Sir,
Being a Marine veteran with a B.S. in Computer Science, an A.S. in Information Systems Security, as well as a CISSP/Sans GIAC certification I was wondering if the AF planned to reduce restrictions on prior service members of other services being able to join. Just a year or so ago I went by a local recruiting office for the AF and was turned away to the reserver side recruiter because, "The Air Force isn't looking for prior service veterans. Spend some time in the reserves then transfer to active duty."
It would seem your best source of immediate talent that your new Cyber Command could employ is the prior service professionals, yet your own service's recruiting rules would make that nearly impossible.
And just think...he did this with a little recon work of the depots and a tv remote. Now imagine would someone else could do with financial backing, fanatical devotion, and a little bit of high explosives. The little guy should be punished...but I think the train system itself should face some consequences. I'm all for ease of use...but I think a little extra security could be used when a 14 year old with a tv remote and a bit of time can cause this much chaos.
On the same token, if the government wanted them to provide it for a larger base of the public regardless of smart business practices, they would have attached milestones and stipulations to the grants.
I'm not conservative by any means, I feel our government shouldn't interfere with the markets at all except to prevent force from being used to influence the market. Sadly people today want the government to baby sit them and protect them from every little thing they find to boring to pay attention to themselves.
I totally agree that the smaller meat packing plant should have been left to do what it pleased with its labeling process...big business is simply playing the game by using the government's over-involvement in our market to its advantage.
To me its not the issue of big business versus little business versus the consumer that is the problem...its the problem that our government causes by attempting to let politics and a horribly corrupt system dictate who gets what and who does what.
Yes...our government does effectively control the industry when it dictates what you can sell, who you can sell it to, and what you can sell it for. That's not true capitalism. Is a monopoly a difficult thing to work with...yes it is. But the "evil" associated with it makes no sense if you want a truly capitalism based economy. You're saying that the dream of owning your own business, producing your good or service, and making money is great...unless you're the only one doing it...then its evil.
The concept of a monopoly over a good or service was much easier to see decades back when the technology was hard to produce and labor intensive, but these days with the global technological bubble growing and growing its not the same world. We're punishing Microsoft because they did too good of a job at making their O/S and then bundling software with it. We're announcing telcom's as evil big business because our retarded government gave them money breaks to help build the infrastructure of the high speed data world, and then didn't move into less profitable areas due to cost versus benefit.
We're punishing them because we gave them money with no strings attached and they used it to benefit themselves...so they're evil because they practice good business?
To me that's still just a great example of mismanagement of our government funds. I can't blame a company for taking the government money and breaks, then running with it, if our government hadn't so stupidly just handed it to them on silver platter. If I give some guy $100 off on a car I'm selling because he wants to use the parts to fix cars for poor local families...and then he doesn't do it, that's my fault. There was no contract and I didn't do anything to cover my ass. I'm not about to go back and say, "Well because of that, you have to let other smaller mechanics use your tools and the cars you built with those parts, because they might help those poor families." There's still that assumption that the other smaller party will help the "public" out.
Our government acts too much like a piss poor charity foundation than what it was originally intended for. By giving the big telco's that break and the money so openly and without much regulation, they basically wasted the funds. But what's new about that.
Yes, but again...who are we to decide that a product of a company (and their right to produce it) is ours to control? Just because you need something doesn't mean you should get it. I need food, but I don't believe you or anyone else needs to give it to me. I work for the money to pay for it. I don't ask you or anyone else to provide me with something I haven't earned and vice versa.
No where does it say that the telco's are going to immediately end all current contracts, more than likely little will change for most people. In area's where Verizon doesn't find it profitable to offer DSL and they let another company use its lines...they're still going to let that company use the lines for a fee...as is their right. But in no way should anyone FORCE them to let that company use those lines.
I for one, as a veteran, refuse to let my country continue to slide towards socialism quietly. Doing something "for the public good" is an affront to everything the founding fathers put down in the Constitution. Who decides who the "public" is and what is "good" for them?
You're assuming that the minute they can, Verizon will drop every single non-verizon company that has access to its lines...but it won't. If they don't offer that service in your area yet, you can bet they'll be more than happy to let your current provider keep using the lines...at a cost.
Now once they offer DSL to you, then you might have to worry a bit...but until then I think a majority of people are safe.
I understand why a lot of you are upset over this, but at the same time see it from the company's perspective. They paid for the lines, the installation, the maintenance, etc... Then you have the government come in and say, "Well that's nice, but in the interest of "fairness" you need to let other companies who didn't drop a dime for the hardware use it...and take business away from you." That's like building a family business, then having the government tell you that you have to let a competing business use your facilities to compete against you.
But since we're talking about "big evil telecom" companies, no one gives a crap. You give them shit because they control the market, well yes they do...because they helped CREATE the market. This is business...there is no fair or unfair. If you don't like their service and can't get another one...you either do without or suck it up. You have no "right" to anything they produce.
