While M$ ads on/., LinuxToday, and even the rest of the OSDN website are there, does that mean we have to believe them? I dont think that the primary readers of any of these sites would buy from M$ simply based on a small ad. We are too smart for that. If M$ comes out and said "We have the answer to all your problems, period. We have invented the software that does your taxes, keeps your girlfriend very happy, and makes you a god", most of us that actually make decisions to go buy stuff would go and RTFA.
If M$ wants to advertise to the competion, thats fine. Most of us here are not PHB's that take ads ( even pro linux ones) at face value.
The million shots/min weapon is by a company called Metal Storm. The million bullets/min statistic is the theoretical rate of fire acheivable. From their web site faq http://www.metalstorm.com/04_faq_technology.html
Where do you keep the one million bullets?
In dealing with conventional ballistic weapons, the rate of fire is a measurement and a quite separate issue to the number of rounds fired, or to the number of rounds carried in the magazine.
For instance, it is quite common for an infantry rifle to be capable of firing at a rate of say 600 rounds per minute. However, it does not follow that the weapon carries 600 rounds, or indeed that it continues to fire for a full minute. Rather, such a weapon might be expected to have a magazine capacity of say 15 or 30 rounds.
So too with Metal Storm. The 36 barrel prototype has fired at a rate which is in excess of one million rounds per minute, whereas it has a 'magazine' capacity of 540 rounds.
No one in their right mind would have that much ammo on hand anyway. To have 1 Million rounds on hand and one gun would mean that gun would be very quick on the air strike list. Anything thats stationary and that powerfull will be destoryed simply due to the fact it cant move.
Lastly, thankk goodness I dont need to feed that thing.
Impact over these things is never zero. No matter what prep you make for an event, people always thwart plans somehow. People come back from trips and plug in a laptop, units move, etc makes for some impact.
Your not going to trust your military's computer system to enlisted folk, and chances are the officers are not aware of preventive measures. Those who are assign such tasks to contract companies.
I dont speak for all military, but the Army has an entire major command dedicated to nothing but computers. Formed in 99 NETCOM has actully done a fairly good job in keeping things working. As far at threat detection, patch verification, and orders to deploy, NETCOM tends to be on a 72 hour turnaround. Given that the patch was issued April 13, its way ahead of an outbreak like Sasser. Even better, they have the authority to disconnect. The orders to patch go straight to company commanders and sysAdmins who can be repremanded if their unit goes down. Even if they give the task to a contractor, they are still liable Id hate to be the company commander who sees the brigade commander over virus outbreaks. That seems to keep them in line pretty well.
SPC Gruhn
TNOSC-K, Systems Management Branch
1st Signal BDE
"First to Communicate!"
Microsoft has verified that the worm exploits the Local Security Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) issue that was addressed by the security update released on April 13
I work for the US Army. We knew about this way before the patch came out just by monitoring bugtrack. Less than 72 hours from the bug being confirmed by our service CERT, we firewalled access to this kind of thing. The patch was confirmed for deployment almost 48 hours after the patch became available. If it was not deployed 96 hours after the order, we shut the node down until we can confirm its patched and ready to rejoin the network. The impact of Sasser on our networks? Almost ZERO.
All of our responce is coordinated by the US Army CERT (ACERT). Where did the British Coast Guard equivelent do? Is there such a thing? This is preventable, especially given the time from patch to exploit. Its not like this sprang up overnight. Even then, dont they have a team that monitors this stuff and has authority to order massive disconnet? It seems that MS is not at fault, the British CG CERT failed them here. If they did try to prevent this, what failed them? Anitvirus? Admins who failed to patch? Lack of informing them downrange?
SPC Gruhn
TNOSC-K, Systems Management Branch
1st SIG BDE
"First to Communicate!"
In the specific case of India v Pakistan, using nukes in Kashmir is a lose/lose for India. No matter which time of year India strikes, the fallout falls on India. Also in that conflict, India currently lacks the logistic capability to launch a sustained ground offensive. They have numbers, but if it goes beyond a few weeks, its a stalemate
Killing civilains comes with the territory. Always has and probably always will. Its simply a side effect of war. People dont fight over areas that civilains avoid. More likely the battlefield is near a populated area. The more technology and training we get as troops makes us more effective in combat. Thats been proven hands down with the kill ratios cited (10:1).
This simulation is purely on a tactical level. What you are talking about with insurgents is more of a strategic or political level problem. I also dont think that we wonder why people attack us, thats almost a given whenever you try to make a change. People resist change both good and bad. The political decision has been made and the soldier has to live with the results even if they dont agree with them.
If you really want to stop the killing and your in Iraq, use the CPA. If your in the US, vote for regime change at home if you think Kerry would be any better.
The Americans have 20000 nuclear bombs, no one is going to invade them, no one is even going to get close to invading and occupying them. They don't need a military any more!!
