1) Anyone who has researched domestic wiretaps knows it has been going on for decades.
2) A house bill cannot become law without a corresponding senate bill, a joint conference reconciled version and another positive vote. Finally it must be signed into law by the president, and/or defeat a veto with a super majority. Read the constitution.
3) Some tend to agree that wiretapping is legal outside the united states. Some are offended that any US citizen might be wiretapped without a court order. ACLU and others are offended and in denial that the capability exists at all. What about a non-US citizen? What about a US citizen who is outside the US (phone call originates outside)? What about a US citizen calling a known terrorist (UBL for example) who is already under surveillance? How about a known terrorist (Zawahiri for example) already under surveillance calling a US citizen? I guess we just have to pretend the phone call never occurred, start from ground zero and head for the FISA court, and hope to get in/out in a timely way to do something about your surely short lived "intelligence" about the location of an HVT, or potential accomplices. Lots of real smart asses out here posting some rather vehement ideas that this is some open and shut thing for third rate lawyers. Sounds like a constitutional nightmare to me with good and bad on both sides. A few wanna be ambulance chasers have decided that its all about the process or the FISA, that somehow congress can pass laws (not constitutional ammendments, just laws passed by a majority) which fundamentally change the balance of powers sought by the framers of the constitution (specifically in this case executive powers to deal with threats to the nation). Deal with all of these problems in some realistic way, or shut the fuck up.
4) Some think that all this technology is some vast big brother conspiracy. That somehow their deep dark personal secrets will be cataloged and used against them. Hell face it, the FISA was created to prevent the executive branch from being able to use its well known ability to eavesdrop on the CONGRESS, a body rife with pecadillos. If some think that FISA was meant to protect the average american citizen, ask yourself why is the FISA all done in a highly classified environment? Think about this for a moment, given the classified nature of having access to these phone transcripts (it's all TS at least), and even some reasonably reliable automated keyword voice recongition capability, whats the chance of any HUGE body of intelligence pukes plowing through the volume of calls flagged by the thousands of keywords and finding anything significant? Assuming 200 million people make 2 phone calls per day, assume roughly 20% have some factor which generates a "positive interest", assume a 500,000 analysts (this is larger than the uniformed USAF and Navy combined) what will it take to sort through the "positive hits" let alone correlate them? Truth: You will be lucky to get the most obvious cases using known phone numbers or other relavant triggers.
For all you brilliant conspiracy theorists, the answer is, it can't be done!!! And oh.... by the way... smoke this in your ACLU hash pipe, without the FISA court approval of the "wiretap" (before or after the fact), not one word, not one phone number, not one GPS reported location, not one set of owner information, NOTHING obtained can be used as evidence in a US court of law (and I guarantee you it would not be used anyway).
5) Here's a question for those just interested in bashing Bush (despite his being a simple putsch). Have any of you got any idea during whose administration all this capability was first briefed to the president?? Can you maybe take a guess at what congressional panels knew about this capability and during what color of congress did the system in question get funded? Can you guess what legislation might have been in some way a reaction to this as a real capability? If you guessed that this huge system (try looking up echelon) was i
Hmmm... I guess I read the post differently than you.
I thought it was an appellate court that rendered the decision. I guess I thought the court which really had the final authority on issues of constitutionality for issues like the powers of the executive branch was the Supremes - you know Diana Ross;-) I suppose it better if every JP, appellate court, federal state and local in the land could challenge the constitutionality of any level of government. I guess you're right.
I apologize I must've misread... thanks for correcting me. I never was very good in civics.
"It appears that the unconstitutional and controversial warrantless surveillance program being conducted by the Bush Administration can continue until an appeals court can hear the case, according to an AP article. The 6th Circuit ruled that while the lower court had ruled the program was unconstitutional, they felt that the case's chances before the appeals court and the possible danger to national security warranted their decision to let it continue despite the likelihood that the appeal process will take months."
Is it really unconstitutional? Controversial... yepp... potentially warrantless (or at least unwarranted -;-) ) but is it really unconstitutional??
mdw;-)
Hey this is great the company hoping to continue their monopoly kills the goose that laid the golden egg by slowly strangling it to death. Now of course the implication here is that they actually think they are losing more money than they are making, or at least are losing significantly more than they think they should make. I've never really known of a commercial company which even has the remotest idea of the total cost of producing a product release, let alone the long term costs of supporting it, let alone whether that drives customer behavior. (I hate thinking in marketing terms where things like elasticity have meaning beyond a rubber band.) Worse yet, they use statistics to determine the (both at FRS and later) and to determine the "user base" (both potential and "real"), and then the product manager looks out the window at the beautiful pacific northwest scenery, throws a dart over his shoulder at a dartboard covered with absurd numbers, and the price is defined. All of this so that a company can make sure there is less revenue slipping out the door by locking down their software. What a hoot.
From what I've heard Islam is taking over India, and the rest of southwest Asia which is not already Islamic.
If so, and India becomes like all the other Islamic theocratic despotic regimes, why would censorship, demonification of christianity & judaisim in all forms, hatred for judeo christian ideals for inalienable rights and any kind of justice and equality, in fact outright meideval(sp) sharia law be a surprise to anyone?
Heck it is the well known media fact in the west that islamic revolution, followed by strict theocratic goverment by thugs with long beards, black caftans, and kafiyeh will solve all problems (with AK74's), especially those caused by the evil ones in the west who desire to poison muslims with open, frank, decadent smut, pornogrpahy, commercialism, information, sensationalism, and mixed with a little truth if you can find it.
The censorship of the internet in india is just the very tip of the iceberg. The idea that, according to the media, Somalia's warlords have been "pacified" by Islamic Sharia law is perfect evidence for my point. Imagine it, outlaw everything which does not conform to your personal reality, if it will not conform go to "jihad" over it, make it go away politically, or kill it. If someone had told me that someone would be able to spread a warrior/terrorist religion, culture, ethos, doctrine and government around the world so fast 20 years ago I would have accused them of insanity.
And yet, here on Main St. USA we still cannot get over the idea that almost everyplace in the world which has the heroin fix we want/need (petroleum) is run by a bunch of hegemonist, bigoted (racially, ethnically and religously), left wing fanatics who will pour money (which we seem all too willing to pay) into the most terroristic causes on the face of the planet. (for all the true trolls out there you will have a hard time refuting this given Chavez, and Obrador) Even a US muslim will probably accede to the idea that donations to some congregation of "peaceful" muslims here in the USA is reasonably likely to wind up in the hands of Jemal Islamiya, os Hezbollah, etc. Worse yet, islamic republics, and societies see no irony in the idea that while they claim islam to be peaceful, tolerant, and conservative Muslims that the Mullahs, Ayatollahs, Imams ascribe to doctrine that is all but peaceful, tolerant, and conservative. That is part of Qranic language, if I tell a lie, deceive, or just promote/promulgate the lies of someone else promoting Islam I have not sinned, but rather will be blessed. That is the worst part of the lie, that if someone notionally promoting Islam advocates something evil, destructive, or negative in the remote that this is permissable, and in fact desireable.
If as I understand from reading about Indian demographics, the population is inexorably moving towards Islam. I think the consequence is dire for the Indian population; a dark, theocratic, authoritarian, arbitrary and backward government with a bleak isolationist (towards the outside world) future with unhappy people, a growing problem with population and a fetid economy and all the associated social ills. Although India is so depsrately poor in many places, it does not deserve to get worse. I fear this is what will happen under the kind of imposed theocratic law caused by Islamic influence in government.
I have honest sympathy for those in other countries who are living with this kind of stuff. Don't know what to do about it, but one thing I would suggest is apply for an H1B if you live there. I have quite a surprising number of friends who have taken this advice. Others would consel more tolerance and valuing differences. I cannot see any reason to value systems which would further erode my inalienable rights. Even by suggesting I should not be able to state the above is an abridgement, let alone censoring my freedom to view the response. I hope that anyone able to read this in India understands the value of freedom that Ghandi was willing to give so much for, and how
I think the real tragedy is the idea which Maitch (sp?) espouses that the essence of Copyright is control. In my view the essence of copyright is not control but the right to make money on ones work, a thing of often fleeting value.
One could argue that control and what I have proposed are one in the same, but I disagree. Copyright legacy has been applied to art, music, literature, and more recently motion pictures. The point of the exercise was about ensuring that artists, writers (fine distinction), directors/producers could live off their labors. The point of Copyright was not about control, it was about these folks making a living. Things have and are changing, but the laws regarding copyright are not.
The point is when I bought a book since the original Gutenburg, no one could control where/when/how I read it, no one could control the dosage, volume, or sequence of music I chose to listen to. The same applies to theater, and movies to some lesser degree. I would grant that to see a play it is kind of hard to without actors, a theater, etc. but I made my point. Now all of a sudden digital media comes into play. The theaters, the producers, the advertisers, and the rest of the media see an opportunity (associate $$) to make more by exerting more control over the work. The problem is that most people kind of grate on the idea that something they grew up being able to do in the bathroom incrementally (reading a chapter) is now illegal, and worse yet because of the new media impossible (rendered so by technological bombs placed in firmware, hardware, software, etc.)
