That brings back memories of going through the bowels of the Bio-sciences building to find out an exam score. If ever a building was designed by MKULTRA, it was the U of A BioScary building.
I was talking with a colleague who works in the defence communications security intelligence field this summer regarding the possible end-game for BlackBerry.
Currently, for US and Canadian government BlackBerry's, they do a scheduled production run in the US (all chips, semiconductors, etc. are produced in known secured facilities to ensure end-to-end security is maintained).
They could just do the same with either the iPhone or Android devices. Code review all software, microcode, crypto algorithms, etc. to ensure that security requirements are met and no foreign actors are slipping in anything unwanted. Alternately, they could just buy the rights to produce the BlackBerry in perpetuity.
It should work until someone jailbreaks and roots their phone to run Angry Birds, Candy Crush or other "productivity" apps.
I was referring more to EAL7 Interactive Link Data Diodes (IL-DD) as the "whatsits", but products meeting that Common Criteria spec are mind-farking expensive.
Doesn't really matter, as Stuxnet showed, sneakernet is still effective as a injection vector. What really matters is having solid incident response, disaster recover and business continuity plans.
Security in IA (Industrial Automation) land has traditionally been isolation ("We are an island. No data comms in or out.") and physical (To keep out those pesky tool using primates).
It doesn't help that critical infrastructure (CI) is also forklift upgraded anywhere between 10-25 years, depending upon the environment. Infosec was not even on the radar back in the day.
Things are changing for the better, but there is still a significant gap between the current state of affairs and where it should be. The big driver is knowing that CI is now going to be actively targeted in cyberwarfare operations, and governments are starting to put pressure on those companies that have important infrastructure. New controllers that are coming out will have greater security features, lock-out, etc. but it takes time for all pieces to come together (infosec standards and practices, product, regulations, engineering, etc.)
The cost of ICS (Industrial Control Systems) and IA (Industrial Automation) equipment is never cheap. When you factor in the cost per hour of downtime (or the risk) of anything of significance (oil refineries, water/waste water, electrical power generation, etc.) it is nothing short of staggering. When you factor in startup time from interrupted process, it can hit stratospheric heights in no time.
Seriously. The last facility where I was working at an interruption to process had a downtime cost of $5M/hour, with a minimum time to restart operations at 6 hours (and that is not a large facility, for what it is worth), up to 12 hours if there were complications. So, something goes "blip" and they lose $30M-60M guaranteed.
If you are a Plant Manager, buying 10 whatsits for $10K a piece isn't a rounding error in your operations budget if your MTBF was reduced by %1 as a result.
Don't laugh. The company I currently work for is filled with Sales Engineers, most who have Engineering degrees and professional designations (P.Eng in Canada, P.E. in the US, etc.)
If selling product was the core focus of the company, our sales force would be nothing more than a bunch of trained monkeys with product catalogs, whereas our trained monkeys can solve differential equations as well.
It's a good role. They have the engineering know-how to solve problems, understand issues that the customer is facing, and have good social skills. They are also compensated very well.
Not every Engineer has dreams of being a desk jockey, you know.
In the event that a cyber attack did cause collateral damage (unlikely, in this case, but maybe not for future ones), whomever is pressing the launch button better be in uniform.
Why? Military operations against actual targets are legitimate acts of military aggression. The Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) are the legal basis for determining whether an act is legitimate act or a war crime.
This is why we don't prosecute fighter pilots for targeting a bus with a JDAM, that is known to be carrying Al Queda operatives along with their wives and children (this is a gross oversimplification, but you get the point). Civilian casualties are regrettable, but kinetic operations are not going to be shelved on that basis alone. If a civilian pulled the trigger to release that JDAM, they would be guilty of murder. Same thing applies to cyberwarfare operations.
You want to grope me? Knock yourself out. Just be prepared for some colour commentary on my part ("Ooooh yeeaah. Cup those balls!", "How much for a happy ending?", etc.). It makes my regular business travel that much more entertaining.
However, you do not touch my children. Ever.
We recently had to go on a family vacation, and were randomly selected for an enhanced security screening. The agents wanted to pat down our two children, and we flat out refused. They insisted, and the TSA agents' delivery tone was the standard issue "You are going to do as we say, Citizen" intonation that law enforcement officers are coached in, but I'm immune to it after having had spent my early life in the military.
I slowly, clearly and forcefully replied, "Listen very carefully. If you lay a hand on any one of my children, I will have you arrested for sexually assaulting a minor. Do not touch them. You do not have our permission."
