The sad fact is that this organization of scientists and engineers is planning to fight the politicization of science and engineering by getting more actively involved in the politics of science and engineering.
Maybe it's for the best, though: With reasoning like that, they probably wouldn't do us much good as scientists and engineers. Better they be politicians, instead.
Personally, I like spy satellites. They create more openness between governments. They prevent a government from secretly fueling their ICBMs or mustering their strategic bombers. They produce more information about major military and industrial activity within a nation's borders; which increases the chances of this information becoming public knowledge and informing the entire world about what that nation is up to.
I like this openness, and heartily support the efforts of any nation to deploy spy satellites.
I also understand the desire of nations to neutralize the spy satellites of others. It's expected that they will attempt this kind of thing from time to time. And in time of war, it is absolutely vital that a nation be able to neutralize enemy spy satellites.
Broadly speaking, there are three reasons China might be conducting such a test:
1. Due diligence in preparing for a potential future war, by developing and testing the necessary defenses during peacetime.
2. To establish a deterrent, by demonstrating that agresssion against China would be made prohibitively expensive by the immediate loss of spysat intel streams.
3. To reduce the amount of openness in their dealings with the world, in order to cover up present activities that the rest of the world would not appreciate (for example, preparations for war), or to create FUD for political reasons.
The question is, what is the real reason China is doing this?
Ideally, a weapon system (such as the Tomcat) should be so capable that the enemy never even bothers trying to fight against it.
The fact that the F-14 was a credible part of a larger credible war machine, such that the Soviets never dared to challenge it in combat, is to its credit and totally justifies the cost of developing and deploying such a credible weapon system.
The best use of weapons isn't for killing and destroying, but for deterring the enemy from doing these things. The F-14 is made of historic and win.
I was referring to specific stories of government officials speaking in a scientific capacity, and contradicting the government's official policy on a particular scientific subject, and being told, essentially, "if you're going to publically contradict the official policy, you can't do it while holding a government position intended to support official policy".
While this is probably bad behavior on the government's part, it's very different from a government policy of no public dissent, anywhere, anytime.
Certainly America is full of scientists who are extremely outspoken in their dissent from the official policies.
The only reason you're able to say that the government has been misinforming the public and hiding the truth is because so many people and media outlets have spoken up claiming this to be true.
The fact that the government has taken a position you disagree with is no doubt discouraging to you. The fact that you and so many of your fellow citizens can disagree openly with the government should be similarly encouraging.
If you have been paying attention to American politics in the last five years or so, it should be obvious to you that vast swaths of the populace are freely and openly disbelieving the "lies". I think a careful look at China will make it equally obvious to you that this kind of dissent is much less common, on account of being much riskier, than it is here in the U.S.
That's what I meant. I hope that clears up your confusion.
The way I see it, there's a world of difference between telling scientists to dissent from the government on their own time, and telling scientists not to dissent from the government at all.
Wake me up when approximately half the Chinese population is openly and vehemently opposed to their government, and we'll talk about U.S.-China moral equivalence.
This increases their reputation for reliability, since the unreliable part of the car is replaced before the driver ever experiences its failure.
It also increases their customer satisfaction, since instead of getting a surprise breakdown, they get a nice letter asking them to bring their car to the nearest dealership for a free upgrade.
Toyota's recall policy is an integral part of the overall reliability and quality of their cars.
I predict a rise in the popularity of handcrafted objects from local artisans.
As basic goods are increasinly manufactured in automated robofabs, people will begin to furnish their homes with cheap, durable, simple objects, and spend their discretionary income on handcrafted wood, ceramic, and metal decorative objects made by local craftsmen.
Over time, even handcrafted functional objects will become desireable (to those that can afford them).
A new consumer economy, based on buying the basic and big-ticket items from generic robofabs, and "accessorizing" with locally-handcrafted artifacts, will evolve.
Actually, as a bank customer, I'm pretty sure I have the most control over the security system that prevents me from giving my account access information to phishers.
What is the bank supposed to do? Come to my house and screen all my phone calls? Filter my email for trickery? Stand over me with a wooden spoon and rap my skull whenever I'm about to fall for some piece of social engineering?
Since "it" in this context is "a conspiracy to commit election fraud", if T want me to believe it happened, then I'd have to assume that They are traitorous villains who are seeking to undermine faith in the election system, thereby preventing the citizenry from doing what is right and proper.
Actually, now that I think about it, I do believe this is proof positive that people are more willing to listen to large national newspapers rather than slashdotters with cliche witisisms!
Being of an optomistic and cheerful turn of mind, and at the same time having a realistic opinion of man's flawed nature, I happen to think these characteristics of our government as features rather than bugs.
Then, on the principle that anyone who denies being a Templar must surely be a Templar, I will say nothing more of the matter, but leave it up to you to judge the issue on its merits rather than your prejudices.
Decentralization only works if there is good communication between the various parts that make up the whole.
