Doesn't matter. Due to the legal blockades in the UK, if you label ANYTHING you don't like as defamation, it must realistically be taken down. You might think you have the freedom to criticize your local government and their policies, but all they have to do is claim that your criticisms are libelous and you are in a world of hurt if you refuse to back down. The same applies to a church, say of Scientology. Or any other ridiculous way that those in power would like to keep down the voice and will of the people. Another tragedy of free will from the UK. I hope America learns from its mistakes before it's too late.
Unfortunately, although you may be technically be right, it doesn't help that the link you provide clearly shows a level of security above 'Top Secret'. Claim that SCI is just a subset of Top Secret all you want, but the fact remains that there are programs out there who's classification level itself is a secret, so if you're not only not allowed to know that the program exists, but also not allowed to know how secret it is... that might be above knowing that something is 'Top Secret'.
"We are the saviors of humanity. It is our destiny to stop the LHC from colliding the first particles. This is not just about access, but about truth and justice and destiny. That machine may cause a black hole. This is the final battle."
If you draw the line where the only way to get addicted is to chemically alter your brain (alcohol, tobacco, hard drugs, etc) then sure, there is no way to become addicted to video games. But if you believe that someone can become addicted to an activity that stimulated pleasure release in the brain (gambling, sex, shopping) then you have to make an entry for video games too.
Me? I believe that it's possible to become 'addicted' to video games, but the actual cases are probably so small that it shouldn't receive any more attention than gambling.
No, in all likelyhood labels like 'addicted to video games' are the previous generations ways of trying to understand our modern entertainment cycle. I'm sure their parents were worried they were 'addicted to comic books' or 'rock music'. I just cry a little cry for little Johnny who's mom will take away his Xbox 360 because she's afraid of him being 'addicted'. Parents need to stop guarding their children like pets and teach them to make smart decisions so that when Johnny is 20 and moves out (we're being optimistic here folks), he won't turn into an obsessed World of Warcraft fiend because he can finally access everything his parents never taught him how to deal with on his own.
It's the same as dad's who are sexually overprotective of their daughters, just as it's the same as parents who teach their kids that tobacco and drugs are bad-evil-horrible without giving them reasoning to justify that position, etc.
Teach kids to make smart decisions if you want them to be truly well off.
Generations from now, when 3-D printers allow us to fabricate whatever objects we have the basic atoms to create, and virtual technology allows us to experience whatever reality we have the blueprints for, issues like this will be felt through time like a tidal wave. Look at how the fundamental Christian values of early America have shaped everything we believe and experience today (regarding modesty, entertainment, science, etc.)
If companies are allowed to hold a vice-iron grip on every thin slice of entertainment that exists in our life then life in the future will be miserable and hateful. This is a triumph because it hints at a future that will allow free P2P trading, not of music, but of atomic blueprints of critical medicine and devices that will make all of our lives easier. What incredible news.
If IE8 either accidentally or purposefully blocks the intrusive pop-over ads that float over a website's content (what scatter brained nut actually looks at a finished product with such an ad and goes, 'yep, our reader base won't be utterly pissed when this happens') then I think I might just be a full convert to IE8's camp. Now I realize that other web browsers may have that functionality now, but super-mainstream-government-institutions (like this here Air Force) will never allow any browser but Internet Explorer on their computers, so I have to silently hope...
Ok, sure I understand all of the issues at hand here. It is obviously flooding the internet with fake results which must be stopped. So maybe it shouldn't be a default option. But I have to say, that for searching for skeevy websites on Google (not that any of us would be searching for cracks, hacks, warez, or skeevy porn) it sure is useful to know which websites will try to hi-jack my computer before I click the links to them.
The background of individuals has not traditionally been as important as the training the Air Force gives them. Do you see an in depth school forming (aka pilot training) for people who are computer savvy, but not necessarily the 'hackers' the Air Force would need in key positions? Or would this command be more interested in hiring individuals already in possession of such talents?
The Air Force has been drawing down sharply on lieutentants in the last few years. It would seem that this new command would be protected from such draw downs, but perhaps not. Do you see a position in the Cyber Command as having a large amount of job security in the next 20 years?