One scoffed: "Sir, we have to subject them to a pat down."
"Wrong. Officer?" (waving to get the attention of a LEO that was posted in the screening area)
He walked over and matter-of-factly asked, "Sir? Is there a problem?"
"If either of these people touch my children, in any way, I will officially press charges of assault, sexual touching of a minor, and anything else that is applicable."
He genuinely perked up at this point. (He must secretly hate the TSA as much as the rest of us), "Understood, Sir." Turning to them he said, "He's not joking. I'm not joking. Don't touch their children. If you need to see what's under their clothes, the parent will disrobe them in a private screening area removed from public view. Clear?"
The TSA agents were far more cooperative and humbled after that, for some reason. We were waved through after the parents were given a good one over, along with everything else we were toting through. But they didn't touch the kids, or ask to see them disrobed.
With the exception of the arithmetic, logarithms and trigonometry, algebra and plane geometry, not a chance in Hell.
Now, how well would a prospective applicant fare with some of today's knowledge? Introductory quantum mechanics can be taught at the high-school level. Now someone out Victorian era and give them the mathematical equations and they would fail due to not having the conceptual foundation to understand it.
Hold onto your seat for the big reveal: Knowledge advances over time, but correspondingly, some knowledge is made obsolescent. How well would any of do at knapping flint knives and spears? You might make a passable one, but not one that would qualify as a quality tool in the Paleolithic era.
Please produce the royalty cheques that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Johann Sebastian Bach cashed, and I'll consider this argument closed.
In any marketplace, the cream will rise to the top. Any decent band will get noticed by those who want to profit off of them, and is willing to undertake marketing and promoting said product. That is the free market at its finest. Much like athletes, actors, corporate consultants, etc. If you have talent, someone, somewhere, will find a way to make money off of you using it. It all comes down to supply and demand.
Here are two words that apply: talent management. The music is a loss leader used to derive income from tours, merchandising, corporate sponsorship, fan clubs, what-have-you. The talent management agency will take their due cut. Look to China too see this new model at work, where the scarcity of music is gone. What isn't scarce is the people with talent to perform it. The model is already established in the sports talent agency market, it can work in another.
> Do you think all music is suitable for touring?
Maybe not. The musicians who want to perform said non-tour compatible music should be able to find a way to survive (or not). You don't see (often) jazz musicians selling out sports arenas, but you do see them in decent sized concert halls. And, yes, they do sometimes play pubs, too.
> You are jealous for the fact that some people, due to their talent, contacts and marketing ability, are able to make huge > amounts of cash, and as a consequence, you are projecting your solution to this on all other musicians.
I do the same in my day to day work, relatively speaking. The music model of royalties only worked when music was scarce and non-easily reproducible. Digital networks and such have removed those two barriers to entry.
> Why even have a free market? Why not get all on a state payroll?
Because the RIAA et al have decided that the market is not free. They want a economic police state.
Thanks, but no thanks to DRM. It is a laughable attempt at control by an industry that is currently on the ropes with the old financial model, and trying to adjust to a new economic environment.
Or maybe it is time to tell the A&R types to cut down on their hookers and blow petty cash allotment....
The Police tour is coming to town, and I am going to be handing over fist-fulls of cash in order to see them play live. But you're not going to see me buying their mp3's, as I already own all of their works. I'll just rip 'em, thank you please.
I really do not buy CD's anymore, partly due to the fact that I no longer wish to directly support the RIAA hedgemony, and partly due to the fact that I live in Canada and pay a levy on blank recording media (Handing money over twice just doesn't do it for me, thanks).
CDs, and music in general, should be viewed as a loss-leader to get people in to see them perform. I honestly feel that the days of rock musicians living like kings are pretty much over, with the exception of top-tier talent. It is not to say that they will not be able to earn a living, it just will be more akin to the professional musicians that you see in the classical and jazz sphere, which if you are any good, is a decent wage. If you're not any good, that's the economy saying, "It's time to get a real job."
Simply stated, I have to work to live, why should someone write songs and do nothing more than live off of royalties? Musicians work should be their ability to perform, not their ability cash royalty cheques. The performance driven model also would have the added effect of cutting out the no-talent publicity-machine generated "stars" who cannot play an instrument, rely upon production tricks to sound good singing, etc.
I pay to see you play. Do a good job, and you too can charge $200+/ticket and I will hand over my money willingly and without complaint.