I hate to break it to you, but 20,000 nukes is not a deterent to some. Al-Qaida in particular comes to mind. With no real intrests to bomb, nukes have no deterent effect against them. Bombing their supporters would do some good, however dragging others into a conflict that is really a low key war is bad policy. Also, while we have theose nukes, that does not mean that we would use them. There is no need in most cases to turn an enemy into a smoking hole in the ground. Take Iraq as an example -- while the US had a great problem with Saddam, that hostility did not go to the point that we wished to kill all Iraqis. Far from it.
A tactical force will always be needed, regardless of the strategic deterrent. Even after one does nuke an area, you still need ground forces to capture the ground. Many situations such as urban fighting, airports, oil rigs, banks, and other high value targets can not be nuked. To nuke the target does much more harm than good. That perspective also does not take into account the negative PR that comes from using nukes. One nuke each on Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed about 250,000 in the short term. Thats a large loss of life for a small tactical gain. Strategicly is was a great gain as the invasion of Japan was no longer needed, but relying on nukes alone would be a disaster.
There is some twisted little defect in the American culture that makes their young people actually want to go into dangerous combat situations on the other side of the world and expose themselves to discomfort, death, and dismemberment against people that they have never even heard of. No one else seriously wants to do this.
Dont be so sure about that. Al-Qaida, Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades, Islamic Jihad, and others would strike at the US were it not for our tactical force. They know that any attack on United States soil would motivate the US to destroy them. Nuking these small places in Palestine, Jordan, and Egypt all have bad effects for Israel, not to mention those near ground zero. A tactical approach would be much better for all involved.
Even better than that of course is a political solution. Not everyone wants that.With no military, we have no backup. And we all know where no backups leave us.
"Everyday that code is incorporated into our command, control, communications and weapons systems. This must stop."
Linux and Open source software is authorized so long as the code is available to the DoD service Red and Blue teams so they can have their analysis of it. Any major change to a network ( ie switch from windows to linux, Os upgrade, systems patches, change in network purpose, server additions, etc) would change the accrediation of the network and a new "Authority to Connect" document would have to be sent from G6. By signing off on the Authority to Connect, that means that we have tested the software.
The DoD does NOT just pull source or for that matter any software for classified and above networks. All Software that enters into the classified side of the house must be cleared by DoD and the represenitive G6. All patches are regression tested by the service CERT. Making changes to the operating system as Mr O'Dowd is suggesting would break the systems accredidation packet, as the service has not authorized the patch. By authorising the patch, the CERT approves of the work and in the case of Open Source, has examined the code. We are not dumb enought to certify a operating system or its related patches unless we check stuff out.
John Gruhn SysAdmin, Theater Network Operations and Security Center, Korea SPC, US Army
Apparently you have not heard about the 4th Infantry Division. Thye have just this type of system -- its called Force XXI.
A part of this system called Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade-and-Below (FBCB2) does work just like a standard top down view on the battlefield. With your UAV's looking down at the battlefield, you can see the enemy position on the map in real time, direct units to engage the target, and destroy the enemy. A Command and Conquer style RTS does exist. Its a great thing. There are computers everywhere all the way down to the vehicle. This links them together woth full ability to Im back to their leaders what they see, what they do, etc.
Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade-and-Below (FBCB2) and Gps together are the RTS portion of the new digital Army.
For more information see Global Security
I am current military, and the only military game that was ever used was an old 8-bit nintendo shot trainer. Nothing at all like current FPS. It was more like duck hunt on a military range.
There are military training sims out there, but it should be noted that there are RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. Just jumping into a situation and starting to shoot anything would get you killed on the spot by your CO. Just running in and spraying a room for no reason almost never happens. Even if that IS the plan we usually plan out raids for a few days before we commit to them.
Military training and tactics is more than just shooting. We dont have an infantry training center at Ft Benning for nothing. Games everyone goes in alone. When was the last time you heard of just one soldier out there? We are more like ants; you see one, his buddy is close by.
The military can handle its own. There is an Army MOS for this kind of stuff. Its any 74 series MOS, mostly 74B and 74C. (soon to be 31B and 31C). Any level 20 or higher personnel in this group should have taken System Administration/Network Security Level II, which amounts to a basic defense of Windows 2000+ and Solaris. Level 3 of this course has basic hacking. Level 4 is a full immersion into hacking, programming, etc. Anybody can take up to level two once MOS qualified. Level 1 is given in AIT. Level 2 is given at the post level. Upper levels are tracked and monitored who gets access to the class and is usually a TDY of 2 weeks for level 3, 6 weeks for level 4.
Even without users at the end getting the higher levels of training, those at higher levels, (ACERT and RCERTS) take care of this at the initial levels of packets entering the network. By the time it gets to the end user, that packet has been filtered, logged, and all sorts of other stuff before you see it.
For strike-back capability, we got units for that. For small stuff ask for a WO-2 or better.
