Yes, I read the wiki reference. It was a somewhat subtle attempt as sarcasm - the only way to get even relative peace is for one power to conquer the world, as the Roman Empire did.
With this in mind, how do you recruit the most creative and skilled people that this country has to offer?
Probably he'd rather recruit people who will obey orders to the best of their abilities as long as those orders are legal. I don't think the military is interested in people who want an option to leave if they don't agree with their orders.
There are people who don't make good soldiers. I'm one of them. That doesn't mean that out of a population of ~300 million he won't find the people he's looking for.
Why aren't there more isolated networks that would require physical contact or interception to get to in the first place?
Maybe they have people who can go places and attach wireless / satellite access points to various networks. It's not a safe job, but the military has plenty of jobs that aren't safe.
No private company should be so entrenched in society that it would be impossible to survive without the service they provide.
Define impossible. My father in law doesn't have a credit rating. He lives in a rural area where most deals are done in cash. But he has to work harder and has a lower standard of living because of his choices.
You have a right to compete in the job market. But you don't have a right for a job.
Just remember to wear your gloves to voting booth. Otherwise you leave fingerprints all over your ballot.
Seriously, voting shouldn't just be secure. It should be verifiably secure by a non technical person. Paper ballots, possibly computer generated, are the best way to do that.
It was only unfunded in comparative terms. The federal government is not allowed to mess with education. They get around this by paying school districts to do something.
Before NCLB the federal government has some requirements to give money. NCLB changed those requirements, without allocating more money. School districts are allowed to tell the DoE to take their money, take their standards, and stuff them both into the same shredder.
We, as voters for each school district, have decided not to do so. We want our federal education subsidies.
The family mugger either earns a living, or gets the mugger welfare. It's easier for that mugger to give that money to the disabled relative than it is to mug me to give money to that relative.
Our enemies, current and likely in the foreseeable future, already have a tradition of torturing captives. Their publics won't care about a moral justification. It's unlikely they'll refrain from torturing our troops anyway.
However, it might make it easier for them to do PR back in the US to convince our public that we are in the wrong despite the fact they torture our POWs. That future PR issue may be worth losing the information gained by torture - it's a tradeoff I'm not qualified to make, not being privy to that classified information myself.
So welfare is basically a form of Danegeld? In that case, shouldn't we stop paying the old and the sick, and concentrate on paying people who would make effective muggers? We'd be able to pay more potential muggers that way, and pay them more, preventing even more crime.
Politicians want to get elected. To get elected, politicians identify problems and promise to use the government to solve them. The solution may or may not work, the problem may or may not be soluble, but that doesn't matter. What matters is winning the elections.
"I can't solve it even if I get elected, you'll have to put in the effort yourselves" doesn't win elections. "If I solve it, holders of this office will have a power that will eventually be abused, and that abuse will be a lot worse than the current problem" isn't a vote winner either.
Republicans play to a different audience and therefore identify and promise to solve different problems. But in both cases the basic premise of the politician is that the best solution is for the government to do something.
I'm not saying government is never the solution. I doubt plague prevention and national security can be done at a lower level than the federal government. I'm scared at the idea of a private police force with the ability to arrest me for alleged crimes I committed in the past. But government should be the last resort, not the first solution.
I'm not saying they're not my neighbors. I'm saying that when you have the government do wealth redistribution you aren't just helping people. You're telling me I have to help those people, or go to prison.
Maybe they deserve the money more than I do. Maybe it's worth paying them Danegeld so they won't go into a life of crime that will cost us more. But don't just saying you want to help people - when it's the government doing it there is always a cost to people who are not willing to bear it.
I don't have a problem with paying for effective pubic education. As a society we need to invest in the next generation, especially when their parents won't.
I just want people to remember that when they vote for welfare they aren't being just being charitable. They are voting to rob Peter to pay Paul. This isn't the same as giving Paul your own money. Sometimes it's necessary, or at least a good idea. But it shouldn't be the default position.
he takes the position that using torture is an invitation to enemies to torture our own troops, and opposes it on those grounds.
Do our enemies need such an invitation? Last time I checked Arab countries had a history of torturing captured enemies, one that predates the first Gulf war.
I doubt they'd change over to western laws of war just because we ask nicely.
The whole point of Judaism, possibly of religion in general, is that there is a power above the state to determine right and wrong.
A Nazi einstatzgruppen "soldier", shooting helpless Jewish civilians with full state sanction, is still a murderer. A partisan, shooting at the soldier without the sanction of the state, is not.
Expenses are supposed to be backed by receipts and are therefore auditable. There are a few exceptions, such as miles driven in a personal car for business purposes. However, those exceptions are limited in amount. You can't claim that you drove 1000 miles for your business every day of the year.
