This is just terrible! Next thing you know they'll be looking at Craigslist, or Angieslist, or, or, or, newspapers and the White Pages. What ever are we to do?!
I'm not refering to the user community moderating comments. Rather, I'm refering to the small group of individuals who get to decide which stories are worthy of appearing on/. in the first place.
It's good to see that the/. editorial bias is still very much well and truly alive. What's the point of this story (especially posted under games?) if it isn't to exploit one family's tragedy to promote the political ideology of the/. gatekeepers? I guess common decency and good taste are not among their core competencies.
Curious conclusion. I wonder what people did before there were video games. Oh yeah, I remember now; their parents "encouraged" them to practiced self control.
For years I've lamented the fact that most of the textbooks in this country have been authored by a bunch left wing revisionist 1960's hippie throw-backs, and so find your complaints actually somewhat refreshing. Still, my wife an I have never let any of our children spend one day in public school and have opted instead to teach them ourselves. If you're so upset by this type of "Change" then maybe you should stop complaining and take responsibility for providing your children with the education that you consider to be best for them.
If the government's the only buyer, then you're right. If, commercial spaceflight corporations are able to increase efficiencies and reduce costs to the point that they become affordable to others, however...
> The problem is that information systems are not physical environments.
I never meant to imply that they were. It's an admittedly artificial domain we use to provide shared awarenss and force synchronization. It's a domain our adversaries use for the same purpose. If they impact our ability to use it, it impacts our operational effectiveness just as much as not having air supremacy affects ground forces or having sea supremacy impacts our ability to allow the sea lines of communication to remain open.
But what better part of the government to protect military networks than the military? What better part of the government to conduct offensive actions against hostile actors than the military? None of the other functions you site really make sense in the current make up of the U.S. Federal Government.
> And that is no work of military but of government.
Last time I checked the military was part of the government. At least that's the case in the U.S. I suppose it could be different where you live.
That aside, I think you're overreacting somewhat. Most in the military see the network as another domain in which to operate (much like the air or sea). The purpose of gaining air or sea supremacy is to ensure that you can effectively use that domain while denying your adversary the use of it. The big difference though is that while it's not really normal to have to contest regions of air or space, the normal state of affairs is that the "cyber" domain is very much being contested on a daily basis. These organizations are intended to provide the expertise and equipment / software needed to effectively operate in this contested domain.
That's not the way it works. NASA specifies operational requirements. Engineers (many of whom may be NASA support contractors, not government employees) then translate those into technical requirements that are used as the basis for a competitive procurement. The winning bidder is responsible for the hard engineering, manufacturing, integration and initial testing. NASA from that point on acts, as has been mentioned here, as a program manager making sure that things like cost, schedule and performance risks are minimized.
What I'm saying is that the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. Our Constitution is specifically designed to limit the size and scope of the Federal Government, and this is the ideal notion of Republicanism to which I was referring. The framers recognized that there were necessary and just functions of government that were needed in order to maintain justice and order and to preserve the integrity of the nation from external forces. The U.S. Constitution was intended to prohibit the Federal government from overstepping these limits.
Unfortunately, elected officials in both major parties in the U.S. have lost sight of that ideal, and have instead emarked upon a mission of extracting as much personal power as they can by tapping into the economic activity of the most productive portions of the U.S. economy to prop up the least productive portions. This can be seen by any of the number of social and corporate welfare programs each of which creates in those receiving it, an artifical dependence of government, sacrificing their potential for the almighty dollar.
The problem with all hate crime laws is that they punish somebody more severely based on what they were thinking at the time they committed the crime. True, it doesn't come into effect until a crime is actually committed, but the logical endstate that we're on will eventually outlaw agree with, oh for instance, certain parts of Leviticus and Romans, simply because they contain language offensive to certain people, as has already happened in Canada.
As for the Fairness Doctrine, so NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post... they're all bastions of unbiased news reporting? They were all in the bag for BHO and given what I've seen on them in recent days, they desperately want his Constitutionally questionable domestic social agenda to succeed.