This works for the military where one can order people like me around. Civilains on the other hand it might not be such a great advantage.
PFC Gruhn MOS 74B. SANS Lvl 2 qualified. HHD, 1PG, Fort Lewis
The reason that the US tresasury feels fine with allowing old money to be used is simple. Most bills dont last that long anyway. The average time that any given bill is in circulation is 18-24 months. Major banks regurarly examine the money that they recieve and exchange old money for new fresh currancy. That being the case, in a few years the "old" money will look strange compared to the newer money as their will simply be less of it. Because their is less of the old style money around, it will look more suspicious in the long run.
When in a democracy, more than 80% of the people support something then by definition it should become legal. The fact that one MINORITY with deep pockets can buy the law is wrong.
Thankfully then we are not a democracy. We are instead a republic, where we dont vote directly; we instead choose those who do vote in our name. While I in no way condone the stupidity of the RIAA engaging in outsight warfare against P2P, trying to make 80% of the country's beliefs into law is a HORRIBLE idea. Consider this -- most of the country does not hold our beliefs on much of anything. We could be 100% right but becaues 80% of the populace believe other than what we do, we could be held back by that very definition.
Sounds Like what we need is to elect someone on our side.
PVT W.T. Door would not know what MSCE is, much less pass. I would not pass either for the most part in that the Army training teaches very much to an inside test. If I did not come in with civilain schooling, I would be doomed. About the only thing that Pvt W.T. Door would know is that A+ exists.
Here is a listing of what a 74B level 1 soldier is trained in.The numbers that follow are hours spent training a a given subject.
Automated Information Systems (AIS) Security 24 Computer Fundamentals (A+) 88 Networking Essentials (N+) 48 Windows 2000 Professional 40 Windows 2000 Server 40 Database Design and Development 40 Unix Operating System 40 Solaris System Administration 40 Microsoft TCP/IP 24 Routers 40 Ethernet Switch Networking 24 DMS/Exchange Server 40 Capstone (Training Event) 64
Take with a large grain of saly as most people never worked with computers in their life starting out, and retention of this inof is very low.
I can pass A+, but now that we are in wartime its hard to find the time to go take the test. I have taken the practice exams on computer and scored 95% plus.
Of course why go through A+ when what I really want is CCNA. That training comes later this year thanks to a good boss with money. If I pass, then I can get the Army to pay for the test.
PFC Gruhn G1/AG Automation, the Dilbert Guy I Corps, Fort Lewis, WA "Serve and Sustain"
I am a PFC by college transfer before I came into the Army. I was studying for a CS BS degree when I ran out of money. I have been in for 16 months (need 18 months for waiver TIG to make E4). Therfore I have a much different perspective than most army techs. I have the perspective of an Sgt as a PFC.
Other than that the training for my job (MOS 74B) is very low. Its a 17 week traning course that starts with "This is a computer" and barely leaves the recuit able to complete a simple troubleshooting task. The AIT is very basic. Most people fail the unix setion. Its pathetic. Its very much presented in a non geek to non geek manner.
PFC Gruhn G1/AG Automation, the Dilbert Guy I Corps, Fort Lewis, WA "Serve and Sustain"
Uh, you must not be in AG. As a sysadmin for an AG brigade, I can tell you that I have alot of XP computers under my control. Not my choice mind you, but the Army DOES use XP. XP does your 201 file, your life insurance, and your orders. They may not be in a tactical enviroment, but XP is alive and well in the Army.
PFC Gruhn G1/AG Automation, the Dilbert Guy I Corps, Fort Lewis, WA "Serve and Sustain"
While one might not be supportive of the US military, restricting use of the software would not stop anyone, especially our enemies. Say that the enemy, regardless of who they are, begins to blow off the licence and begins to use it for military purposes. If its a critical enough target, we would like to bring it down. Unfortunatly we would be restained since WE FOLLOW THE LICENCE. Our only way to attack your software would (probably) be to use your own software to study its strengths and weak spots. Therefore for us to do our job, we would have to break the licence that the enemy already broke.
Hiding behind a licence is wrong, but evil will do it while we would respect it and get screwed in the process
You may want to be careful using a blanket clause for the military. Not only does the military wage war, our primary purpose, we also do peace keeping, disaster relief (natural and otherwise), research, medicine. Do you want to restrict it to just the combat arms jobs or does that mean that finannce, medical, personnel, supply, etc cant use open source either.
One might also have to define what one means by military. Do I voilate the clause by using your software while I go to college funded by my GI Bill benefits? If I work for a police station and martial law is declared, am I all of a sudden not allowed to use my software because the Army is in control? What if I develop a great software program that is then used as a weapon? Does that mean that the product is illegitmate because I used your source for a program that became a weapon somewhere down the line?
Using a military restriction seems more throuble than its worth. If your really against the military, there are other more productive things you can do.