According to this article, the chief lesson of the exercise was that the different parts did not communicate effectively in times of crisis, and that this put the whole at risk.
The recommendation, then, is to improve communication between the separate parts, not to centralize their functions.
Actually, I think there's a lot of merit to the philosophy of "ineffective government". And it's definitely the case that the system of government we signed up for was designed to be as ineffective as possible without being completely useless.
However, in so far as we have government at all, I would prefer that it was able to act effectively in times of crisis.
I mean, think how much better off we'd be if FEMA, the State of Louisiana, and the City of New Orleans had thought to work out trust relationships and clear contingency plans and handoff of responsibilities, prior to the arrival of a giant fucking hurricane, yeah?
Besides, America has probably the most un-secret "secret police" of any nation in the world (unprovable conspiracy theories aside).
Also, the article isn't about the "secret police", but about the woefully feeble capabilities of government infrastructure agencies in general, to survive and recover from "cyber" attacks. You might want to save your "secret police" objections for an article about actual "secret police".
At least according to the blurb, it sounds like the organizations involved will probably be working on ways to communicate with each other better in times of crisis, probably by developing trust relationships ahead of time.
Assuming that's the case, it's exactly the kind of improvements we should expect to see from government agencies: identifying weaknesses, and working to eliminate them.
So, kudos to DHS, and may they successfully apply the lessons learned from this exercise.
Q: "When, exactly, did Slashdot become so retarded?"
A: During the Bush admistrations war on science, reason, morals and ethics.
Slashdot must have been seriously retarded to begin with, if Chimpy McHitlerBurton's pathetic, fumbling attempts at theocratic fascism were all it took to make it... even more retarded?
Now, if the ancient Egyptians had been synthesizing lead sulfide nanoparticles inside a pyramid-shaped fab, I'd call it nanotechnology and bow to the wisdom of the ancients.
How will we explain to our children that back in the day we had this sweet airplane shaped orbiter to take us into space, and now all they have is this cone-shaped hunk of a "spaceship".
More importantly, how will we explain to our children that back in the day we couldn't be bothered to learn about and understand the world we live in, and that's why we have no clue about whatever topic their curiosity brings up?
Slashdot Mirror
The sad fact is that this organization of scientists and engineers is planning to fight the politicization of science and engineering by getting more actively involved in the politics of science and engineering.
Maybe it's for the best, though: With reasoning like that, they probably wouldn't do us much good as scientists and engineers. Better they be politicians, instead.
Personally, I like spy satellites. They create more openness between governments. They prevent a government from secretly fueling their ICBMs or mustering their strategic bombers. They produce more information about major military and industrial activity within a nation's borders; which increases the chances of this information becoming public knowledge and informing the entire world about what that nation is up to.
I like this openness, and heartily support the efforts of any nation to deploy spy satellites.
I also understand the desire of nations to neutralize the spy satellites of others. It's expected that they will attempt this kind of thing from time to time. And in time of war, it is absolutely vital that a nation be able to neutralize enemy spy satellites.
Broadly speaking, there are three reasons China might be conducting such a test:
1. Due diligence in preparing for a potential future war, by developing and testing the necessary defenses during peacetime.
2. To establish a deterrent, by demonstrating that agresssion against China would be made prohibitively expensive by the immediate loss of spysat intel streams.
3. To reduce the amount of openness in their dealings with the world, in order to cover up present activities that the rest of the world would not appreciate (for example, preparations for war), or to create FUD for political reasons.
The question is, what is the real reason China is doing this?
I figure, if there are that many examples of OMGARMAGEDDONWTF?!, then it's probably not luck that kicks in every time disaster is averted.
Ideally, a weapon system (such as the Tomcat) should be so capable that the enemy never even bothers trying to fight against it.
The fact that the F-14 was a credible part of a larger credible war machine, such that the Soviets never dared to challenge it in combat, is to its credit and totally justifies the cost of developing and deploying such a credible weapon system.
The best use of weapons isn't for killing and destroying, but for deterring the enemy from doing these things. The F-14 is made of historic and win.
Whatever you say.
Sorry, I guess that wasn't very clear.
I was referring to specific stories of government officials speaking in a scientific capacity, and contradicting the government's official policy on a particular scientific subject, and being told, essentially, "if you're going to publically contradict the official policy, you can't do it while holding a government position intended to support official policy".
While this is probably bad behavior on the government's part, it's very different from a government policy of no public dissent, anywhere, anytime.
Certainly America is full of scientists who are extremely outspoken in their dissent from the official policies.
The only reason you're able to say that the government has been misinforming the public and hiding the truth is because so many people and media outlets have spoken up claiming this to be true.
The fact that the government has taken a position you disagree with is no doubt discouraging to you. The fact that you and so many of your fellow citizens can disagree openly with the government should be similarly encouraging.
If you have been paying attention to American politics in the last five years or so, it should be obvious to you that vast swaths of the populace are freely and openly disbelieving the "lies". I think a careful look at China will make it equally obvious to you that this kind of dissent is much less common, on account of being much riskier, than it is here in the U.S.