You misunderstand the notion of Republicanism in its purest sense (i.e. I'm talking about the conservative core of the Republican Party, not RINO's who's only goal is to grow government slighly more slowly than the other guys). It is intended to create an environment where equal opportunity exists for all; it does not guarantee equal outcomes for all, nor should it. That's been tried, and it has failed dismally where ever it's been tried.
I'm sure that somebody will suggest that U.S. capitalists are somehow to blame for it and will vigorously argue to extract billions from the U.S. economy to fix it.
Certainly honest negotiation to settle differences is an admirable and laudible goal. But it appears that Obama and Hillary have been, to say the least, snookered on this one. I learned a bit more about this agreement and not only does it reduce the number of actual nuclear warheads, but also appears to greatly reduce the number of delivery platforms. With the exception of ground-based ballistic missile systems, all of the current nuclear delivery systems in the US are critical for conventional operations. Reduction of those systems to the agreed to 500 platforms will have a severe adverse impact our ability to complete the mission in Afghanistan and possibly Iraq as well if things start back-sliding, or to respond if either Iran or North Korea or China or Russia start acting in ways counter to U.S. National Security interests. This then brings the U.S. military into more or less parity with the Russian military in terms of numbers of convential munitions delivery platforms. Ours may be more capable, but the gap is narrowing. So much for honest negotiations; it's pure appeasement.
Of course this might be what Obama had in mind all along... an excuse to trim down the military to fund their increasingly costly domestic programs.
As for Joe Bidden, I guess he didn't get the memo from his boss that the administration was not going to be letting Israel have any sort of green light to deal with Iran.
Slashdot Mirror
... and he doesn't need to answer to the ignorant masses or explain himself to them.
It's news ... but it belongs on Idle.
This is just terrible! Next thing you know they'll be looking at Craigslist, or Angieslist, or, or, or, newspapers and the White Pages. What ever are we to do?!
I'm not refering to the user community moderating comments. Rather, I'm refering to the small group of individuals who get to decide which stories are worthy of appearing on /. in the first place.
It's good to see that the /. editorial bias is still very much well and truly alive. What's the point of this story (especially posted under games?) if it isn't to exploit one family's tragedy to promote the political ideology of the /. gatekeepers? I guess common decency and good taste are not among their core competencies.
Curious conclusion. I wonder what people did before there were video games. Oh yeah, I remember now; their parents "encouraged" them to practiced self control.
@ideonexus:
For years I've lamented the fact that most of the textbooks in this country have been authored by a bunch left wing revisionist 1960's hippie throw-backs, and so find your complaints actually somewhat refreshing. Still, my wife an I have never let any of our children spend one day in public school and have opted instead to teach them ourselves. If you're so upset by this type of "Change" then maybe you should stop complaining and take responsibility for providing your children with the education that you consider to be best for them.
If the government's the only buyer, then you're right. If, commercial spaceflight corporations are able to increase efficiencies and reduce costs to the point that they become affordable to others, however...
> You may not mean to imply that they are, but all your examples certainly do.
Then you mistake an analogy for an implication. Sorry, can't help you there.
> The problem is that information systems are not physical environments.
I never meant to imply that they were. It's an admittedly artificial domain we use to provide shared awarenss and force synchronization. It's a domain our adversaries use for the same purpose. If they impact our ability to use it, it impacts our operational effectiveness just as much as not having air supremacy affects ground forces or having sea supremacy impacts our ability to allow the sea lines of communication to remain open.
> Information warfare is espionage.
That's a very narrow view.
But what better part of the government to protect military networks than the military? What better part of the government to conduct offensive actions against hostile actors than the military? None of the other functions you site really make sense in the current make up of the U.S. Federal Government.
> to contest regions of air or space
Meant to say "air and sea", but the same could be said of space as well.
> And that is no work of military but of government.
Last time I checked the military was part of the government. At least that's the case in the U.S. I suppose it could be different where you live.
That aside, I think you're overreacting somewhat. Most in the military see the network as another domain in which to operate (much like the air or sea). The purpose of gaining air or sea supremacy is to ensure that you can effectively use that domain while denying your adversary the use of it. The big difference though is that while it's not really normal to have to contest regions of air or space, the normal state of affairs is that the "cyber" domain is very much being contested on a daily basis. These organizations are intended to provide the expertise and equipment / software needed to effectively operate in this contested domain.
