Its suitability in form, fit and function is what matters, not whether the latest, greatest, or shiniest. Newtonian mechanics are both straightforward and not terribly demanding of processor power or speed; nor are SCADA-like monitoring and control services. Factors, such as space, weight, power, cooling, reliability, availability, maintainability, supportability, hardening (radiation & vibration, at least), and cost, I'd imagine, would drive design. I'd also guess that the simpler the architecture, both hardware and software, the more deterministic the behavior, which is what I believe I'd want in a spacecraft.
The explanation may be a little less sinister. In the west, more students tend to gravitate towards the Liberal Arts, with relatively fewer opting for math and science. Islam supplants western Liberal Arts with religion (which everybody gets to some degree) leaving only math and science as a common denominator.
You all realize, of course, that the underlying story, and the/. post publicizing it as well, is just one greasy sweaty pile of grinning troll flesh right? Come on. Really.
On the one hand, it's hard to surprise me anymore about anything regarding politics. On the other hand I just can't help wondering the about veracity of the report. I mean, are we hearing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, here? Something just sounds too cute by half. On a related topic, and speaking of country bans, isn't there one acerbic U.S. talk show host, Michael Savage, currently banned in the U.K. because the last U.K. administration thought his right-leaning (sometimes) speech hateful? Notwithstanding agreement either way, are all hands really completely clean here?
I'm for considering all options as long as they are based on full assessment of the risks, especially safety risks. For highly automated low capacity, short range aircraft, for example, it may make sense on certain routes. I would be willing to guess, however, that FAA, as well as ICAO internationally, would be risk adverse in allowing single pilot cockpits on long haul routes and high capacity passenger aircraft. The point is that it's not just a business-only decision. This is a legitimate province of government regulating on behalf of the public good.
Yet, were he were an "***old*** ***white*** ***male*** ***conservative*** ***Christian***" I can guarantee we'd never hear the freakin' end of it...F'n-A ditty-bag...
...and in other obvious "news," teenage boys like to lie about largely fantasy sexual conquests! --- Oooh...wait, maybe I can get a federal grant for that study...!
Haven't seen it mentioned here yet, but there's another dynamic. Salaries go up with age, experience and competence advantages notwithstanding. Many times the rational (or rationalized, anyway) trade for hiring managers is cost. More "yutes" with fewer old-fart project leads is the frequent result, as are outsourcing, H1B abuse, and other measures. Whether there's CBA happening to derive the most advantageous ratio is another matter. It's the age-old "cost of quality" debate deferred or not happening all over the country, especially in times of recession.
How about: basic, block diagram level, computer architecture (x86, might as well); the components and functions of main memory, bus, registers, and long-term storage; stacks, the concept of machine language, then more abstractly represented in assembly, and then BASIC. Then, second half of the year, and only after demonstrating understanding of the above concepts, simple programming. Wouldn't hurt to avail the little tykes with foundational understanding that doesn't gloss over the the point that IT is not built on magic -- apologies to Harry Potter.
Whenever an OSD, or for that matter any federal, official with "Honorable" in front of his or her name deliberately broaches any issue in a public venue, there is an underlying effect that he or she is trying to promote. This typically may involve either defending, or laying the groundwork for, some pending policy which has not quite achieved full acceptance from all the other key players with a stake in the game. Given especially that the Hon. Mr. Lynn is the DEPSECDEF, that is number two in the DoD, I'd anticipate another shoe to drop, and one of some considerable impact.
All of which highlights the importance of safety engineering and the Human Systems Interface, especially for life-critical systems. Here's a decent synopsis on the field: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_engineering
Couldn't agree more, except lets not hand out anything. We could offer a pamphlet for purchase. Nannies, and nanny states, in real life come with costs. When exactly did we, as a society develop this assumption that everyone must be protected from real life, and is this a good thing, considering all costs, benefits, risks and trades? One such trade is safety versus freedom. Choices have consequences, whether or not one choses to acknowledge them, or consider them "fair," which is a word I stopped hearing so often from my kids once they progressed past their teen years. Evidently an increasing number of citizens are stunted, and don't mature to post-teen world views. We need to look seriously at where we want to draw the line between public good, and big brother or sister rule.
To all those, including "Britney from LA," who always just assumed that the movies "Bambi" are "Lion King" are documentaries, here's a news flash: The real Mother Nature is a cruel vindictive bitch. Always has been. Recommend not venturing too far from Santa Monica Blvd. without and wilderness guide.
The important question is how should one feel about 9 = 2 in a more inclusive socioeconomic context? Who are you to judge with your elitist western notions of objective reality? In some cultural contexts 9 = 2 may be a legitimate expression of rejecting repressive colonial monoculturalism. Insensitive clods!