Using Encryption to notionally ensure that someone only "reads" their DVD/CD on "approved" devices, and software is just really offensive to folks like me. It always will be, and there is no amount of law which will change that. I do not make copies of DVD's, I do not sell/resell them, I do not share them on the net, I do not edit content (because I have no time), but beyond this anything which prevents me from "reading" the DVD is not a valid law to me. It is worse yet that some of these DVD's attempt to ensure that I watch the now mandatory previews, advertisements, and legal disclaimers which waive all my rights, and ensure that I am appropriately frightened by the FBI, INTERPOL, etc. into compliance. So the idea that I will remove encryption, macrovision, copy my media to backup, remove editing/viewing & region restrictions, alternate endings, subtitles, etc being illegal is FINE with me.
The RIAA crap is very similar. I don't use P2P, but I have all my media converted to MP3 and will continue to do this for all my music. I share the physical media for my music with my family, but I do not make any money for doing so. The idea that they can tell me that if my media gets scratched that I need to go buy a new copy of some rare CD is absolutely not happening. It would be like someone telling me that if I was procuring a rare book that if I should digitize the pages that I have commited some felony. This would be the equivalent of telling me I cannot conserve the property rights I bought when I procured the book.
I could go on and on with the now ridiculous things the industry is now doing to exert its "RIGHTS" to the intellectual property it is/has created. In my estimation many of these interpretive "RIGHTS" are totally un-envisioned by the framers of the original Copyright statutes, and would be repugnant to them.
The idea Maitch proposes is ludicrous. There is some reason for Copyright law, and there is some fairness to the idea that the copyright owner has rights, both to make a living, and to have retention of some rights to how the property is moved, transferred, and to a lesser degree used. But, I propose fair use has a larger meaning than currently proposed, far moreso than Maitch proposes, and than Hollywood would currently be comfortable with. Finally, and somewhat on tangent, someone needs to define some reasonable standard for the length of Copyright, and the impact of technology as applied by the large combines. Someone needs to set a standard for fair use in law which will put judicial activists like Matich in their place.
Been there ... done that... got the t-shirt
on
The Living Dilbert?
·
· Score: 1
bona fides: 28 years + in USAF IT (counting 10 years active, 18 years reserve time), now retired reserves. enlisted 18 years, officer 10 years. Working in defense industry, and happy to be here.... sir;-) I worked in commercial industry for about 12 years in three major commercial companies including intel, sybase, & digital equipment.
The government IT sector has its problems. You will not escape them from leaving it though. Among them (and similar to your cite);
- sloth - personal agrandizement, megalomaniacal behavior, and grandstanding as reqts for promotion - peter principle (folks get promoted beyond their level of incompetence) - poor career track (in uniform or out) - poor financial and other incentives (especially for non-degreed folks) - often lousy work environment - inability/failure to make decent value propositions for much that is done (and spent) - inability to plan financially (because of the congressional process) - inability to do the right thing because it often is prohibited by policy, regulation or law
On the commercial side in my experience you have a somewhat overlapping, but not easy set of problems;
- short term focus (quarterly, yearly financials) - lack of customer focus - the same personal agrandizement, megalomaniaical and grandstanding as reqts for promotion - less of the peter principle but still an issue - little or no training, education - productivity is an excuse for any ill conceived act - inability to financially plan due to poor management - inability or unwillingness to do the right thing for any reason
Hey you wanted advice, don't make a career choice based on the grass being perceived greener on the other side. Recognize that you are just trading one set of problems for another. In broad general terms they are not better or worse, just different. Despite all that has been said, you probably have a lot of training, and experience to be thankful for. I wish ya luck in marketing yourself, thats what it is all about. You kind of indicate you like serving.... you might wanna think about staying in some aspect of public service including within the defense industry.
Let's face it. The government is figuring out that it does not want "IT" folks in uniform. They want thinking, breathing, professional combatants and bureaucrats. We can all think there is a problem in that equation, but unfortunately the system does not react well to being told it is broken. The USAF will likely stay focused on flying despite the increasing reliance on "IT" (although IT in this context is a broad stretch). This means that the USAF (and the other services) will ALWAYS have problems retaining good "IT" folks, and they never will have a comparable career track to pilots.
Another aspect of this is that to compete with pilots, "communicators" in the USAF will often utterly fail to keep the value proposition foremost in their minds; "The technology is here to help us fly and fight" (not the inverse). Hence, in the eyes of the pilots who lead the USAF, the "communicators" just don't get it, and never will.
Been in the technology business 30 years. Had a job in a union as a teen. - bad experience. Worked in right to work states, and in unionized shops since (although as the original poster (quoting Wired) notes the IT was never unionized.) Sister and her husband (now deceased) were from GM (a union shop)
Opinion:
I guess the feeling that I've gotten from my experience is that folks in a union feel like they need to be taken care of, and that somehow the brilliant union leadership will give them something they cannot get for themselves either by hard work, judicious choices in employment, education and other forms of self improvement, or some combination of the above. I find that depending on some collective (bargaining or otherwise) to take care of you is the best way to be disenchanted, depression about your state, and eventually panic about the results when the "union" proves itself unworthy of trust. I could (but choose not to) go on a long tangent about the particulars in my experience, but they all conclude in one simple statement.
Let the buyer beware.
When you willingly join (or are forced to pay into) a union, you notionally get the benefits (and disadvantages) associated with membership. You are actually the buyer of a pig in a polk. On the surface unions make a good effort trying to negotiate on your behalf, but the vision of their representation is always colored by the unions management who may not be as motivated by the long term future of their constituents as much as their compensation packages. As an example ; a strategy which says I am going to negotiate (on your behalf) 100% covered PPO style healthcare for life at zero cost to the employee, despite the stratospheric increases in healthcare costs over an employees life. Now realizing that this is GREAT for "LABOR" if I negotiate this, and my bonus for doing so is LARGE, it sounds like a great idea... EXCEPT when considering the chances that something this economically bankrupt can ever be delievered. Same kind of thing happens when negotiating for job security "benefits". The collective bargaining unit negotiates something which sounds good, until the company files for chapter 11, or 13 and the judge throws the "benefit" out the window because it sounds so absurd given economic realities for a company which will go out of business stranding everyone because of the ridiculous promises made to employees (past and present) by the collective bargaining unit (collective... sounds like a farm in the old soviet union.... see where they are now)
I could cite lots more simple examples. Makes me mad as hell that my sisters retirement healthcare from GM is being cut unilaterally. But then I look at the benefits she was "given" by the "collective" bargaining unit. Yeah they look great on the surface, and I would probably have looked at them as a corporate promise which they should have a legal obligation to meet.... until they go into chapter 11/13 and the choice is less healthcare for more money, or NO HEALTHCARE for any amount of money.....
Interesting as I look at this. I was in the military and was promised free healthcare for life @ 20 years. I had no collective bargaining unit, but I guarantee I was told a number of times this was a benefit of employment. Sure enough now I have to pay for my healthcare. So.... what does a collective bargaining unit do for ya....
Let the buyer beware.
I may become old, I may become infirm and unable to someday to take care of myself the way I do today.... but I do not want anyone to take care of me on any basis, especially to take my money in exchange for a false sense of security that the future will be taken care of. NOT!!!!
Slashdot & Groklaw readers you figure it out... Of the hundreds of patents, trademarks, servicemarks, copyrights, etc. which are filed daily, how many are reviewed by anyone with a critical eye as to the value of the "intellectual value" of the "property" being claimed. That is the real failure of the "system" notionally addressed by Patent systems. Someone is claiming an idea as property, and now given hollywoods claim to this ownership in perpetuity and without recourse (DMCA invalidation of fair use and endless copyrights) it seems like the system (both here and abroad) is about at the breaking point.
I think:
The Patent, Copyright, Trademark, Servicemark (Intellectual Property) system needs an overhaul. The overhaul needs to address (and protect) both buyers and sellers rights to use and get fair $ for. The system needs to be technology agnostic (must have a future not tied to technological advance). The system should not be complex, but should be fair, and firm for both producers and consumers. The global system should be encouraged to follow a similar pattern in exchange for open trade. For IP Patents/Copyrights (vice Trademarks/Servicemarks) the IP should have some reasonable fixed lifetime. It should be as easy for an individual to obtain a patent for IP, as for a large company with $$$ lawyers
Amazing that the/. community has become so patently biased against technology and its uses.;-)
Also amazing that/. folks seem to have failed to research all that has happened in the past (you know those who fail to learn from the past are destined to relive it). If you are wondering how long we have known that the US (and other governments) have been engaged in quite an impressive searching for needles in a haystack exercise??.
This information has been publicly available for more than a decade. I know for a fact I was reading about it on MOSAIC, the original browser, because I had some X screen captures of some of this same stuff from the early 1990's (yes pre Clinton). So, I would think it would be no surprise that we had the capability. So why all the "Ooooh evil big brother??" comments. Let alone blaming one administration 10-15 years later for deciding to use the capability.