Precisely. Many geeks with an opinion, few geeks with military experience. Here's one that's been in both camps (Army and Pocket Protector camps, respectively) My $0.25, before taxes:
Re: High-tech advantages removing the usefulness of rifles.
Tanks are nasty on the battlefield. They are great death dealers at a distance. They are less so in urban environments (MOUT - Military Operations Urban Terrain). Why? Well, buildings are a great place to rain down anti-armor weapons upon the thankless tankers below. Fscking lovely....
Hence, the need for screening infanty, and infantry is susceptable to rifle fire (slightly mitigated by improvements in modern body armour). That and armor crews sight lines are reduced due to buildings, being bottled up and hatches down cuts down on your visibility, etcetera.
Helo flyboys are gas hungry pigs with insane downtime to perform maintenance, and the same applies to the jet jockeys. Performing a full-scale civil war? Take them out on the airstrip during downtime. That will help to degrade air advantage.
Ok. So, you cordon off the cities with tanks and dig out the insurgents using infantry. I heard an Iraqi recently comment on this strategy, something to the effect of: "You like apples? How do you like them apples?". Yeah, it's a smashing good time routing out people in urban environments, really. Helos and jets are good only to drop munitions and bugger off, so their value there is limited.
The current MBT employed by the US is a fuel hungry monster, and oddly enough, the fastestandeasiest way to reduce tanks battlefield advantages is to attack the logistical support lines. Last time I checked, fuel tanker trucks ain't heavily armoured....
If you can't run the tank, you are now seriously exposed to your friend, the infantry/partisan/terrorist/freedom-fighter. High-tech advantage? It's gone buy-bye. And the same logistical weakness faced by tanks is just as bad for the flyboys. So, you're down to fighting man-to-man, the old fashioned way. Rifles, mortars, arty...all the fun stuff.
So, even if the US split right down the middle in the event of Civil War, there are more legs than there are high-tech toys. Take Iraq and multiply the insurgents by a factor of 100, and imagine how well "counter-insurgency" operations would go. It wouldn't be pretty.
So, yes, armor, helicopters, and what-not are great, but remember only one thing: Infantry holds the ground. Everyone else, they're there to support them.
And all infantry needs to be effective, is a rifle. And, oh yeah, the people you'll be fighting will look like you, sound like you and have the same cultural background as you. Have fun determining which side they are on....
Bugger. I hit the submit button by mistake instead of preview.
Sigh. Humans are primarily K-selection strategy (fewer children, greater parental investment) based, not r-selection based (many offspring, little parental involvement).
To continue, a lot of the pseudo eugenics crowd likes to glom on to the rich vs. poor and quantity of children concept, and play the race card in new and interesting ways. Yes, the poor do usually have more children. They also experience greater childhood mortality, lack of access to birth control and host of other reasons why they have more children than the wealthier classes. Go talk to a sociologist for greater insight into this problem. The rich generally maximize the K factor, in terms of investing in their offspring (this should come as no surprise). If we were to roll back the clock to before modern medicine, you would find the rich would try to have as many children as they could afford, just to counter childhood mortality and other factors which contribute to premature death.
If you must memorize one thing how genetics works, here it is: tendency towards the mean. The average IQ is 100. The average height is approximately 178 cm for males in the USA. The average level of physical attractiveness is probably staring back at you when you look in the mirror. Why? Because these are the best, default values that nature has selected for over millions of years. Pretty much everything genetic can be put on a bell curve. The interaction of genes does not guarantee that super-tall, super-intelligent, earthshatteringly-attractive couples will produce the same. Chances are, they will produce an child with average intelligence, average height and average looks more often than not. Until we have genetic engineering to custom fab our children, Mother Nature is the one driving the car.
I love these articles that speculate on possible genetic long-term trends in humanity. They completely fly in the face of molecular genetics as we know it.
The assumption that the rich will trend towards the tallest, most physically attractive, etc. in the long-term based solely on morphological traits alone is ludicrous. The attainment of wealth can be achieved through various means, and yes, if you are exceptionally good looking in our society, you can use that as an avenue to wealth. But it is not the only path. Non-morphological traits also play a large part. You may be an Adonis or Aphrodite in terms of looks, but if you lack ambition, drive and other neccessary psychological traits for wealth accumulation, you may very well be relegated to being no more than a Chippendale's dancer or Hooters employee. I know a number of non-execeptionally attractive people that have amassed staggering wealth, and their spouses and children are likewise non-impressive in regards to attractiveness. But they have more wealth than I will ever see in a lifetime.
