engine, and starts shooting? That cargo has to be unloaded. Even assuming that the crew comes in on the airplane, and is able to find and operate the equipment necessary to unload the gear, how much time do you suppose that will take? Enough time to actualy take down an airport? You might want to compare your method to the method used by guys that actualy do take down airports, Army Rangers, and see where the differences lie.
And where do you suppose all this "light" armor is going to load? In Hong Kong? A direct flight from China is going to be inspected with a closer eye than one from Fairbanks, don't you think?
Second, transporting armor in a car carrier is not going to be sunk if as far as everyone knows it has a legitimate manifest and is due to dock legally.
Oh, I see. The customs official that goes out and boards the boat and checks the manifest, then checks the cargo, doesn't know the difference between a Huyndai and a Howitzer? "Gee Capn', is that the new model SUV? It sure is big!" And, again, lets assume that the customs official is a complete moron, and our ship is allowed to dock. Do you suppose all that armor will just jump right out of the cargo hold, fire up the engines and start shooting? How long before that boat is on the bottom? I'd give it about 30 minutes to get it holed and roling by the boys at the local military air station.
Yes the US would know that China would be massing vehicles at ports and airports by satellite data, but how many times has China had excercises near taiwan? Quite often. Especially involving army/navy amphibious deployments. Satellites are great for taking photos, but they dont tell you what the enemy intends or thinks 90% of the time.
Actualy, you're quite wrong there. If we observed China loading up for "excercises against Taiwan" by loading heavy armor into commercial car carriers (China has a booming auto export trade, I'm sure) and infantry into commercial 747's, the most raw analyst right out of school could tell you it's unusual, and warrant's closer observation. It is because China often has these "excercises" that we know what they look like, and more importantly, what they don't look like.
I dont believe you have read the document and all the related posts that have added to the entire plan thoroughly.
Actualy, I have, and it is clear to me that most of the comments are from people who get their ideas about military tactics and operations through Tom Clancy novels, and Soldier of Fortune magazine. I would wager there are few, if any with formal military training, or experience with military intelligence beyond "Red Storm Rising."
If you believe the US has absolutely no vulnerabilities at all on any border, I would politely suggest, you are deluded.
I don't believe I said that. Only that the concept you proposed is not "highly unlikely" but militarily impossibile. Fiction. It would make a great Steven Segal movie, but would never accomplish anything but annoy the locals, and give us all something about which to shake our heads.
Commercial 747s can't carry heavy armor without significant modification, and they still require special loading and unloading equipment to make it go. Remember a few years ago there was a big brougha about wheather or not to buy 747s or C-17s? The deal was the 747s were cheaper, but they couldn't do what the C-17 does. You make it sound like they just drive those tanks up the ramp and back off again, and it just ain't so.
The first time a track in a commercial air lane doesn't respond to IFF, they get a visit from the local air forces, which can scramble in about 15 minutes. On deployed carriers, there is a fueled and armed interceptor on deck at all times. It can scramble in 5 minutes, which is why it's called the "Alert 5 aircraft."
A ship unloading hostile armor at a US port would be on the bottom of the harbor as soon as US aircraft got in the air, if it ever got to dock. Every incoming vessle, including US military ships, gets a visit from the local customs office. If they are denied access to the ship, they can have the Coast Guard available in minutes.
What you are talking about is "sneaking" a few armored divisions into the US overnight. That is a military impossibilty. The mobilization in China alone would attract the attention of intelligence communities. Armored divisions don't move as quickly as you would like to believe, especialy with missing logistical assets like, say, fuel. And they definitely don't do it quitely
It's a nice story, and might work in the context of a Tom Clancy novel, but the military requirements are, well, fictional.
Lets assume TRUSTe did pull the trustmark (nice word!) from Microsoft. Does anyone here think it hurts Microsoft more that it hurst TRUSTe?
What is the difference between the falsehoods "Our troups will be a coordinants X" and "Your leader has raised the white flag?" I don't belive the rules of engagement say anything about being honest with the enemy.
I have battle damage assesment photographs, on film and digitaly rendered, from the gulf war. If we had not bombed the piss out of the road to Basra, but instead mocked up some images showing the total distruction of the highway, leaked them to the enemy, and it served to divert Iraqi troops elsewhere, would I be a war criminal?
WooHoo!
Look at the bright side. At leas you got a new workstation!
How about Words That Rhyme With Pretentious.
Go back to accounting, Jon. You must have been better at it.
In fact, no company that the US has brought anti-trust lawsuits against has done poorly, even after a breakup. One thing an anti-trust lawsuit says is "This company is dominant in their market," and investors like that.
Katz Bash
If Jon had done some homework, instead of his typical poor job, he'd know Microsoft's "Fat" shareholders (of which I am one) realy aren't all that worried.
I haven't met a marketing VP yet who has said that they want their site anything BUT 100%-cross-platform.
It has been my experince that it is usualy the Marketing VP who has to have that cool visual fluff, not the designer. Most marketing people will agree 100% with anything you say. It is the nature of marketing to be on board and with the program, so if you say the program is 100% browser compatability, then its a priority!
My wife, Trish, makes the perfect example of the typical desktop user.
I will give her a Windows computer, but will offer nothing in the way of technical support or training assistance.
I will give her a Linux box, and will give her complete technical support and training assistance.
Your wife does not represent the typical PC user. The typical PC user has no support options available to them at all. They call Dell, or Compaq, or head off to Sears, and buy what they see. They figure out how to adjust their wall paper, they figure out how to get on-line, because there is a "Get On The Internet" icon right there on the desktop they can select.
Rarely, do they have experienced professional technical assistance sitting on the couch watching football.
