A) Hair B) Theory of relativity C) Pacifist who invented the atomic bomb D) Believer in aliens, time travel E) Lack of some common social skills F) Didn't even need a computer
I heard a story, and I'm not sure if it's true or not, but it sounds good:
While Einstein was teaching at Princeton, the Personnel Office received a call for someone looking for his address and telephone number. The receptionist replied that she was unable to give that information over the telephone.
A sheepish voice came back over the phone line. "This is Professor Einstein. I've forgotten where I live. Can you help me?"
While I was driving to work this morning, I heard a NPR commentary on how there weren't many scientific breakthroughs this year unless you were a mouse.
Mice have been cured of several diseases, have been genetically altered to be smarter, healthier, and more romantic. They have had their lifespans lengthened by diet.
They even had an interview with the scientist who owned the mouse who set the longevity record for mice. They gave him 2/3 of the normal food to slow his growth, and then when he got older, they put him in a cage with a female to keep him warm.
A homebrew workstation made from the following: A motherboard made from a board...of pine Jumper cables that actually are cables soldered on RAM made from Coke cans and mercury OS written in assembly language Command shell BASH Running X and M15
Sure, it's as big as a house, but it's great for tinkering. What, need to add a modem? It's off to the junkyard for alternators.
Contex-derived error. You can take the phrase two ways. One is that the before mentioned software is GNU, and so are the tons of other software. The other is that they run these programs, and also the tons of GNU software.
My bad.
how about "...and tons of GNU software too."
I used to be able to write in English fairly well. Then I learned Russian.
Yes, but we all have to agree that both camps are adequately staffed with a bunch of radicals who will give you one hundred reasons why their brand is superior.
When, for instance, they both run EMACS, VI, Apache, and loads of other GNU software.
I think that if you don't like the look of the "alternative alternative operating system", A)Your information is out of date B)Wait 6 months and see if it has what you want C)What, you're using a MAC!!!
One rule for making alot of money in the business world: "Location, Location, Location"
Of course, us webheads know that's why you want to own microsoft.com or ibm.com.
However, if something didn't go right with the domain registration, it's *not* the end of the world.
I understand why somebody should be upset, since he had a "verbal contract" with NSI, but something happened.
I don't see anybody getting upset because they can't use the username mike@aol.com. They apply creativity and imagination to come up with something original.
so, maybe racing.com is taken, take reallykick-assracing.com. Contrary to what you might believe, there is more to web success than an URL. Look at slashdot, freshmeat, and 32bitsonline. They don't really have beautiful URLs. You have to market the site once it's set up
I recently finished 8 years in the US Army. Many times, I was on guard duty. Not that this is glamorous or anything. In fact, the last 6 months of my Army career I spent checking ID's and doing vehicle inspections at a base in Germany thanks to certain Arab terrorists.
However, one thing is ingrained in my mind: The rules for the use of Deadly Force. I think this is because every time I went out on guard duty, I was briefed on them.
Deadly Force is identified as the use of any kind of force to prevent an activity. It involves the following actions (in order of severity): verbal persuasion, non-lethal force (physical assault, teargas), and then Deadly Force.
According to the rules, deadly force is only to be used to protect the lives of us or anybody else or to protect areas designated as "Special Security Areas" (Arms Rooms, Intelligence Facilities) where intrusion in these areas could be very harmful to the Army, National Interests, or the Populace at Large. Note, this does not allow for the use of force to coerce protestors to disband.
In these cases, Deadly Force was allowable, provided that the minimum amount of force was used to prevent the activity of the person being abused. That is, if you can wrestle someone safely to the ground, then you do that.
However, the US Army does not fire warning shots. If it comes to the point of discharging weapons, you need to take somebody down, although non-lethal (in the legs) shots are OK.
Apparently, though, Civilian authorities are not bound by the same conventions. I guess it is justifiable to gas and pepper-spray groups of peaceful protestors. Sure, there were many "Bad Apples" out in the crowd, but they need to be taken care of, not the mass as a whole. I guess that's how the police settle disagreements now.
I live in Eugene, OR, and we have our share of gassings. On June 18th, we had a riot of "Anarchists" to protest the G-7 (or is it the G-7+ or the G-8?) meeting. I very narrowly avoided a gassing downtown. Several years ago, the police department gassed a 1000+person snowball fight between students at the university.
I think, mostly there needs to be a defining line between riots and protests, with there being a difference between how these are dealt with.
So then, with 10 lines of code, I could create Mr. Singing-dancing Paperclip, the last remaining "Killer App" that the pundits say we need in order to become a viable force on the desktop? Apparently, this is much needed.
Actually, I love the commitment from SGI, I just wish it was all GPL. Then we could have some fun with embedding parts of the source in applications.
