On January 13, 2006 US CIA-operated unmanned Predator drones launched four Hellfire missiles into the Pakistani village of Damadola, about 7 km (4.5 miles) from the Afghan border, killing at least 18 people. The attack targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri who was thought to be in the village. Pakistani officials later said that al-Zawahiri was not there and that the U.S. had acted on faulty intelligence.
I was referring to the US having to fire 6 mortars instead of one, just to hit the target.
Apparently, I have been out of the loop for quite a while.
Last time I spoke someone 'from the field'(former marine), the US still had the tendency to 'soften up' hard targets. (Not quite Geneva-endorsed, remember the surfing scene from Apocalypse now?)
Also, in the news, you see attacks where the US blew up the entire village, just to blow up someone's house. And he wasn't even home.
I used to have an ambition to work for Thales and help build more precise weaponry, but I gave up after I found out they never got used 'because they cost too much'.
Thanks for the heads-up. It might help if the US were to show that they actually try avoid collateral damage, these days. It might help improve the image, internationally.
The lasers you refer to are lasers for guiding weapons. The laser in this article defends a target by BLOWING UP incoming waeponry. (It's more powerful than your average pocket laser)
In other words, only use it where you shit but not where you eat.
Do any American troops ever consider the fact that people might be LIVING in that regions after the war ends? (That is what you are fighting for, isn't it, the right to live?)
This is one of the reasons the US is not welcomed with open arms when they're coming to liberate a country.
Keep in mind that, as you makr your weapons more reflective, they are also more likely to show up on radar/lidar systems, making them easier to track. Maybe they should consider making the rounds harder to track in the first place?
As effective as that strategy may be, it does raise the cost of the mission quite a bit. With any luck, it will keep the US gov't from wiping entire villages on the cheap 'just to be sure' and moving on to precision strikes.
The US has the means to fight a quick and precise war with very little collateral damage (laser/GPS guided precision weaponry). They just prefer to use (cheap) unguided weapons, which might miss a bit but makes up for it with a bigger bang.
Theere is a National Security Agency that has put forth a set of guidelines towards securing somputer systems and networks. If the US DoD cannot be bothered to read & adhere by good advise in securing such a sensitive network, something is wrong with the DoD.
If Fortune 500 companies are supposed to adhere to security Best Practices (SOx), why not the DoD?
The treaty is not one-sided. The implementation is.
If the US asks for a Foreighn citizen to be extradited to the US, the person is extradited. If a foreighn nation asks for a US Citizen to be extradited, nothing happens.
The US may be bound by the treaty they signed, but they have no intention of honouring their end of it.
This, of course, bears no relation to their policy on nuclear power (iran), cluster bombs and anti-personnel mines (the rest of the world).
Is it costs 900K to deconstruct, analyse, redesign an rebuild the entire network, that must have been a very small government department network.
Aside from that: As soon as people know someone else will be blamed for the bill, they don't mind paying for some extra bits they would never have ordered if it was on their own initiative.
Well, I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition...
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
(For fear of this thread getting anywhere near serious)
Those two words (problem and solve) imply that the problem -can- be solved by mucking about with some variables (funding, hourse, workload). What is needed is a full re-evaluation of -how- people are taught to think. Starting in Kindergarten, moving on to high school and finishing in College. Kids need to learn to use their brain. Some kids may not be as smart. It happens. Study harder. Excercise more on different kinds of problems.
If a teacher cannot break down the study material into understandable chunks, try replacing the method or the teacher.
I have studied inside and outside the US. The first thing that struck me is that US college students have -no- problem-solving ability. Any question that was not discussed before in minute detail is not allowed on the test, no variations. Everything has to be the exact way they rehearsed it in class.
Back in high school (outside the US), we simply got 'solutions to certain types of problems' and 'ways to chain solutions'. Those two form the vocabulary and grammar of scientific thinking. Armed with those two, you can solve any type of scientific problem without having to 'rehearse' the solution.
I dropped out of college in the US, got a job, left the US and went back to school (finished with BSC in Electronics). Now I have a feeling I actually know what I'm talking about.
Something tells me there are not enough detectives to find means, motive and opportunity for every crime.
Trial by Computer is the most cost-effective way of sentencing. A/ because they didn't include the software to request appesl (that would have cost extra) B/ because it keeps the IT sector healthy (code-monkeys in India, factories in Taiwan, O/S vendors in the US and admins in the US)
I wonder what would happen if they matched every sample in CODIS against every other sample.
How many 'collisions' would there be? How many tests (apparently) re-used the same sample (oops)? What is the exact probability of DNA matching ONE PERSON in CODIS?
OK, I never really had a cell phone when I lived in the US. Everyone had pagers back then.
Here (Netherlands), we have regular plans (with exact numbers and prices, prepay plans (no auto-increment on cost) and regular prepay phones (YMMV). Unless you use that first option, you know exactly what you can expect to be billed at the end of the month:
It can't be that hard to build and maintain a database of current plans, the current fees and current taxes.