That's what I meant. I hope that clears up your confusion.
Makes sense to me.
The way I see it, there's a world of difference between telling scientists to dissent from the government on their own time, and telling scientists not to dissent from the government at all.
Wake me up when approximately half the Chinese population is openly and vehemently opposed to their government, and we'll talk about U.S.-China moral equivalence.
Toyota has a policy of recalling early and often.
This increases their reputation for reliability, since the unreliable part of the car is replaced before the driver ever experiences its failure.
It also increases their customer satisfaction, since instead of getting a surprise breakdown, they get a nice letter asking them to bring their car to the nearest dealership for a free upgrade.
Toyota's recall policy is an integral part of the overall reliability and quality of their cars.
I predict a rise in the popularity of handcrafted objects from local artisans.
As basic goods are increasinly manufactured in automated robofabs, people will begin to furnish their homes with cheap, durable, simple objects, and spend their discretionary income on handcrafted wood, ceramic, and metal decorative objects made by local craftsmen.
Over time, even handcrafted functional objects will become desireable (to those that can afford them).
A new consumer economy, based on buying the basic and big-ticket items from generic robofabs, and "accessorizing" with locally-handcrafted artifacts, will evolve.
... maybe Richard Stallman is "worse than nothing" and "a laborious half measure".
Actually, as a bank customer, I'm pretty sure I have the most control over the security system that prevents me from giving my account access information to phishers.
What is the bank supposed to do? Come to my house and screen all my phone calls? Filter my email for trickery? Stand over me with a wooden spoon and rap my skull whenever I'm about to fall for some piece of social engineering?
Since "it" in this context is "a conspiracy to commit election fraud", if T want me to believe it happened, then I'd have to assume that They are traitorous villains who are seeking to undermine faith in the election system, thereby preventing the citizenry from doing what is right and proper.
Is that the question you meant to ask?
It. Was. A. Joke.
One of the easy, obvious, throwaway jokes that are so common on Slashdot.
Why do you insist on trying to turn it into some kind of zero-sum moral superiority game, that you must win at all costs?
Do you really have to be my enemy over a simple, cliched joke?
Finally, a Conspiracy Theory that is actually possible, from a technological standpoint.
Now all we have to do is prove that it actually happened.
There is a third option, you know: I could get my information from humorless internet asshats.
I think maybe that's the problem. What about you?
If the Mainstream Media says Linux is desktop ready, then desktop ready it must be!
After all, the Mainstream Media is well known for its expertise in IT and its reliability as a source of proven facts and sober analysis!
Hrm.
Actually, now that I think about it, I do believe this is proof positive that Linux is absolutely not desktop ready.
Being of an optomistic and cheerful turn of mind, and at the same time having a realistic opinion of man's flawed nature, I happen to think these characteristics of our government as features rather than bugs.
Decentralization only works if there is good communication between the various parts that make up the whole.
According to this article, the chief lesson of the exercise was that the different parts did not communicate effectively in times of crisis, and that this put the whole at risk.
The recommendation, then, is to improve communication between the separate parts, not to centralize their functions.
Actually, I think there's a lot of merit to the philosophy of "ineffective government". And it's definitely the case that the system of government we signed up for was designed to be as ineffective as possible without being completely useless.
However, in so far as we have government at all, I would prefer that it was able to act effectively in times of crisis.
I mean, think how much better off we'd be if FEMA, the State of Louisiana, and the City of New Orleans had thought to work out trust relationships and clear contingency plans and handoff of responsibilities, prior to the arrival of a giant fucking hurricane, yeah?
Besides, America has probably the most un-secret "secret police" of any nation in the world (unprovable conspiracy theories aside).
Also, the article isn't about the "secret police", but about the woefully feeble capabilities of government infrastructure agencies in general, to survive and recover from "cyber" attacks. You might want to save your "secret police" objections for an article about actual "secret police".
At least according to the blurb, it sounds like the organizations involved will probably be working on ways to communicate with each other better in times of crisis, probably by developing trust relationships ahead of time.
Assuming that's the case, it's exactly the kind of improvements we should expect to see from government agencies: identifying weaknesses, and working to eliminate them.
So, kudos to DHS, and may they successfully apply the lessons learned from this exercise.
Slashdot must have been seriously retarded to begin with, if Chimpy McHitlerBurton's pathetic, fumbling attempts at theocratic fascism were all it took to make it... even more retarded?
What, exactly, is your theory here?
Bah.
This is chemistry.
Now, if the ancient Egyptians had been synthesizing lead sulfide nanoparticles inside a pyramid-shaped fab, I'd call it nanotechnology and bow to the wisdom of the ancients.
When, exactly, did Slashdot become so retarded?
More importantly, how will we explain to our children that back in the day we couldn't be bothered to learn about and understand the world we live in, and that's why we have no clue about whatever topic their curiosity brings up?