That's not the way it works. NASA specifies operational requirements. Engineers (many of whom may be NASA support contractors, not government employees) then translate those into technical requirements that are used as the basis for a competitive procurement. The winning bidder is responsible for the hard engineering, manufacturing, integration and initial testing. NASA from that point on acts, as has been mentioned here, as a program manager making sure that things like cost, schedule and performance risks are minimized.
Don't they know that the world is going to end that year? What are they thinking?
Let's say this while I'm logged in...
What I'm saying is that the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. Our Constitution is specifically designed to limit the size and scope of the Federal Government, and this is the ideal notion of Republicanism to which I was referring. The framers recognized that there were necessary and just functions of government that were needed in order to maintain justice and order and to preserve the integrity of the nation from external forces. The U.S. Constitution was intended to prohibit the Federal government from overstepping these limits.
Unfortunately, elected officials in both major parties in the U.S. have lost sight of that ideal, and have instead emarked upon a mission of extracting as much personal power as they can by tapping into the economic activity of the most productive portions of the U.S. economy to prop up the least productive portions. This can be seen by any of the number of social and corporate welfare programs each of which creates in those receiving it, an artifical dependence of government, sacrificing their potential for the almighty dollar.
The problem with all hate crime laws is that they punish somebody more severely based on what they were thinking at the time they committed the crime. True, it doesn't come into effect until a crime is actually committed, but the logical endstate that we're on will eventually outlaw agree with, oh for instance, certain parts of Leviticus and Romans, simply because they contain language offensive to certain people, as has already happened in Canada.
As for the Fairness Doctrine, so NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post... they're all bastions of unbiased news reporting? They were all in the bag for BHO and given what I've seen on them in recent days, they desperately want his Constitutionally questionable domestic social agenda to succeed.
Which party is telling us what we can and cannot think? Which party is telling us what we can say and listen to?. Which party, rather than actually doing something to actuallly help people out of poverty is instead keeping them from that end state?
You misunderstand the notion of Republicanism in its purest sense (i.e. I'm talking about the conservative core of the Republican Party, not RINO's who's only goal is to grow government slighly more slowly than the other guys). It is intended to create an environment where equal opportunity exists for all; it does not guarantee equal outcomes for all, nor should it. That's been tried, and it has failed dismally where ever it's been tried.
... we'll just start bringing our global climate change to the moon and these pristine cold places will be gone forever.
On the upside, this will be very useful if the Earth ever starts orbiting another star.
I'm sure that somebody will suggest that U.S. capitalists are somehow to blame for it and will vigorously argue to extract billions from the U.S. economy to fix it.
"The reearcher believes that this renewable, environmentally friendly energy source..."
Don't bother. PETA and Greenpeace both called and said it'll kill too many endagered fish species.
Certainly honest negotiation to settle differences is an admirable and laudible goal. But it appears that Obama and Hillary have been, to say the least, snookered on this one. I learned a bit more about this agreement and not only does it reduce the number of actual nuclear warheads, but also appears to greatly reduce the number of delivery platforms. With the exception of ground-based ballistic missile systems, all of the current nuclear delivery systems in the US are critical for conventional operations. Reduction of those systems to the agreed to 500 platforms will have a severe adverse impact our ability to complete the mission in Afghanistan and possibly Iraq as well if things start back-sliding, or to respond if either Iran or North Korea or China or Russia start acting in ways counter to U.S. National Security interests. This then brings the U.S. military into more or less parity with the Russian military in terms of numbers of convential munitions delivery platforms. Ours may be more capable, but the gap is narrowing. So much for honest negotiations; it's pure appeasement.
Of course this might be what Obama had in mind all along... an excuse to trim down the military to fund their increasingly costly domestic programs.
As for Joe Bidden, I guess he didn't get the memo from his boss that the administration was not going to be letting Israel have any sort of green light to deal with Iran.
Of course after I read this (cited above) maybe Obama signing these accords is unadulterated appeasement after all. Who'd have thought it?