I must admit, I have every bit as much trepidation as you. Tintin is quite literally my childhood -- I read my first one while visting France with my parents when I was 8, in 1976. When Speilberg is good, he's very good... but when he is bad...!
I actually thought the animated series was quite good -- does anyone know if they will EVER be released on DVD???
Obviously, from my followups in this thread and others, my position is that I think Poindexter is an excellent man for the job. And I have my own reasons for believing this:-)
The question *I* think that needs to be answered by others is: you have an individual who has obviously done wrong things in the past [nb: I don't disagree with anything you've posted above, Imperial Tacohead]. However, he has the experience, the talent, and the understanding of the essential problem to make a real contribution in a research area that is of vital importance to national defense. Should you allow him to do the job?
Well, if you don't believe the CNN link I posted (despite the fact that it is simply mentioning the Justice Department investigation), you should look at the FAS links I posted in another reply in this thread. The CIA->Crack thing is far from a fact in any sense of the word "fact".
I will, however, look up the Christopher Hitchens study!
I find it rather amusing that this web site is called "hereinreality". For a more REPUTABLE source of information, I'd consider the Federation of American Scientists web site:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/summpros.ht m
which states explicitly that the convictions WERE overturned in a court of law.
As for the drug thing: well, you are obviously entitled to your own opinion, but I would invite you to go look at the CNN link I posted earlier, about the Clinton Justice Department investigation, which was provoked by exactly those SJ Mercury News articles. It says, and I quote:
""After interviewing more than 200 people and reviewing more than 40,000 pages of documents, we did not substantiate the main allegations suggested by the San Jose Mercury News articles," said Inspector General Michael Bromwich."
In fact, the Merc has backed away from the story. I would point you at the Federation of American Scientists web site:
No, but that's a different problem -- you need to think more broadly. Much of the planning for 9/11 took place in Germany, Spain, Austria, and the US, in and among western civilization and technology.
"Helen" is clearly Helen Thomas, AP Correspondant. The old lady you always see in the front of the press conferences -- she has been around since like the Truman administration, so she is quite adept at taking press secretaries to task:-)
However, she appears to be misinformed here. Poindexter is NOT the director of DARPA, nor was he appointed.
Another one WHAT? You should go read the article posted on Slashdot on Friday about the director of the NSA's testimonly to congress. They are drowning in it!
I think you should ponder, for a moment, exactly HOW terrorists make their travel arrangements. In fact, the September 11th terrorists DID buy their plane tickets online. Something like 40% of all airplane tickets are purchased online.
Oh please, this ancient crufty conspiracy theory??? The CIA has NEVER been linked with cocaine trafficking:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/23/cia.cocaine/
[note, this is a *Clinton Administration* report]
Furthermore, this kind of character assassination via innuendo is every bit as harmful as what most of the people are worried that this project would do!
Not-so-minor-nit: Poindexter was convicted. His conviction was overturned on APPEAL, he was NOT pardoned. He was NEVER imprisoned.
Also worth noting is the fact that he is NOT currently a political employee by the Bush Administration. Only the director of DARPA is. Program Managers (people who lead research efforts) are not.
I don't think a terrorist would have to do stupid things at all to get caught this way.
Consider, if you will, the fact that we all leave huge electronic trails of information behind us in our day-to-day lives. This information CAN be mined for useful "signal" in the noise. Consider tracking back through all of Zacarias Moussoui's electronic purchases, etc and finding the fact that he was in the same hotel with four other men who recently entered the country from Yemen the previous week. This is the kind of thing that (believe it or not) is virtually impossible to accomplish today.
And none of it need involve the internet... Remember, virtually everything we do these days involves computers!
Poindexter was convicted during the Iran-Contra debacle. His conviction was overturned. Regardless, there's little reason any of that should preclude him from working in this area -- he has a PhD from Caltech, and has been working in the DARPA research arena for many years. He also has a deep understanding of the nature of intelligence gathering and what needs to be done to make it better.
It does sound like you've shopped around, so I'd say "go for it". I work with numerous PhDs, although I myself only have a Bachelor's degree. If you want to get into the University research community, I'd suggest that there is no better way than to develop a very close personal association with a faculty member at the institution you want to go to. If you have a prof that wants you as his/her grad student, you are in, no questions asked. If you try to go in through the front door, I would think your lack of credentials will hinder you because you won't get past the resume screener who is paid to say "no".
I'd also recommend you read Phil Agre's "Advice for Undergraduates Considering Graduate School", a really good writeup about what it means to go for a PhD. It does sound like you've thought through most of the issues, but I'm posting it here for other people's benefit:
I really hate to say this, but if you are legitimately older and wiser, you'd reconsider the PhD in Physics, unless you are REALLY in love with the field.
