Now if we could only get the FTC to deal with more of the underhanded stuff that AT&T etc are doing. If anything, they have as much of a mandate to crack down on the deceptive trade practices ("Unlimited! - Except really not.") as the FCC does, if not more. Words and advertisements have meaning, and it shouldn't matter one bit if you bury some obscure definition on page 3923 of the terms of service that alters it to be something completely different from what the average person would think it means.
Note that I'm not saying I agree with it, merely pointing out how it presently stands (or stood a few years back), and admittedly from an anecdotal standpoint, but I strongly suspect that what I and others I spoke with observed was roughly accurate. You make good points though, and if I were to suggest how I think things ought to be, that's exactly what I'd do. Establish physical fitness requirements based on your job, and make those unisex (and possibly even age neutral). That way everyone doing the job can meet the physical requirements expected for that job, whether they're male or female. Presently, it's one size fits all, whether you're front line infantry, or a clerk at the Pentagon, and the only differences are your gender and your age.
None of that would disqualify you, unless you had a conviction. In that case depending on what it was, you might be able to secure a waiver. (This was a lot easier to do when they were having trouble meeting recruiting goals during the Iraq war). You'd need to disclose it for any Security Clearance, which any sort of 'Cyber' MOS will undoubtedly require, but all they care about there is that you were honest and can't be blackmailed about it, and that you aren't still using weed/etc.
It's not just that. This would take an entire rethinking of the Army Culture, from the ground up.
The Army has had non-combat MOSs for a long time, but physical fitness is a huge deal. It doesn't matter how good you are at your job - you could be the best IT admin in the world, but if you can't pass the APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test), you're a sh*tbag. Even worse, if you fail to meet height/weight standards (or the body fat composition 'tape test' that follows), you're even worse of a sh*tbag, and it doesn't matter that you can max your APFT. At this point the only thing your command and your senior NCOs care about is this - not getting the mission done, not even in a war zone. They're going to make your life miserable trying to force you to meet the standards, and you can forget about having a good OER/NCOER, let alone awards or promotions.
And it's not as if this isn't for good reason either - the Army learned some hard lessons in the Korean war with out of shape soldiers; and if anything, the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have further blurred the lines are between combat and non-combat MOS's.
If anything, they'll probably become ever more reliant on contractors, with a handful of uniformed soldiers to act as supervision, and to press the actual "go" button, since only the soldiers have actual Title 10 authority.
As I understand it, this has nothing to do with race, post-colonial guilt, or anything of the sort, and everything to do with making a calculated decision about risks. Perhaps we could have that conversation, rather than making this about partisan politics, the current US president, or anything of that sort?
That out of the way, my understanding of the arguments go something like this:
- That a travel ban would not adequately eliminate the possibility that an infected person would be able to travel to the USA or Europe
- That having such a ban would encourage potentially exposed persons to hide that status, making it much more difficult to find and identify any who turn out to be infected
- Would severely hinder the aid being sent to the affected countries, and the movement of aid workers, exacerbating the already bad situation there
Given that #2 is the one that most directly affects our ability to identify and contain any such outbreak to limit, compared to the threat of a potentially unchecked outbreak, I find it to be at least an argument worth considering. What scares me more about the Texas case was not that the man was able to pass the screenings, but that when he showed up to the hospital the first time they failed to identify and quarantine him right away.
I'm certainly not going to say that a travel ban isn't worth considering, but we should do so from a rational, and not partisan, one.
You have both a rank and an MOS (Military Occupational Specialty). Both of them differ in terminology between the different services, although the ranks all correspond to the same pay grades. For instance, a Sergeant First Class in the Army, a Gunnery Sergeant in the Marines, and a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy are all pay grade E-7 (Enlisted 7). In some cases it can be confusing, as a Captain in the Army, Air Force, and Marines is an Officer in pay grade O-3, but a Navy Captain is pay grade O-6.
Your MOS is whatever you've been formal trained/rated/etc in. For instance, in the Army each MOS had a two digit number and an alphanumeric letter, such as 11B for standard infantry. The number referenced what the overall group was, such as Infantry, Combat Engineer, Air Defense, Mechanic, Communications, Intelligence, Medical, etc. The letter would be the sub-specialization within that group, such as Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic vs Tracked Vehicle Mechanic, Human Intelligence vs Signals Intelligence, Armor vs Cav Scout, and so forth. Some had more than others, and sometimes old ones were merged or retired or reassigned. For instance, Intelligence used to have 3 different series, 96/97/98, but was merged into the 35 series, and Electronic Intelligence Analysts (98K) and Signals Intelligence Analysts (98C) were merged into 35N.
Regardless of what your MOS is, you will also have a rank if you're a uniformed soldier, so that IT Specialist E-5 is a sergeant, is paid as a sergeant, although there are special incentive and duty pay options, even if those don't necessarily keep pace with civilian equivalents. Also, if your MOS is in high demand, there are options for large bonuses each time you re-enlist.
Even better, people were sharing this through Facebook, with friends and family. We all should share it too, as it's probably the best non-technical explanation for them on all the key points. If you haven't yet, please do so.
Yes, it's pretty unfortunate. I hope that they'll come to realize that they need more than conjecture. That goes for anyone, be it Mandiant, the US or other governments, etc. I'd much rather this be about real data, not just opinions and innuendo.
There's certainly a lot of bad traffic that comes from China, but the same is true of other countries. Show us why, don't just tell us, it is (or isn't) government sponsored, and why that's important so I can make the right security recommendations to protect the networks I'm responsible for.
Yes, exactly. I'd be more interested to see someone try and go at some of the hard analysis that Mandiant etc have published. That would make for an interesting talk.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget comic books, which saw a significant moral panic in the 50s that led to the creation of the Comics Code.