Gross revenue is a lot harder to audit. If somebody paid you in cash, you have no receipt for the IRS to require. If somebody paid you by cheque, you can go to the bank on which it is drawn and cash it - again, no receipt.
Seeing the credit card revenue would give the IRS a minimum amount for gross revenue. It would reduce the opportunities for tax fraud.
He's Hawking, identifying investment talent is not one of his skills.
The whole fighting poverty line is probably just marketing. It's a good thing to help potential brilliant scientists, but the economic payoff can often decades or centuries in the future and it will be reaped by whoever develops the technology that uses the science.
To fight poverty, you need to encourage business initiative, which gives a much faster payoff.
Married 7.5 years, 4 kids. The simple answer is "it depends". There is a lot of individual variation.
However, romantic attraction is not everything. For a long term relationship, it is necessary but not sufficient. Being useful and caring about her happiness are also necessary. If your goal is long term, helping her throw the party is a good thing.
If your goal is short term only, I don't have the experience to comment. Nor do I want it.
Optical drives have been left out to prevent kids from playing 'unauthorized games.'
How about "Optical drives have been left out to drive down the cost, but some marketing weenie thought it would sound better if the press release said it was for the children"?
Engineering is about reality. Marketing is about perceptions.
In Texas a private road is defined as one maintained privately, as opposed to a public road that is maintained by a government (municipal, county, state, or federal). Usually the residents who use the road share the responsibility to maintain it.
I assume in Pennsylvania it's the same. If you don't want people driving on a road, you need to mark it as such. Put a gate, or a sign forbidding unauthorized access.
I assume whoever configured The Pirate Bay's Web site realized people will try to hack into that system. Besides,
Unless I miss my guess, the US Cyber Command would be more interested in things like the power supply in Tehran or the water supply in Damascus. You know, systems used by nation states that could become enemies.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I read the wiki reference. It was a somewhat subtle attempt as sarcasm - the only way to get even relative peace is for one power to conquer the world, as the Roman Empire did.
As you said, fighting is part of human nature.
What part of your job is to defend US systems, and what to prepare to attack against systems used by opposing forces?
Also, do you see the existence of your department as a possible deterrent for hostile organizations to use IT effectively?
How about Pax Romana?
With this in mind, how do you recruit the most creative and skilled people that this country has to offer?
Probably he'd rather recruit people who will obey orders to the best of their abilities as long as those orders are legal. I don't think the military is interested in people who want an option to leave if they don't agree with their orders.
There are people who don't make good soldiers. I'm one of them. That doesn't mean that out of a population of ~300 million he won't find the people he's looking for.
Why aren't there more isolated networks that would require physical contact or interception to get to in the first place?
Maybe they have people who can go places and attach wireless / satellite access points to various networks. It's not a safe job, but the military has plenty of jobs that aren't safe.
No private company should be so entrenched in society that it would be impossible to survive without the service they provide.
Define impossible. My father in law doesn't have a credit rating. He lives in a rural area where most deals are done in cash. But he has to work harder and has a lower standard of living because of his choices.
You have a right to compete in the job market. But you don't have a right for a job.
Just remember to wear your gloves to voting booth. Otherwise you leave fingerprints all over your ballot.
Seriously, voting shouldn't just be secure. It should be verifiably secure by a non technical person. Paper ballots, possibly computer generated, are the best way to do that.
It was only unfunded in comparative terms. The federal government is not allowed to mess with education. They get around this by paying school districts to do something.
Before NCLB the federal government has some requirements to give money. NCLB changed those requirements, without allocating more money. School districts are allowed to tell the DoE to take their money, take their standards, and stuff them both into the same shredder.
We, as voters for each school district, have decided not to do so. We want our federal education subsidies.
The family mugger either earns a living, or gets the mugger welfare. It's easier for that mugger to give that money to the disabled relative than it is to mug me to give money to that relative.
Our enemies, current and likely in the foreseeable future, already have a tradition of torturing captives. Their publics won't care about a moral justification. It's unlikely they'll refrain from torturing our troops anyway.
However, it might make it easier for them to do PR back in the US to convince our public that we are in the wrong despite the fact they torture our POWs. That future PR issue may be worth losing the information gained by torture - it's a tradeoff I'm not qualified to make, not being privy to that classified information myself.
So welfare is basically a form of Danegeld? In that case, shouldn't we stop paying the old and the sick, and concentrate on paying people who would make effective muggers? We'd be able to pay more potential muggers that way, and pay them more, preventing even more crime.
I wish you were right.
Politicians want to get elected. To get elected, politicians identify problems and promise to use the government to solve them. The solution may or may not work, the problem may or may not be soluble, but that doesn't matter. What matters is winning the elections.