Think about it geeksters. Now that a group of governments have cooperatively the capability to get ~90% all of communications on the earth, capture them, statistically analyze them, and escalate on some heuristic rule based basis to a human most of the electronic communications on the face of the earth, what does this cooperative do? They honestly wouldn't be able to avoid having the phone numbers on both ends, they in the case of modern cell technology even have the location on cells, certainly ANI info, certainly country codes, area codes, billing information, etc. They would also have a nicely digitized voice record of the conversation. And I would hazard could decode this speech > text and then keyword search the voice call to some reasonable degree of accuracy. The idea that they could do this for hundreds of languages, dialects, and accents, and even have some ability for voice printing is pretty no brainer. And further, I hope none of you believe that there are enough humans to work this without some massive filtering done totally automated.
Now, how do I determine the ruleset to abide by the law, in whose country (since it is a cooperative), and on what basis do I determine the relevance of the statistics used? How do I train my operators (the eavesdroppers) to ignore what calls (when a particular message is escalated) despite that parameters of it's content may have far exceeded some notional statistical threshhold for further examination of its content?
Is it the idea that they might listen to your conversations with a paramour the offensive part? Is the offensive part really that you may be reaching some other threshold? Is the offensive part that some of the posters might have some other guilt thing going on? Do those of you out there believe that FISA, or for that matter posse comatatis really means that National Technical Means cannot be used to find you to zero in on your potentially questionable behavior in some other way? Only the worst national security issues are ever going through FISA anyhow. Anything found by ECHELON of less serious character (but still reaching some threshhold) is most certainly, very quietly, and with multiple levels of indirection (never traceable back to ECHELON, it's called plausible deniability in the black world) passed to law enforcement as an anonymous tip from which to start an investigation (never as evidence). The thought that somehow you are safe from this kind of stuff is the worst kind of self denial. Members of congress found otherwise, and tried to protect themselves, NOT US, from faceless bureaucrats like J.
"Preservation of the security of the Nation from its enemies, foreign and domestic, is the obligation of government and one of the foremost reasons for government to exist. Pursuit of this goal may lead government officials at times to trespass in areas protected by the guarantees of speech and press and may require the balancing away of rights which might be preserved inviolate at other times. The drawing of the line is committed, not exclusively but finally, to the Supreme Court..."
So.... I suppose if pressed we might see the answer from the supremes... but certainly I see your point, and support the "idea" of a right to privacy as an important constitutional principle. It's just hard to think that we might know about something like 9/11 and do nothing because of attempted congressional tweaking of the constitutional balance of power. Almost all legislative action on electronic privacy has been a hyperreaction to super bureaucrats like J. Edgar Hoover and presidential taping within the palace (also note the hype and legislation surrounding using COTS scanners to tap congressional cell phone calls in the early nineties). Let's face it, the real reason for oversight laws like the FISA were to protect members of the elite from folks inside the government who have some pretty fantastic capabilities from using them without controls. The FISA and other laws like it were never intended to protect Joe Fabeetz (a wise guy) from some faceless bureaucrat. The FISA was likely intended to protect a congressman caught on the phone accepting "favors" from some high powered lobbyist in DC. The idea was to put a huge crimp in any bureaucrats nose who thought it might be wonderful to use any of these capabilities in a vigilante way. It would be extremely naieve for anyone to think FISA was intended to protect you from some computer doing statistical analysis, and then escalating the results (assuming they were pretty damning in the first place) to a human, and eventually netting some sort of prosecution on some child pornography, adultry, tax cheating, internet fraud (ebay), reckless driving.... charge (or whatever). I can promise you, 99.999999999999% of this stuff would never make the first statistical cut. I would also hazard that unless you happened to get two "wrong number" phone calls within some really short period from two very hot countries, from two hot cell phone numbers, while somehow amassing some other pretty significant alerts flags from national law enforcement, you are not likely to have a visit from any law enforcement or DoD agency any time soon. Nor is any monitoring (as long as you don't exceed some statistical threshhold) going to continue very long. I doubt they have the time or manpower to deal with all the "REAL" threats.
I guess I think of the framers as pretty sophisticated people by comparison with most in congress today who attempt to pass laws to modify, tweak, influence, interfere with and limit the judicial, and executive branches. Yet at the same time the current crop find it pretty cool (and certainly an unassailable principle) that they themselves can dodge, manipulate, twist, distort, or foil every rule, take money from any cause, violate any law, mouth any half truth, spout any invective, engage in partisan rhetoric for personal agrandizement, reveal national secrets, abuse every moral tenet, and pass their own raises and fringe package, while always attempting to hold others in government and out to the "higher standard".
I don't think the president is perfect (quite the contrary), and I certainly have grave doubts about making a habit of using echelon as a paractice on US citizens, but I definitely think 9/11 presents a pretty compelling case, and ce
Occurs to me that congress cannot pass a law (at least not a constitutional law) restricting the powers granted to that branch by the constitution; of any other branch of government (the executive branch in this case) without a Constitutional ammendment. Seems to me that the FISA restricts the Presidents authority and responsibility for National Security, and Caommander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. I suppose this same "rule" might apply to posse comatatis.
So... I would assume the only challenge the ACLU (Detroit Muslim branch) might have, since they certainly will not have any evidence that anyone specific was violated, is that Bush is exceeding his constitutional authority, a pretty tough sell in the context of 9/11.
In addition, the Supreme Court has always leaned in the direction of the president on issues of National Security, in the overwhelming number of cases.
The result seems likely that Congress will get slapped down, and the FISA will be invalidated at least in the context of 9/11 kinds of asymmetric threats. I cannnot imagine that Bush will lose at the Supreme Court.
Last of all there certainly no criminal issue here, this is most certainly a constitutional issue. The criminal portion of the statute was intended to ensure that no rougue "agents" of the federal government; at far lower levels than the president acting in an executive capacity, used their access to information to violate the FISA statute.
It has been a long forgone (decades old) conclusion that NSA has been monitoring (LOOK UP ECHELON IN GOOGLE) international phone calls, and that they had the capability to go far beyond that. Why is it a surprise that at some point (9/11) they would decide to use the capability?
'Those who fail to learn from the past, are destined to relive it'
Try reading on for size. How many underground nuclear tests have there been. Are we any more dead? How devastating blowing up a small nuke under several hundred feet of earth (or more likely desert sand)??? How big were the mushroom clouds for all the underground tests in Nevada?? For as many tests as there were (underground) you would barely know they even happened.
OPLAN's and CONPLANS exist by the hundreds, you are just hyperventilating over the idea that given the unthinkable, we might actually act unthinkably, given a huge amount of extremely unlikely circumstances, not the least of which is an extremely reactionary President, and cabinet, and Senior Military Leaders who most often would advise against it.
We have lived with the Nuclear Genie out of the bottle in this country for 60+ years now. I would think that we are pretty safe from Dr. Stranglove.
Despite the idea that there are truthfully folks (read many third world countries by todays standards) who try to bury secrets, several hundred feet underground, with many entrances and exits, and multiply redundant power and communications, and nearby nuclear, or chemical plants who produce precursors for VX, or biological agennts (think: genetic engineering facilities). These facilities are completely impervious to even our smart bombs. They cannot be explained, nor do the boogie men who build, and run them for their little crews of mad scientists have any intent of explaining them. Now without giving away any secrets, suffice it to say that there are many ways to learn tidbits about these little bunkers. What would you advocate we do about this knowledge???? Let's examine this little chess puzzle?
1) We could ignore it (the facility and all that goes on).
2) We could demand the UN invoke sanctions unless the boogie men quit whatever we know they are doing, but that we cannot fess up to knowing about.
3) We could try and form a coalition of other boogie men who are making billions selling technology to the boogie men in the first place. Optionally we could enhance this scenario by demanding a UN Security Council Resolution (of course again knowing that all the folks who are making money from the illegal sales of technology (and dual use stuff) are voting members of the UN Sec Council). By this time we know full well that half the economy of boogieville is wrapped up in "defense", and particularly in Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical technologies which would in the hands of most sane individuals rid the entire world of bugs (SuperVX), or kill every primate on the planet (Howbout SuperAIDS), or possibly even throw a little Nuclear FOBS into orbit on short notice and then detonate the thing over a major metropolitan area leaving an EMP'ed Stonhenge. All this coupled with the problem that the pitifully poor third world country hates our guts because the government, or religious zealots have been pumped full of lies and half truths by our own press.
4) Or after quiet diplomacy, some arm twisting, let a very delicately worde plan leak to the press that if some psychotic would decide to try the scenario above... let him know in no uncertain terms, that a small NUDET (a few KT or less) will be more than enough to destructively penetrate to his 700 foot deep little hideaway, rendering it useless as a hidden laboratory, launch facility, etc. All the time ensuring that the proper literature is available to ensure that there is less risk of this underground NUDET becoming any more danger to the pitiful residents of ashcanistan than smoking one of the heroin laced cigarettes they have smoked for their whole lives. And that since the penetrator ensured that it was several hundred feet deep before it detonated, no appreciable fallout, no appreciable collateral damage (beyond a couple hundred yards), etc...