I think it's just a matter of time before about 5 products show up that use the API. Then I get to have some fun.
Assuming that you think nuclear power is a good idea...
Assuming that the Former Soviet Countries have reliable industry techniques to control this stuff...
Assuming that the residual radiation in the area has subsided...
This is a very bad idea.
The reactors that melted down are not safe. They were covered with a "sarcophagus" of just plain concrete. Even last year, they were talking about the leaks from this thing getting so bad that they had to go in and repair it, but didn't have the $$.
When the reactors melted, they sacrificed thousands of soldiers that went in to put this concrete over the reactor. They didn't even give them protective equipment. All they gave them was some "anti-radiation" pills that prevented them from getting violently ill.
It's still impossible to get into the area. The residual radiation is too much, even if you don't take into account that it's leaking.
The facilities themselves are in a poor state. Iron beams that form the infrastructure of the facilities are weakened because of the extreme temperatures. Most of the switches on the control panels are melted together. This isn't like TMI, where there was an incidental release of radiation. Theis was a melt-down of critical proportions, just like a nuclear bomb went off.
The radiation from Chernobyl wasn't even reported by the Soviets. They wouldn't have said anything to the West. The only reason that we knew about this is that Finland detected the radioactive cloud over half a continent away (Geography lesson--the Ukraine is located on the Black Sea, way down south, and Finland is on the Arctic Circle). So, this radiation was strong enough to drift all the way north across eastern Europe and still be detected.
So, how do you pull off restarting the reactors?
1) Rebuilt all the facilities from scratch.
2) Get a team of *very* protected specialists to start up the equipment.
3) Network the reactors with a remote control station somewhere in Kiev.
4) Pray like hell--Ukrainians are Catholic.
Supposedly, the thing is Y2K safe, but who cares? I mean, this is such American thinking. Who cares about Y2K when there's Y-now.
There is a "law" or marketing that basically says, "Name recognition = $"
The way suits think, MS is right just because they make money. It's the same way IBM was before.
However, according to the rules for the new economy, the more money you make, the more money you make. This is because this is a war for standards. Why do you think VHS won out over BETA? There were more VHS products out there. Not that VHS was better. People didn't want to buy a product that you couldn't get movies for.
That's different for Linux. Linux adapts to "standards" because it has a user-driven development process. If there is a need for any kind of product, that product will appear. It just depends on attaining critical mass of people with know-how and people with use-how.
Everything is a matter of time. I think the user-driven development can succeed in the long run because it has a faster turn-around time than conventional marketing-driven development.
I think that the real problem with the NSA's collection is that there is so much available information, you have to have a focus.
The NSA exists solely to give the US Government advanced warning of military actions around the world and to give our troops the best chances for success at beating on other countries. Have you ever thought about how the Director of the NSA is a military officer?
However, the NSA is controlled by the President. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the military (even if they won't admit it) He gives the direction to the NSA as far as where his priorities are. For example, his priorities (and therefore the nation's priorities) are most likely A) Protect the US troops in the former Yugoslavia from the Yugoslavians B) Protect the US Troops overseas from terrorism C) Identify and overwatch programs to develop or proliferate Weapons of Mass Destruction D) Get Ken Starr (not really, I don't think DIRNSA or the NSC would allow that). Beyond that, it's anybody's guess. Thing is, the President drives intelligence collection, and if he doesn't know what his foreign policy is, how the hell can the National Intelligence community?
The heart of the matter is that since most of the operations that our soldiers (or airmen, sailors, or jarheads, can you tell that I'm a part-time infantryman and military historian) are on deal with peacekeeping, the intelligence effort has changed from collecting on fixed military locations, with military activity that is fairly predictable and routine, to Small Groups of Pissed-off People (SGOPP's). These SGOPPs sometimes don't even have communications devices to look for. This includes insurgent guerillas (or freedom fighters, if you prefer) that only surface when they conduct raids.
However, if you are a fan of the government, or if you treasure the *relative* freedoms that we have, all is not lost. There are other intelligence organizations out there that have better capabilities when it comes to SGOPPs, such as the NRO, CNN, and CIA. Intelligence collection is a concerted effort between different agencies to either confirm or reject theories about what's happening.
By-the-by, I am not some neo-fascist, right-wing conservative. I live in Eugene, OR, and I love hippies, Saturday Market, and treesitters. Most of the time, I argue the "Other Side" just to get out an opposing view. I believe that you become what you hate. If you hate war, you create an army to protect youself. If you hate being spied on by the NSA, you in turn spy on the NSA.
It might be the guy next to you on the bus who does the "Shoulder Shuffle" to see what you're reading.
It might be the receptionist at the office who looks up your personnel file to see what your wife's name is because they met at a party and she can't remember what it was.
It might be the anti-social geek that you picked on in High School who vowed that he would one day get even, so he stalks you and sharpens his knife collection.