Having raised a significant number of children to adulthood and through college, I feel qualified to contribute the following anecdotal observations to such a debate:
(1) each child arrives shrink-wrapped with his/her own unique personality from birth, with high-order traits ranging from fussy to content, alert to no-so, timid to adventurous, more verbal to more physical, etc.; (2) that basic personality evolves through childhood and is shaped by experiences and interactions with parents, siblings, and childhood friends; (3) in retrospect one can see (or at least rationalize) the evolution, but such evolution seems by no means so smooth or constraining as portrayed by such studies; and, most significant, (4) such studies appear every bit as absolutely worthless in any practical sense as nearly all books on child rearing. Yes, as a new parent I went to classes, read books and even "coached" ridiculously with "he-he-hoo-hoo's" with the best of them. I rushed the first baby to the doctor at every sniffle or fervor, and fretted every "percentile" comparison chart entry by every "peeds" nurse. By the 3rd, 4th and 5th kid, one progressively realizes that most of the anxiety is worthless. As a parent, one can only do what one can do and hope for the best. Any experienced parent will eventually throw away all parenting books and ignore most psychological studies unless medical in nature and directly relevant to a specific issue. But then again, even social scientists need to eat, I guess...
Good point. I actually have 3 browsers: Safari, Firefox and Chrome. I use Safari by default, because I like its look, feel and performance. I use Firefox all secured-up with restrictive settings and script protection, for when I'm note sure where I'm going. I also use Chrome. I had Opera at one point, but haven't used lately. I use a Macbook for work, but there are times when Safari won't work with a particular site. Usually Firefox or Chrome will. For home I use a Debian Gnu/Linux distro, but also have browser diversity for same reason: Firefox, Chromium, and Opera. As long as USG and other institutions still insist on using IE-optimized pages, browser diversity will probably be a must.
You know, I'll admit that I began to realize that I no longer knew it all about the time my first kid was born. My last just left home recently. Its been my consistent experience that the farther one gets from High School, the less one seems to know about everything. That's just the way it seems to be.
Yup, I admit it. Dumb. Totally oblivious. Goes to show, as a consumer, I just never thought to check that my ISP furnished router had a default admin PW (different from the WPA key, by the way, which is strong). I "knew" better, but thought of everything but. Think I'm a rare breed, do you?
I got the same message from Verizon FIOS. All I can think to say is, "thank you Verizon" for being proactive in addressing an identified security issue about which I was previously unaware. Please keep up the due diligence.
So, maybe it's not a case "damn Republicans" or "damn Democrats," but rather that governments tend to accrue more and more coercive powers, not always to the benefit of ordinary people. This happens all the time, every time, and throughout history. There have been no exceptions. It is the human condition, and is not necessarily a result of specific ideological design nor malicious intent (which can't always rule it out either), but because it just makes things easier on ordinary functionaries. "Government" is composed of a distribution of mostly ordinary people: ordinarily good, bad, smart, stupid, and ugly as well. If you have a job, and get to write or influence the rules that govern how you go about getting your job done, wouldn't you want to make things easier on yourself and not not to have to deal with all that pesky red tape? Warrants as such a pain in the butt, aren't they? All of which is why many might say that governments should be limited, constrained, and watched at all times, even when it's your soul-mates in office (hear me Journo-lists-as?). This has to do with that whole Constitution thing. Not perfect, but its all we got. Recommend not screwing with it.
So, is it "We don't have sufficiently bright people," or is it "our people aren't performing with sufficient brilliance"? The difference is nuanced, but significant in both causes and effects. Sufficiently bright people will tend to seek an environment where they are afforded opportunities to excel. Highly bureaucratic organizations where politically ambitious leadership (albeit very, very, bright) chase silver-Power Point bullets inside of banners quoting their sponsors like packs of 8 year olds chasing a soccer ball tend to repel, or paralyze, the best and brightest; that's even if, especially if, first attracted by the skillful sales pitch. I suspect that there are plenty of exceptionally bright people throughout the National Security Apparatus; however, its like throwing National Guardsman on the border in response to a couple of adverse editorials. Lacking a clear mission and effective rules of engagement supporting rationally assigned tasks, an exceptionally capable force becomes an otherwise useless consumer of time, money and supplies, not because they aren't bright and capable, but because nothing they're allowed to do is effective, and nothing effective is allowable. Same situation here. Until we figure out the mission, agree on the operating boundaries, and create conditions (including legal and governance framework) wherein bright people can work the problem set and not have to chase soccer balls, no amount of hand wringing, DSB studies, slogans, speeches, or bolded Power-Point bullets, with or without lightening bolts, will accomplish anything very effective. I am curious, what the heck means "Veteran Cyber Security Specialist," since that relatively nonsensical term simply wasn't coined that long ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Its suitability in form, fit and function is what matters, not whether the latest, greatest, or shiniest. Newtonian mechanics are both straightforward and not terribly demanding of processor power or speed; nor are SCADA-like monitoring and control services. Factors, such as space, weight, power, cooling, reliability, availability, maintainability, supportability, hardening (radiation & vibration, at least), and cost, I'd imagine, would drive design. I'd also guess that the simpler the architecture, both hardware and software, the more deterministic the behavior, which is what I believe I'd want in a spacecraft.