<sarcasm>
Disclaimer: I am taller, better looking and more intelligent than average. I also earn in the top quartile of salaries for North America. My wife is also damn hot.
</sarcasm>
Similarly, a number of other people have stated that the rich trend towards having fewer children, while the poor do not. While this smacks at an amateur attempt to water down r-K selection theory for the unwashed, human beings are predominantly by design, r-selection strategy based.
Frankly, the thought of having a bunch of bored (or borderline, take your pick) fresh from Iraq and either twitchy or trigger-happy soldiers "guarding" the flight does not make me feel comfortable nor safe.
Ok. What are we going to arm them with? Assault rifles, cause that's what the grunts train with. "We got the terrorist!" Great, too bad it penetrated 3 rows deep, taking out Grandma, the hot chick and a baby before the round bled enough energy to come to a rest.
Ok, let's issue them handguns instead. Have you ever seen people loaded with adrenaline try to shoot a handgun? Dear God, please let me not be on that flight. Even using Glaser Safety Rounds to prevent accidental airframe breaches, I'd rather not catch one by accident because Jimbo the Marine is shaking like a leaf.
Muggers are looking for an easy target. Don't be one.
Knives and guns have deterrence value, but do you really want to get into a knife fight or a gunfight? No thanks.
If you're concerned about crime, honestly, an attack trained dog works quite well (Hard to take it work with you, or on the subway, etc.).
Pro: One: Oddly enough, a lot of criminals who are not afraid of being shot or stabbed have serious reservations against being bitten. Must be the mouth full of sharp teeth and intimidating appearance. Two: Unlike a knife or a gun, it's next to impossible for a criminal to take the dog and use it against you. Really.
Con: One: Insurance. Having an attack trained dog can prevent you from having home owners insurance due to liability concerns. Ditto for certain breeds. Shop around for an insurance provider that doesn't descriminate. Two: Lawsuits. Having an attack trained dog can give you more grief than shooting the bastard if the dog is used to defend yourself. Best not to admit that the dog is attack trained (train it yourself or pay for training in cash). Memorize the following: "The dog was defending me against a perceived threat. Who knew that Fluffy, my loving Rottweiler, would chew his nuts off?"
The best bet is to not look like a victim. The dog is great deterence, though. Nasty looking folks part like the Red Sea when my wife and I are walking with our Doberman and Rottweiler. Friendliest dogs you would ever meet, but they don't know that.
We use 'em at work. On the Windows 2000 side, they come with decent management software and for the most part, are relatively reliable.
However, they are far from perfect. I've had several W2K servers blue screen when doing a hot-swap. Joy.
The FreeBSD drivers are bloody stable as hell. No complaints.
The Linux drivers provided by Promise are, IMHO, a POS. Pain to compile. No management software. Diagnositics are limited. As a result, I'd go with a different IDE controller card if you want it for Linux. YMMV.
When I need to build a house, I'll use a nail gun. Why? Efficiency.
When I need to hang a picture, I'll use a hammer. Why? Simplicity.
The Oracle pundits would have you believe that you need a nail gun for all nailing purposes. The realists know that you use the right tool for the job at hand. Buy a nail gun when you need it.
Any firearm can accidentally discharge. It's rare and not an everyday occurance, but it can happen. Woe be to the maggot who drops their rifle during basic training.
Any case, something civilians NEVER realize is that the military accepts CASUALTIES. They don't like it, but they deal with it.
Slightly off topic, but still in the same thought pattern:
Quite frankly, I'm amazed that the U.S. hasn't lost more troops. If I was an Iraqi soldier, I'd booby trap and landmine every fricken room, door, approach, etcetera. Every video image coming back from the field shows the boys kicking in doors, flipping mattresses, etc. Prime places to make someone's day become a shrapnel filled surprise. But, I'm an ex-Combat Engineer, so these thoughts come naturally to me....
Slashdot Mirror
That brings back memories of going through the bowels of the Bio-sciences building to find out an exam score. If ever a building was designed by MKULTRA, it was the U of A BioScary building.
I was talking with a colleague who works in the defence communications security intelligence field this summer regarding the possible end-game for BlackBerry.
Currently, for US and Canadian government BlackBerry's, they do a scheduled production run in the US (all chips, semiconductors, etc. are produced in known secured facilities to ensure end-to-end security is maintained).
They could just do the same with either the iPhone or Android devices. Code review all software, microcode, crypto algorithms, etc. to ensure that security requirements are met and no foreign actors are slipping in anything unwanted. Alternately, they could just buy the rights to produce the BlackBerry in perpetuity.