In ~15 years in the computer biz, I have worked with numerous Physics PhDs who have gotten OUT of the field due to lack of jobs (since we stopped doing bombs in the 80s), lack of research funding, and lack of ability to make progress in the field.
Again, I don't want to disuade you if you are really in love with the field. But remember, a PhD is a 4-8 year commitment, and you better know where you are going before you jump.
I think the Economics and Public Policy gig, combined with a knowledge of computers (which I am assuming from your/. posting) is a hot combo, personally!
Actually, I would say that the original poster's examples actually proved the opposite point to what he was shooting for.
It may be that sales went UP for the expansion pack because many people played a pirated version of the game, then went out and actually BOUGHT the expansion. This would be a similar syndrome to the people who buy an artist's back list when they find out about them via an mp3.
Do you have any idea how fuel cells work? Hint: it does NOT involve "recharging them overnight by electrolysis".
And, although I assume your last comment was a troll, you are free to go live on an "efficient collective farm" in the former SU... If you can find one. There are also people successfully running car collectives here in the US: http://www.zipcar.com.
I don't think they're interested in protecting it when it's in the desert -- they probably want to protect it when it's in flight! (imagine hacking the control signals and landing it wherever you wanted... improbable though it may seem...)
I don't know what you mean by this. The ARPANET wasn't an operational network (in the sense of: used by the NSA, or the Army, or whatever, for its day-to-day business). It was used for research.
When parts of the technology made the transition -- to the Internet, to MILNet, whatever, commercial enterprises/subcontractors took over. DARPA had nothing to do with it at that point.
Why do you find this shocking? The process you described in your first paragraph is exactly how venture capital works:-)
And in effect, that is what DARPA does, for the rather specialized market of defense R&D. Many argue that the free markets should provide this kind of service, but then we wouldn't have the Internet, Stealth Aircraft, or UAVs.
Slashdot Mirror
I must admit, I have every bit as much trepidation as you. Tintin is quite literally my childhood -- I read my first one while visting France with my parents when I was 8, in 1976. When Speilberg is good, he's very good... but when he is bad...!
I actually thought the animated series was quite good -- does anyone know if they will EVER be released on DVD???
Did you really learn Esperanto for your role in "Incubus"? If so, do you still speak it?
Obviously, from my followups in this thread and others, my position is that I think Poindexter is an excellent man for the job. And I have my own reasons for believing this :-)
The question *I* think that needs to be answered by others is: you have an individual who has obviously done wrong things in the past [nb: I don't disagree with anything you've posted above, Imperial Tacohead]. However, he has the experience, the talent, and the understanding of the essential problem to make a real contribution in a research area that is of vital importance to national defense. Should you allow him to do the job?
It's an interesting problem.
Well, if you don't believe the CNN link I posted (despite the fact that it is simply mentioning the Justice Department investigation), you should look at the FAS links I posted in another reply in this thread. The CIA->Crack thing is far from a fact in any sense of the word "fact".
I will, however, look up the Christopher Hitchens study!
I find it rather amusing that this web site is called "hereinreality". For a more REPUTABLE source of information, I'd consider the Federation of American Scientists web site:
t m
1 p1 .htm#A.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/summpros.h
which states explicitly that the convictions WERE overturned in a court of law.
As for the drug thing: well, you are obviously entitled to your own opinion, but I would invite you to go look at the CNN link I posted earlier, about the Clinton Justice Department investigation, which was provoked by exactly those SJ Mercury News articles. It says, and I quote:
""After interviewing more than 200 people and reviewing more than 40,000 pages of documents, we did not substantiate the main allegations suggested by the San Jose Mercury News articles," said Inspector General Michael Bromwich."
In fact, the Merc has backed away from the story. I would point you at the Federation of American Scientists web site:
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/c4rpt/ch0
No, but that's a different problem -- you need to think more broadly. Much of the planning for 9/11 took place in Germany, Spain, Austria, and the US, in and among western civilization and technology.
Heh, that's a really funny transcript.
:-)
"Helen" is clearly Helen Thomas, AP Correspondant. The old lady you always see in the front of the press conferences -- she has been around since like the Truman administration, so she is quite adept at taking press secretaries to task
However, she appears to be misinformed here. Poindexter is NOT the director of DARPA, nor was he appointed.
Another one WHAT? You should go read the article posted on Slashdot on Friday about the director of the NSA's testimonly to congress. They are drowning in it!
I think you should ponder, for a moment, exactly HOW terrorists make their travel arrangements. In fact, the September 11th terrorists DID buy their plane tickets online. Something like 40% of all airplane tickets are purchased online.