I am sure that there are very bright people that DO work as 11B, but my experence from watching them come through my personnel unit tells me that many of the 11B are not. For every bright 11B that I meet, I find plenty of others.
I also do not doubt your E-7 mentor that some of them are the hardest workers in the world. However, it should be noted that only about 13% of them make it to E-7, 3.4% to E-8, and 0.07% to E-9(Army Times, 3 Feb, Page 15). If it was truely the best job in the world, NCO rates Army wide would not be so low.
As for hard, by the same Army Times referance, it also shows that 36% of soldiers to not complete their initial enlistment. Maybe we are recruting the wrong people if initial failure rates are that high.
Good luck with ROTC and your officer experence.
PFC Gruhn MOS 74B (Computer Tech) U.S. Army, Fort Lewis, 1st Personnel Group Serve and Sustain
Re:US Army
on
Advergames
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Americas army is not necesarily a great recruting tool. It is wonderful in terms of public exposure but I still doubt many of those in the Army would have signed up based on the game. For example, the game is all based on missions taken by infantrymen. Even infantry do not go on missions much. Much much more of the Army is spent on mindless detail or KP or barraks maintence. Not to mention lots of crap from your superiors. Also those that are playing this game probably have a higher GT score (110 or higher). Most high GT scores dont want to be 11B. This might help our IT problems, but it wont help much for 11B.
For our 11B however, we do give out alot of bonus money. $20,000 for the most Hooah airborne ranger special forces guy. Id say thats much more apealing to 11 series rather than a cool game.
PFC Gruhn MOS 74B (Computer Tech) U.S. Army, Fort Lewis, 1st Personnel Group Serve and Sustain
Im not sure what crack your smoking or what unit you are in, but here in my brigade macs are nowhere to be seen. The Army is definatly not pro mac for the most part.
PFC Gruhn U.S. Army, Fort Lewis HHD, 1st Personnel Group "Serve and Sustain"
We still need congress if for no other reason that the Constution forces it on our government. I think you would have a very hard time making a revision removing an entire article from that document. Even replaceing Congress with a small board that runs your new site would not work as it would still be controlled by those that run the website.
More importantly, Congress serves as our public servants by being informed on the government process and moving it along as well. Do you really want to try to explain the US DoD budget to all ~250 million of us? What about the rest of the budget process? And what of daily housekeeping of the government? Do you expect/want to know about the boring technicalities of how our health care system works? Even if you do does the majority of the American public ? On a vast majority of issues that answer is NO. Congress for all its faults given its limited size it cant get too much out of hand. With 250 million making the decision we are paralized.
Thirdly, the security concerns that you admit would run rampant in such a system would bring it all down. To have a vote system where just anyone from anywhere can vote directly influencing our policy would make every decision suspect. Not to mention take the republic away from the United States
After all, their assets could be compromised by the use of these tools and therefore those tools should be banned!
I can only pick your physical lock a few keys a minuite. I can pick your computer lock distributed.net style and automate the process. Granted there are more keys to crack on the computer lock, but I can still do it.
Last I checked bits were very easy to change remotely, molecules much less so. A webserver sitting out there with poor locks (file, access lists,short keyspace crypto, whatever) on the internet is a target that is accessable to any idiot with a web connection. Heck of a lot of people can and eventually will attack you in that case. A Physical connection is limited in that you cant exactly fit that many people next to it; there is just not enough physical space so people are denied access faster. If nothing else if its so easy, so many people try that it jams up the hallway.
Secondly many people use digital locks as the first, last, and only line of defense. For physical security if you have a expectation that you want to be secure you not only have locks but also cammeras, a guard, mean dog, etc. with the mulilayerd defense even if they do get in, you have multiple things reporting back to you saying that something is wrong. People in computer circles seem to forget that.
Granted Im in the US Army where we run intrusion detection, firewalls, port sniffers, crazy password schemes, etc etc etc on varying levels, but this is not rocket science.
And besides, laws and regulations only keep the good guys out. Bad guys will always try regardless of the struggle if the payoff is good enough.
This sounds silly to me. Most if not all of the violent games I play (UT 2K3, Americas Army) have parental controls which can turn down the violence to a minimal level. Granted that in some violence is the point, I mean whats deathmatch without the death, but most people realize that its a game.
It then follows that since these games have these parental controls in them, does that make the entire premise of the bill somewhat worthless? Maybe junior cant run the "full" version of the game, but it can be toned down enough for him with the controls. If it can be toned down, why ban it since it could be run more PG?
If they are still against selling the games, then they are just out to ruin the fun factor.
Slashdot Mirror
While M$ ads on /., LinuxToday, and even the rest of the OSDN website are there, does that mean we have to believe them? I dont think that the primary readers of any of these sites would buy from M$ simply based on a small ad. We are too smart for that. If M$ comes out and said "We have the answer to all your problems, period. We have invented the software that does your taxes, keeps your girlfriend very happy, and makes you a god", most of us that actually make decisions to go buy stuff would go and RTFA.