What relationship do you see between the officer and enlisted positions in this new command? Would it be the traditional Air Force model of having the officers with the Bachelor's Degrees (presumably in a computer field) be the 'tip of the spear' so to speak (the actual offensive computer user) with the enlisted force backing him up? Or do you see it as a place where the enlisted would man the actual offense and defense with the officers acting in more of a leadership role, managing the talented? The most talented hackers in the world problably have no computer degree and no interest in obtaining one.
1. I am an active duty Loadmaster and am on what the Air Force considers a 'critical job list' of sorts. Would I be allowed to retrain to a field in the new Cyber Command, or would the Air Force prefer to retain me in my current job. Are the new cyber positions also considered 'critical'?
Hey, I'm no expert, but I'd imagine that this *isn't* the PR departments fault. I imagine that Sony execs do whatever bullheaded nonsense they want (like this fiasco) and then when PR goes, "Whoa, whoa! If you do that you're really going to piss people off!" they just get a cold reply of, "Well, we're going ahead with it. You're PR. You fix it."
And that's why you see Sony PR guys always desperately spouting whatever bullshit they can muster to defend Sony. They know Sony is being ludacris, but their job depends on them somehow spinning Sony's actions in a positive light.
I mean, otherwise, you'd think for like $500 a call, they could call anyone of us and we'd be like, "Ummm... you know Sony, I just really don't think that's a good idea, you know, to screw your fan base like that," and they'd be like, "Oh... really? Ok, cool. I guess we won't do it then. Thanks for the advice."
Ok, so as I see it, the 'problem' is this: They say they won't give her a teaching degree because the very fact that she was *photographed* with a cup of beer in her hand makes her an unacceptable teacher.
You can't do that. This institution cannot impose it's own moral guidelines on it's graduates regarding something that is completely LEGAL. Well, maybe they can, but they can also lose their ACC accreditadion.
What if she had been photographed smoking, or watching a rated-R movie, or any other number of legal activites? You can't just deny someone a degree they have worked for years to get, just because you don't approve of their personal choices.
I hope she sues the pants off of this college and they award her triple the sum she's asking for. This is blatantly immoral and wrong of the college and I hope they learn their lesson.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't matter. Due to the legal blockades in the UK, if you label ANYTHING you don't like as defamation, it must realistically be taken down. You might think you have the freedom to criticize your local government and their policies, but all they have to do is claim that your criticisms are libelous and you are in a world of hurt if you refuse to back down. The same applies to a church, say of Scientology. Or any other ridiculous way that those in power would like to keep down the voice and will of the people. Another tragedy of free will from the UK. I hope America learns from its mistakes before it's too late.
Unfortunately, although you may be technically be right, it doesn't help that the link you provide clearly shows a level of security above 'Top Secret'. Claim that SCI is just a subset of Top Secret all you want, but the fact remains that there are programs out there who's classification level itself is a secret, so if you're not only not allowed to know that the program exists, but also not allowed to know how secret it is... that might be above knowing that something is 'Top Secret'.
I bet one guy is all like,
"We are the saviors of humanity. It is our destiny to stop the LHC from colliding the first particles. This is not just about access, but about truth and justice and destiny. That machine may cause a black hole. This is the final battle."
And then the other guy is all like,
"Keanu Reeves, wtf are you doing here? lol n00b."
"Wow PC, it looks like your Vista users are really having headaches running great software like iTunes 8. Mac runs them just fine."
"You son of a bitch." (Pulls out a gun)
"Whoa PC, whoa, let's not..."
BLAM.
If you draw the line where the only way to get addicted is to chemically alter your brain (alcohol, tobacco, hard drugs, etc) then sure, there is no way to become addicted to video games. But if you believe that someone can become addicted to an activity that stimulated pleasure release in the brain (gambling, sex, shopping) then you have to make an entry for video games too.
Me? I believe that it's possible to become 'addicted' to video games, but the actual cases are probably so small that it shouldn't receive any more attention than gambling.
No, in all likelyhood labels like 'addicted to video games' are the previous generations ways of trying to understand our modern entertainment cycle. I'm sure their parents were worried they were 'addicted to comic books' or 'rock music'. I just cry a little cry for little Johnny who's mom will take away his Xbox 360 because she's afraid of him being 'addicted'. Parents need to stop guarding their children like pets and teach them to make smart decisions so that when Johnny is 20 and moves out (we're being optimistic here folks), he won't turn into an obsessed World of Warcraft fiend because he can finally access everything his parents never taught him how to deal with on his own.