5) Or we could put a multi-megaton, multistaged, MARV warhead one each on all of the stupid countries who sold them the technology? Or if we were feeling particularly kind, just several air bursts, about 1-5 miles up. It would change hundreds of miles into an electronic wasteland. Read up on EMP sometime.
6) Maybe the leader of the World could come up with some options I have not listed. Maybe we could bribe boogie man? How bout assasination (hey Pat Roberts got fried for suggesting that assasination could be a tool of statesmanship)? Hey I'd love to hear somebody even
I wonder if that was DEC's old facile... I mean facility (sorry about that slip of the pen) which got transferred to Compaq and then HP.
Anyhow, my recollection of the culture (and especially France, was that, they have an expectation of a job for life regardless of the product delivered (or not) for their efforts.
Intel was here once before. They got tired of having their asshats handed to them....... by McAffee, Norton, etc. and backed away. The op was centered in their now defunct (at least from the perspective of building anything) Utah Valley, Ut operation. It built things like LanDesk Manager, LANDesk Configuration Manager, and (for awhile) LANDesk Anti-Virus. During one of Intel's periodic 90 days of down revenues, they tired of the software business, and laid off ~3000 people, to make Wall Street believe that they were $3B better off than they really were. Circa 1997. It (the Utah Op) was run by Ed Ekstrom, another one of the former Novell crowd (like SCO's Darl McBride) with delusions of grandeur.
Intel, as usual never ceases to amaze those who have been inside. The singularly most poisonous employment environment I have ever seen;-(, but then it was also quite lucrative;-). Good luck to the schmucks who will work inside this new subsidiary until the machine tires of software yet again. Get lots of stock options, and never trust a lifer intel manager with your back turned.
I kind of look at this kind of research in the same vein as the old questions...
When did you stop beating your wife?
Interesting, but not particularly useful. Of course if somehow they can use this knowledge to age Scotch Whiskey a little faster, maybe I can get a little more juiced.
I think The Aerospace Corporation did an extensive study which NASA used. Here is a link.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/293 6913
I think saying that the NASA did this without any evidence is pretty much like the press. My sensation has been that when it suits them to ignore evidence, they do, and when they have something juicy that sells they are more like Great White sharks.
Cheers.
mdw;-)
Just remember, HP killed the only viable alternative to Power, Itanium, and SPARC... Alpha... and Alpha was at least 12 months ahead of all of them. Just recall what all of these same folks (IBM more subdued than the others) said when DEC said at the original Microprocessor forum it had a 1Ghz processor.
The comments ranged from "It'll cause a China Syndrome" to something like "Where are the guys with the White Coats?".
Carly was not yet at the helm at HP, but most of the clowns who advised her at HP during the COMPAQ merger are still there. These are the folks who killed all of the signficant R&D, and competitive effort of redefining O/S and server strategy. They are still there, this is not just a Carly thing, and it is not going to stop. Dump your stock, but personally I would not buy any hardware mfr stock right now except intel and IBM, and probebly only as a hedge. Hey these guys consolidated as they predicted would happen in the mid 90's.
Carly is just one of the MBA educated green eyeshade folks who run American Industries into the ground. Somehow all that matters is "shareholder value", ya know, if we cut 1000 people we save $1 Billion bucks. Fair equation at some level. So if we merge two companies which are marginal we can reduce by "eliminating duplication", we dont have to worry about vision, execution, strategy, customer support, intrinsic value, R&D or anything else with real meaning to the industry, all that matters is the fabricated "savings" associated with cutting "duplication", and 1000 people==$1B of savings. And when this slide starts, everyone pays except the slime making the decisions... they make stock options & grants.
Whare is the shareholder value for riding this equation over the long term. Despite the fact that daytraders, arbitrage, and insiders make mints off this kind of stuff, what about all the working stiffs who, each day are more and more invested in the stock market thru 401k's, money markets, etc. who ride the market for 10 years or more trying to get something like ~10% ROI.
My vote.... be much more critical on who your proxy votes go for when you vote your stock. Don't vote for someone just because of their business acumen, try and pick folks who have demonstrated vision, technical skill, etc.
I wound up being exposed in this theft. Used to be an employee. Sucks. Would not be surprised to get caught in the Choicepoint theft too. The SAIC folks did the righteous thing though, sent us email a couple days before making the public announcement.
I have begun to opt out anywhere I have the choice to not divulge my SSN. Try it sometime it's not easy or fun to have people hang up on ya. Most times I can do it, but I almost always have to discuss it with a supervisor.
One other comment on this. I think the original SSA enabling legislation made it illegal to use SSN as a form of identification, yet today, you don't easily take a leak without it (think about it, every credit/debit card transaction, check etc is recorded with it.) And... you have very little choice in the matter. Your drivers license, even if not printed with it (a difficult proposition in some states) is registered against your SSN.
Now for the irony: Call Equifax, etc... to register a fraud alert... you get a blind number, voice mail hell thing (no humans), which asks you to blindly plug in (guess now) your SSN for them to record the fraud alert against, and asks for your phone number, birthday, etc.... what a system.
Yet you don't own one bit of the information stored there, you don't have any right to tell them to pull it, no real significant legal teeth to bite anyone with (although you do have a right to see it for free [in some states]). Hey businesses own the information, and the revenue stream, and interestingly I found the same is true for your medical records. You think you own it??? Wrongo, the insurance company and Doctor own it, and short of the legal restrictions imposed by HIPAA,they can use it however they choose, including denying it to others against your will.
Right!?!? The agency most famous for stovepiping information so badly, and being so paranoid about security that they still to this day will not approve a reasonably priced MLS system to save their souls (or anyone elses). These folks could not come up with a credible plan to secure any system short of dropping it in the Marianas Trench.
Yeah, thats the way to securely share information (even among the intelligence agencies) and prevent a recurrence of 9/11. More of the same was really one main complaint ot the 9/11 commission by my read, and this is a perfect example of it.
Ah... might I suggest that ethyl alchohol is truly a poison consumed internally, not from any religous, moral or other bigotted perspective, but in reality.
The often studied, quoted, and well proven fact that many alcoholic beverages have theraputic, or positive health benefits owes not to the ethyl alcohol, but to other minute compounds which are contained in the fermented beverage. The most commonly known of these are compounds called polyphenols found in red grape juice, and red wine.
Ethyl alcohol on the other hand, when consumed internally has absolutely no positive theraputic benefit, other than possibly as a last resort anesthetic, and then only if the alternative is nothing at all. It kills brain cells in direct proportion to it's dosage at a rate many times more than other substances with anesthetic effects. In addition, it destroys liver function irreparably. It also causes kidney function to be negatively impacted until the alchhol is metabolized.
If there are ANY reputable studies, that show ANY benefits which are directly attributable to the ALCOHOL (even in moderate amounts) in alcoholic bevarages (as opposed to positive effects which might be attributable to alcoholic beverages which contain alcohol) I propose you post a couple, and I will post an apology and retraction. But, note that the article must be clear in the citation that the benefit is attributable to the ALCOHOL alone, not to the beverage which contains it.
The unbelievable absurdity of the idea that consuming grain (or ethyl) alcohol hoping to gain some benefit is beyond even my twisted logic. My historic prediliction to rationalize alcohol during my college days not withstanding, even then I knew I was doing more harm than good.
Three replys into this obvious flamebait topic from an obviously unbiased (toungue in cheek) source and we already are into major, unadulterated trolling.
Gimme a fricking break people. An unabashedly far left liberal website trolls something like this and 30 seconds later the blog has fallen in hook line and sinker to vast right wing conspiracy theories, and defense of the bastions of righteousness in the current republicrat administration.
Like there is something newsworthy to the idea that technology is misunderstood and improperly implemented in something as important as a voting system??? Try this on for size... the same stuff is used in hospitals, nuclear reactors, and... can you believe this... the POWER GRID!!!
Get the heck over it! Other than the facts that politicians are stupid insipid drones, their underlings are deceitful personally agrandizing egotists, and the vendors are bumbling idiots after an ever diminishing margin... there are no communists or fascists lurking here.
Just another case of idiots paying a huge margin to a systems integrator (read: beltway bandit) with poorly defined (if at all) requirements. Worse yet a procurement process which could at best be described as a byzantine approach executed by civil servants who could not get a "real" job getting the most from the lowest bidder.
Whats evil or conspiratorial is that we let this stuff continue because we hire the same idiots to congress and the WH rather than throw them all out.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Anyone who has researched domestic wiretaps knows it has been going on for decades.
2) A house bill cannot become law without a corresponding senate bill, a joint conference reconciled version and another positive vote. Finally it must be signed into law by the president, and/or defeat a veto with a super majority. Read the constitution.