It should work until someone jailbreaks and roots their phone to run Angry Birds, Candy Crush or other "productivity" apps.
I was referring more to EAL7 Interactive Link Data Diodes (IL-DD) as the "whatsits", but products meeting that Common Criteria spec are mind-farking expensive.
Doesn't really matter, as Stuxnet showed, sneakernet is still effective as a injection vector. What really matters is having solid incident response, disaster recover and business continuity plans.
Security in IA (Industrial Automation) land has traditionally been isolation ("We are an island. No data comms in or out.") and physical (To keep out those pesky tool using primates).
It doesn't help that critical infrastructure (CI) is also forklift upgraded anywhere between 10-25 years, depending upon the environment. Infosec was not even on the radar back in the day.
Things are changing for the better, but there is still a significant gap between the current state of affairs and where it should be. The big driver is knowing that CI is now going to be actively targeted in cyberwarfare operations, and governments are starting to put pressure on those companies that have important infrastructure. New controllers that are coming out will have greater security features, lock-out, etc. but it takes time for all pieces to come together (infosec standards and practices, product, regulations, engineering, etc.)
The cost of ICS (Industrial Control Systems) and IA (Industrial Automation) equipment is never cheap. When you factor in the cost per hour of downtime (or the risk) of anything of significance (oil refineries, water/waste water, electrical power generation, etc.) it is nothing short of staggering. When you factor in startup time from interrupted process, it can hit stratospheric heights in no time.
Seriously. The last facility where I was working at an interruption to process had a downtime cost of $5M/hour, with a minimum time to restart operations at 6 hours (and that is not a large facility, for what it is worth), up to 12 hours if there were complications. So, something goes "blip" and they lose $30M-60M guaranteed.
If you are a Plant Manager, buying 10 whatsits for $10K a piece isn't a rounding error in your operations budget if your MTBF was reduced by %1 as a result.
Don't laugh. The company I currently work for is filled with Sales Engineers, most who have Engineering degrees and professional designations (P.Eng in Canada, P.E. in the US, etc.)
If selling product was the core focus of the company, our sales force would be nothing more than a bunch of trained monkeys with product catalogs, whereas our trained monkeys can solve differential equations as well.
It's a good role. They have the engineering know-how to solve problems, understand issues that the customer is facing, and have good social skills. They are also compensated very well.
Not every Engineer has dreams of being a desk jockey, you know.
Jus en Bello.
In the event that a cyber attack did cause collateral damage (unlikely, in this case, but maybe not for future ones), whomever is pressing the launch button better be in uniform.
Why? Military operations against actual targets are legitimate acts of military aggression. The Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) are the legal basis for determining whether an act is legitimate act or a war crime.
This is why we don't prosecute fighter pilots for targeting a bus with a JDAM, that is known to be carrying Al Queda operatives along with their wives and children (this is a gross oversimplification, but you get the point). Civilian casualties are regrettable, but kinetic operations are not going to be shelved on that basis alone. If a civilian pulled the trigger to release that JDAM, they would be guilty of murder. Same thing applies to cyberwarfare operations.
Welcome to the future.
You want to grope me? Knock yourself out. Just be prepared for some colour commentary on my part ("Ooooh yeeaah. Cup those balls!", "How much for a happy ending?", etc.). It makes my regular business travel that much more entertaining.
However, you do not touch my children. Ever.
We recently had to go on a family vacation, and were randomly selected for an enhanced security screening. The agents wanted to pat down our two children, and we flat out refused. They insisted, and the TSA agents' delivery tone was the standard issue "You are going to do as we say, Citizen" intonation that law enforcement officers are coached in, but I'm immune to it after having had spent my early life in the military.
I slowly, clearly and forcefully replied, "Listen very carefully. If you lay a hand on any one of my children, I will have you arrested for sexually assaulting a minor. Do not touch them. You do not have our permission."
One scoffed: "Sir, we have to subject them to a pat down."
"Wrong. Officer?" (waving to get the attention of a LEO that was posted in the screening area)
He walked over and matter-of-factly asked, "Sir? Is there a problem?"
"If either of these people touch my children, in any way, I will officially press charges of assault, sexual touching of a minor, and anything else that is applicable."
He genuinely perked up at this point. (He must secretly hate the TSA as much as the rest of us), "Understood, Sir." Turning to them he said, "He's not joking. I'm not joking. Don't touch their children. If you need to see what's under their clothes, the parent will disrobe them in a private screening area removed from public view. Clear?"
