. . . and the Allies did it again in WWII. General Patton commanded a fake army designed to fool the Germans into believing the invasion of France would take place at Pa de Calais instead of at Nomandy. The fake army included inflatable tanks, trucks, etc.
The only thing that is newsworthy about this latest Russian incarnation is that it also includes fake thermal and radar signatures. Allowing a very old trick to be used again.
Spoken like someone who has never worked on a government contract. Who do you think is responsible for making sure there is enough oversight, or would add requirements at the last minute resulting in cost overrun? Hint: NOT the contractors.
You're right, it is a project management issue, but likely not with the contractors.
As far as transparency is concerned, govt. contracts, particularly those required to be CMMI compliant, have documentation and transparency requirements that would shock most commercial software developers.
I wonder what kind of ads showed up next to White House emails concerning political appointments?
Seriously, it's just plain careless to put what could be considered classified government information into the hands of a third party. Even one that pledges to "do no evil."
Hopefully, Obama's staffers will learn that things need to be done a little more cautiously when you represent the President of the United States.
I agree. It's not so much who you know as what you know. I've seen several sysadmins without college degrees achieve their position by taking a tech support role or something similar and then demonstrating talent and interest beyond your job.
If someone in your organization notices that your talent is wasted in a support role and needs you elsewhere, you'll get promoted, degree or no.
Have you thought about SETA work? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETA_(contractor)) SETAs are government contractors that are basically paid to watch others programmers do actual coding. They act on behalf of the government to ensure that software development projects are "right."
The job requires knowing programming and staying current in the field without actually practicing the craft.
As someone who programs, I see them as being sort of like the "Internal Affairs" of government contractors. They are about as popular in some circles too. But hey, to each his own.
"American" sexism? You totally had me until you qualified sexism as "American." Why are you being nationalistic in a post decrying sexism? Are you replacing one bias for another?
You can't use an encyclopedia article as a primary source because, accurate or not, it's not a primary source. It's a secondary source.
For all of you CS majors, a primary source is a source that has direct knowledge of the subject and doesn't rely on other sources. For instance, a letter from a soldier at the battle of Gettysburg describing the event is a primary source. A book written years later that uses the original soldier's letter as a source is a secondary source.
Good scholarship should always reach back to primary sources with secondary sources used as signposts. That's why Encyclopedias cannot be sole sources NOT because they are not accurate.
"if you removed all the ill-informed people offering speculation and unfounded personal opinion as fact from the Internet, there'd be very little left apart from busty substances and badger paws."
People have been learning about Aerospace Engineering from birds for centuries. What do you think was the inspiration for the Wright brothers "wing warping" technique? The perfect aircraft has always been a bird. The only think I see that's new here is exactly why that is.
Let's not confuse "the Government" with political appointees such as House staffers.
"The Government" is full of career bureaucrats and professional civil servants, most of which have been in there positions for a long time and will continue to be there until they retire, whether or not they deserve to be. They serve the people.
Political appointees are eager young trust fund kids who make close to minimum wage. But they're not concerned about the money because they're in for their own idealogical motives. They're out to change the world . . . at least until the next election. They serve the guy who hired them and who is probably friends with their parents.
Which one of these is more likely to do something dumb like add propaganda to a wikipedia article?
Be like the Dalai Lama or Ghandi and offer no violence and still hold up our heads high and work on why we're causing those people so much suffering Amen. The Dalai Lama and Ghandi should be pretty remorseful for all the suffering they've caused. They deserve to go to time out and think about what they've done. Jerks!
You have to be sponsored. One's clearance is usually tied to a specific contract or clearance granting organization. Department of Defense has a different set of rules than Department of Energy for example. They're transferable, but that's not an easy process. A lot of people in DoD get clearances in the military.
Contracts dictate what level of clearance contracting staff must possess. So if you worked on a contract with foreign nationals who only possessed FBI background checks, it's because the government specified that's all that was necessary. So Unisys hiring practices (along with all other contracting companies) vary from contract to contract.
That's bogus generalization. I've worked for several contractors including Unisys and I can tell you that while it is true that obtaining a clearance is a hurdle, the increase in pay you get with a clearance makes it worth the effort. Also, how do you think people get a clearance to begin with? Someone like Unisys sponsors them. Of course, if you're already cleared you're a more attractive candidate, but it is totally false to say that contractors only hire people on the basis of their clearance rather than their technical proficiency. If anything, people who are technically proficient are attracted to government contracting because the work is really interesting and the pay is better than you can expect to make as a government employee or in the commercial world.
The problem with Unisys is that they treat their people like garbage, so anyone who is smart goes to work for another contractor. You're right to say they adhere to the "warm bodies" syndrome, but wrong to assert that all contractors do that. True IT services firms like Booz Allen, KPMG, CACI, do not.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but they don't seem to be blaming privacy laws, but rather "confusion" over privacy laws. In other words, the problem is not so much what the laws legislate as it is how they are written.
It seems that in this case, many of the parties involved didn't understand what information they were allowed or obligated to share, so they didn't share anything. They erred on the side of privacy to the detriment of the Virginia Tech community.
Clearly some there is a line somewhere at which the privacy of the individual is outweighed by the safety of the community. The question is where is that line? The laws draw it pretty fuzzily.
Slashdot Mirror
. . . and the Allies did it again in WWII. General Patton commanded a fake army designed to fool the Germans into believing the invasion of France would take place at Pa de Calais instead of at Nomandy. The fake army included inflatable tanks, trucks, etc.