It's the same as dad's who are sexually overprotective of their daughters, just as it's the same as parents who teach their kids that tobacco and drugs are bad-evil-horrible without giving them reasoning to justify that position, etc.
Teach kids to make smart decisions if you want them to be truly well off.
Generations from now, when 3-D printers allow us to fabricate whatever objects we have the basic atoms to create, and virtual technology allows us to experience whatever reality we have the blueprints for, issues like this will be felt through time like a tidal wave. Look at how the fundamental Christian values of early America have shaped everything we believe and experience today (regarding modesty, entertainment, science, etc.)
If companies are allowed to hold a vice-iron grip on every thin slice of entertainment that exists in our life then life in the future will be miserable and hateful. This is a triumph because it hints at a future that will allow free P2P trading, not of music, but of atomic blueprints of critical medicine and devices that will make all of our lives easier. What incredible news.
If IE8 either accidentally or purposefully blocks the intrusive pop-over ads that float over a website's content (what scatter brained nut actually looks at a finished product with such an ad and goes, 'yep, our reader base won't be utterly pissed when this happens') then I think I might just be a full convert to IE8's camp. Now I realize that other web browsers may have that functionality now, but super-mainstream-government-institutions (like this here Air Force) will never allow any browser but Internet Explorer on their computers, so I have to silently hope...
Ok, sure I understand all of the issues at hand here. It is obviously flooding the internet with fake results which must be stopped. So maybe it shouldn't be a default option. But I have to say, that for searching for skeevy websites on Google (not that any of us would be searching for cracks, hacks, warez, or skeevy porn) it sure is useful to know which websites will try to hi-jack my computer before I click the links to them.
General
The background of individuals has not traditionally been as important as the training the Air Force gives them. Do you see an in depth school forming (aka pilot training) for people who are computer savvy, but not necessarily the 'hackers' the Air Force would need in key positions? Or would this command be more interested in hiring individuals already in possession of such talents?
General,
The Air Force has been drawing down sharply on lieutentants in the last few years. It would seem that this new command would be protected from such draw downs, but perhaps not. Do you see a position in the Cyber Command as having a large amount of job security in the next 20 years?
General,
What relationship do you see between the officer and enlisted positions in this new command? Would it be the traditional Air Force model of having the officers with the Bachelor's Degrees (presumably in a computer field) be the 'tip of the spear' so to speak (the actual offensive computer user) with the enlisted force backing him up? Or do you see it as a place where the enlisted would man the actual offense and defense with the officers acting in more of a leadership role, managing the talented? The most talented hackers in the world problably have no computer degree and no interest in obtaining one.
General,
1. I am an active duty Loadmaster and am on what the Air Force considers a 'critical job list' of sorts. Would I be allowed to retrain to a field in the new Cyber Command, or would the Air Force prefer to retain me in my current job. Are the new cyber positions also considered 'critical'?
Hey, I'm no expert, but I'd imagine that this *isn't* the PR departments fault. I imagine that Sony execs do whatever bullheaded nonsense they want (like this fiasco) and then when PR goes, "Whoa, whoa! If you do that you're really going to piss people off!" they just get a cold reply of, "Well, we're going ahead with it. You're PR. You fix it."
And that's why you see Sony PR guys always desperately spouting whatever bullshit they can muster to defend Sony. They know Sony is being ludacris, but their job depends on them somehow spinning Sony's actions in a positive light.
I mean, otherwise, you'd think for like $500 a call, they could call anyone of us and we'd be like, "Ummm... you know Sony, I just really don't think that's a good idea, you know, to screw your fan base like that," and they'd be like, "Oh... really? Ok, cool. I guess we won't do it then. Thanks for the advice."
Ok, so as I see it, the 'problem' is this: They say they won't give her a teaching degree because the very fact that she was *photographed* with a cup of beer in her hand makes her an unacceptable teacher. You can't do that. This institution cannot impose it's own moral guidelines on it's graduates regarding something that is completely LEGAL. Well, maybe they can, but they can also lose their ACC accreditadion. What if she had been photographed smoking, or watching a rated-R movie, or any other number of legal activites? You can't just deny someone a degree they have worked for years to get, just because you don't approve of their personal choices. I hope she sues the pants off of this college and they award her triple the sum she's asking for. This is blatantly immoral and wrong of the college and I hope they learn their lesson.