The TSA agents were far more cooperative and humbled after that, for some reason. We were waved through after the parents were given a good one over, along with everything else we were toting through. But they didn't touch the kids, or ask to see them disrobed.
With the exception of the arithmetic, logarithms and trigonometry, algebra and plane geometry, not a chance in Hell.
Now, how well would a prospective applicant fare with some of today's knowledge? Introductory quantum mechanics can be taught at the high-school level. Now someone out Victorian era and give them the mathematical equations and they would fail due to not having the conceptual foundation to understand it.
Hold onto your seat for the big reveal: Knowledge advances over time, but correspondingly, some knowledge is made obsolescent. How well would any of do at knapping flint knives and spears? You might make a passable one, but not one that would qualify as a quality tool in the Paleolithic era.
Progress, folks. It's a good thing.
I'm not jealous.
Please produce the royalty cheques that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Johann Sebastian Bach cashed, and I'll consider this argument closed.
In any marketplace, the cream will rise to the top. Any decent band will get noticed by those who want to profit off of them, and is willing to undertake marketing and promoting said product. That is the free market at its finest. Much like athletes, actors, corporate consultants, etc. If you have talent, someone, somewhere, will find a way to make money off of you using it. It all comes down to supply and demand.
Here are two words that apply: talent management. The music is a loss leader used to derive income from tours, merchandising, corporate sponsorship, fan clubs, what-have-you. The talent management agency will take their due cut. Look to China too see this new model at work, where the scarcity of music is gone. What isn't scarce is the people with talent to perform it. The model is already established in the sports talent agency market, it can work in another.
> Do you think all music is suitable for touring?
Maybe not. The musicians who want to perform said non-tour compatible music should be able to find a way to survive (or not). You don't see (often) jazz musicians selling out sports arenas, but you do see them in decent sized concert halls. And, yes, they do sometimes play pubs, too.
> You are jealous for the fact that some people, due to their talent, contacts and marketing ability, are able to make huge
> amounts of cash, and as a consequence, you are projecting your solution to this on all other musicians.
I do the same in my day to day work, relatively speaking. The music model of royalties only worked when music was scarce and non-easily reproducible. Digital networks and such have removed those two barriers to entry.
> Why even have a free market? Why not get all on a state payroll?
Because the RIAA et al have decided that the market is not free. They want a economic police state.
Thanks, but no thanks to DRM. It is a laughable attempt at control by an industry that is currently on the ropes with the old financial model, and trying to adjust to a new economic environment.
Or maybe it is time to tell the A&R types to cut down on their hookers and blow petty cash allotment....
By this I mean, go on tour.
The Police tour is coming to town, and I am going to be handing over fist-fulls of cash in order to see them play live. But you're not going to see me buying their mp3's, as I already own all of their works. I'll just rip 'em, thank you please.
I really do not buy CD's anymore, partly due to the fact that I no longer wish to directly support the RIAA hedgemony, and partly due to the fact that I live in Canada and pay a levy on blank recording media (Handing money over twice just doesn't do it for me, thanks).
CDs, and music in general, should be viewed as a loss-leader to get people in to see them perform. I honestly feel that the days of rock musicians living like kings are pretty much over, with the exception of top-tier talent. It is not to say that they will not be able to earn a living, it just will be more akin to the professional musicians that you see in the classical and jazz sphere, which if you are any good, is a decent wage. If you're not any good, that's the economy saying, "It's time to get a real job."
Simply stated, I have to work to live, why should someone write songs and do nothing more than live off of royalties? Musicians work should be their ability to perform, not their ability cash royalty cheques. The performance driven model also would have the added effect of cutting out the no-talent publicity-machine generated "stars" who cannot play an instrument, rely upon production tricks to sound good singing, etc.
I pay to see you play. Do a good job, and you too can charge $200+/ticket and I will hand over my money willingly and without complaint.
It's not that hard, people.
Precisely. Many geeks with an opinion, few geeks with military experience. Here's one that's been in both camps (Army and Pocket Protector camps, respectively) My $0.25, before taxes:
Re: High-tech advantages removing the usefulness of rifles.
Tanks are nasty on the battlefield. They are great death dealers at a distance. They are less so in urban environments (MOUT - Military Operations Urban Terrain). Why? Well, buildings are a great place to rain down anti-armor weapons upon the thankless tankers below. Fscking lovely....