...I should have said Math, Science and Engineering
The explanation may be a little less sinister. In the west, more students tend to gravitate towards the Liberal Arts, with relatively fewer opting for math and science. Islam supplants western Liberal Arts with religion (which everybody gets to some degree) leaving only math and science as a common denominator.
Hear-hear!
You all realize, of course, that the underlying story, and the /. post publicizing it as well, is just one greasy sweaty pile of grinning troll flesh right? Come on. Really.
On the one hand, it's hard to surprise me anymore about anything regarding politics. On the other hand I just can't help wondering the about veracity of the report. I mean, are we hearing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, here? Something just sounds too cute by half. On a related topic, and speaking of country bans, isn't there one acerbic U.S. talk show host, Michael Savage, currently banned in the U.K. because the last U.K. administration thought his right-leaning (sometimes) speech hateful? Notwithstanding agreement either way, are all hands really completely clean here?
I'm for considering all options as long as they are based on full assessment of the risks, especially safety risks. For highly automated low capacity, short range aircraft, for example, it may make sense on certain routes. I would be willing to guess, however, that FAA, as well as ICAO internationally, would be risk adverse in allowing single pilot cockpits on long haul routes and high capacity passenger aircraft. The point is that it's not just a business-only decision. This is a legitimate province of government regulating on behalf of the public good.
Yet, were he were an "***old*** ***white*** ***male*** ***conservative*** ***Christian***" I can guarantee we'd never hear the freakin' end of it...F'n-A ditty-bag...
Concur, seriously...
...and in other obvious "news," teenage boys like to lie about largely fantasy sexual conquests! --- Oooh...wait, maybe I can get a federal grant for that study...!
Haven't seen it mentioned here yet, but there's another dynamic. Salaries go up with age, experience and competence advantages notwithstanding. Many times the rational (or rationalized, anyway) trade for hiring managers is cost. More "yutes" with fewer old-fart project leads is the frequent result, as are outsourcing, H1B abuse, and other measures. Whether there's CBA happening to derive the most advantageous ratio is another matter. It's the age-old "cost of quality" debate deferred or not happening all over the country, especially in times of recession.
How about: basic, block diagram level, computer architecture (x86, might as well); the components and functions of main memory, bus, registers, and long-term storage; stacks, the concept of machine language, then more abstractly represented in assembly, and then BASIC. Then, second half of the year, and only after demonstrating understanding of the above concepts, simple programming. Wouldn't hurt to avail the little tykes with foundational understanding that doesn't gloss over the the point that IT is not built on magic -- apologies to Harry Potter.
Whenever an OSD, or for that matter any federal, official with "Honorable" in front of his or her name deliberately broaches any issue in a public venue, there is an underlying effect that he or she is trying to promote. This typically may involve either defending, or laying the groundwork for, some pending policy which has not quite achieved full acceptance from all the other key players with a stake in the game. Given especially that the Hon. Mr. Lynn is the DEPSECDEF, that is number two in the DoD, I'd anticipate another shoe to drop, and one of some considerable impact.
All of which highlights the importance of safety engineering and the Human Systems Interface, especially for life-critical systems. Here's a decent synopsis on the field: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_engineering
And exactly how is this whole story not "flame-bait"?
Couldn't agree more, except lets not hand out anything. We could offer a pamphlet for purchase. Nannies, and nanny states, in real life come with costs. When exactly did we, as a society develop this assumption that everyone must be protected from real life, and is this a good thing, considering all costs, benefits, risks and trades? One such trade is safety versus freedom. Choices have consequences, whether or not one choses to acknowledge them, or consider them "fair," which is a word I stopped hearing so often from my kids once they progressed past their teen years. Evidently an increasing number of citizens are stunted, and don't mature to post-teen world views. We need to look seriously at where we want to draw the line between public good, and big brother or sister rule.
To all those, including "Britney from LA," who always just assumed that the movies "Bambi" are "Lion King" are documentaries, here's a news flash: The real Mother Nature is a cruel vindictive bitch. Always has been. Recommend not venturing too far from Santa Monica Blvd. without and wilderness guide.
The important question is how should one feel about 9 = 2 in a more inclusive socioeconomic context? Who are you to judge with your elitist western notions of objective reality? In some cultural contexts 9 = 2 may be a legitimate expression of rejecting repressive colonial monoculturalism. Insensitive clods!
