Whoever said anything about classification of common knowledge? I didn't. I also didn't say anything about classifying derivatives of published information. I said that there should be consideration of why some information was made public in the first place.
No, it doesn't. If it did then it would mean the best way to secure something is to install some security system and then announce exactly what you'd done to the entire world. That may be a good way to test a security system but it's not the way to protect something. Better to give out as little information as possible.
We either have to control all information (hello, Mr. Orwell!) or accept that information can't be controlled and plan accordingly. It's been said many times before, but security through obsucrity just doesn't work.
Security through obscurity alone doesn't work, but that doesn't mean that obscurity isn't important too. It's not like the fiber connections to the New York Stock Exchange run through a box on the street with an "off" lever. They're underground. But that doesn't mean the NYSE should put the exact location on their web site.
If you look at how the military handles classified information you'll note that in order to access information you need both the proper clearance and the "need to know". That means that just because you have a top secret clearance because you work on stealth fighters doesn't mean you get to see the top secret photos of North Korea's nuclear reactors. You have the proper clearance, but you don't have the need to know.
The main issue isn't (or shouldn't be) about classifying this guy's thesis. The issue is why all this imformation was so freely availble in the first place and whether power companies, telecoms, etc. should look at restricting access to certain types of data.
It's too bad they didn't compare commericals viewed in live versus recorded broadcasts. The indicated that they tracked commercials viewed in both (in the case of a live broadcast a commercial is "skipped" by channel surfing).
While The Weakest Link is probably not a good example, I can believe that certain shows get more commercials viewed. For example, I often use my TiVo to record motorcycle programming on the Speed Channel and it's about the only type of programming in which I will ever watch the (recorded) commercials. This is because I am interested in the product. Most of the ads are targeted towards motorcyclists. Slashdot is similar; while I don't click on many banner ads, I click on far more on Slashdot than any other site because they're well targeted.
Are you sure you're not remembering the PlayCable module for the Intellivision? It was available in limited areas and allow subscribers to play a number of games that were downloaded from cable TV onto the system.
You're missing the critical component: the processor.
An Intellivision contains a General Instruments CP1610, which is a 16-bit microprocessor. More details available here. The Intellivision contained a rather powerful processor for it's day, which is probably why this is possible. You could buy a keyboard for it (which contained additional RAM) that allowed you to program it in BASIC.
While North Korea does put all its emphasis on its military, this doesn't translate to eating well and having the lights on. More like not starving to death as often and having occasional electricity.
This article tells the story of a defector who had served in the North Korean army. Their barracks didn't have electricity, so they tapped into a nearby electrified railway. They got eggs on only holidays and meat only on Kim's birthday.
All that, of course, is a huge step above what the rest of the people have to endure. In this article a prison camp survivor talks about picking the corn out of cow dung.
Re:I worked for the navy at the pentagon.
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
Every SIPRNET facility I've ever worked at used contractors for the technical issues. The ITs only did basic sysadmin work (new accounts, forgotten passwords, etc). Software installation and configuration was all cleared through a central authority (off site). I've served on a DD and a DDG. While SIPRNET is by no means fool-proof, it's not nearly as half-assed as some of the stuff you see aboard ship.
- IS1
Re:firewall? we don't need no stinkin' firewall!
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
If you have access to the facility, and really want to steal classified information, you can. You'll probably even get away with it for a while. There's no way to give someone access to information and, at the same time, prevent them from having that information.
That's where the security clearances come in. To gain access to such a facility you need a clearance, which is granted after a background investigation, interviews with your ex-girlfriends, etc.
Re:firewall? we don't need no stinkin' firewall!
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The systems don't "run Windows" any more than computers on the internet "run Windows". The OS is entirely up to the person using it. A lot of the classified systems run unix.
Re:firewall? we don't need no stinkin' firewall!
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The US uses the same thing with SIPRNET. It is physically separate from the internet. Script kiddies like to gloat about how insecure military networks are and how they hacked into classified information. Not true. They may certainly have seen some "private" web sites with telephone or social security numbers, but not actual classified information. They'd need to dig a hole and splice fiber first.