If M$ wants to advertise to the competion, thats fine. Most of us here are not PHB's that take ads ( even pro linux ones) at face value.
SPC Gruhn
Keyboard Infantry since 2002
The million shots/min weapon is by a company called Metal Storm. The million bullets/min statistic is the theoretical rate of fire acheivable. From their web site faq http://www.metalstorm.com/04_faq_technology.html
Where do you keep the one million bullets?
In dealing with conventional ballistic weapons, the rate of fire is a measurement and a quite separate issue to the number of rounds fired, or to the number of rounds carried in the magazine.
For instance, it is quite common for an infantry rifle to be capable of firing at a rate of say 600 rounds per minute. However, it does not follow that the weapon carries 600 rounds, or indeed that it continues to fire for a full minute. Rather, such a weapon might be expected to have a magazine capacity of say 15 or 30 rounds.
So too with Metal Storm. The 36 barrel prototype has fired at a rate which is in excess of one million rounds per minute, whereas it has a 'magazine' capacity of 540 rounds.
No one in their right mind would have that much ammo on hand anyway. To have 1 Million rounds on hand and one gun would mean that gun would be very quick on the air strike list. Anything thats stationary and that powerfull will be destoryed simply due to the fact it cant move.
Lastly, thankk goodness I dont need to feed that thing.
SPC Gruhn
US Army
Impact over these things is never zero. No matter what prep you make for an event, people always thwart plans somehow. People come back from trips and plug in a laptop, units move, etc makes for some impact.
Im still not losing sleep over it.
Your not going to trust your military's computer system to enlisted folk, and chances are the officers are not aware of preventive measures. Those who are assign such tasks to contract companies.
I dont speak for all military, but the Army has an entire major command dedicated to nothing but computers. Formed in 99 NETCOM has actully done a fairly good job in keeping things working. As far at threat detection, patch verification, and orders to deploy, NETCOM tends to be on a 72 hour turnaround. Given that the patch was issued April 13, its way ahead of an outbreak like Sasser. Even better, they have the authority to disconnect. The orders to patch go straight to company commanders and sysAdmins who can be repremanded if their unit goes down. Even if they give the task to a contractor, they are still liable Id hate to be the company commander who sees the brigade commander over virus outbreaks. That seems to keep them in line pretty well.
SPC Gruhn
TNOSC-K, Systems Management Branch
1st Signal BDE
"First to Communicate!"
From Microsofts Website,
Microsoft has verified that the worm exploits the Local Security Authority Subsystem Service (LSASS) issue that was addressed by the security update released on April 13
I work for the US Army. We knew about this way before the patch came out just by monitoring bugtrack. Less than 72 hours from the bug being confirmed by our service CERT, we firewalled access to this kind of thing. The patch was confirmed for deployment almost 48 hours after the patch became available. If it was not deployed 96 hours after the order, we shut the node down until we can confirm its patched and ready to rejoin the network. The impact of Sasser on our networks? Almost ZERO.
All of our responce is coordinated by the US Army CERT (ACERT). Where did the British Coast Guard equivelent do? Is there such a thing? This is preventable, especially given the time from patch to exploit. Its not like this sprang up overnight. Even then, dont they have a team that monitors this stuff and has authority to order massive disconnet? It seems that MS is not at fault, the British CG CERT failed them here. If they did try to prevent this, what failed them? Anitvirus? Admins who failed to patch? Lack of informing them downrange?
SPC Gruhn
TNOSC-K, Systems Management Branch
1st SIG BDE
"First to Communicate!"
In the specific case of India v Pakistan, using nukes in Kashmir is a lose/lose for India. No matter which time of year India strikes, the fallout falls on India. Also in that conflict, India currently lacks the logistic capability to launch a sustained ground offensive. They have numbers, but if it goes beyond a few weeks, its a stalemate
Spc Gruhn
Keyboard Infantry since 2002
Killing civilains comes with the territory. Always has and probably always will. Its simply a side effect of war. People dont fight over areas that civilains avoid. More likely the battlefield is near a populated area. The more technology and training we get as troops makes us more effective in combat. Thats been proven hands down with the kill ratios cited (10:1).
This simulation is purely on a tactical level. What you are talking about with insurgents is more of a strategic or political level problem. I also dont think that we wonder why people attack us, thats almost a given whenever you try to make a change. People resist change both good and bad. The political decision has been made and the soldier has to live with the results even if they dont agree with them.
If you really want to stop the killing and your in Iraq, use the CPA. If your in the US, vote for regime change at home if you think Kerry would be any better.
The Americans have 20000 nuclear bombs, no one is going to invade them, no one is even going to get close to invading and occupying them. They don't need a military any more!!