"I can't solve it even if I get elected, you'll have to put in the effort yourselves" doesn't win elections. "If I solve it, holders of this office will have a power that will eventually be abused, and that abuse will be a lot worse than the current problem" isn't a vote winner either.
Republicans play to a different audience and therefore identify and promise to solve different problems. But in both cases the basic premise of the politician is that the best solution is for the government to do something.
I'm not saying government is never the solution. I doubt plague prevention and national security can be done at a lower level than the federal government. I'm scared at the idea of a private police force with the ability to arrest me for alleged crimes I committed in the past. But government should be the last resort, not the first solution.
I'm not saying they're not my neighbors. I'm saying that when you have the government do wealth redistribution you aren't just helping people. You're telling me I have to help those people, or go to prison.
Maybe they deserve the money more than I do. Maybe it's worth paying them Danegeld so they won't go into a life of crime that will cost us more. But don't just saying you want to help people - when it's the government doing it there is always a cost to people who are not willing to bear it.
I don't have a problem with paying for effective pubic education. As a society we need to invest in the next generation, especially when their parents won't.
I just want people to remember that when they vote for welfare they aren't being just being charitable. They are voting to rob Peter to pay Paul. This isn't the same as giving Paul your own money. Sometimes it's necessary, or at least a good idea. But it shouldn't be the default position.
he takes the position that using torture is an invitation to enemies to torture our own troops, and opposes it on those grounds.
Do our enemies need such an invitation? Last time I checked Arab countries had a history of torturing captured enemies, one that predates the first Gulf war.
I doubt they'd change over to western laws of war just because we ask nicely.
Yes. I wanna help my neighbors
Do you want to help your neighbors, or do you want to force me help your neighbors?
That's the difference between private charity, funded by people who want to donate to it, and government welfare, funded by taxes.
The whole point of Judaism, possibly of religion in general, is that there is a power above the state to determine right and wrong.
A Nazi einstatzgruppen "soldier", shooting helpless Jewish civilians with full state sanction, is still a murderer. A partisan, shooting at the soldier without the sanction of the state, is not.
Taxable income = - .
Expenses are supposed to be backed by receipts and are therefore auditable. There are a few exceptions, such as miles driven in a personal car for business purposes. However, those exceptions are limited in amount. You can't claim that you drove 1000 miles for your business every day of the year.
Gross revenue is a lot harder to audit. If somebody paid you in cash, you have no receipt for the IRS to require. If somebody paid you by cheque, you can go to the bank on which it is drawn and cash it - again, no receipt.
Seeing the credit card revenue would give the IRS a minimum amount for gross revenue. It would reduce the opportunities for tax fraud.
removing their armed forced from the region and stop supporting "Israel".
How would removing US support from Israel (it's a real country you know, no need for quotation marks) improve Syria or Syrian-US relations?
1. The Syrian government would still be a dictatorship.
2. Dictators need a boogeyman, the bigger the better.
3. "The West" is still a bigger boogeyman than Israel by itself.
He's Hawking, identifying investment talent is not one of his skills.
The whole fighting poverty line is probably just marketing. It's a good thing to help potential brilliant scientists, but the economic payoff can often decades or centuries in the future and it will be reaped by whoever develops the technology that uses the science.
To fight poverty, you need to encourage business initiative, which gives a much faster payoff.
For more information, see http://www.procidis.com/ .
To order in English (but European DVD zone, you'll need to rip and reburn), see http://www.disquesoffice.ch/ .
More history than anything else, but there is a biology series and the history does start at the big bang.
Married 7.5 years, 4 kids. The simple answer is "it depends". There is a lot of individual variation.
However, romantic attraction is not everything. For a long term relationship, it is necessary but not sufficient. Being useful and caring about her happiness are also necessary. If your goal is long term, helping her throw the party is a good thing.
If your goal is short term only, I don't have the experience to comment. Nor do I want it.
Optical drives have been left out to prevent kids from playing 'unauthorized games.'
How about "Optical drives have been left out to drive down the cost, but some marketing weenie thought it would sound better if the press release said it was for the children"?
Engineering is about reality. Marketing is about perceptions.
In Texas a private road is defined as one maintained privately, as opposed to a public road that is maintained by a government (municipal, county, state, or federal). Usually the residents who use the road share the responsibility to maintain it.
I assume in Pennsylvania it's the same. If you don't want people driving on a road, you need to mark it as such. Put a gate, or a sign forbidding unauthorized access.
I assume whoever configured The Pirate Bay's Web site realized people will try to hack into that system. Besides,
Unless I miss my guess, the US Cyber Command would be more interested in things like the power supply in Tehran or the water supply in Damascus. You know, systems used by nation states that could become enemies.