Re:We already know the answer to this...
on
Cheap Audio Production
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
To be fair, the RIAA isn't the only issue when looking at competition in the music industry.
Popular music is not interchangable . It's not like wheat or oil. The product you get from one source is different than what you get from another source (boy band jokes aside). If the Aerosmith CD is $15 and the Britney Spears CD is $8 are you going to buy the Britney album simply because it's cheaper? Most likely you're going to purchase the type of music you like to listen to, cost is a secondary issue.
Even if there was some sort of radical transformation of the industry-- say that artists held all the rights and issued multiple contracts (for the exact same album) to multiple publishers. The publishers would then have an incentive to lower costs, but the artists would not because their product is still unique. The costs would end up being a bit more like concert ticket prices in which the big names can command much higher prices than the small ones.
The whole "geeks get beat up" thing is weird to me.
I agree with you. I think most of it is in the head of the geek. Also, the less assertive people tend to also be the "geek" people. I don't think it's because technical knowledge makes you less assertive, but rather that people who are not assertive shy away from things like athletics and towards reading/computers/etc.
Some people are assholes (bullies), no matter what. They aren't picking on you because you're smart or into comics or whatever, they're doing it because you take it. I know what's it like to be a "geek" in school (I was in Knowledge Bowl, honor society, and played role-playing games). I also know that if you stand up for yourself and don't let someone push you around you'll be a lot better off (I also played varsity football and was in the weight room in the off-season).
While I applaud the concept of finally rolling out digital music on a large scale, the price is obscene. The 99-cents per song comes about to about the same price as a CD (if you buy all the songs).
With the CD, however, you've got the cost of the physical materials (the CD, liner, case), the cost of manufacture, the cost of shipping, and then the profit margin for whomever you're buying it from.
Except that the human body is much more efficient than any automobile engine. Nearly every calorie burning table I've even seen shows the same calorie burn rate for walking and jogging the same distance.
As to cardiovascular, you are correct. If you're heart rate doesn't go up, you're not getting a lot of benefit.
You're right about those identical house developments. That where my brother's new house is.
On the mold issue, I'm not at concerned about the health issue (although there must be some) as much as the damage issue. There was an expose in the local newpaper (Minneapolis) a while back about $500k houses that needed to be bulldozed because it wasn't worth repairing them.
Moisture built up in the walls, trapped by the housewrap. Usually there had been a small error in application around a window or some other opening. The wood was literally rotting away behind the siding (a lot of wafer board disintigrates in water).
That's the kind of thing that worries me about a newer house. I'm not a construction expert by any means, and it seems that this should never occur when all materials are applied correctly. As you noted, there are problems with even "good" builders, and there's often no way to tell what has been done wrong because it's all covered with Sheetrock and siding.
That's what I was thinking. My house was build in 1949. The flooring is oak on top of pine planks. The furnace is gravity, not forced air. The foundation is poured concrete.
While I purchased this house because of location and affordability, a lot of the new construction techniques concern me. My brother build a brand-new house and within a year there was mold growing inside of the walls (mositure trapped due to the plastic wrap put on them).
I'm not saying that someone won't make money by rebuilding Iraqi oil production. I just don't like the assumption some people make that the US, as a nation, is going to take the oil. Some of the companies involved will certainly be US. Some will be from other nations. This doesn't mean that the US is taking the oil. I am a US citizen and I guarantee that I won't make any money on Iraq's oil.
My point with Germany and France is that the US rebuilt those nations. The stated plan is to do the same in Iraq, hence the comments from Powell. I can think of no other nation, in history, that has done so much to foster freedom. Look at Germany and France today. Imagine Iraq like that in a few decades. Iraq has resources, it's people are well-educated, there's no reason it shouldn't be a first-world nation.
The US isn't perfect. Some people in the US exploit their power... it happens everywhere in the world. All I'm asking is for people to look at what the US has done. Would you rather the US be a superpower or a nation like Iraq?