Oh please, this ancient crufty conspiracy theory??? The CIA has NEVER been linked with cocaine trafficking:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/23/cia.cocaine/
[note, this is a *Clinton Administration* report]
Furthermore, this kind of character assassination via innuendo is every bit as harmful as what most of the people are worried that this project would do!
Not-so-minor-nit: Poindexter was convicted. His conviction was overturned on APPEAL, he was NOT pardoned. He was NEVER imprisoned.
Also worth noting is the fact that he is NOT currently a political employee by the Bush Administration. Only the director of DARPA is. Program Managers (people who lead research efforts) are not.
I don't think a terrorist would have to do stupid things at all to get caught this way.
Consider, if you will, the fact that we all leave huge electronic trails of information behind us in our day-to-day lives. This information CAN be mined for useful "signal" in the noise. Consider tracking back through all of Zacarias Moussoui's electronic purchases, etc and finding the fact that he was in the same hotel with four other men who recently entered the country from Yemen the previous week. This is the kind of thing that (believe it or not) is virtually impossible to accomplish today.
And none of it need involve the internet... Remember, virtually everything we do these days involves computers!
Yes, Yes, No.
Poindexter was convicted during the Iran-Contra debacle. His conviction was overturned. Regardless, there's little reason any of that should preclude him from working in this area -- he has a PhD from Caltech, and has been working in the DARPA research arena for many years. He also has a deep understanding of the nature of intelligence gathering and what needs to be done to make it better.
The original link cited in this article points to an truncated version of the original NYT story. For a more COMPLETE version, use this link:
M P. html
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/politics/09CO
(it's more than twice as long, with much more information)
And just think of how easy it would let you build Beowulf clusters :-)
Heh, I am with you on the older bit.
h oo l.html
It does sound like you've shopped around, so I'd say "go for it". I work with numerous PhDs, although I myself only have a Bachelor's degree. If you want to get into the University research community, I'd suggest that there is no better way than to develop a very close personal association with a faculty member at the institution you want to go to. If you have a prof that wants you as his/her grad student, you are in, no questions asked. If you try to go in through the front door, I would think your lack of credentials will hinder you because you won't get past the resume screener who is paid to say "no".
I'd also recommend you read Phil Agre's "Advice for Undergraduates Considering Graduate School", a really good writeup about what it means to go for a PhD. It does sound like you've thought through most of the issues, but I'm posting it here for other people's benefit:
http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/grad-sc
I really hate to say this, but if you are legitimately older and wiser, you'd reconsider the PhD in Physics, unless you are REALLY in love with the field.
/. posting) is a hot combo, personally!
In ~15 years in the computer biz, I have worked with numerous Physics PhDs who have gotten OUT of the field due to lack of jobs (since we stopped doing bombs in the 80s), lack of research funding, and lack of ability to make progress in the field.
Again, I don't want to disuade you if you are really in love with the field. But remember, a PhD is a 4-8 year commitment, and you better know where you are going before you jump.
I think the Economics and Public Policy gig, combined with a knowledge of computers (which I am assuming from your
Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programming, Abelson & Sussman
Art of Computer Programming, v1-4, Knuth (ok, so this is three titles)
It probably counts as part of google, but I definitely consult deja.com.
Actually, I would say that the original poster's examples actually proved the opposite point to what he was shooting for.
It may be that sales went UP for the expansion pack because many people played a pirated version of the game, then went out and actually BOUGHT the expansion. This would be a similar syndrome to the people who buy an artist's back list when they find out about them via an mp3.
Not to mention that most salespeople I know are on commission. i.e. they aren't expensive unless they are doing their job.
Labor costs are quite expensive. Never underestimate the cost of engineering.
Do you have any idea how fuel cells work? Hint: it does NOT involve "recharging them overnight by electrolysis".
And, although I assume your last comment was a troll, you are free to go live on an "efficient collective farm" in the former SU... If you can find one. There are also people successfully running car collectives here in the US: http://www.zipcar.com.
I don't think they're interested in protecting it when it's in the desert -- they probably want to protect it when it's in flight! (imagine hacking the control signals and landing it wherever you wanted... improbable though it may seem...)
I don't know what you mean by this. The ARPANET wasn't an operational network (in the sense of: used by the NSA, or the Army, or whatever, for its day-to-day business). It was used for research.
When parts of the technology made the transition -- to the Internet, to MILNet, whatever, commercial enterprises/subcontractors took over. DARPA had nothing to do with it at that point.
Why do you find this shocking? The process you described in your first paragraph is exactly how venture capital works :-)
And in effect, that is what DARPA does, for the rather specialized market of defense R&D. Many argue that the free markets should provide this kind of service, but then we wouldn't have the Internet, Stealth Aircraft, or UAVs.