I hate to break it to you, but 20,000 nukes is not a deterent to some. Al-Qaida in particular comes to mind. With no real intrests to bomb, nukes have no deterent effect against them. Bombing their supporters would do some good, however dragging others into a conflict that is really a low key war is bad policy. Also, while we have theose nukes, that does not mean that we would use them. There is no need in most cases to turn an enemy into a smoking hole in the ground. Take Iraq as an example -- while the US had a great problem with Saddam, that hostility did not go to the point that we wished to kill all Iraqis. Far from it.
A tactical force will always be needed, regardless of the strategic deterrent. Even after one does nuke an area, you still need ground forces to capture the ground. Many situations such as urban fighting, airports, oil rigs, banks, and other high value targets can not be nuked. To nuke the target does much more harm than good. That perspective also does not take into account the negative PR that comes from using nukes. One nuke each on Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed about 250,000 in the short term. Thats a large loss of life for a small tactical gain. Strategicly is was a great gain as the invasion of Japan was no longer needed, but relying on nukes alone would be a disaster.
There is some twisted little defect in the American culture that makes their young people actually want to go into dangerous combat situations on the other side of the world and expose themselves to discomfort, death, and dismemberment against people that they have never even heard of. No one else seriously wants to do this.
Dont be so sure about that. Al-Qaida, Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades, Islamic Jihad, and others would strike at the US were it not for our tactical force. They know that any attack on United States soil would motivate the US to destroy them. Nuking these small places in Palestine, Jordan, and Egypt all have bad effects for Israel, not to mention those near ground zero. A tactical approach would be much better for all involved.
Even better than that of course is a political solution. Not everyone wants that.With no military, we have no backup. And we all know where no backups leave us.
Spc Gruhn, US Army
"Everyday that code is incorporated into our command, control, communications and weapons systems. This must stop."
Linux and Open source software is authorized so long as the code is available to the DoD service Red and Blue teams so they can have their analysis of it. Any major change to a network ( ie switch from windows to linux, Os upgrade, systems patches, change in network purpose, server additions, etc) would change the accrediation of the network and a new "Authority to Connect" document would have to be sent from G6. By signing off on the Authority to Connect, that means that we have tested the software.
The DoD does NOT just pull source or for that matter any software for classified and above networks. All Software that enters into the classified side of the house must be cleared by DoD and the represenitive G6. All patches are regression tested by the service CERT. Making changes to the operating system as Mr O'Dowd is suggesting would break the systems accredidation packet, as the service has not authorized the patch. By authorising the patch, the CERT approves of the work and in the case of Open Source, has examined the code. We are not dumb enought to certify a operating system or its related patches unless we check stuff out.
John Gruhn
SysAdmin, Theater Network Operations and Security Center, Korea
SPC, US Army
Apparently you have not heard about the 4th Infantry Division. Thye have just this type of system -- its called Force XXI.
A part of this system called Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade-and-Below (FBCB2) does work just like a standard top down view on the battlefield. With your UAV's looking down at the battlefield, you can see the enemy position on the map in real time, direct units to engage the target, and destroy the enemy. A Command and Conquer style RTS does exist. Its a great thing. There are computers everywhere all the way down to the vehicle. This links them together woth full ability to Im back to their leaders what they see, what they do, etc.
Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade-and-Below (FBCB2) and Gps together are the RTS portion of the new digital Army. For more information see Global Security
SPC Gruhn
United States Army
I am current military, and the only military game that was ever used was an old 8-bit nintendo shot trainer. Nothing at all like current FPS. It was more like duck hunt on a military range.
There are military training sims out there, but it should be noted that there are RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. Just jumping into a situation and starting to shoot anything would get you killed on the spot by your CO. Just running in and spraying a room for no reason almost never happens. Even if that IS the plan we usually plan out raids for a few days before we commit to them.
Military training and tactics is more than just shooting. We dont have an infantry training center at Ft Benning for nothing. Games everyone goes in alone. When was the last time you heard of just one soldier out there? We are more like ants; you see one, his buddy is close by.
The military can handle its own. There is an Army MOS for this kind of stuff. Its any 74 series MOS, mostly 74B and 74C. (soon to be 31B and 31C). Any level 20 or higher personnel in this group should have taken System Administration/Network Security Level II, which amounts to a basic defense of Windows 2000+ and Solaris. Level 3 of this course has basic hacking. Level 4 is a full immersion into hacking, programming, etc. Anybody can take up to level two once MOS qualified. Level 1 is given in AIT. Level 2 is given at the post level. Upper levels are tracked and monitored who gets access to the class and is usually a TDY of 2 weeks for level 3, 6 weeks for level 4.
Even without users at the end getting the higher levels of training, those at higher levels, (ACERT and RCERTS) take care of this at the initial levels of packets entering the network. By the time it gets to the end user, that packet has been filtered, logged, and all sorts of other stuff before you see it.
For strike-back capability, we got units for that. For small stuff ask for a WO-2 or better.