Having raised a significant number of children to adulthood and through college, I feel qualified to contribute the following anecdotal observations to such a debate: (1) each child arrives shrink-wrapped with his/her own unique personality from birth, with high-order traits ranging from fussy to content, alert to no-so, timid to adventurous, more verbal to more physical, etc.; (2) that basic personality evolves through childhood and is shaped by experiences and interactions with parents, siblings, and childhood friends; (3) in retrospect one can see (or at least rationalize) the evolution, but such evolution seems by no means so smooth or constraining as portrayed by such studies; and, most significant, (4) such studies appear every bit as absolutely worthless in any practical sense as nearly all books on child rearing. Yes, as a new parent I went to classes, read books and even "coached" ridiculously with "he-he-hoo-hoo's" with the best of them. I rushed the first baby to the doctor at every sniffle or fervor, and fretted every "percentile" comparison chart entry by every "peeds" nurse. By the 3rd, 4th and 5th kid, one progressively realizes that most of the anxiety is worthless. As a parent, one can only do what one can do and hope for the best. Any experienced parent will eventually throw away all parenting books and ignore most psychological studies unless medical in nature and directly relevant to a specific issue. But then again, even social scientists need to eat, I guess...
Good point. I actually have 3 browsers: Safari, Firefox and Chrome. I use Safari by default, because I like its look, feel and performance. I use Firefox all secured-up with restrictive settings and script protection, for when I'm note sure where I'm going. I also use Chrome. I had Opera at one point, but haven't used lately. I use a Macbook for work, but there are times when Safari won't work with a particular site. Usually Firefox or Chrome will. For home I use a Debian Gnu/Linux distro, but also have browser diversity for same reason: Firefox, Chromium, and Opera. As long as USG and other institutions still insist on using IE-optimized pages, browser diversity will probably be a must.
You know, I'll admit that I began to realize that I no longer knew it all about the time my first kid was born. My last just left home recently. Its been my consistent experience that the farther one gets from High School, the less one seems to know about everything. That's just the way it seems to be.
Yup, I admit it. Dumb. Totally oblivious. Goes to show, as a consumer, I just never thought to check that my ISP furnished router had a default admin PW (different from the WPA key, by the way, which is strong). I "knew" better, but thought of everything but. Think I'm a rare breed, do you?
I got the same message from Verizon FIOS. All I can think to say is, "thank you Verizon" for being proactive in addressing an identified security issue about which I was previously unaware. Please keep up the due diligence.
So, maybe it's not a case "damn Republicans" or "damn Democrats," but rather that governments tend to accrue more and more coercive powers, not always to the benefit of ordinary people. This happens all the time, every time, and throughout history. There have been no exceptions. It is the human condition, and is not necessarily a result of specific ideological design nor malicious intent (which can't always rule it out either), but because it just makes things easier on ordinary functionaries. "Government" is composed of a distribution of mostly ordinary people: ordinarily good, bad, smart, stupid, and ugly as well. If you have a job, and get to write or influence the rules that govern how you go about getting your job done, wouldn't you want to make things easier on yourself and not not to have to deal with all that pesky red tape? Warrants as such a pain in the butt, aren't they? All of which is why many might say that governments should be limited, constrained, and watched at all times, even when it's your soul-mates in office (hear me Journo-lists-as?). This has to do with that whole Constitution thing. Not perfect, but its all we got. Recommend not screwing with it.
So, is it "We don't have sufficiently bright people," or is it "our people aren't performing with sufficient brilliance"? The difference is nuanced, but significant in both causes and effects. Sufficiently bright people will tend to seek an environment where they are afforded opportunities to excel. Highly bureaucratic organizations where politically ambitious leadership (albeit very, very, bright) chase silver-Power Point bullets inside of banners quoting their sponsors like packs of 8 year olds chasing a soccer ball tend to repel, or paralyze, the best and brightest; that's even if, especially if, first attracted by the skillful sales pitch. I suspect that there are plenty of exceptionally bright people throughout the National Security Apparatus; however, its like throwing National Guardsman on the border in response to a couple of adverse editorials. Lacking a clear mission and effective rules of engagement supporting rationally assigned tasks, an exceptionally capable force becomes an otherwise useless consumer of time, money and supplies, not because they aren't bright and capable, but because nothing they're allowed to do is effective, and nothing effective is allowable. Same situation here. Until we figure out the mission, agree on the operating boundaries, and create conditions (including legal and governance framework) wherein bright people can work the problem set and not have to chase soccer balls, no amount of hand wringing, DSB studies, slogans, speeches, or bolded Power-Point bullets, with or without lightening bolts, will accomplish anything very effective. I am curious, what the heck means "Veteran Cyber Security Specialist," since that relatively nonsensical term simply wasn't coined that long ago.