Slashdot Mirror
Sir, Being a Marine veteran with a B.S. in Computer Science, an A.S. in Information Systems Security, as well as a CISSP/Sans GIAC certification I was wondering if the AF planned to reduce restrictions on prior service members of other services being able to join. Just a year or so ago I went by a local recruiting office for the AF and was turned away to the reserver side recruiter because, "The Air Force isn't looking for prior service veterans. Spend some time in the reserves then transfer to active duty." It would seem your best source of immediate talent that your new Cyber Command could employ is the prior service professionals, yet your own service's recruiting rules would make that nearly impossible.
And just think...he did this with a little recon work of the depots and a tv remote. Now imagine would someone else could do with financial backing, fanatical devotion, and a little bit of high explosives. The little guy should be punished...but I think the train system itself should face some consequences. I'm all for ease of use...but I think a little extra security could be used when a 14 year old with a tv remote and a bit of time can cause this much chaos.
On the same token, if the government wanted them to provide it for a larger base of the public regardless of smart business practices, they would have attached milestones and stipulations to the grants. I'm not conservative by any means, I feel our government shouldn't interfere with the markets at all except to prevent force from being used to influence the market. Sadly people today want the government to baby sit them and protect them from every little thing they find to boring to pay attention to themselves. I totally agree that the smaller meat packing plant should have been left to do what it pleased with its labeling process...big business is simply playing the game by using the government's over-involvement in our market to its advantage. To me its not the issue of big business versus little business versus the consumer that is the problem...its the problem that our government causes by attempting to let politics and a horribly corrupt system dictate who gets what and who does what.
Yes...our government does effectively control the industry when it dictates what you can sell, who you can sell it to, and what you can sell it for. That's not true capitalism. Is a monopoly a difficult thing to work with...yes it is. But the "evil" associated with it makes no sense if you want a truly capitalism based economy. You're saying that the dream of owning your own business, producing your good or service, and making money is great...unless you're the only one doing it...then its evil. The concept of a monopoly over a good or service was much easier to see decades back when the technology was hard to produce and labor intensive, but these days with the global technological bubble growing and growing its not the same world. We're punishing Microsoft because they did too good of a job at making their O/S and then bundling software with it. We're announcing telcom's as evil big business because our retarded government gave them money breaks to help build the infrastructure of the high speed data world, and then didn't move into less profitable areas due to cost versus benefit. We're punishing them because we gave them money with no strings attached and they used it to benefit themselves...so they're evil because they practice good business?
To me that's still just a great example of mismanagement of our government funds. I can't blame a company for taking the government money and breaks, then running with it, if our government hadn't so stupidly just handed it to them on silver platter. If I give some guy $100 off on a car I'm selling because he wants to use the parts to fix cars for poor local families...and then he doesn't do it, that's my fault. There was no contract and I didn't do anything to cover my ass. I'm not about to go back and say, "Well because of that, you have to let other smaller mechanics use your tools and the cars you built with those parts, because they might help those poor families." There's still that assumption that the other smaller party will help the "public" out.
Our government acts too much like a piss poor charity foundation than what it was originally intended for. By giving the big telco's that break and the money so openly and without much regulation, they basically wasted the funds. But what's new about that.
Yes, but again...who are we to decide that a product of a company (and their right to produce it) is ours to control? Just because you need something doesn't mean you should get it. I need food, but I don't believe you or anyone else needs to give it to me. I work for the money to pay for it. I don't ask you or anyone else to provide me with something I haven't earned and vice versa.
No where does it say that the telco's are going to immediately end all current contracts, more than likely little will change for most people. In area's where Verizon doesn't find it profitable to offer DSL and they let another company use its lines...they're still going to let that company use the lines for a fee...as is their right. But in no way should anyone FORCE them to let that company use those lines.
I for one, as a veteran, refuse to let my country continue to slide towards socialism quietly. Doing something "for the public good" is an affront to everything the founding fathers put down in the Constitution. Who decides who the "public" is and what is "good" for them?
You're assuming that the minute they can, Verizon will drop every single non-verizon company that has access to its lines...but it won't. If they don't offer that service in your area yet, you can bet they'll be more than happy to let your current provider keep using the lines...at a cost.
Now once they offer DSL to you, then you might have to worry a bit...but until then I think a majority of people are safe.
I understand why a lot of you are upset over this, but at the same time see it from the company's perspective. They paid for the lines, the installation, the maintenance, etc... Then you have the government come in and say, "Well that's nice, but in the interest of "fairness" you need to let other companies who didn't drop a dime for the hardware use it...and take business away from you." That's like building a family business, then having the government tell you that you have to let a competing business use your facilities to compete against you.
But since we're talking about "big evil telecom" companies, no one gives a crap. You give them shit because they control the market, well yes they do...because they helped CREATE the market. This is business...there is no fair or unfair. If you don't like their service and can't get another one...you either do without or suck it up. You have no "right" to anything they produce.