From which we must conclude that the system is so disastrous it can't even indoctrinate properly.
Or, that there is a time delay, and global warming indoctrination only started relatively recently. I graduated highschool in 1992. Any indoctrination that highschools did after that date is unlikely to influence my opinions.
Who are those owners of which you speak? If they are the share holders, then look at the dividend yield. It tends to be tiny. It's not really the share holders making that much.
The truth is that academically most of college in just highschool part 2. For anyone who is getting a degree in a field that is already their passion & hobby (e.g. someone who has invested 10000+ hours of personal time into programming and then goes for a computer science degree), it's only in the final 1 or 2 years that the coursework is even worthwhile. The rest of the time is spent underachieving because the content is so rudimentary that you can't even stay focused. You think the colleges want you to just buy the quality courses at the end? Hell no, they want you for 2-4 years of tuition!... errr I mean "broadening experience!"
That's the reason I do WGU. It's a fixed cost for an "all you can study" semester. You can do the assignments and get the easy stuff out of the way quickly.
It's competition. When you have ten thousand journalists trying to do a job of a few hundreds, of course they'll have to work extra hard to beat each other.
If you don't want the electronic leash to be so tight, you have to do something with less competition, where you have a competitive advantage. For example, instead of reporting on standard events, provide analysis based on knowledge that isn't very widely available.
Protecting the Secret version of the Internet is a civilian company job with a clearance. But protecting the infrastructure that provides me with water and electricity does not require any clearance.
How many of those jobs are actually in the government? Most of our critical infrastructure (phone system, backbone, water supply, electrical supply, and so on) is privately owned and operated.
A dictatorship that controls the flow of information, doesn't skim too much off the top and cracks down on corruption in the lower ranks is a quite efficient way of governing a nation. We may not like it, and it goes against everything we in the west believe in, but that doesn't mean it can't work. No electoral circuses or free press that get in your hair.
True. A honest dictatorship works great. The problem is that there's no mechanism to keep the rulers honest, and plenty of temptations for them not to be.
If you can find angels to run the government, this would work. Until then, I'll take our system.
Except that listening to music is a luxury. The fuel that moves the tractors on the farm, or that gets the food from the farm to your supermarket, isn't.
Judges are supposed to apply the law. Laws aren't made by a single person, but by the legislature. How do you propose to decide if the government obeys the law or not?
Obviously not. This might be a low cost way to turning some energy from an easily available form (wood to burn for cooking) into electricity. A lot of third world countries have excess lumber.
To half of the Turkish citizens who are progressive and trying to westernize Turkey and to enter Europe: I feel really bad and sorry for you, keep fighting until you overpower the other half.
The problem is that the progressive Turkish citizens aren't breeding as much as Islamists do. Without numbers on their side, how can they win, except by becoming a dictatorship?
So you'd ban all foreign lobbying, not just what appears detrimental to the country? That makes more sense.
However, it is often incredibly difficult to separate domestic from foreign. In Check Point, for example, a foreign company (HQ in Israel), or a domestic company (shares traded on the NASDAQ, most share owners probably US entities)? What about IBM (HQ in the US and the majority of employees in other countries, shared publicly traded)?
Better yet, how about an outright ban on campaign contributions?
So you'd limit lobbying to organizations powerful enough to directly support a candidate, such as TV stations, newspapers, and organizations who can open their own TV stations and newspapers?
And, equally or more importantly, defending the US from attack. How exactly they might do so is another matter, but the defense and disruption is equally important as the offensive capabilities.
True, but I doubt they'll be able to add anything to the defensive capabilities. The targets aren't owned by the federal government for the most part. Because attacks can happen very quickly, it is necessary to protect the targets before they happen. Hacking is more like a terrorist attack than an invasion by a large force with a huge logistics tail.
What country will you attack when an independent group screws with a bank?
Under international law, the country which allowed the independent group to operate out of its territory. If the country isn't capable of policing its own territory, we have the right to defend ourselves by policing it ourselves. Otherwise, it would be too easy for governments to shrug and say "we didn't do it, it's not our fault that those terrorists happen to have stolen military supplies from our base, and recruited people who used to be our soldiers".