I'm not saying that someone won't make money off rebuilding Iraqi oil facilities (even if Saddam doesn't order them to be destroyed, I've read that they're in pretty bad shape). Many companies will do this, some will most likely be from the US.
How does that translate into the US controlling Iraq's oil? The US doesn't control resources in Germany, Japan, or Italy although the US invaded all of those nations. Far from exploiting them, the US spent a whole lot of money and effort to ensure they were rebuilt.
Saddam has also said he has no intention of setting fire to them as he did in 1991 since he claims he would not destroy the wealth of Iraq since it wouldn't be in the intrests of his country.
Do you actually believe that? The guy who used chemical weapons on his own people is now looking out for their best interests?
Gee... thanks for the unfounded personal insult. Because you disagree with me I must believe anything that is online?
There are a number of quotes in that article. How about "If there is a conflict with Iraq, the leader ship of the coalition [will] take control of Iraq. The oil of Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. Whatever form of custodianship there is... it will be held for and used for the people of Iraq. It will not be exploited for the United States' own purpose."
Of course there is going to be a plan to control the oil fields. Do you recall what happened last time Saddam was in a war? Don't you think that is something to be avoided?
Does the US control Germany's coal fields? North Sea oil? Do you actually think that the US is going to put up a flag and open a gas station selling Iraqi oil, taking all the money for the US treasury? Naturally major oil companies will be involved. There are already major oil companies in Iraq. They are French. Ever wonder why the French are so opposed to the war?
As to the protection of schools and hospitals, yes. I have heard of the plan. The US spends a great amount of resources to locate and identify civillian targets so that they can be avoided. Most of this work began after the Chinese embassy was accidentally bombed and it was understood how lacking this area of was. What do you think Saddam's plan for protecting hospitals is?
If one wanted the price of gas to go down, invading Iraq is not the way to do it. They way to make gas prices go down would be to declare that Iraq is indeed disarming and allow them to resume oil exports. This is the fastest, cheapest way to get the oil. It not that the Iraqis don't want to sell oil, it's that their exports have been limited by the UN.
Invading, during which time the facilities will most likely be destroyed, plus the cost of war and the problems it will generate in the world oil market will drive oil costs up for a long time. And that is without the additional affects of a possible Arab oil embargo to protest the war.
So, in conclusion, the war is not a good way to get the oil. Presumably, an oil man would know that. Why then, is he still pushing for war? Maybe because it's not about the oil?
You are correct. I'd guess, however, that the chances of your early-twenties friends listening to this advice is about the same as the hypothetical 12-year-old listening to all the advice about girls everyone else is giving.
I know so many people who went about and bought a new car as soon as they got their first job, spending all their money. Now, in their late twenties, they still live in apartment with a roommate and have an unimpressive five-year-old car.
Slashdot Mirror
That was my thought too. Did the poster read the article they submitted?
The new capsule would be of a different size, with different propulsion, different control systems, different internal atmosphere, etc.
You misunderstand, it isn't sex that causes the loss of genius, it is marriage and children.
The guys who sleep around get to keep their genius and they get laid. Way better than simply keeping your genius.
Whoever said anything about classification of common knowledge? I didn't. I also didn't say anything about classifying derivatives of published information. I said that there should be consideration of why some information was made public in the first place.
No, it doesn't. If it did then it would mean the best way to secure something is to install some security system and then announce exactly what you'd done to the entire world. That may be a good way to test a security system but it's not the way to protect something. Better to give out as little information as possible.
Security through obscurity alone doesn't work, but that doesn't mean that obscurity isn't important too. It's not like the fiber connections to the New York Stock Exchange run through a box on the street with an "off" lever. They're underground. But that doesn't mean the NYSE should put the exact location on their web site.
If you look at how the military handles classified information you'll note that in order to access information you need both the proper clearance and the "need to know". That means that just because you have a top secret clearance because you work on stealth fighters doesn't mean you get to see the top secret photos of North Korea's nuclear reactors. You have the proper clearance, but you don't have the need to know.