3) Some tend to agree that wiretapping is legal outside the united states. Some are offended that any US citizen might be wiretapped without a court order. ACLU and others are offended and in denial that the capability exists at all. What about a non-US citizen? What about a US citizen who is outside the US (phone call originates outside)? What about a US citizen calling a known terrorist (UBL for example) who is already under surveillance? How about a known terrorist (Zawahiri for example) already under surveillance calling a US citizen? I guess we just have to pretend the phone call never occurred, start from ground zero and head for the FISA court, and hope to get in/out in a timely way to do something about your surely short lived "intelligence" about the location of an HVT, or potential accomplices. Lots of real smart asses out here posting some rather vehement ideas that this is some open and shut thing for third rate lawyers. Sounds like a constitutional nightmare to me with good and bad on both sides. A few wanna be ambulance chasers have decided that its all about the process or the FISA, that somehow congress can pass laws (not constitutional ammendments, just laws passed by a majority) which fundamentally change the balance of powers sought by the framers of the constitution (specifically in this case executive powers to deal with threats to the nation). Deal with all of these problems in some realistic way, or shut the fuck up.
4) Some think that all this technology is some vast big brother conspiracy. That somehow their deep dark personal secrets will be cataloged and used against them. Hell face it, the FISA was created to prevent the executive branch from being able to use its well known ability to eavesdrop on the CONGRESS, a body rife with pecadillos. If some think that FISA was meant to protect the average american citizen, ask yourself why is the FISA all done in a highly classified environment? Think about this for a moment, given the classified nature of having access to these phone transcripts (it's all TS at least), and even some reasonably reliable automated keyword voice recongition capability, whats the chance of any HUGE body of intelligence pukes plowing through the volume of calls flagged by the thousands of keywords and finding anything significant? Assuming 200 million people make 2 phone calls per day, assume roughly 20% have some factor which generates a "positive interest", assume a 500,000 analysts (this is larger than the uniformed USAF and Navy combined) what will it take to sort through the "positive hits" let alone correlate them? Truth: You will be lucky to get the most obvious cases using known phone numbers or other relavant triggers.
For all you brilliant conspiracy theorists, the answer is, it can't be done!!! And oh.... by the way... smoke this in your ACLU hash pipe, without the FISA court approval of the "wiretap" (before or after the fact), not one word, not one phone number, not one GPS reported location, not one set of owner information, NOTHING obtained can be used as evidence in a US court of law (and I guarantee you it would not be used anyway).
5) Here's a question for those just interested in bashing Bush (despite his being a simple putsch). Have any of you got any idea during whose administration all this capability was first briefed to the president?? Can you maybe take a guess at what congressional panels knew about this capability and during what color of congress did the system in question get funded? Can you guess what legislation might have been in some way a reaction to this as a real capability? If you guessed that this huge system (try looking up echelon) was i
Hmmm... I guess I read the post differently than you.
;-) I suppose it better if every JP, appellate court, federal state and local in the land could challenge the constitutionality of any level of government. I guess you're right.
;-)
I thought it was an appellate court that rendered the decision. I guess I thought the court which really had the final authority on issues of constitutionality for issues like the powers of the executive branch was the Supremes - you know Diana Ross
I apologize I must've misread... thanks for correcting me. I never was very good in civics.
mdw (esq.)
"It appears that the unconstitutional and controversial warrantless surveillance program being conducted by the Bush Administration can continue until an appeals court can hear the case, according to an AP article. The 6th Circuit ruled that while the lower court had ruled the program was unconstitutional, they felt that the case's chances before the appeals court and the possible danger to national security warranted their decision to let it continue despite the likelihood that the appeal process will take months." Is it really unconstitutional? Controversial... yepp... potentially warrantless (or at least unwarranted - ;-) ) but is it really unconstitutional??
mdw ;-)
Hey this is great the company hoping to continue their monopoly kills the goose that laid the golden egg by slowly strangling it to death. Now of course the implication here is that they actually think they are losing more money than they are making, or at least are losing significantly more than they think they should make. I've never really known of a commercial company which even has the remotest idea of the total cost of producing a product release, let alone the long term costs of supporting it, let alone whether that drives customer behavior. (I hate thinking in marketing terms where things like elasticity have meaning beyond a rubber band.) Worse yet, they use statistics to determine the (both at FRS and later) and to determine the "user base" (both potential and "real"), and then the product manager looks out the window at the beautiful pacific northwest scenery, throws a dart over his shoulder at a dartboard covered with absurd numbers, and the price is defined. All of this so that a company can make sure there is less revenue slipping out the door by locking down their software. What a hoot.
;-)
Fine by me. Liunx... live free or die.
mdw
From what I've heard Islam is taking over India, and the rest of southwest Asia which is not already Islamic.
If so, and India becomes like all the other Islamic theocratic despotic regimes, why would censorship, demonification of christianity & judaisim in all forms, hatred for judeo christian ideals for inalienable rights and any kind of justice and equality, in fact outright meideval(sp) sharia law be a surprise to anyone?
Heck it is the well known media fact in the west that islamic revolution, followed by strict theocratic goverment by thugs with long beards, black caftans, and kafiyeh will solve all problems (with AK74's), especially those caused by the evil ones in the west who desire to poison muslims with open, frank, decadent smut, pornogrpahy, commercialism, information, sensationalism, and mixed with a little truth if you can find it.
The censorship of the internet in india is just the very tip of the iceberg. The idea that, according to the media, Somalia's warlords have been "pacified" by Islamic Sharia law is perfect evidence for my point. Imagine it, outlaw everything which does not conform to your personal reality, if it will not conform go to "jihad" over it, make it go away politically, or kill it. If someone had told me that someone would be able to spread a warrior/terrorist religion, culture, ethos, doctrine and government around the world so fast 20 years ago I would have accused them of insanity.
And yet, here on Main St. USA we still cannot get over the idea that almost everyplace in the world which has the heroin fix we want/need (petroleum) is run by a bunch of hegemonist, bigoted (racially, ethnically and religously), left wing fanatics who will pour money (which we seem all too willing to pay) into the most terroristic causes on the face of the planet. (for all the true trolls out there you will have a hard time refuting this given Chavez, and Obrador) Even a US muslim will probably accede to the idea that donations to some congregation of "peaceful" muslims here in the USA is reasonably likely to wind up in the hands of Jemal Islamiya, os Hezbollah, etc. Worse yet, islamic republics, and societies see no irony in the idea that while they claim islam to be peaceful, tolerant, and conservative Muslims that the Mullahs, Ayatollahs, Imams ascribe to doctrine that is all but peaceful, tolerant, and conservative. That is part of Qranic language, if I tell a lie, deceive, or just promote/promulgate the lies of someone else promoting Islam I have not sinned, but rather will be blessed. That is the worst part of the lie, that if someone notionally promoting Islam advocates something evil, destructive, or negative in the remote that this is permissable, and in fact desireable.
If as I understand from reading about Indian demographics, the population is inexorably moving towards Islam. I think the consequence is dire for the Indian population; a dark, theocratic, authoritarian, arbitrary and backward government with a bleak isolationist (towards the outside world) future with unhappy people, a growing problem with population and a fetid economy and all the associated social ills. Although India is so depsrately poor in many places, it does not deserve to get worse. I fear this is what will happen under the kind of imposed theocratic law caused by Islamic influence in government.
I have honest sympathy for those in other countries who are living with this kind of stuff. Don't know what to do about it, but one thing I would suggest is apply for an H1B if you live there. I have quite a surprising number of friends who have taken this advice. Others would consel more tolerance and valuing differences. I cannot see any reason to value systems which would further erode my inalienable rights. Even by suggesting I should not be able to state the above is an abridgement, let alone censoring my freedom to view the response. I hope that anyone able to read this in India understands the value of freedom that Ghandi was willing to give so much for, and how
I think the real tragedy is the idea which Maitch (sp?) espouses that the essence of Copyright is control. In my view the essence of copyright is not control but the right to make money on ones work, a thing of often fleeting value.
One could argue that control and what I have proposed are one in the same, but I disagree. Copyright legacy has been applied to art, music, literature, and more recently motion pictures. The point of the exercise was about ensuring that artists, writers (fine distinction), directors/producers could live off their labors. The point of Copyright was not about control, it was about these folks making a living. Things have and are changing, but the laws regarding copyright are not.
The point is when I bought a book since the original Gutenburg, no one could control where/when/how I read it, no one could control the dosage, volume, or sequence of music I chose to listen to. The same applies to theater, and movies to some lesser degree. I would grant that to see a play it is kind of hard to without actors, a theater, etc. but I made my point. Now all of a sudden digital media comes into play. The theaters, the producers, the advertisers, and the rest of the media see an opportunity (associate $$) to make more by exerting more control over the work. The problem is that most people kind of grate on the idea that something they grew up being able to do in the bathroom incrementally (reading a chapter) is now illegal, and worse yet because of the new media impossible (rendered so by technological bombs placed in firmware, hardware, software, etc.)