But just because somebody who we think works for the Chinese government brought down our banking system for a few days, we don't want to start a shooting war with China, which would have a death toll in the millions. So instead, we make sure we have the capability to mess with them at the same level.
Anything of critical importance such as military kit, medical kit, power, gas, and water infrastructure should not be on the Internet at all.
You're right. It shouldn't. It should use its own infrastructure, not connected to the Internet or the telephony network. Except for two problems:
1. Any custom network is going to be smaller and have less redundancies. There might be a failsafe to revert to a VPN, in case the dedicated network is down. Which it might be, in the case of war, due to either electronic warfare or bombardment. The military's job is to plan and train for nasty situations. Including "how to make a bad situation worse".
2. Pointy haired bosses and government incompetence are not unique to the west. Just because something should be done securely doesn't mean that it is. If an enemy makes a mistake, it would be stupid not to exploit it.
The NSA is an intelligence agency, I assume this means their primary purpose is to collect information. They might hack into a computer, but that would be to the purpose of obtaining information. The military is supposed to conduct offensive operations. Things like breaking into computers running dams or the electric grid to disable them. Psychological warfare by breaking into Web sites and changing what they show. Spreading disinformation into enemy communication channels.
Basically, this is probably about doing low level nasty things when the situation doesn't call for an all out shooting war, and making sure an enemy can't trust his networked computer systems in case of an all out war. I'm pretty sure the US isn't the only one doing this.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure the CIA is also much more interested in the people who provide the content for Wikileaks. Unfortunately, that's harder to find and publish.
From which we must conclude that the system is so disastrous it can't even indoctrinate properly.
Or, that there is a time delay, and global warming indoctrination only started relatively recently. I graduated highschool in 1992. Any indoctrination that highschools did after that date is unlikely to influence my opinions.
Who are those owners of which you speak? If they are the share holders, then look at the dividend yield. It tends to be tiny. It's not really the share holders making that much.
Exactly, and that's the way it should be. Your CTO wants you to suggest spending a few extra hundreds of dollars on storage to avoid downtime.
The truth is that academically most of college in just highschool part 2. For anyone who is getting a degree in a field that is already their passion & hobby (e.g. someone who has invested 10000+ hours of personal time into programming and then goes for a computer science degree), it's only in the final 1 or 2 years that the coursework is even worthwhile. The rest of the time is spent underachieving because the content is so rudimentary that you can't even stay focused. You think the colleges want you to just buy the quality courses at the end? Hell no, they want you for 2-4 years of tuition!... errr I mean "broadening experience!"
That's the reason I do WGU. It's a fixed cost for an "all you can study" semester. You can do the assignments and get the easy stuff out of the way quickly.
I haven't done this. I'm doing an M.Ed. in instructional design, and I'm mostly pleased with that program.
It's competition. When you have ten thousand journalists trying to do a job of a few hundreds, of course they'll have to work extra hard to beat each other.
If you don't want the electronic leash to be so tight, you have to do something with less competition, where you have a competitive advantage. For example, instead of reporting on standard events, provide analysis based on knowledge that isn't very widely available.
Protecting the Secret version of the Internet is a civilian company job with a clearance. But protecting the infrastructure that provides me with water and electricity does not require any clearance.
If you're good at learning on your own, you can get an M.Sc. from WGU for ~15k$ ( http://www.wgu.edu/online_it_degrees/information_security_assurance_degree ).
How would the managers know if the people they hired to protect the system aren't a greater risk from those they are protecting from?
How many of those jobs are actually in the government? Most of our critical infrastructure (phone system, backbone, water supply, electrical supply, and so on) is privately owned and operated.
A dictatorship that controls the flow of information, doesn't skim too much off the top and cracks down on corruption in the lower ranks is a quite efficient way of governing a nation. We may not like it, and it goes against everything we in the west believe in, but that doesn't mean it can't work. No electoral circuses or free press that get in your hair.
True. A honest dictatorship works great. The problem is that there's no mechanism to keep the rulers honest, and plenty of temptations for them not to be.
If you can find angels to run the government, this would work. Until then, I'll take our system.