This works for the military where one can order people like me around. Civilains on the other hand it might not be such a great advantage.
PFC Gruhn
MOS 74B.
SANS Lvl 2 qualified.
HHD, 1PG, Fort Lewis
The reason that the US tresasury feels fine with allowing old money to be used is simple. Most bills dont last that long anyway. The average time that any given bill is in circulation is 18-24 months. Major banks regurarly examine the money that they recieve and exchange old money for new fresh currancy. That being the case, in a few years the "old" money will look strange compared to the newer money as their will simply be less of it. Because their is less of the old style money around, it will look more suspicious in the long run.
When in a democracy, more than 80% of the people support something then by definition it should become legal. The fact that one MINORITY with deep pockets can buy the law is wrong.
Thankfully then we are not a democracy. We are instead a republic, where we dont vote directly; we instead choose those who do vote in our name. While I in no way condone the stupidity of the RIAA engaging in outsight warfare against P2P, trying to make 80% of the country's beliefs into law is a HORRIBLE idea. Consider this -- most of the country does not hold our beliefs on much of anything. We could be 100% right but becaues 80% of the populace believe other than what we do, we could be held back by that very definition.
Sounds Like what we need is to elect someone on our side.
PVT W.T. Door would not know what MSCE is, much less pass. I would not pass either for the most part in that the Army training teaches very much to an inside test. If I did not come in with civilain schooling, I would be doomed. About the only thing that Pvt W.T. Door would know is that A+ exists.
Here is a listing of what a 74B level 1 soldier is trained in.The numbers that follow are hours spent training a a given subject.
Automated Information Systems (AIS) Security 24
Computer Fundamentals (A+) 88
Networking Essentials (N+) 48
Windows 2000 Professional 40
Windows 2000 Server 40
Database Design and Development 40
Unix Operating System 40
Solaris System Administration 40
Microsoft TCP/IP 24
Routers 40
Ethernet Switch Networking 24
DMS/Exchange Server 40
Capstone (Training Event) 64
Take with a large grain of saly as most people never worked with computers in their life starting out, and retention of this inof is very low.
I can pass A+, but now that we are in wartime its hard to find the time to go take the test. I have taken the practice exams on computer and scored 95% plus.
Of course why go through A+ when what I really want is CCNA. That training comes later this year thanks to a good boss with money. If I pass, then I can get the Army to pay for the test.
PFC Gruhn
G1/AG Automation, the Dilbert Guy
I Corps, Fort Lewis, WA
"Serve and Sustain"
I am a PFC by college transfer before I came into the Army. I was studying for a CS BS degree when I ran out of money. I have been in for 16 months (need 18 months for waiver TIG to make E4). Therfore I have a much different perspective than most army techs. I have the perspective of an Sgt as a PFC.
Other than that the training for my job (MOS 74B) is very low. Its a 17 week traning course that starts with "This is a computer" and barely leaves the recuit able to complete a simple troubleshooting task. The AIT is very basic. Most people fail the unix setion. Its pathetic. Its very much presented in a non geek to non geek manner.
PFC Gruhn
G1/AG Automation, the Dilbert Guy
I Corps, Fort Lewis, WA
"Serve and Sustain"
Uh, you must not be in AG. As a sysadmin for an AG brigade, I can tell you that I have alot of XP computers under my control. Not my choice mind you, but the Army DOES use XP. XP does your 201 file, your life insurance, and your orders. They may not be in a tactical enviroment, but XP is alive and well in the Army.
PFC Gruhn
G1/AG Automation, the Dilbert Guy
I Corps, Fort Lewis, WA
"Serve and Sustain"
While one might not be supportive of the US military, restricting use of the software would not stop anyone, especially our enemies. Say that the enemy, regardless of who they are, begins to blow off the licence and begins to use it for military purposes. If its a critical enough target, we would like to bring it down. Unfortunatly we would be restained since WE FOLLOW THE LICENCE. Our only way to attack your software would (probably) be to use your own software to study its strengths and weak spots. Therefore for us to do our job, we would have to break the licence that the enemy already broke.
Hiding behind a licence is wrong, but evil will do it while we would respect it and get screwed in the process
PFC Gruhn
US Army, Fort Lewis
"Serve and Sustain"
You may want to be careful using a blanket clause for the military. Not only does the military wage war, our primary purpose, we also do peace keeping, disaster relief (natural and otherwise), research, medicine. Do you want to restrict it to just the combat arms jobs or does that mean that finannce, medical, personnel, supply, etc cant use open source either.
One might also have to define what one means by military. Do I voilate the clause by using your software while I go to college funded by my GI Bill benefits? If I work for a police station and martial law is declared, am I all of a sudden not allowed to use my software because the Army is in control? What if I develop a great software program that is then used as a weapon? Does that mean that the product is illegitmate because I used your source for a program that became a weapon somewhere down the line?