Everything you do is being watched. If the government is doing it, that's another thing. Unless you sell all your worldly possessions and hike to the northern wilderness to live in isolation in a log cabin built by yourself out of hand-felled timber, you are in the public eye.
The problem is, technology has progressed to the point that it is relatively easy to spy on anyone else.
Do I feel that I should just sit back and live the life of a naive person while the government violates my privacy? No. I just think that most people are not the targets of intelligence operations.
A major part of risk management is identifying control measures to reduce the bigger risks. If you feel that you might be held accountable for what you say later, get involved in cryptology. Come up with a crypto system for telephone conversations. Rely on your own private system of messenger pigeons.
Computer network security is very similar to electonic eavesdropping in that you do what you can to minimize the holes for exploitation, but you can't get them all. If you want to communicate and exist as a member of society, you have to take risks, and there is a point where safety precautions get ridiculous.
I would just love to live in a world without weapons of mass destruction, armies, and politicians. However, we are stuck in a world with these and more. The National Intelligence community is entrusted with the protection of our national interests. They do a very good job of that. The catch is, where is the dividing line between ethical and unethical? If I am listening to personal phone conversations between US Citizens, that's a pretty wrong (and illegal) thing. However, if one of them starts talking about stockpiling arms and explosives to overthrow the government (not just a hypothesis, look at some of the militia groups out there), then most people would say that I have a duty to report that. It's a very gray issue.
Yes, there is a big potential for abuse of such great power. "Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely." I'm not really sure who watches the Intelligence Community to check for abuses. That's a little scary for me. Hoover was unchecked. However, at the time, he was almost in-line with the popular thought that only criminals would be investigated by the FBI. It was a different time. As a result of these and other abuses, it is now illegal for US Citizens to be monitored. There are loopholes, but not too many.
There is a whole industry based on surveilance, selling technology to the following groups:
Bosses who spy on employees to increase productivity School Boards who spy on students to keep them safe Prisons who spy on inmates to keep the dirtbags in Local law enforcement who want to arrest and convict criminals
Re:From small snoops spring large killer systems
on
Spies in the Forests
·
· Score: 1
I will admit, there is a potential for abuse of such a system.
The American Government is based on a system of checks and balances to prevent one branch from gaining too much power. I have yet to realize how an intelligence agency is monitored. I think this might fall under the auspices of the National Security Council. You can't just come right out and say, "I'm Joe Spy. I work for the NSA. I'm spying on the radio signals coming out of the Blahovian Embassy in Washington." In order to supervise the efforts of such an organization, you have to be in the system.
Self-Monitoring has proven easy to circumvent, and is reflective of the current administration of an organization.
Point is, there is no clear, black and white answer to these issues.
I am just amazed at the responses here on/. about any news related to the NSA. I am clinically paranoid, and you all exceed even my exploits.
I will admit, though, it does sound like a blatant disregard for my personal privacy, so I'm going to attack the government back.
It never fails that there is a score of posts containing supposedly keywords that would set of the "Echelon" buzzers deep inside some bunker in the DC area. Then, thugs come and raid your house while you sleep and drag you away hancuffed, naked, and screaming to their torture chambers, where you are given a showtrial and then sentenced to 8 years in a work camp in the frozen north.
Wake up, people.
As anybody with a rational mind can tell you. most people (99.99999%) have nothing to worry about. Just because someone can collect information on just about anything they want to (try it sometime--even use whois and a couple of internet search engines to see what you can come up with about yourself) doesn't mean that they will.
Just about anybody who has experience in the intelligence field or law enforcement can tell you that true, valuable intelligence (or investigation, if you prefer) is the result of long-term collection and analysis. Just scanning traffic for keywords will not work. Pull up your favorite search engine and do a search for bomb. How many results do you get?
If you want to collect intelligence, you need to set a specific goal or target. Usually, this is influenced by political means. It's just like a police investigation. In one very well-documanted book ("Inside the Aquarium") about Soviet intelligence collection, Victor Suvorov (former Spetznaz and GRU Major who defected to the west) talked about picking an area such as the US 7th Fleet in the Mediterranean. They focused on the question, "When and where are the major deployments of the Carrier Battle Groups?" Then, you identify the means to collect on that target. In our case, the spies ran a hotel in a major port town that served as a homebase for several fleet ships. They didn't just walk around town asking people for information, which is fairly comparable to scanning IP packets.
In order for intelligence to be valuable, it has to be correct, timely, and actually useful to the guys who need it. It takes a concerted effort between many different organizations to accomplish this. Just because you "intercepted" an email containing a few keywords, that does not constitute an intelligence lead. Basically, it is as reliable as a rumor that you overheard in a seedy bar downtown. No police investigator would bet his reputation on such a piece of information.