The main issue isn't (or shouldn't be) about classifying this guy's thesis. The issue is why all this imformation was so freely availble in the first place and whether power companies, telecoms, etc. should look at restricting access to certain types of data.
It's too bad they didn't compare commericals viewed in live versus recorded broadcasts. The indicated that they tracked commercials viewed in both (in the case of a live broadcast a commercial is "skipped" by channel surfing).
While The Weakest Link is probably not a good example, I can believe that certain shows get more commercials viewed. For example, I often use my TiVo to record motorcycle programming on the Speed Channel and it's about the only type of programming in which I will ever watch the (recorded) commercials. This is because I am interested in the product. Most of the ads are targeted towards motorcyclists. Slashdot is similar; while I don't click on many banner ads, I click on far more on Slashdot than any other site because they're well targeted.
Are you sure you're not remembering the PlayCable module for the Intellivision? It was available in limited areas and allow subscribers to play a number of games that were downloaded from cable TV onto the system.
An Intellivision contains a General Instruments CP1610, which is a 16-bit microprocessor. More details available here. The Intellivision contained a rather powerful processor for it's day, which is probably why this is possible. You could buy a keyboard for it (which contained additional RAM) that allowed you to program it in BASIC.
This article tells the story of a defector who had served in the North Korean army. Their barracks didn't have electricity, so they tapped into a nearby electrified railway. They got eggs on only holidays and meat only on Kim's birthday.
All that, of course, is a huge step above what the rest of the people have to endure. In this article a prison camp survivor talks about picking the corn out of cow dung.
Every SIPRNET facility I've ever worked at used contractors for the technical issues. The ITs only did basic sysadmin work (new accounts, forgotten passwords, etc). Software installation and configuration was all cleared through a central authority (off site). I've served on a DD and a DDG. While SIPRNET is by no means fool-proof, it's not nearly as half-assed as some of the stuff you see aboard ship.
- IS1
If you have access to the facility, and really want to steal classified information, you can. You'll probably even get away with it for a while. There's no way to give someone access to information and, at the same time, prevent them from having that information.
That's where the security clearances come in. To gain access to such a facility you need a clearance, which is granted after a background investigation, interviews with your ex-girlfriends, etc.
The systems don't "run Windows" any more than computers on the internet "run Windows". The OS is entirely up to the person using it. A lot of the classified systems run unix.
The US uses the same thing with SIPRNET. It is physically separate from the internet. Script kiddies like to gloat about how insecure military networks are and how they hacked into classified information. Not true. They may certainly have seen some "private" web sites with telephone or social security numbers, but not actual classified information. They'd need to dig a hole and splice fiber first.
To be fair, the RIAA isn't the only issue when looking at competition in the music industry.
Popular music is not interchangable . It's not like wheat or oil. The product you get from one source is different than what you get from another source (boy band jokes aside). If the Aerosmith CD is $15 and the Britney Spears CD is $8 are you going to buy the Britney album simply because it's cheaper? Most likely you're going to purchase the type of music you like to listen to, cost is a secondary issue.
Even if there was some sort of radical transformation of the industry-- say that artists held all the rights and issued multiple contracts (for the exact same album) to multiple publishers. The publishers would then have an incentive to lower costs, but the artists would not because their product is still unique. The costs would end up being a bit more like concert ticket prices in which the big names can command much higher prices than the small ones.
I agree with you. I think most of it is in the head of the geek. Also, the less assertive people tend to also be the "geek" people. I don't think it's because technical knowledge makes you less assertive, but rather that people who are not assertive shy away from things like athletics and towards reading/computers/etc.
Some people are assholes (bullies), no matter what. They aren't picking on you because you're smart or into comics or whatever, they're doing it because you take it. I know what's it like to be a "geek" in school (I was in Knowledge Bowl, honor society, and played role-playing games). I also know that if you stand up for yourself and don't let someone push you around you'll be a lot better off (I also played varsity football and was in the weight room in the off-season).