Except that listening to music is a luxury. The fuel that moves the tractors on the farm, or that gets the food from the farm to your supermarket, isn't.
Judges are supposed to apply the law. Laws aren't made by a single person, but by the legislature. How do you propose to decide if the government obeys the law or not?
Obviously not. This might be a low cost way to turning some energy from an easily available form (wood to burn for cooking) into electricity. A lot of third world countries have excess lumber.
Of course you can. It may be added to your candidates budget limit though. Its not likely to happen unless you are a major news outlet or TV station.
So I can spent money on really bad advertising, and that counts against the candidate I pretend to support? Neat!
The UK might be more honest, but if this system was available here I can see the "KKK for Obama" advertising.
To half of the Turkish citizens who are progressive and trying to westernize Turkey and to enter Europe: I feel really bad and sorry for you, keep fighting until you overpower the other half.
The problem is that the progressive Turkish citizens aren't breeding as much as Islamists do. Without numbers on their side, how can they win, except by becoming a dictatorship?
Nope, that would just be silly.... 100% public funds. Not a dime out of their own pockets could be spent towards the election.
So I'm not allowed to endorse a candidate in my own publication? Or on my own Web page? That would kill freedom of speech.
So you'd ban all foreign lobbying, not just what appears detrimental to the country? That makes more sense.
However, it is often incredibly difficult to separate domestic from foreign. In Check Point, for example, a foreign company (HQ in Israel), or a domestic company (shares traded on the NASDAQ, most share owners probably US entities)? What about IBM (HQ in the US and the majority of employees in other countries, shared publicly traded)?
Better yet, how about an outright ban on campaign contributions?
So you'd limit lobbying to organizations powerful enough to directly support a candidate, such as TV stations, newspapers, and organizations who can open their own TV stations and newspapers?
just limit it to domestic and foreign policy that is actually beneficial to our country, not policies that are detrimental to the USA.
And who decides if a policy being lobbied for is actually beneficial to our country before it can be lobbied for?
And, equally or more importantly, defending the US from attack. How exactly they might do so is another matter, but the defense and disruption is equally important as the offensive capabilities.
True, but I doubt they'll be able to add anything to the defensive capabilities. The targets aren't owned by the federal government for the most part. Because attacks can happen very quickly, it is necessary to protect the targets before they happen. Hacking is more like a terrorist attack than an invasion by a large force with a huge logistics tail.
What country will you attack when an independent group screws with a bank?
Under international law, the country which allowed the independent group to operate out of its territory. If the country isn't capable of policing its own territory, we have the right to defend ourselves by policing it ourselves. Otherwise, it would be too easy for governments to shrug and say "we didn't do it, it's not our fault that those terrorists happen to have stolen military supplies from our base, and recruited people who used to be our soldiers".
But just because somebody who we think works for the Chinese government brought down our banking system for a few days, we don't want to start a shooting war with China, which would have a death toll in the millions. So instead, we make sure we have the capability to mess with them at the same level.
Anything of critical importance such as military kit, medical kit, power, gas, and water infrastructure should not be on the Internet at all.
You're right. It shouldn't. It should use its own infrastructure, not connected to the Internet or the telephony network. Except for two problems:
1. Any custom network is going to be smaller and have less redundancies. There might be a failsafe to revert to a VPN, in case the dedicated network is down. Which it might be, in the case of war, due to either electronic warfare or bombardment. The military's job is to plan and train for nasty situations. Including "how to make a bad situation worse".
2. Pointy haired bosses and government incompetence are not unique to the west. Just because something should be done securely doesn't mean that it is. If an enemy makes a mistake, it would be stupid not to exploit it.
The NSA is an intelligence agency, I assume this means their primary purpose is to collect information. They might hack into a computer, but that would be to the purpose of obtaining information. The military is supposed to conduct offensive operations. Things like breaking into computers running dams or the electric grid to disable them. Psychological warfare by breaking into Web sites and changing what they show. Spreading disinformation into enemy communication channels.
Basically, this is probably about doing low level nasty things when the situation doesn't call for an all out shooting war, and making sure an enemy can't trust his networked computer systems in case of an all out war. I'm pretty sure the US isn't the only one doing this.