All the so-called 'experts" on Echelon are just speculating. They are conducting a very weak intelligence collection operation on the NSA. Alot of information is easily available, such as purchase contracts with suppliers. So, they collect all this information and then make a good guess. That's all it is. Unless you've been in the bunkers and fences, you have no idea what goes on inside.
As far as invasion of privacy, yes, some intelligence agencies are more invasive in their techniques than other ones. Ever since they got their buttocks burned several decades ago (Vietnam and Mccarthy Eras), they have had to seriously rethink their policy concerning this. I think, just like the police, trying to conduct operations in as unintrusive means as possible is basically the policy. Honestly, I'm more worried about my boss tracking my keystrokes to find out if I'm jerking off at work, or my system administrator forking my mail through a buzzword filter to report me to my boss, and the adolescent who lives in the high-rise next to me who was given a 100x telescope for his birthday.
In short, just because the NSA, FBI, CIA, and others can spy on you doesn't mean that they will, or that they even want to.
The US Army uses a *HUGE* network of Amigas that run a wargame scenario/sim. It's ran on a hexagon terrain layout imposed over actual maps, very similar to actual wargames such as "Squad Leader" or "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich".
The scenarios vary depending on the training objectives of the units. I've worked on Division (10,000 soldiers+) Sims. The computers provide the stimulus for the maneuver unit headquarters out in the field. The actual tanks and Bradleys stay home, just the HQ's and staff deploy. Supposedly, the computer stuff is transparent to the guys in the field. All the communications from the sim cells are via tactical communications (radio).
Every battlefield unit is represented in the sim, from flights of airplanes to tank companies to 3-man scout teams.
In all, it does its job. Mostly the play is focused on the planning of operations and the interaction between the top guys.
Feudalism=Corporate Structure
on
The Year 1000
·
· Score: 1
>>>I realize, we've come quite a long way from subsistance farming and feudalism back in 1000 or even 1600 for that matter.
Sure, in the feudal system, they had people managing the people who manage people. They were called "Lords" and "Kings". Sure, they might be called on to "Defend the Realm," how much time did they spend doing that? Mostly, they managed their little fiefdom like a middle-level manager in a large corporation. Even before that, in the Roman Empire, there was an entire social caste that existed solely to enjoy life, going to orgies and visiting the vomitorium to empty their stomach for yet another round of debachery. You have to go way back to the times when everyone was a "Primitive" hunter-gatherer and lived in small bands of people. I think that as soon as people get to a critical mass of around 10, somebody tries to manage it.
The problem is, humans are by nature lazy. Why should I work when I can manage and let everyone else do it all for me?
So, while the technology has increased food production to a point that not everybody has to provide for themselves, the basic nature of people remains the same.
Oh god, I feel a communist propoganda slogan creeping up on me. Yuck!
As a graduate of the arduous Russian Basic Course at the Defense Language Institute and one of the best American-born Russian speakers, I think that the whole of electronic translation is shallow and no substitute for going out and learning a language.
When I've translated or interpreted (translation=written documents, interpreting=spoken in real-time), most of the time both of the parties have only a 75% clue as to what actually happened. They miss out on the connotation of the words, the hidden meanings that are derived from culture. In these cases, only the translator knows 100% of the transaction.
For example, "Perestrojka" is the restructuring of the Soviet government during the Gorbachev era, but it comes from the roots "pere" or repeating action, again, and "strojit" or building, erecting, organizing. It's not just a political process, it's also what happens after an earthquake, and what I would call the Post-Civil-War Reconstruction if I had to talk about it in Russian. So, to an American, it is the policy of restructuring the government, but to me, it means a broad revolution of culture, ideas, and politics.
Point being, that would be lost in an electronic translator. There are many concepts that don't translate no matter how hard you crunch code. You have to feel them.
As Americans, we have this belief that everybody should learn English to talk to us. There's a joke in Linguist circles, "what do you call a person who can speak two languages? Bilingual. What do you call a person that can speak three languages? Trilingual. What do you call a person that can speak one language? American."
Europeans have great language programs for school children, and it is no big deal for someone to learn Italian just because they are going on a vacation to Italy.
If you want to go to a different country and buy souvenirs, get an electronic translator. If you want to bridge cultures, learn a language.
Slashdot Mirror
BG!=geek
BG=business
Although the nerdy and shunned parts probably could fit.
A) Hair
B) Theory of relativity
C) Pacifist who invented the atomic bomb
D) Believer in aliens, time travel
E) Lack of some common social skills
F) Didn't even need a computer
I heard a story, and I'm not sure if it's true or not, but it sounds good:
While Einstein was teaching at Princeton, the Personnel Office received a call for someone looking for his address and telephone number. The receptionist replied that she was unable to give that information over the telephone.