The real battle will not be fought on consumer desktops. It will be fought in corporate datacenters, where concerns are not related to a servers ability to display Macromedia fluff, but on ROI, price/performance, scalability, high availability, development tools, and ease of integration. This is where development resources need to be focused, as it is the battle where Linux can win.
Don't worry about the desktop. Microsoft owns it. Big deal. Worry about the computers that serve all that content. I wouldn't put Linux in front of a general user any more than I'd put Solaris, HP-UX, or Irix in front of them.
The web was initially created as a completely open environment where multimedia can be viewed, regardless of your platform.
This is incorrect. The web was created as a place where resources could be easily indexed and referenced. Multimedia had nothing to do with it.
No, but you should be flamed for suggesting server API's are a Microstoft solution. Netscape Enterprise has them (NSAPI), Apache (Apache API) has had them longer than IIS, Java Web Server is built on the concept, using servlets to extend the server (as the whole thing is servlet based).
Passing a request off to a handler is a grand thing, and avoids much overhead. They do require a level of expertise beyond your average application developer, though. Server API's require the developer to be pretty familiar with the web server in question, and most don't care to become proficient, especialy when there are other, easier to implement solutions available.
No. CGI, as the acronym indicates, is an interface. Also, as the acronym indicates, it is a common method to access (like a Gateway) server resources.
Cause a Java Servlet is still a CGI-like program, it just doesn't use Perl.
Other than running on the server, servlets and CGI spawned processes are nothing alike. One is always in state, threaded, and represents an actual API, the other isn't. They are quite different technologies.
However, if you are doing a smaller application, especially a form input-type program/script, I don't think even the fastest Java coder could beat the ease of Perl.
Nothing can beat the ease of implementing anything in Perl. But that doesn't address the overhead of the fork needed for CGI, regardless of the language used. Servlets, mod_perl, Fast CGI, and similar technologies are designed to overcome that weakness.
If it can't read your watch, it might be able to see your house from there!
Fortunately, it expires next year, so you can look forward to more open imlementations in the furure.
Having dealt with RSA on this very topic, all I can say is "Thank God!"
Actualy, John, thats the good news. In a free market, finding a niche is a Good Thing. Christan dollars spend just like heathen dollars.
If the appearance of "wholsome" helps me rake in big money by selling to Christians, Muslims, Jews or Heretics, then wholesome I shall be.
The other nice thing about free markets is if you don't like the game, you don't have to buy it.
Remember these sage words.
Greed is good. Greed is right. Greed works.
--Gordon Gekko
They won't rip you off, though. If you can show prior art, no patent they file will hold up.
You are better off looking for a regular business loan from a bank, or trying to discover some other source of funding before aproaching a VenCap firm. If you do approach, make sure you have a solid buisness plan and a buisness model that can show revenue enough to be profitable. They generaly won't talk to you until you have at least that.
Always remember these sage words...
I see a hundred deals a day, kid. I choose one.
--Gordon Gecko
Actualy, plain old JavaBeans compete with COM. It's for intra-process communications. EJB is an interprocess archetecture, and competes with DCOM.
But Java is not Open Source. It is controlled by yet another big company...
So what? The difference between Java and VC is that Sun provides a simple, useable API that does what it says it's supposed to do. Every JDK comes with a complete toolset for everything from documentation to profiling. Oh yeah, and it's free, too. The Java specification is open, so you can do your own implementation if you don't like what Sun has to offer.
Microsoft provides ever changing API's and interfaces, restricted platform availability, closed specifications, and bills big dollars for the priveledge of using it.
Open source is nice, but there is a lot of crap open source stuff, too.
Java ain't perfect, but it's leaps and bounds beyond anything Microsoft has come up with.
Because it is indicative of the poor research that generaly goes into technology reporting, and assuming it is worth reporting at all. It is particularly pretentious to call it a revolutionary thing to do. Janes' attitude about review is nothing new, and hardly worth reporting on. They are a fine publication with a stellar reputation and a specific set of readers. They aren't a "mainstream media" publication, so any comparison of Janes to the Whereville Times is realy an Apples vs. Airplanes comparison.
A little research on Katz's part would have discovered that his story realy wasn't.
Further, if it's something that isn't common knowlege in their particular literature, importing it is still a useful and valuable act of reportage.
Well, I try to learn something new every day. If I tried to spin everything I learned as a revolutionary paragdim shifting bit of knowledge, and take credit for it, people would rightly think I'm cracked.
Janes' reputation is strong because they have always welcomed feedback from their communities.
Katz Bash
It isn't anything new, although it doesn't surprise me that Katz thinks he discovered it. Most mainstream media types make that mistake about any story they write.
It absolutely is. Personaly, I find Singer's ideas sickening, and wouldn't have the man in my house. That isn't censorship, it is my right to control who I associate with. It is my right to choose what ideas I accept and reject. It is my right to speak against those things I oppose.
I do not believe all ideas are worthy of consideration. That is not censorship. I do not believe any idea should be supressed. That would be censorship.
I'm reminded of the people who think putting them in my killfile is tantamount to censorship.
-137
Why should genetic enhancements be any different.
-137
I am completing my psychology Ph.D from ITT Technical Institute, and have written my thesis on the parralelisms in psychological profiles of bolth cops and acedemics. It seems that they have a deep seeded underlying need to appear technologicaly knowlegeable in the face of other pointy-heads and enforcment officers. When one can project the illusion of competence in one field, it releives them of an innate inferiority complex, derived from the fact that bolth psycologists and cops realy don't do much that requires deep thinking, analasys, or reason in their chosen profession.
Anecdotal evidence exists suggesting these traits in journalists.