The only thing that is newsworthy about this latest Russian incarnation is that it also includes fake thermal and radar signatures. Allowing a very old trick to be used again.
High levels of testosterone leads to stupid decisions. Isn't that the whole premise behind things like MMA and "Jersey Shore?"
I think I saw this in a movie once.
Spoken like someone who has never worked on a government contract. Who do you think is responsible for making sure there is enough oversight, or would add requirements at the last minute resulting in cost overrun? Hint: NOT the contractors. You're right, it is a project management issue, but likely not with the contractors. As far as transparency is concerned, govt. contracts, particularly those required to be CMMI compliant, have documentation and transparency requirements that would shock most commercial software developers.
. . . so under this plan, I'll get twice as much spam only half of it will be fake spam sent to me by the government?!?
I wonder what kind of ads showed up next to White House emails concerning political appointments? Seriously, it's just plain careless to put what could be considered classified government information into the hands of a third party. Even one that pledges to "do no evil." Hopefully, Obama's staffers will learn that things need to be done a little more cautiously when you represent the President of the United States.
I agree. It's not so much who you know as what you know. I've seen several sysadmins without college degrees achieve their position by taking a tech support role or something similar and then demonstrating talent and interest beyond your job. If someone in your organization notices that your talent is wasted in a support role and needs you elsewhere, you'll get promoted, degree or no.
I'm confused, hasn't Sam Fisher been using this for years? http://splintercell.wikia.com/wiki/Sticky_Camera
Have you thought about SETA work? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETA_(contractor)) SETAs are government contractors that are basically paid to watch others programmers do actual coding. They act on behalf of the government to ensure that software development projects are "right." The job requires knowing programming and staying current in the field without actually practicing the craft. As someone who programs, I see them as being sort of like the "Internal Affairs" of government contractors. They are about as popular in some circles too. But hey, to each his own.
"American" sexism? You totally had me until you qualified sexism as "American." Why are you being nationalistic in a post decrying sexism? Are you replacing one bias for another?
You can't use an encyclopedia article as a primary source because, accurate or not, it's not a primary source. It's a secondary source. For all of you CS majors, a primary source is a source that has direct knowledge of the subject and doesn't rely on other sources. For instance, a letter from a soldier at the battle of Gettysburg describing the event is a primary source. A book written years later that uses the original soldier's letter as a source is a secondary source. Good scholarship should always reach back to primary sources with secondary sources used as signposts. That's why Encyclopedias cannot be sole sources NOT because they are not accurate.
If wave power is so great. Why does this boat have a mast on it?
In my day we pulled a prank where we changed the number of beads on the Math teachers abacus. Oh man, I'm old!
This is a pretty grim picture of Great Britain. It makes me think the whole country will be like Mad Max in 20 years.
"if you removed all the ill-informed people offering speculation and unfounded personal opinion as fact from the Internet, there'd be very little left apart from busty substances and badger paws."
You could definitely say goodbye to slashdot.People have been learning about Aerospace Engineering from birds for centuries. What do you think was the inspiration for the Wright brothers "wing warping" technique? The perfect aircraft has always been a bird. The only think I see that's new here is exactly why that is.
Let's not confuse "the Government" with political appointees such as House staffers. "The Government" is full of career bureaucrats and professional civil servants, most of which have been in there positions for a long time and will continue to be there until they retire, whether or not they deserve to be. They serve the people. Political appointees are eager young trust fund kids who make close to minimum wage. But they're not concerned about the money because they're in for their own idealogical motives. They're out to change the world . . . at least until the next election. They serve the guy who hired them and who is probably friends with their parents. Which one of these is more likely to do something dumb like add propaganda to a wikipedia article?
You have to be sponsored. One's clearance is usually tied to a specific contract or clearance granting organization. Department of Defense has a different set of rules than Department of Energy for example. They're transferable, but that's not an easy process. A lot of people in DoD get clearances in the military.
Contracts dictate what level of clearance contracting staff must possess. So if you worked on a contract with foreign nationals who only possessed FBI background checks, it's because the government specified that's all that was necessary. So Unisys hiring practices (along with all other contracting companies) vary from contract to contract.
That's bogus generalization. I've worked for several contractors including Unisys and I can tell you that while it is true that obtaining a clearance is a hurdle, the increase in pay you get with a clearance makes it worth the effort. Also, how do you think people get a clearance to begin with? Someone like Unisys sponsors them. Of course, if you're already cleared you're a more attractive candidate, but it is totally false to say that contractors only hire people on the basis of their clearance rather than their technical proficiency. If anything, people who are technically proficient are attracted to government contracting because the work is really interesting and the pay is better than you can expect to make as a government employee or in the commercial world. The problem with Unisys is that they treat their people like garbage, so anyone who is smart goes to work for another contractor. You're right to say they adhere to the "warm bodies" syndrome, but wrong to assert that all contractors do that. True IT services firms like Booz Allen, KPMG, CACI, do not.
Right you are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmo's_World Elmo is way ahead of his time.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but they don't seem to be blaming privacy laws, but rather "confusion" over privacy laws. In other words, the problem is not so much what the laws legislate as it is how they are written.
It seems that in this case, many of the parties involved didn't understand what information they were allowed or obligated to share, so they didn't share anything. They erred on the side of privacy to the detriment of the Virginia Tech community.
Clearly some there is a line somewhere at which the privacy of the individual is outweighed by the safety of the community. The question is where is that line? The laws draw it pretty fuzzily.