A sheepish voice came back over the phone line. "This is Professor Einstein. I've forgotten where I live. Can you help me?"
While I was driving to work this morning, I heard a NPR commentary on how there weren't many scientific breakthroughs this year unless you were a mouse.
Mice have been cured of several diseases, have been genetically altered to be smarter, healthier, and more romantic. They have had their lifespans lengthened by diet.
They even had an interview with the scientist who owned the mouse who set the longevity record for mice. They gave him 2/3 of the normal food to slow his growth, and then when he got older, they put him in a cage with a female to keep him warm.
Oh, to be a mouse.
Does that mean you will hand out free CD's with the code at the courthouse steps? That would be very *ballsy*
How about DVD-ROM's? That would just be cool.
Information just wants to be free. Just look at all the effort we go through to hold it in.
You can come live with me if you bring the Legos.
A homebrew workstation made from the following:
A motherboard made from a board...of pine
Jumper cables that actually are cables soldered on
RAM made from Coke cans and mercury
OS written in assembly language
Command shell BASH
Running X and M15
Sure, it's as big as a house, but it's great for tinkering. What, need to add a modem? It's off to the junkyard for alternators.
Real hackers make their own motherboards.
Contex-derived error. You can take the phrase two ways. One is that the before mentioned software is GNU, and so are the tons of other software. The other is that they run these programs, and also the tons of GNU software.
My bad.
how about "...and tons of GNU software too."
I used to be able to write in English fairly well. Then I learned Russian.
Yes, but we all have to agree that both camps are adequately staffed with a bunch of radicals who will give you one hundred reasons why their brand is superior.
When, for instance, they both run EMACS, VI, Apache, and loads of other GNU software.
I think that if you don't like the look of the "alternative alternative operating system", A)Your information is out of date B)Wait 6 months and see if it has what you want C)What, you're using a MAC!!!
Anybody looking for a CIO job?
I guess that's what you get when you promise too much.
It's a disgusting sidenote, but in the same spirit of landing on sewage.
When I was a kid, my father always refered to sewage treatment plants as "Brown Trout Farms"
Now, doesn't everybody feel > this much stupider for having read this?
So, what's the difference between his plan and some guy in Armpit, NE squatting on domain names to make some serious cash.
I think, only a TLA.
Besides, don't they teach MBA's to shift blame? I swear all the ones in my company are experts at it.
One rule for making alot of money in the business world: "Location, Location, Location"
Of course, us webheads know that's why you want to own microsoft.com or ibm.com.
However, if something didn't go right with the domain registration, it's *not* the end of the world.
I understand why somebody should be upset, since he had a "verbal contract" with NSI, but something happened.
I don't see anybody getting upset because they can't use the username mike@aol.com. They apply creativity and imagination to come up with something original.
so, maybe racing.com is taken, take reallykick-assracing.com. Contrary to what you might believe, there is more to web success than an URL. Look at slashdot, freshmeat, and 32bitsonline. They don't really have beautiful URLs. You have to market the site once it's set up
That's just my 3 pfennigen.
One thing that bothers me is this:
I recently finished 8 years in the US Army. Many times, I was on guard duty. Not that this is glamorous or anything. In fact, the last 6 months of my Army career I spent checking ID's and doing vehicle inspections at a base in Germany thanks to certain Arab terrorists.
However, one thing is ingrained in my mind: The rules for the use of Deadly Force. I think this is because every time I went out on guard duty, I was briefed on them.
Deadly Force is identified as the use of any kind of force to prevent an activity. It involves the following actions (in order of severity): verbal persuasion, non-lethal force (physical assault, teargas), and then Deadly Force.
According to the rules, deadly force is only to be used to protect the lives of us or anybody else or to protect areas designated as "Special Security Areas" (Arms Rooms, Intelligence Facilities) where intrusion in these areas could be very harmful to the Army, National Interests, or the Populace at Large. Note, this does not allow for the use of force to coerce protestors to disband.
In these cases, Deadly Force was allowable, provided that the minimum amount of force was used to prevent the activity of the person being abused. That is, if you can wrestle someone safely to the ground, then you do that.
However, the US Army does not fire warning shots. If it comes to the point of discharging weapons, you need to take somebody down, although non-lethal (in the legs) shots are OK.
Apparently, though, Civilian authorities are not bound by the same conventions. I guess it is justifiable to gas and pepper-spray groups of peaceful protestors. Sure, there were many "Bad Apples" out in the crowd, but they need to be taken care of, not the mass as a whole. I guess that's how the police settle disagreements now.
I live in Eugene, OR, and we have our share of gassings. On June 18th, we had a riot of "Anarchists" to protest the G-7 (or is it the G-7+ or the G-8?) meeting. I very narrowly avoided a gassing downtown. Several years ago, the police department gassed a 1000+person snowball fight between students at the university.