Using Encryption to notionally ensure that someone only "reads" their DVD/CD on "approved" devices, and software is just really offensive to folks like me. It always will be, and there is no amount of law which will change that. I do not make copies of DVD's, I do not sell/resell them, I do not share them on the net, I do not edit content (because I have no time), but beyond this anything which prevents me from "reading" the DVD is not a valid law to me. It is worse yet that some of these DVD's attempt to ensure that I watch the now mandatory previews, advertisements, and legal disclaimers which waive all my rights, and ensure that I am appropriately frightened by the FBI, INTERPOL, etc. into compliance. So the idea that I will remove encryption, macrovision, copy my media to backup, remove editing/viewing & region restrictions, alternate endings, subtitles, etc being illegal is FINE with me.
The RIAA crap is very similar. I don't use P2P, but I have all my media converted to MP3 and will continue to do this for all my music. I share the physical media for my music with my family, but I do not make any money for doing so. The idea that they can tell me that if my media gets scratched that I need to go buy a new copy of some rare CD is absolutely not happening. It would be like someone telling me that if I was procuring a rare book that if I should digitize the pages that I have commited some felony. This would be the equivalent of telling me I cannot conserve the property rights I bought when I procured the book.
I could go on and on with the now ridiculous things the industry is now doing to exert its "RIGHTS" to the intellectual property it is/has created. In my estimation many of these interpretive "RIGHTS" are totally un-envisioned by the framers of the original Copyright statutes, and would be repugnant to them.
The idea Maitch proposes is ludicrous. There is some reason for Copyright law, and there is some fairness to the idea that the copyright owner has rights, both to make a living, and to have retention of some rights to how the property is moved, transferred, and to a lesser degree used. But, I propose fair use has a larger meaning than currently proposed, far moreso than Maitch proposes, and than Hollywood would currently be comfortable with. Finally, and somewhat on tangent, someone needs to define some reasonable standard for the length of Copyright, and the impact of technology as applied by the large combines. Someone needs to set a standard for fair use in law which will put judicial activists like Matich in their place.
bona fides: 28 years + in USAF IT (counting 10 years active, 18 years reserve time), now retired reserves. enlisted 18 years, officer 10 years. Working in defense industry, and happy to be here .... sir ;-) I worked in commercial industry for about 12 years in three major commercial companies including intel, sybase, & digital equipment.
;-)
The government IT sector has its problems. You will not escape them from leaving it though. Among them (and similar to your cite);
- sloth
- personal agrandizement, megalomaniacal behavior, and grandstanding as reqts for promotion
- peter principle (folks get promoted beyond their level of incompetence)
- poor career track (in uniform or out)
- poor financial and other incentives (especially for non-degreed folks)
- often lousy work environment
- inability/failure to make decent value propositions for much that is done (and spent)
- inability to plan financially (because of the congressional process)
- inability to do the right thing because it often is prohibited by policy, regulation or law
On the commercial side in my experience you have a somewhat overlapping, but not easy set of problems;
- short term focus (quarterly, yearly financials)
- lack of customer focus
- the same personal agrandizement, megalomaniaical and grandstanding as reqts for promotion
- less of the peter principle but still an issue
- little or no training, education
- productivity is an excuse for any ill conceived act
- inability to financially plan due to poor management
- inability or unwillingness to do the right thing for any reason
Hey you wanted advice, don't make a career choice based on the grass being perceived greener on the other side. Recognize that you are just trading one set of problems for another. In broad general terms they are not better or worse, just different. Despite all that has been said, you probably have a lot of training, and experience to be thankful for. I wish ya luck in marketing yourself, thats what it is all about. You kind of indicate you like serving.... you might wanna think about staying in some aspect of public service including within the defense industry.
Let's face it. The government is figuring out that it does not want "IT" folks in uniform. They want thinking, breathing, professional combatants and bureaucrats. We can all think there is a problem in that equation, but unfortunately the system does not react well to being told it is broken. The USAF will likely stay focused on flying despite the increasing reliance on "IT" (although IT in this context is a broad stretch). This means that the USAF (and the other services) will ALWAYS have problems retaining good "IT" folks, and they never will have a comparable career track to pilots.
Another aspect of this is that to compete with pilots, "communicators" in the USAF will often utterly fail to keep the value proposition foremost in their minds; "The technology is here to help us fly and fight" (not the inverse). Hence, in the eyes of the pilots who lead the USAF, the "communicators" just don't get it, and never will.
Your mileage may vary.
mdw
Facts:
;-)
Been in the technology business 30 years.
Had a job in a union as a teen. - bad experience.
Worked in right to work states, and in unionized shops since (although as the original poster (quoting Wired) notes the IT was never unionized.)
Sister and her husband (now deceased) were from GM (a union shop)
Opinion:
I guess the feeling that I've gotten from my experience is that folks in a union feel like they need to be taken care of, and that somehow the brilliant union leadership will give them something they cannot get for themselves either by hard work, judicious choices in employment, education and other forms of self improvement, or some combination of the above. I find that depending on some collective (bargaining or otherwise) to take care of you is the best way to be disenchanted, depression about your state, and eventually panic about the results when the "union" proves itself unworthy of trust. I could (but choose not to) go on a long tangent about the particulars in my experience, but they all conclude in one simple statement.
Let the buyer beware.
When you willingly join (or are forced to pay into) a union, you notionally get the benefits (and disadvantages) associated with membership. You are actually the buyer of a pig in a polk. On the surface unions make a good effort trying to negotiate on your behalf, but the vision of their representation is always colored by the unions management who may not be as motivated by the long term future of their constituents as much as their compensation packages. As an example ; a strategy which says I am going to negotiate (on your behalf) 100% covered PPO style healthcare for life at zero cost to the employee, despite the stratospheric increases in healthcare costs over an employees life. Now realizing that this is GREAT for "LABOR" if I negotiate this, and my bonus for doing so is LARGE, it sounds like a great idea... EXCEPT when considering the chances that something this economically bankrupt can ever be delievered. Same kind of thing happens when negotiating for job security "benefits". The collective bargaining unit negotiates something which sounds good, until the company files for chapter 11, or 13 and the judge throws the "benefit" out the window because it sounds so absurd given economic realities for a company which will go out of business stranding everyone because of the ridiculous promises made to employees (past and present) by the collective bargaining unit (collective... sounds like a farm in the old soviet union.... see where they are now)
I could cite lots more simple examples. Makes me mad as hell that my sisters retirement healthcare from GM is being cut unilaterally. But then I look at the benefits she was "given" by the "collective" bargaining unit. Yeah they look great on the surface, and I would probably have looked at them as a corporate promise which they should have a legal obligation to meet.... until they go into chapter 11/13 and the choice is less healthcare for more money, or NO HEALTHCARE for any amount of money.....
Interesting as I look at this. I was in the military and was promised free healthcare for life @ 20 years. I had no collective bargaining unit, but I guarantee I was told a number of times this was a benefit of employment. Sure enough now I have to pay for my healthcare. So.... what does a collective bargaining unit do for ya....
Let the buyer beware.
I may become old, I may become infirm and unable to someday to take care of myself the way I do today.... but I do not want anyone to take care of me on any basis, especially to take my money in exchange for a false sense of security that the future will be taken care of. NOT!!!!
Your mileage may vary
mdw
Slashdot & Groklaw readers you figure it out... Of the hundreds of patents, trademarks, servicemarks, copyrights, etc. which are filed daily, how many are reviewed by anyone with a critical eye as to the value of the "intellectual value" of the "property" being claimed. That is the real failure of the "system" notionally addressed by Patent systems. Someone is claiming an idea as property, and now given hollywoods claim to this ownership in perpetuity and without recourse (DMCA invalidation of fair use and endless copyrights) it seems like the system (both here and abroad) is about at the breaking point.
;-)
I think:
The Patent, Copyright, Trademark, Servicemark (Intellectual Property) system needs an overhaul.
The overhaul needs to address (and protect) both buyers and sellers rights to use and get fair $ for.
The system needs to be technology agnostic (must have a future not tied to technological advance).
The system should not be complex, but should be fair, and firm for both producers and consumers.
The global system should be encouraged to follow a similar pattern in exchange for open trade.
For IP Patents/Copyrights (vice Trademarks/Servicemarks) the IP should have some reasonable fixed lifetime.
It should be as easy for an individual to obtain a patent for IP, as for a large company with $$$ lawyers
Ciao,
mdw
This is +5. For what?
Hey Taco whats with the moderation system??
Amazing that the /. community has become so patently biased against technology and its uses. ;-)
/. folks seem to have failed to research all that has happened in the past (you know those who fail to learn from the past are destined to relive it). If you are wondering how long we have known that the US (and other governments) have been engaged in quite an impressive searching for needles in a haystack exercise??.
Also amazing that
Has anybody checked???
http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/6/6929/1.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/echelon.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html
This information has been publicly available for more than a decade. I know for a fact I was reading about it on MOSAIC, the original browser, because I had some X screen captures of some of this same stuff from the early 1990's (yes pre Clinton). So, I would think it would be no surprise that we had the capability. So why all the "Ooooh evil big brother??" comments. Let alone blaming one administration 10-15 years later for deciding to use the capability.