Now if we could only get the FTC to deal with more of the underhanded stuff that AT&T etc are doing. If anything, they have as much of a mandate to crack down on the deceptive trade practices ("Unlimited! - Except really not.") as the FCC does, if not more. Words and advertisements have meaning, and it shouldn't matter one bit if you bury some obscure definition on page 3923 of the terms of service that alters it to be something completely different from what the average person would think it means.
Note that I'm not saying I agree with it, merely pointing out how it presently stands (or stood a few years back), and admittedly from an anecdotal standpoint, but I strongly suspect that what I and others I spoke with observed was roughly accurate. You make good points though, and if I were to suggest how I think things ought to be, that's exactly what I'd do. Establish physical fitness requirements based on your job, and make those unisex (and possibly even age neutral). That way everyone doing the job can meet the physical requirements expected for that job, whether they're male or female. Presently, it's one size fits all, whether you're front line infantry, or a clerk at the Pentagon, and the only differences are your gender and your age.
None of that would disqualify you, unless you had a conviction. In that case depending on what it was, you might be able to secure a waiver. (This was a lot easier to do when they were having trouble meeting recruiting goals during the Iraq war). You'd need to disclose it for any Security Clearance, which any sort of 'Cyber' MOS will undoubtedly require, but all they care about there is that you were honest and can't be blackmailed about it, and that you aren't still using weed/etc.
It's not just that. This would take an entire rethinking of the Army Culture, from the ground up. The Army has had non-combat MOSs for a long time, but physical fitness is a huge deal. It doesn't matter how good you are at your job - you could be the best IT admin in the world, but if you can't pass the APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test), you're a sh*tbag. Even worse, if you fail to meet height/weight standards (or the body fat composition 'tape test' that follows), you're even worse of a sh*tbag, and it doesn't matter that you can max your APFT. At this point the only thing your command and your senior NCOs care about is this - not getting the mission done, not even in a war zone. They're going to make your life miserable trying to force you to meet the standards, and you can forget about having a good OER/NCOER, let alone awards or promotions. And it's not as if this isn't for good reason either - the Army learned some hard lessons in the Korean war with out of shape soldiers; and if anything, the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have further blurred the lines are between combat and non-combat MOS's. If anything, they'll probably become ever more reliant on contractors, with a handful of uniformed soldiers to act as supervision, and to press the actual "go" button, since only the soldiers have actual Title 10 authority.
Puffery, as in Puffing... So what the judge is saying is "EA Blows"? :)
As I understand it, this has nothing to do with race, post-colonial guilt, or anything of the sort, and everything to do with making a calculated decision about risks. Perhaps we could have that conversation, rather than making this about partisan politics, the current US president, or anything of that sort? That out of the way, my understanding of the arguments go something like this: - That a travel ban would not adequately eliminate the possibility that an infected person would be able to travel to the USA or Europe - That having such a ban would encourage potentially exposed persons to hide that status, making it much more difficult to find and identify any who turn out to be infected - Would severely hinder the aid being sent to the affected countries, and the movement of aid workers, exacerbating the already bad situation there Given that #2 is the one that most directly affects our ability to identify and contain any such outbreak to limit, compared to the threat of a potentially unchecked outbreak, I find it to be at least an argument worth considering. What scares me more about the Texas case was not that the man was able to pass the screenings, but that when he showed up to the hospital the first time they failed to identify and quarantine him right away. I'm certainly not going to say that a travel ban isn't worth considering, but we should do so from a rational, and not partisan, one.
You have both a rank and an MOS (Military Occupational Specialty). Both of them differ in terminology between the different services, although the ranks all correspond to the same pay grades. For instance, a Sergeant First Class in the Army, a Gunnery Sergeant in the Marines, and a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy are all pay grade E-7 (Enlisted 7). In some cases it can be confusing, as a Captain in the Army, Air Force, and Marines is an Officer in pay grade O-3, but a Navy Captain is pay grade O-6. Your MOS is whatever you've been formal trained/rated/etc in. For instance, in the Army each MOS had a two digit number and an alphanumeric letter, such as 11B for standard infantry. The number referenced what the overall group was, such as Infantry, Combat Engineer, Air Defense, Mechanic, Communications, Intelligence, Medical, etc. The letter would be the sub-specialization within that group, such as Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic vs Tracked Vehicle Mechanic, Human Intelligence vs Signals Intelligence, Armor vs Cav Scout, and so forth. Some had more than others, and sometimes old ones were merged or retired or reassigned. For instance, Intelligence used to have 3 different series, 96/97/98, but was merged into the 35 series, and Electronic Intelligence Analysts (98K) and Signals Intelligence Analysts (98C) were merged into 35N. Regardless of what your MOS is, you will also have a rank if you're a uniformed soldier, so that IT Specialist E-5 is a sergeant, is paid as a sergeant, although there are special incentive and duty pay options, even if those don't necessarily keep pace with civilian equivalents. Also, if your MOS is in high demand, there are options for large bonuses each time you re-enlist.
That might explain all the character deaths then. :)
They're holding it wrong.
Even better, people were sharing this through Facebook, with friends and family. We all should share it too, as it's probably the best non-technical explanation for them on all the key points. If you haven't yet, please do so.
Yes, it's pretty unfortunate. I hope that they'll come to realize that they need more than conjecture. That goes for anyone, be it Mandiant, the US or other governments, etc. I'd much rather this be about real data, not just opinions and innuendo. There's certainly a lot of bad traffic that comes from China, but the same is true of other countries. Show us why, don't just tell us, it is (or isn't) government sponsored, and why that's important so I can make the right security recommendations to protect the networks I'm responsible for.
Yes, exactly. I'd be more interested to see someone try and go at some of the hard analysis that Mandiant etc have published. That would make for an interesting talk.