I think, mostly there needs to be a defining line between riots and protests, with there being a difference between how these are dealt with.
So then, with 10 lines of code, I could create Mr. Singing-dancing Paperclip, the last remaining "Killer App" that the pundits say we need in order to become a viable force on the desktop? Apparently, this is much needed.
Actually, I love the commitment from SGI, I just wish it was all GPL. Then we could have some fun with embedding parts of the source in applications.
I think it's just a matter of time before about 5 products show up that use the API. Then I get to have some fun.
Assuming that you think nuclear power is a good idea...
Assuming that the Former Soviet Countries have reliable industry techniques to control this stuff...
Assuming that the residual radiation in the area has subsided...
This is a very bad idea.
The reactors that melted down are not safe. They were covered with a "sarcophagus" of just plain concrete. Even last year, they were talking about the leaks from this thing getting so bad that they had to go in and repair it, but didn't have the $$.
When the reactors melted, they sacrificed thousands of soldiers that went in to put this concrete over the reactor. They didn't even give them protective equipment. All they gave them was some "anti-radiation" pills that prevented them from getting violently ill.
It's still impossible to get into the area. The residual radiation is too much, even if you don't take into account that it's leaking.
The facilities themselves are in a poor state. Iron beams that form the infrastructure of the facilities are weakened because of the extreme temperatures. Most of the switches on the control panels are melted together. This isn't like TMI, where there was an incidental release of radiation. Theis was a melt-down of critical proportions, just like a nuclear bomb went off.
The radiation from Chernobyl wasn't even reported by the Soviets. They wouldn't have said anything to the West. The only reason that we knew about this is that Finland detected the radioactive cloud over half a continent away (Geography lesson--the Ukraine is located on the Black Sea, way down south, and Finland is on the Arctic Circle). So, this radiation was strong enough to drift all the way north across eastern Europe and still be detected.
So, how do you pull off restarting the reactors?
1) Rebuilt all the facilities from scratch.
2) Get a team of *very* protected specialists to start up the equipment.
3) Network the reactors with a remote control station somewhere in Kiev.
4) Pray like hell--Ukrainians are Catholic.
Supposedly, the thing is Y2K safe, but who cares? I mean, this is such American thinking. Who cares about Y2K when there's Y-now.
There is a "law" or marketing that basically says, "Name recognition = $"
The way suits think, MS is right just because they make money. It's the same way IBM was before.
However, according to the rules for the new economy, the more money you make, the more money you make. This is because this is a war for standards. Why do you think VHS won out over BETA? There were more VHS products out there. Not that VHS was better. People didn't want to buy a product that you couldn't get movies for.
That's different for Linux. Linux adapts to "standards" because it has a user-driven development process. If there is a need for any kind of product, that product will appear. It just depends on attaining critical mass of people with know-how and people with use-how.
Everything is a matter of time. I think the user-driven development can succeed in the long run because it has a faster turn-around time than conventional marketing-driven development.
I think that the real problem with the NSA's collection is that there is so much available information, you have to have a focus.
The NSA exists solely to give the US Government advanced warning of military actions around the world and to give our troops the best chances for success at beating on other countries. Have you ever thought about how the Director of the NSA is a military officer?
However, the NSA is controlled by the President. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the military (even if they won't admit it) He gives the direction to the NSA as far as where his priorities are. For example, his priorities (and therefore the nation's priorities) are most likely A) Protect the US troops in the former Yugoslavia from the Yugoslavians B) Protect the US Troops overseas from terrorism C) Identify and overwatch programs to develop or proliferate Weapons of Mass Destruction D) Get Ken Starr (not really, I don't think DIRNSA or the NSC would allow that). Beyond that, it's anybody's guess. Thing is, the President drives intelligence collection, and if he doesn't know what his foreign policy is, how the hell can the National Intelligence community?
The heart of the matter is that since most of the operations that our soldiers (or airmen, sailors, or jarheads, can you tell that I'm a part-time infantryman and military historian) are on deal with peacekeeping, the intelligence effort has changed from collecting on fixed military locations, with military activity that is fairly predictable and routine, to Small Groups of Pissed-off People (SGOPP's). These SGOPPs sometimes don't even have communications devices to look for. This includes insurgent guerillas (or freedom fighters, if you prefer) that only surface when they conduct raids.
However, if you are a fan of the government, or if you treasure the *relative* freedoms that we have, all is not lost. There are other intelligence organizations out there that have better capabilities when it comes to SGOPPs, such as the NRO, CNN, and CIA. Intelligence collection is a concerted effort between different agencies to either confirm or reject theories about what's happening.