"If we were to bill you TODAY, your plan would cost $xx.yy, but we can't guarantee that will be your bill at the end of the month"
AFAIK, AT&T is the only provider you can get with an iPhone. So, if you want to know what that shiny monster will cost you 'after buying it',
you would just have to buy a plan and hope you can afford it when you pay the bill.
It may have been implemented, even implemented correctly. It may have signaled the problem and worked around it, the way it should. The bug may also have show up because the software assumes there will never be a hardware failure, no matter how short.
Cisco switches implement redundancy by default with STP. What they don't tell you that it may take over a minute before the network has fully recovered. (that's why woy want to set up rapid STP for backbone switches and maybe tune the setting for userland).
I've seen Network Bonding in RedHat Enterprise Linux with HP hardware use a 'fake' MAC address that is bound to several interfaces to avoid just this problem. Unfortunately, it may confuse the switch it is connected to, because of said ARP cache (CAM table, ours was 16 hours).
Really-HA systems require genuine engineers with tons of real-life experience, just to know what bits work and what bits you want to avoid. I hope to become one, one day;-)
The problem is not that redundancy wasn't implemented. The problem is that redundancy doesn't handle 'flapping' hardware very well. The NIC intermittently failed, causing the redundancy to switch cards several times. This can play havoc on systems that work on a LAN and assume the MAC address to stay the same. Also, a NIC that does not report an error, doesn't fail completely and simply swaps a few bits around can be nigh-on impossible to diagnose.
This could have been caught with real-time hardware and log-monitoring, but I have to confess even I only check the logs daily, not real-time. While some monitoring systems can mail the admin in the event of failure, not all systems are usually configured that way ('workstations' being a prime candidate).
There is a line you draw between monitoring and cost-effectiveness. Every company takes a claculated risk in this and they got bitten.
It seems that they want to reduce abuse just as mucha s they want to abuse the 'thought crime' of paedophilia. Kill the supplier and the client, so to speak.
Slashdot Mirror
The 'oops' I was trying to refer to:
On January 13, 2006 US CIA-operated unmanned Predator drones launched four Hellfire missiles into the Pakistani village of Damadola, about 7 km (4.5 miles) from the Afghan border, killing at least 18 people. The attack targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri who was thought to be in the village. Pakistani officials later said that al-Zawahiri was not there and that the U.S. had acted on faulty intelligence.
I was referring to the US having to fire 6 mortars instead of one, just to hit the target.
Apparently, I have been out of the loop for quite a while.
Last time I spoke someone 'from the field'(former marine), the US still had the tendency to 'soften up' hard targets.
(Not quite Geneva-endorsed, remember the surfing scene from Apocalypse now?)
Also, in the news, you see attacks where the US blew up the entire village,
just to blow up someone's house.
And he wasn't even home.
Apparently, the darn things are actually being used these days:
http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=868
I used to have an ambition to work for Thales and help build more precise weaponry, but I gave up after I found out they never got used 'because they cost too much'.
Thanks for the heads-up.
It might help if the US were to show that they actually try avoid collateral damage, these days.
It might help improve the image, internationally.
The lasers you refer to are lasers for guiding weapons.
The laser in this article defends a target by BLOWING UP incoming waeponry.
(It's more powerful than your average pocket laser)
In other words, only use it where you shit but not where you eat.
Do any American troops ever consider the fact that people might be LIVING in that regions after the war ends?
(That is what you are fighting for, isn't it, the right to live?)
This is one of the reasons the US is not welcomed with open arms when they're coming to liberate a country.
Keep in mind that, as you makr your weapons more reflective, they are also more likely to show up on radar/lidar systems, making them easier to track.
Maybe they should consider making the rounds harder to track in the first place?
As effective as that strategy may be, it does raise the cost of the mission quite a bit.
With any luck, it will keep the US gov't from wiping entire villages on the cheap 'just to be sure' and moving on to precision strikes.
The US has the means to fight a quick and precise war with very little collateral damage (laser/GPS guided precision weaponry).
They just prefer to use (cheap) unguided weapons, which might miss a bit but makes up for it with a bigger bang.
Theere is a National Security Agency that has put forth a set of guidelines towards securing somputer systems and networks.
If the US DoD cannot be bothered to read & adhere by good advise in securing such a sensitive network, something is wrong with the DoD.
If Fortune 500 companies are supposed to adhere to security Best Practices (SOx), why not the DoD?
The treaty is not one-sided.
The implementation is.
If the US asks for a Foreighn citizen to be extradited to the US, the person is extradited.
If a foreighn nation asks for a US Citizen to be extradited, nothing happens.
The US may be bound by the treaty they signed, but they have no intention of honouring their end of it.
This, of course, bears no relation to their policy on nuclear power (iran), cluster bombs and anti-personnel mines (the rest of the world).