Hence, the need for screening infanty, and infantry is susceptable to rifle fire (slightly mitigated by improvements in modern body armour). That and armor crews sight lines are reduced due to buildings, being bottled up and hatches down cuts down on your visibility, etcetera.
Helo flyboys are gas hungry pigs with insane downtime to perform maintenance, and the same applies to the jet jockeys. Performing a full-scale civil war? Take them out on the airstrip during downtime. That will help to degrade air advantage.
Ok. So, you cordon off the cities with tanks and dig out the insurgents using infantry. I heard an Iraqi recently comment on this strategy, something to the effect of: "You like apples? How do you like them apples?". Yeah, it's a smashing good time routing out people in urban environments, really. Helos and jets are good only to drop munitions and bugger off, so their value there is limited.
The current MBT employed by the US is a fuel hungry monster, and oddly enough, the fastest and easiest way to reduce tanks battlefield advantages is to attack the logistical support lines. Last time I checked, fuel tanker trucks ain't heavily armoured....
If you can't run the tank, you are now seriously exposed to your friend, the infantry/partisan/terrorist/freedom-fighter. High-tech advantage? It's gone buy-bye. And the same logistical weakness faced by tanks is just as bad for the flyboys. So, you're down to fighting man-to-man, the old fashioned way. Rifles, mortars, arty...all the fun stuff.
So, even if the US split right down the middle in the event of Civil War, there are more legs than there are high-tech toys. Take Iraq and multiply the insurgents by a factor of 100, and imagine how well "counter-insurgency" operations would go. It wouldn't be pretty.
So, yes, armor, helicopters, and what-not are great, but remember only one thing: Infantry holds the ground. Everyone else, they're there to support them.
And all infantry needs to be effective, is a rifle. And, oh yeah, the people you'll be fighting will look like you, sound like you and have the same cultural background as you. Have fun determining which side they are on....
Bugger. I hit the submit button by mistake instead of preview.
Sigh. Humans are primarily K-selection strategy (fewer children, greater parental investment) based, not r-selection based (many offspring, little parental involvement).
To continue, a lot of the pseudo eugenics crowd likes to glom on to the rich vs. poor and quantity of children concept, and play the race card in new and interesting ways. Yes, the poor do usually have more children. They also experience greater childhood mortality, lack of access to birth control and host of other reasons why they have more children than the wealthier classes. Go talk to a sociologist for greater insight into this problem. The rich generally maximize the K factor, in terms of investing in their offspring (this should come as no surprise). If we were to roll back the clock to before modern medicine, you would find the rich would try to have as many children as they could afford, just to counter childhood mortality and other factors which contribute to premature death.
If you must memorize one thing how genetics works, here it is: tendency towards the mean. The average IQ is 100. The average height is approximately 178 cm for males in the USA. The average level of physical attractiveness is probably staring back at you when you look in the mirror. Why? Because these are the best, default values that nature has selected for over millions of years. Pretty much everything genetic can be put on a bell curve. The interaction of genes does not guarantee that super-tall, super-intelligent, earthshatteringly-attractive couples will produce the same. Chances are, they will produce an child with average intelligence, average height and average looks more often than not. Until we have genetic engineering to custom fab our children, Mother Nature is the one driving the car.
I love these articles that speculate on possible genetic long-term trends in humanity. They completely fly in the face of molecular genetics as we know it.
The assumption that the rich will trend towards the tallest, most physically attractive, etc. in the long-term based solely on morphological traits alone is ludicrous. The attainment of wealth can be achieved through various means, and yes, if you are exceptionally good looking in our society, you can use that as an avenue to wealth. But it is not the only path. Non-morphological traits also play a large part. You may be an Adonis or Aphrodite in terms of looks, but if you lack ambition, drive and other neccessary psychological traits for wealth accumulation, you may very well be relegated to being no more than a Chippendale's dancer or Hooters employee. I know a number of non-execeptionally attractive people that have amassed staggering wealth, and their spouses and children are likewise non-impressive in regards to attractiveness. But they have more wealth than I will ever see in a lifetime.
Disclaimer: I am taller, better looking and more intelligent than average. I also earn in the top quartile of salaries for North America. My wife is also damn hot.
Similarly, a number of other people have stated that the rich trend towards having fewer children, while the poor do not. While this smacks at an amateur attempt to water down r-K selection theory for the unwashed, human beings are predominantly by design, r-selection strategy based.
Have you served in the military? I have.