By-the-by, I am not some neo-fascist, right-wing conservative. I live in Eugene, OR, and I love hippies, Saturday Market, and treesitters. Most of the time, I argue the "Other Side" just to get out an opposing view. I believe that you become what you hate. If you hate war, you create an army to protect youself. If you hate being spied on by the NSA, you in turn spy on the NSA.
Well, that's my $0.02.
Every day, you are spied on to some extent.
It might be the guy next to you on the bus who does the "Shoulder Shuffle" to see what you're reading.
It might be the receptionist at the office who looks up your personnel file to see what your wife's name is because they met at a party and she can't remember what it was.
It might be the anti-social geek that you picked on in High School who vowed that he would one day get even, so he stalks you and sharpens his knife collection.
Everything you do is being watched. If the government is doing it, that's another thing. Unless you sell all your worldly possessions and hike to the northern wilderness to live in isolation in a log cabin built by yourself out of hand-felled timber, you are in the public eye.
The problem is, technology has progressed to the point that it is relatively easy to spy on anyone else.
Do I feel that I should just sit back and live the life of a naive person while the government violates my privacy? No. I just think that most people are not the targets of intelligence operations.
A major part of risk management is identifying control measures to reduce the bigger risks. If you feel that you might be held accountable for what you say later, get involved in cryptology. Come up with a crypto system for telephone conversations. Rely on your own private system of messenger pigeons.
Computer network security is very similar to electonic eavesdropping in that you do what you can to minimize the holes for exploitation, but you can't get them all. If you want to communicate and exist as a member of society, you have to take risks, and there is a point where safety precautions get ridiculous.
I would just love to live in a world without weapons of mass destruction, armies, and politicians. However, we are stuck in a world with these and more. The National Intelligence community is entrusted with the protection of our national interests. They do a very good job of that. The catch is, where is the dividing line between ethical and unethical? If I am listening to personal phone conversations between US Citizens, that's a pretty wrong (and illegal) thing. However, if one of them starts talking about stockpiling arms and explosives to overthrow the government (not just a hypothesis, look at some of the militia groups out there), then most people would say that I have a duty to report that. It's a very gray issue.
Yes, there is a big potential for abuse of such great power. "Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely." I'm not really sure who watches the Intelligence Community to check for abuses. That's a little scary for me. Hoover was unchecked. However, at the time, he was almost in-line with the popular thought that only criminals would be investigated by the FBI. It was a different time. As a result of these and other abuses, it is now illegal for US Citizens to be monitored. There are loopholes, but not too many.
Something to think about:
There is a whole industry based on surveilance, selling technology to the following groups:
Bosses who spy on employees to increase productivity
School Boards who spy on students to keep them safe
Prisons who spy on inmates to keep the dirtbags in
Local law enforcement who want to arrest and convict criminals
I will admit, there is a potential for abuse of such a system.
The American Government is based on a system of checks and balances to prevent one branch from gaining too much power. I have yet to realize how an intelligence agency is monitored. I think this might fall under the auspices of the National Security Council. You can't just come right out and say, "I'm Joe Spy. I work for the NSA. I'm spying on the radio signals coming out of the Blahovian Embassy in Washington." In order to supervise the efforts of such an organization, you have to be in the system.
Self-Monitoring has proven easy to circumvent, and is reflective of the current administration of an organization.
Point is, there is no clear, black and white answer to these issues.
I am just amazed at the responses here on /. about any news related to the NSA. I am clinically paranoid, and you all exceed even my exploits.
I will admit, though, it does sound like a blatant disregard for my personal privacy, so I'm going to attack the government back.
It never fails that there is a score of posts containing supposedly keywords that would set of the "Echelon" buzzers deep inside some bunker in the DC area. Then, thugs come and raid your house while you sleep and drag you away hancuffed, naked, and screaming to their torture chambers, where you are given a showtrial and then sentenced to 8 years in a work camp in the frozen north.
Wake up, people.
As anybody with a rational mind can tell you. most people (99.99999%) have nothing to worry about. Just because someone can collect information on just about anything they want to (try it sometime--even use whois and a couple of internet search engines to see what you can come up with about yourself) doesn't mean that they will.
Just about anybody who has experience in the intelligence field or law enforcement can tell you that true, valuable intelligence (or investigation, if you prefer) is the result of long-term collection and analysis. Just scanning traffic for keywords will not work. Pull up your favorite search engine and do a search for bomb. How many results do you get?
If you want to collect intelligence, you need to set a specific goal or target. Usually, this is influenced by political means. It's just like a police investigation. In one very well-documanted book ("Inside the Aquarium") about Soviet intelligence collection, Victor Suvorov (former Spetznaz and GRU Major who defected to the west) talked about picking an area such as the US 7th Fleet in the Mediterranean. They focused on the question, "When and where are the major deployments of the Carrier Battle Groups?" Then, you identify the means to collect on that target. In our case, the spies ran a hotel in a major port town that served as a homebase for several fleet ships. They didn't just walk around town asking people for information, which is fairly comparable to scanning IP packets.