Think about it geeksters. Now that a group of governments have cooperatively the capability to get ~90% all of communications on the earth, capture them, statistically analyze them, and escalate on some heuristic rule based basis to a human most of the electronic communications on the face of the earth, what does this cooperative do? They honestly wouldn't be able to avoid having the phone numbers on both ends, they in the case of modern cell technology even have the location on cells, certainly ANI info, certainly country codes, area codes, billing information, etc. They would also have a nicely digitized voice record of the conversation. And I would hazard could decode this speech > text and then keyword search the voice call to some reasonable degree of accuracy. The idea that they could do this for hundreds of languages, dialects, and accents, and even have some ability for voice printing is pretty no brainer. And further, I hope none of you believe that there are enough humans to work this without some massive filtering done totally automated.
Now, how do I determine the ruleset to abide by the law, in whose country (since it is a cooperative), and on what basis do I determine the relevance of the statistics used? How do I train my operators (the eavesdroppers) to ignore what calls (when a particular message is escalated) despite that parameters of it's content may have far exceeded some notional statistical threshhold for further examination of its content?
Is it the idea that they might listen to your conversations with a paramour the offensive part? Is the offensive part really that you may be reaching some other threshold? Is the offensive part that some of the posters might have some other guilt thing going on? Do those of you out there believe that FISA, or for that matter posse comatatis really means that National Technical Means cannot be used to find you to zero in on your potentially questionable behavior in some other way? Only the worst national security issues are ever going through FISA anyhow. Anything found by ECHELON of less serious character (but still reaching some threshhold) is most certainly, very quietly, and with multiple levels of indirection (never traceable back to ECHELON, it's called plausible deniability in the black world) passed to law enforcement as an anonymous tip from which to start an investigation (never as evidence). The thought that somehow you are safe from this kind of stuff is the worst kind of self denial. Members of congress found otherwise, and tried to protect themselves, NOT US, from faceless bureaucrats like J.
Here is what http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendme nt01/13.html says about the apparently conflicting ideals of protection against illegal search and seizure, and the need for protecting national security.
"Preservation of the security of the Nation from its enemies, foreign and domestic, is the obligation of government and one of the foremost reasons for government to exist. Pursuit of this goal may lead government officials at times to trespass in areas protected by the guarantees of speech and press and may require the balancing away of rights which might be preserved inviolate at other times. The drawing of the line is committed, not exclusively but finally, to the Supreme Court..."
So.... I suppose if pressed we might see the answer from the supremes... but certainly I see your point, and support the "idea" of a right to privacy as an important constitutional principle. It's just hard to think that we might know about something like 9/11 and do nothing because of attempted congressional tweaking of the constitutional balance of power. Almost all legislative action on electronic privacy has been a hyperreaction to super bureaucrats like J. Edgar Hoover and presidential taping within the palace (also note the hype and legislation surrounding using COTS scanners to tap congressional cell phone calls in the early nineties). Let's face it, the real reason for oversight laws like the FISA were to protect members of the elite from folks inside the government who have some pretty fantastic capabilities from using them without controls. The FISA and other laws like it were never intended to protect Joe Fabeetz (a wise guy) from some faceless bureaucrat. The FISA was likely intended to protect a congressman caught on the phone accepting "favors" from some high powered lobbyist in DC. The idea was to put a huge crimp in any bureaucrats nose who thought it might be wonderful to use any of these capabilities in a vigilante way. It would be extremely naieve for anyone to think FISA was intended to protect you from some computer doing statistical analysis, and then escalating the results (assuming they were pretty damning in the first place) to a human, and eventually netting some sort of prosecution on some child pornography, adultry, tax cheating, internet fraud (ebay), reckless driving.... charge (or whatever). I can promise you, 99.999999999999% of this stuff would never make the first statistical cut. I would also hazard that unless you happened to get two "wrong number" phone calls within some really short period from two very hot countries, from two hot cell phone numbers, while somehow amassing some other pretty significant alerts flags from national law enforcement, you are not likely to have a visit from any law enforcement or DoD agency any time soon. Nor is any monitoring (as long as you don't exceed some statistical threshhold) going to continue very long. I doubt they have the time or manpower to deal with all the "REAL" threats.
I guess I think of the framers as pretty sophisticated people by comparison with most in congress today who attempt to pass laws to modify, tweak, influence, interfere with and limit the judicial, and executive branches. Yet at the same time the current crop find it pretty cool (and certainly an unassailable principle) that they themselves can dodge, manipulate, twist, distort, or foil every rule, take money from any cause, violate any law, mouth any half truth, spout any invective, engage in partisan rhetoric for personal agrandizement, reveal national secrets, abuse every moral tenet, and pass their own raises and fringe package, while always attempting to hold others in government and out to the "higher standard".
I don't think the president is perfect (quite the contrary), and I certainly have grave doubts about making a habit of using echelon as a paractice on US citizens, but I definitely think 9/11 presents a pretty compelling case, and ce
Occurs to me that congress cannot pass a law (at least not a constitutional law) restricting the powers granted to that branch by the constitution; of any other branch of government (the executive branch in this case) without a Constitutional ammendment. Seems to me that the FISA restricts the Presidents authority and responsibility for National Security, and Caommander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. I suppose this same "rule" might apply to posse comatatis.
;-)
So... I would assume the only challenge the ACLU (Detroit Muslim branch) might have, since they certainly will not have any evidence that anyone specific was violated, is that Bush is exceeding his constitutional authority, a pretty tough sell in the context of 9/11.
In addition, the Supreme Court has always leaned in the direction of the president on issues of National Security, in the overwhelming number of cases.
The result seems likely that Congress will get slapped down, and the FISA will be invalidated at least in the context of 9/11 kinds of asymmetric threats. I cannnot imagine that Bush will lose at the Supreme Court.
Last of all there certainly no criminal issue here, this is most certainly a constitutional issue. The criminal portion of the statute was intended to ensure that no rougue "agents" of the federal government; at far lower levels than the president acting in an executive capacity, used their access to information to violate the FISA statute.
It has been a long forgone (decades old) conclusion that NSA has been monitoring (LOOK UP ECHELON IN GOOGLE) international phone calls, and that they had the capability to go far beyond that. Why is it a surprise that at some point (9/11) they would decide to use the capability?
'Those who fail to learn from the past, are destined to relive it'
mdw
You wouldn't want their election to have a pregnant chad!
This would be election control.
Try reading on for size. How many underground nuclear tests have there been. Are we any more dead? How devastating blowing up a small nuke under several hundred feet of earth (or more likely desert sand)??? How big were the mushroom clouds for all the underground tests in Nevada?? For as many tests as there were (underground) you would barely know they even happened.
OPLAN's and CONPLANS exist by the hundreds, you are just hyperventilating over the idea that given the unthinkable, we might actually act unthinkably, given a huge amount of extremely unlikely circumstances, not the least of which is an extremely reactionary President, and cabinet, and Senior Military Leaders who most often would advise against it.
We have lived with the Nuclear Genie out of the bottle in this country for 60+ years now. I would think that we are pretty safe from Dr. Stranglove.
Despite the idea that there are truthfully folks (read many third world countries by todays standards) who try to bury secrets, several hundred feet underground, with many entrances and exits, and multiply redundant power and communications, and nearby nuclear, or chemical plants who produce precursors for VX, or biological agennts (think: genetic engineering facilities). These facilities are completely impervious to even our smart bombs. They cannot be explained, nor do the boogie men who build, and run them for their little crews of mad scientists have any intent of explaining them. Now without giving away any secrets, suffice it to say that there are many ways to learn tidbits about these little bunkers. What would you advocate we do about this knowledge???? Let's examine this little chess puzzle?
1) We could ignore it (the facility and all that goes on).
2) We could demand the UN invoke sanctions unless the boogie men quit whatever we know they are doing, but that we cannot fess up to knowing about.
3) We could try and form a coalition of other boogie men who are making billions selling technology to the boogie men in the first place. Optionally we could enhance this scenario by demanding a UN Security Council Resolution (of course again knowing that all the folks who are making money from the illegal sales of technology (and dual use stuff) are voting members of the UN Sec Council). By this time we know full well that half the economy of boogieville is wrapped up in "defense", and particularly in Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical technologies which would in the hands of most sane individuals rid the entire world of bugs (SuperVX), or kill every primate on the planet (Howbout SuperAIDS), or possibly even throw a little Nuclear FOBS into orbit on short notice and then detonate the thing over a major metropolitan area leaving an EMP'ed Stonhenge. All this coupled with the problem that the pitifully poor third world country hates our guts because the government, or religious zealots have been pumped full of lies and half truths by our own press.