Frankly, the thought of having a bunch of bored (or borderline, take your pick) fresh from Iraq and either twitchy or trigger-happy soldiers "guarding" the flight does not make me feel comfortable nor safe.
Ok. What are we going to arm them with? Assault rifles, cause that's what the grunts train with. "We got the terrorist!" Great, too bad it penetrated 3 rows deep, taking out Grandma, the hot chick and a baby before the round bled enough energy to come to a rest.
Ok, let's issue them handguns instead. Have you ever seen people loaded with adrenaline try to shoot a handgun? Dear God, please let me not be on that flight. Even using Glaser Safety Rounds to prevent accidental airframe breaches, I'd rather not catch one by accident because Jimbo the Marine is shaking like a leaf.
Where's the picture?
Not that unusual, as I remember reading about giant Gambian pouched rats being used for
landmine detection
After all, if a rat is blown up, no one is going to cry a river (unlike a human EOD expert).
Go rats!
Here's one:
www.turtlefirewall.com . Works well with webmin.
Muggers are looking for an easy target. Don't be one.
Knives and guns have deterrence value, but do you really want to get into a knife fight or a gunfight? No thanks.
If you're concerned about crime, honestly, an attack trained dog works quite well (Hard to take it work with you, or on the subway, etc.).
Pro:
One: Oddly enough, a lot of criminals who are not afraid of being shot or stabbed have serious reservations against being bitten. Must be the mouth full of sharp teeth and intimidating appearance.
Two: Unlike a knife or a gun, it's next to impossible for a criminal to take the dog and use it against you. Really.
Con:
One: Insurance. Having an attack trained dog can prevent you from having home owners insurance due to liability concerns. Ditto for certain breeds. Shop around for an insurance provider that doesn't descriminate.
Two: Lawsuits. Having an attack trained dog can give you more grief than shooting the bastard if the dog is used to defend yourself. Best not to admit that the dog is attack trained (train it yourself or pay for training in cash). Memorize the following: "The dog was defending me against a perceived threat. Who knew that Fluffy, my loving Rottweiler, would chew his nuts off?"
The best bet is to not look like a victim. The dog is great deterence, though. Nasty looking folks part like the Red Sea when my wife and I are walking with our Doberman and Rottweiler. Friendliest dogs you would ever meet, but they don't know that.
It applies to software, and here is a similar one:
In the economy, you are the following 3 things:
1) a consumer
2) a investor
3) a worker
Now pick two. What's good for those 2 choices may not be good for the remaining one.
Currently, it's number 1 and number 2.
My thoughts on the Promise FasTrack controllers:
We use 'em at work. On the Windows 2000 side, they come with decent management software and for the most part, are relatively reliable.
However, they are far from perfect. I've had several W2K servers blue screen when doing a hot-swap. Joy.
The FreeBSD drivers are bloody stable as hell. No complaints.
The Linux drivers provided by Promise are, IMHO, a POS. Pain to compile. No management software. Diagnositics are limited. As a result, I'd go with a different IDE controller card if you want it for Linux. YMMV.
Well, since Ms. Moss is all trussed up in fetish wear, it only stands to reason that she's got the whole meal deal.
Bite the pillow, Neo!
Sigh. I know this all too well. I had an interview yesterday and surely enough, you get the canned HR interview questions.
"If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?"
"I'm a fscking chain saw!"
I guess it comes down to the "hire the person" vs. "hire the skill" mentality....
Not to pun, but you've hit the nail on the head.
When I need to build a house, I'll use a nail gun. Why? Efficiency.
When I need to hang a picture, I'll use a hammer. Why? Simplicity.
The Oracle pundits would have you believe that you need a nail gun for all nailing purposes. The realists know that you use the right tool for the job at hand. Buy a nail gun when you need it.
Any firearm can accidentally discharge. It's rare and not an everyday occurance, but it can happen. Woe be to the maggot who drops their rifle during basic training.
Any case, something civilians NEVER realize is that the military accepts CASUALTIES. They don't like it, but they deal with it.
Slightly off topic, but still in the same thought pattern:
Quite frankly, I'm amazed that the U.S. hasn't lost more troops. If I was an Iraqi soldier, I'd booby trap and landmine every fricken room, door, approach, etcetera. Every video image coming back from the field shows the boys kicking in doors, flipping mattresses, etc. Prime places to make someone's day become a shrapnel filled surprise. But, I'm an ex-Combat Engineer, so these thoughts come naturally to me....
I hope that they come home safe.