In order for intelligence to be valuable, it has to be correct, timely, and actually useful to the guys who need it. It takes a concerted effort between many different organizations to accomplish this. Just because you "intercepted" an email containing a few keywords, that does not constitute an intelligence lead. Basically, it is as reliable as a rumor that you overheard in a seedy bar downtown. No police investigator would bet his reputation on such a piece of information.
All the so-called 'experts" on Echelon are just speculating. They are conducting a very weak intelligence collection operation on the NSA. Alot of information is easily available, such as purchase contracts with suppliers. So, they collect all this information and then make a good guess. That's all it is. Unless you've been in the bunkers and fences, you have no idea what goes on inside.
As far as invasion of privacy, yes, some intelligence agencies are more invasive in their techniques than other ones. Ever since they got their buttocks burned several decades ago (Vietnam and Mccarthy Eras), they have had to seriously rethink their policy concerning this. I think, just like the police, trying to conduct operations in as unintrusive means as possible is basically the policy. Honestly, I'm more worried about my boss tracking my keystrokes to find out if I'm jerking off at work, or my system administrator forking my mail through a buzzword filter to report me to my boss, and the adolescent who lives in the high-rise next to me who was given a 100x telescope for his birthday.
In short, just because the NSA, FBI, CIA, and others can spy on you doesn't mean that they will, or that they even want to.
The US Army uses a *HUGE* network of Amigas that run a wargame scenario/sim. It's ran on a hexagon terrain layout imposed over actual maps, very similar to actual wargames such as "Squad Leader" or "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich".
The scenarios vary depending on the training objectives of the units. I've worked on Division (10,000 soldiers+) Sims. The computers provide the stimulus for the maneuver unit headquarters out in the field. The actual tanks and Bradleys stay home, just the HQ's and staff deploy. Supposedly, the computer stuff is transparent to the guys in the field. All the communications from the sim cells are via tactical communications (radio).
Every battlefield unit is represented in the sim, from flights of airplanes to tank companies to 3-man scout teams.
In all, it does its job. Mostly the play is focused on the planning of operations and the interaction between the top guys.
>>>I realize, we've come quite a long way from subsistance farming and feudalism back in 1000 or even 1600 for that matter.
Sure, in the feudal system, they had people managing the people who manage people. They were called "Lords" and "Kings". Sure, they might be called on to "Defend the Realm," how much time did they spend doing that? Mostly, they managed their little fiefdom like a middle-level manager in a large corporation. Even before that, in the Roman Empire, there was an entire social caste that existed solely to enjoy life, going to orgies and visiting the vomitorium to empty their stomach for yet another round of debachery. You have to go way back to the times when everyone was a "Primitive" hunter-gatherer and lived in small bands of people. I think that as soon as people get to a critical mass of around 10, somebody tries to manage it.
The problem is, humans are by nature lazy. Why should I work when I can manage and let everyone else do it all for me?
So, while the technology has increased food production to a point that not everybody has to provide for themselves, the basic nature of people remains the same.
Oh god, I feel a communist propoganda slogan creeping up on me. Yuck!
--Defend the Realm!!!
As a graduate of the arduous Russian Basic Course at the Defense Language Institute and one of the best American-born Russian speakers, I think that the whole of electronic translation is shallow and no substitute for going out and learning a language.
When I've translated or interpreted (translation=written documents, interpreting=spoken in real-time), most of the time both of the parties have only a 75% clue as to what actually happened. They miss out on the connotation of the words, the hidden meanings that are derived from culture. In these cases, only the translator knows 100% of the transaction.
For example, "Perestrojka" is the restructuring of the Soviet government during the Gorbachev era, but it comes from the roots "pere" or repeating action, again, and "strojit" or building, erecting, organizing. It's not just a political process, it's also what happens after an earthquake, and what I would call the Post-Civil-War Reconstruction if I had to talk about it in Russian. So, to an American, it is the policy of restructuring the government, but to me, it means a broad revolution of culture, ideas, and politics.
Point being, that would be lost in an electronic translator. There are many concepts that don't translate no matter how hard you crunch code. You have to feel them.
As Americans, we have this belief that everybody should learn English to talk to us. There's a joke in Linguist circles, "what do you call a person who can speak two languages? Bilingual. What do you call a person that can speak three languages? Trilingual. What do you call a person that can speak one language? American."
Europeans have great language programs for school children, and it is no big deal for someone to learn Italian just because they are going on a vacation to Italy.
If you want to go to a different country and buy souvenirs, get an electronic translator. If you want to bridge cultures, learn a language.
And he's wearing a cap with a red star