4) Or after quiet diplomacy, some arm twisting, let a very delicately worde plan leak to the press that if some psychotic would decide to try the scenario above... let him know in no uncertain terms, that a small NUDET (a few KT or less) will be more than enough to destructively penetrate to his 700 foot deep little hideaway, rendering it useless as a hidden laboratory, launch facility, etc. All the time ensuring that the proper literature is available to ensure that there is less risk of this underground NUDET becoming any more danger to the pitiful residents of ashcanistan than smoking one of the heroin laced cigarettes they have smoked for their whole lives. And that since the penetrator ensured that it was several hundred feet deep before it detonated, no appreciable fallout, no appreciable collateral damage (beyond a couple hundred yards), etc...
5) Or we could put a multi-megaton, multistaged, MARV warhead one each on all of the stupid countries who sold them the technology? Or if we were feeling particularly kind, just several air bursts, about 1-5 miles up. It would change hundreds of miles into an electronic wasteland. Read up on EMP sometime.
6) Maybe the leader of the World could come up with some options I have not listed. Maybe we could bribe boogie man? How bout assasination (hey Pat Roberts got fried for suggesting that assasination could be a tool of statesmanship)? Hey I'd love to hear somebody even
I wonder if that was DEC's old facile... I mean facility (sorry about that slip of the pen) which got transferred to Compaq and then HP.
;-)
Anyhow, my recollection of the culture (and especially France, was that, they have an expectation of a job for life regardless of the product delivered (or not) for their efforts.
Sorry to be snooty, but it was my observation.
mdw
Intel was here once before. They got tired of having their asshats handed to them....... by McAffee, Norton, etc. and backed away. The op was centered in their now defunct (at least from the perspective of building anything) Utah Valley, Ut operation. It built things like LanDesk Manager, LANDesk Configuration Manager, and (for awhile) LANDesk Anti-Virus. During one of Intel's periodic 90 days of down revenues, they tired of the software business, and laid off ~3000 people, to make Wall Street believe that they were $3B better off than they really were. Circa 1997. It (the Utah Op) was run by Ed Ekstrom, another one of the former Novell crowd (like SCO's Darl McBride) with delusions of grandeur.
;-(, but then it was also quite lucrative ;-). Good luck to the schmucks who will work inside this new subsidiary until the machine tires of software yet again. Get lots of stock options, and never trust a lifer intel manager with your back turned.
Intel, as usual never ceases to amaze those who have been inside. The singularly most poisonous employment environment I have ever seen
I kind of look at this kind of research in the same vein as the old questions...
;-)
When did you stop beating your wife?
Interesting, but not particularly useful. Of course if somehow they can use this knowledge to age Scotch Whiskey a little faster, maybe I can get a little more juiced.
mdw
I think The Aerospace Corporation did an extensive study which NASA used. Here is a link. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/293 6913
I think saying that the NASA did this without any evidence is pretty much like the press. My sensation has been that when it suits them to ignore evidence, they do, and when they have something juicy that sells they are more like Great White sharks.
Cheers.
mdw ;-)
Just remember, HP killed the only viable alternative to Power, Itanium, and SPARC... Alpha... and Alpha was at least 12 months ahead of all of them. Just recall what all of these same folks (IBM more subdued than the others) said when DEC said at the original Microprocessor forum it had a 1Ghz processor.
;-)
The comments ranged from "It'll cause a China Syndrome" to something like "Where are the guys with the White Coats?".
Carly was not yet at the helm at HP, but most of the clowns who advised her at HP during the COMPAQ merger are still there. These are the folks who killed all of the signficant R&D, and competitive effort of redefining O/S and server strategy. They are still there, this is not just a Carly thing, and it is not going to stop. Dump your stock, but personally I would not buy any hardware mfr stock right now except intel and IBM, and probebly only as a hedge. Hey these guys consolidated as they predicted would happen in the mid 90's.
Carly is just one of the MBA educated green eyeshade folks who run American Industries into the ground. Somehow all that matters is "shareholder value", ya know, if we cut 1000 people we save $1 Billion bucks. Fair equation at some level. So if we merge two companies which are marginal we can reduce by "eliminating duplication", we dont have to worry about vision, execution, strategy, customer support, intrinsic value, R&D or anything else with real meaning to the industry, all that matters is the fabricated "savings" associated with cutting "duplication", and 1000 people==$1B of savings. And when this slide starts, everyone pays except the slime making the decisions... they make stock options & grants.
Whare is the shareholder value for riding this equation over the long term. Despite the fact that daytraders, arbitrage, and insiders make mints off this kind of stuff, what about all the working stiffs who, each day are more and more invested in the stock market thru 401k's, money markets, etc. who ride the market for 10 years or more trying to get something like ~10% ROI.
My vote.... be much more critical on who your proxy votes go for when you vote your stock. Don't vote for someone just because of their business acumen, try and pick folks who have demonstrated vision, technical skill, etc.
mdw
I wound up being exposed in this theft. Used to be an employee. Sucks. Would not be surprised to get caught in the Choicepoint theft too. The SAIC folks did the righteous thing though, sent us email a couple days before making the public announcement.
;-)
I have begun to opt out anywhere I have the choice to not divulge my SSN. Try it sometime it's not easy or fun to have people hang up on ya. Most times I can do it, but I almost always have to discuss it with a supervisor.
One other comment on this. I think the original SSA enabling legislation made it illegal to use SSN as a form of identification, yet today, you don't easily take a leak without it (think about it, every credit/debit card transaction, check etc is recorded with it.) And... you have very little choice in the matter. Your drivers license, even if not printed with it (a difficult proposition in some states) is registered against your SSN.
Now for the irony: Call Equifax, etc... to register a fraud alert... you get a blind number, voice mail hell thing (no humans), which asks you to blindly plug in (guess now) your SSN for them to record the fraud alert against, and asks for your phone number, birthday, etc.... what a system.
Yet you don't own one bit of the information stored there, you don't have any right to tell them to pull it, no real significant legal teeth to bite anyone with (although you do have a right to see it for free [in some states]). Hey businesses own the information, and the revenue stream, and interestingly I found the same is true for your medical records. You think you own it??? Wrongo, the insurance company and Doctor own it, and short of the legal restrictions imposed by HIPAA,they can use it however they choose, including denying it to others against your will.
Sheeple will be sheeple.
mdw
Right!?!? The agency most famous for stovepiping information so badly, and being so paranoid about security that they still to this day will not approve a reasonably priced MLS system to save their souls (or anyone elses). These folks could not come up with a credible plan to secure any system short of dropping it in the Marianas Trench.
Yeah, thats the way to securely share information (even among the intelligence agencies) and prevent a recurrence of 9/11. More of the same was really one main complaint ot the 9/11 commission by my read, and this is a perfect example of it.
Ah... might I suggest that ethyl alchohol is truly a poison consumed internally, not from any religous, moral or other bigotted perspective, but in reality.
;-)
The often studied, quoted, and well proven fact that many alcoholic beverages have theraputic, or positive health benefits owes not to the ethyl alcohol, but to other minute compounds which are contained in the fermented beverage. The most commonly known of these are compounds called polyphenols found in red grape juice, and red wine.
Ethyl alcohol on the other hand, when consumed internally has absolutely no positive theraputic benefit, other than possibly as a last resort anesthetic, and then only if the alternative is nothing at all. It kills brain cells in direct proportion to it's dosage at a rate many times more than other substances with anesthetic effects. In addition, it destroys liver function irreparably. It also causes kidney function to be negatively impacted until the alchhol is metabolized.
If there are ANY reputable studies, that show ANY benefits which are directly attributable to the ALCOHOL (even in moderate amounts) in alcoholic bevarages (as opposed to positive effects which might be attributable to alcoholic beverages which contain alcohol) I propose you post a couple, and I will post an apology and retraction. But, note that the article must be clear in the citation that the benefit is attributable to the ALCOHOL alone, not to the beverage which contains it.
The unbelievable absurdity of the idea that consuming grain (or ethyl) alcohol hoping to gain some benefit is beyond even my twisted logic. My historic prediliction to rationalize alcohol during my college days not withstanding, even then I knew I was doing more harm than good.
mdw
Three replys into this obvious flamebait topic from an obviously unbiased (toungue in cheek) source and we already are into major, unadulterated trolling.
... can you believe this... the POWER GRID!!!
;-)
Gimme a fricking break people. An unabashedly far left liberal website trolls something like this and 30 seconds later the blog has fallen in hook line and sinker to vast right wing conspiracy theories, and defense of the bastions of righteousness in the current republicrat administration.
Like there is something newsworthy to the idea that technology is misunderstood and improperly implemented in something as important as a voting system??? Try this on for size... the same stuff is used in hospitals, nuclear reactors, and
Get the heck over it! Other than the facts that politicians are stupid insipid drones, their underlings are deceitful personally agrandizing egotists, and the vendors are bumbling idiots after an ever diminishing margin... there are no communists or fascists lurking here.
Just another case of idiots paying a huge margin to a systems integrator (read: beltway bandit) with poorly defined (if at all) requirements. Worse yet a procurement process which could at best be described as a byzantine approach executed by civil servants who could not get a "real" job getting the most from the lowest bidder.
Whats evil or conspiratorial is that we let this stuff continue because we hire the same idiots to congress and the WH rather than throw them all out.
mdw