Is it costs 900K to deconstruct, analyse, redesign an rebuild the entire network, that must have been a very small government department network.
Aside from that: As soon as people know someone else will be blamed for the bill, they don't mind paying for some extra bits they would never have ordered if it was on their own initiative.
Somehow, the thought of everyone carrying a portable nuclear reactor seems a bit bisturbing.
How about a Mr Fusion in every car?
Speaking of which, the 80s called, where IS my flying car?
Well, I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition...
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise....
Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency....
Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....
Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons....
Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise....
I'll come in again.
(For fear of this thread getting anywhere near serious)
Those two words (problem and solve) imply that the problem -can- be solved by mucking about with some variables (funding, hourse, workload).
What is needed is a full re-evaluation of -how- people are taught to think.
Starting in Kindergarten, moving on to high school and finishing in College.
Kids need to learn to use their brain.
Some kids may not be as smart.
It happens.
Study harder.
Excercise more on different kinds of problems.
If a teacher cannot break down the study material into understandable chunks, try replacing the method or the teacher.
I have studied inside and outside the US.
The first thing that struck me is that US college students have -no- problem-solving ability.
Any question that was not discussed before in minute detail is not allowed on the test, no variations. Everything has to be the exact way they rehearsed it in class.
Back in high school (outside the US), we simply got 'solutions to certain types of problems' and 'ways to chain solutions'.
Those two form the vocabulary and grammar of scientific thinking.
Armed with those two, you can solve any type of scientific problem without having to 'rehearse' the solution.
I dropped out of college in the US, got a job, left the US and went back to school (finished with BSC in Electronics).
Now I have a feeling I actually know what I'm talking about.
Something tells me there are not enough detectives to find means, motive and opportunity for every crime.
Trial by Computer is the most cost-effective way of sentencing.
A/ because they didn't include the software to request appesl (that would have cost extra)
B/ because it keeps the IT sector healthy
(code-monkeys in India, factories in Taiwan, O/S vendors in the US and admins in the US)
I wonder what would happen if they matched every sample in CODIS against every other sample.
How many 'collisions' would there be?
How many tests (apparently) re-used the same sample (oops)?
What is the exact probability of DNA matching ONE PERSON in CODIS?
Why would anyone need more than one iPhone?
(why anyone would want one is another matter altogether)
OK, I never really had a cell phone when I lived in the US.
Everyone had pagers back then.
Here (Netherlands), we have regular plans (with exact numbers and prices, prepay plans (no auto-increment on cost) and regular prepay phones (YMMV).
Unless you use that first option, you know exactly what you can expect to be billed at the end of the month:
It can't be that hard to build and maintain a database of current plans, the current fees and current taxes.
"If we were to bill you TODAY, your plan would cost $xx.yy, but we can't guarantee that will be your bill at the end of the month"
They can't have more experience in the field than Australia!
My guess is that nobody pays attention to the Hispanics and the white people either get away with it (Dukes of Hazzard) or pay their way out of it.
AFAIK, AT&T is the only provider you can get with an iPhone.
So, if you want to know what that shiny monster will cost you 'after buying it',
you would just have to buy a plan and hope you can afford it when you pay the bill.
It may have been implemented, even implemented correctly.
It may have signaled the problem and worked around it, the way it should.
The bug may also have show up because the software assumes there will never be a hardware failure, no matter how short.
Cisco switches implement redundancy by default with STP.
What they don't tell you that it may take over a minute before the network has fully recovered.
(that's why woy want to set up rapid STP for backbone switches and maybe tune the setting for userland).
Indeed.
I've seen Network Bonding in RedHat Enterprise Linux with HP hardware use a 'fake' MAC address that is bound to several interfaces to avoid just this problem.
Unfortunately, it may confuse the switch it is connected to, because of said ARP cache (CAM table, ours was 16 hours).
Really-HA systems require genuine engineers with tons of real-life experience, just to know what bits work and what bits you want to avoid. ;-)
I hope to become one, one day
The problem is not that redundancy wasn't implemented.
The problem is that redundancy doesn't handle 'flapping' hardware very well.
The NIC intermittently failed, causing the redundancy to switch cards several times.
This can play havoc on systems that work on a LAN and assume the MAC address to stay the same.
Also, a NIC that does not report an error, doesn't fail completely and simply swaps a few bits around can be nigh-on impossible to diagnose.
This could have been caught with real-time hardware and log-monitoring, but I have to confess even I only check the logs daily, not real-time. While some monitoring systems can mail the admin in the event of failure, not all systems are usually configured that way ('workstations' being a prime candidate).
There is a line you draw between monitoring and cost-effectiveness. Every company takes a claculated risk in this and they got bitten.
Thoughtcrime
It seems that they want to reduce abuse just as mucha s they want to abuse the 'thought crime' of paedophilia.
Kill the supplier and the client, so to speak.