Using a military restriction seems more throuble than its worth. If your really against the military, there are other more productive things you can do.
PFC Gruhn
US Army, Fort Lewis
"Serve and Sustain"
I am sure that there are very bright people that DO work as 11B, but my experence from watching them come through my personnel unit tells me that many of the 11B are not. For every bright 11B that I meet, I find plenty of others.
I also do not doubt your E-7 mentor that some of them are the hardest workers in the world. However, it should be noted that only about 13% of them make it to E-7, 3.4% to E-8, and 0.07% to E-9(Army Times, 3 Feb, Page 15). If it was truely the best job in the world, NCO rates Army wide would not be so low.
As for hard, by the same Army Times referance, it also shows that 36% of soldiers to not complete their initial enlistment. Maybe we are recruting the wrong people if initial failure rates are that high.
Good luck with ROTC and your officer experence.
PFC Gruhn
MOS 74B (Computer Tech)
U.S. Army, Fort Lewis, 1st Personnel Group
Serve and Sustain
Americas army is not necesarily a great recruting tool. It is wonderful in terms of public exposure but I still doubt many of those in the Army would have signed up based on the game. For example, the game is all based on missions taken by infantrymen. Even infantry do not go on missions much. Much much more of the Army is spent on mindless detail or KP or barraks maintence. Not to mention lots of crap from your superiors. Also those that are playing this game probably have a higher GT score (110 or higher). Most high GT scores dont want to be 11B. This might help our IT problems, but it wont help much for 11B.
For our 11B however, we do give out alot of bonus money. $20,000 for the most Hooah airborne ranger special forces guy. Id say thats much more apealing to 11 series rather than a cool game.
PFC Gruhn
MOS 74B (Computer Tech)
U.S. Army, Fort Lewis, 1st Personnel Group
Serve and Sustain
Im not sure what crack your smoking or what unit you are in, but here in my brigade macs are nowhere to be seen. The Army is definatly not pro mac for the most part.
PFC Gruhn
U.S. Army, Fort Lewis
HHD, 1st Personnel Group
"Serve and Sustain"
We still need congress if for no other reason that the Constution forces it on our government. I think you would have a very hard time making a revision removing an entire article from that document. Even replaceing Congress with a small board that runs your new site would not work as it would still be controlled by those that run the website.
More importantly, Congress serves as our public servants by being informed on the government process and moving it along as well. Do you really want to try to explain the US DoD budget to all ~250 million of us? What about the rest of the budget process? And what of daily housekeeping of the government? Do you expect/want to know about the boring technicalities of how our health care system works? Even if you do does the majority of the American public ? On a vast majority of issues that answer is NO. Congress for all its faults given its limited size it cant get too much out of hand. With 250 million making the decision we are paralized.
Thirdly, the security concerns that you admit would run rampant in such a system would bring it all down. To have a vote system where just anyone from anywhere can vote directly influencing our policy would make every decision suspect. Not to mention take the republic away from the United States
PFC Gruhn
U.S. Army, Fort Lewis
Serve and Sustain
After all, their assets could be compromised by the use of these tools and therefore those tools should be banned!
,short keyspace crypto, whatever) on the internet is a target that is accessable to any idiot with a web connection. Heck of a lot of people can and eventually will attack you in that case. A Physical connection is limited in that you cant exactly fit that many people next to it; there is just not enough physical space so people are denied access faster. If nothing else if its so easy, so many people try that it jams up the hallway.
I can only pick your physical lock a few keys a minuite. I can pick your computer lock distributed.net style and automate the process. Granted there are more keys to crack on the computer lock, but I can still do it.
Last I checked bits were very easy to change remotely, molecules much less so. A webserver sitting out there with poor locks (file, access lists
Secondly many people use digital locks as the first, last, and only line of defense. For physical security if you have a expectation that you want to be secure you not only have locks but also cammeras, a guard, mean dog, etc. with the mulilayerd defense even if they do get in, you have multiple things reporting back to you saying that something is wrong. People in computer circles seem to forget that.
Granted Im in the US Army where we run intrusion detection, firewalls, port sniffers, crazy password schemes, etc etc etc on varying levels, but this is not rocket science.
And besides, laws and regulations only keep the good guys out. Bad guys will always try regardless of the struggle if the payoff is good enough.
PFC Gruhn
U.S. Army, Fort Lewis
This sounds silly to me. Most if not all of the violent games I play (UT 2K3, Americas Army) have parental controls which can turn down the violence to a minimal level. Granted that in some violence is the point, I mean whats deathmatch without the death, but most people realize that its a game.
It then follows that since these games have these parental controls in them, does that make the entire premise of the bill somewhat worthless? Maybe junior cant run the "full" version of the game, but it can be toned down enough for him with the controls. If it can be toned down, why ban it since it could be run more PG?
If they are still against selling the games, then they are just out to ruin the fun factor.
PFC Gruhn
U.S. Army