While I applaud the concept of finally rolling out digital music on a large scale, the price is obscene. The 99-cents per song comes about to about the same price as a CD (if you buy all the songs).
With the CD, however, you've got the cost of the physical materials (the CD, liner, case), the cost of manufacture, the cost of shipping, and then the profit margin for whomever you're buying it from.
Except that the human body is much more efficient than any automobile engine. Nearly every calorie burning table I've even seen shows the same calorie burn rate for walking and jogging the same distance.
As to cardiovascular, you are correct. If you're heart rate doesn't go up, you're not getting a lot of benefit.
On the mold issue, I'm not at concerned about the health issue (although there must be some) as much as the damage issue. There was an expose in the local newpaper (Minneapolis) a while back about $500k houses that needed to be bulldozed because it wasn't worth repairing them.
Moisture built up in the walls, trapped by the housewrap. Usually there had been a small error in application around a window or some other opening. The wood was literally rotting away behind the siding (a lot of wafer board disintigrates in water).
Link to similar article
That's the kind of thing that worries me about a newer house. I'm not a construction expert by any means, and it seems that this should never occur when all materials are applied correctly. As you noted, there are problems with even "good" builders, and there's often no way to tell what has been done wrong because it's all covered with Sheetrock and siding.
That's what I was thinking. My house was build in 1949. The flooring is oak on top of pine planks. The furnace is gravity, not forced air. The foundation is poured concrete.
While I purchased this house because of location and affordability, a lot of the new construction techniques concern me. My brother build a brand-new house and within a year there was mold growing inside of the walls (mositure trapped due to the plastic wrap put on them).
My point with Germany and France is that the US rebuilt those nations. The stated plan is to do the same in Iraq, hence the comments from Powell. I can think of no other nation, in history, that has done so much to foster freedom. Look at Germany and France today. Imagine Iraq like that in a few decades. Iraq has resources, it's people are well-educated, there's no reason it shouldn't be a first-world nation.
The US isn't perfect. Some people in the US exploit their power... it happens everywhere in the world. All I'm asking is for people to look at what the US has done. Would you rather the US be a superpower or a nation like Iraq?
How does that translate into the US controlling Iraq's oil? The US doesn't control resources in Germany, Japan, or Italy although the US invaded all of those nations. Far from exploiting them, the US spent a whole lot of money and effort to ensure they were rebuilt.
Do you actually believe that? The guy who used chemical weapons on his own people is now looking out for their best interests?
There are a number of quotes in that article. How about "If there is a conflict with Iraq, the leader ship of the coalition [will] take control of Iraq. The oil of Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. Whatever form of custodianship there is
Of course there is going to be a plan to control the oil fields. Do you recall what happened last time Saddam was in a war? Don't you think that is something to be avoided?
Does the US control Germany's coal fields? North Sea oil? Do you actually think that the US is going to put up a flag and open a gas station selling Iraqi oil, taking all the money for the US treasury? Naturally major oil companies will be involved. There are already major oil companies in Iraq. They are French. Ever wonder why the French are so opposed to the war?
As to the protection of schools and hospitals, yes. I have heard of the plan. The US spends a great amount of resources to locate and identify civillian targets so that they can be avoided. Most of this work began after the Chinese embassy was accidentally bombed and it was understood how lacking this area of was. What do you think Saddam's plan for protecting hospitals is?
Invading, during which time the facilities will most likely be destroyed, plus the cost of war and the problems it will generate in the world oil market will drive oil costs up for a long time. And that is without the additional affects of a possible Arab oil embargo to protest the war.
So, in conclusion, the war is not a good way to get the oil. Presumably, an oil man would know that. Why then, is he still pushing for war? Maybe because it's not about the oil?
You are correct. I'd guess, however, that the chances of your early-twenties friends listening to this advice is about the same as the hypothetical 12-year-old listening to all the advice about girls everyone else is giving.
I know so many people who went about and bought a new car as soon as they got their first job, spending all their money. Now, in their late twenties, they still live in apartment with a roommate and have an unimpressive five-year-old car.