Point 1: how does drinking metabolic poisons and inhaling poisonous fumes count as "living more"? Considering that most people who are heavy smokers wish they could quit, and also considering the number of people killed by drunk driving/drivers, I'd say both count for living less.
I'd argue that life without getting drunk, hangovers, bad breath, yellow teeth, lung disease, etc. is much mre fully enjoyed. And if you can't have fun and act like an idiot without getting drunk, then you're sadly lacking in imagination/courage and I pity you.
Point 2: Moderators on crack. How is the previous post off-topic? I don't agree with it, but it has everything to do with diet and lifestyle affeting longevity.
In the Army there's a position called "Information Systems Security Officer" that deals with IT issues. Every Army computing environment needs to have one, but it doesn't have to be a Real Life Officer. Further, they don't have to have any computing experience. That's what OJT is for.
The most imoprtant qualification is that you can be trusted - it's usually someone in the counterintelligence field who gets the job, but that isn't requrired, either.
So, do these newbie ISSOs set up the networks or perform maintenance beyond setting up user accounts and keeping classified info from being smuggled out? Of course not, that's what civillian contractors are for. The Army has long since learned that, if they train soldiers for jobs like that, those soldiers soon leave the military for higher-paying jobs In the Real World, so hiring them from the outside saves a step in the process.
Look into ManTech or Kellog, Brown, and Root (KBR) if you want to get a job in Army IT. Please. The guy ManTech sent to swap out a failed hard drive for me in Bosnia got confused about how the power button worked.
You're right that it's opt-out; however, I'd argue that it's the Right Thing(TM). By setting up a web server and publishing my site's address I am inviting the world to visit my server and explore its contents.
U.S. Army bases are a decent real-world analogy - they are open to the public and invite visitors, offering museums and other recreational facilities. However, at sensitive installations photographs of the buildings and layout are prohibited, and there are signs up making that clear. The Army is open about the fact that they don't want people making maps of the base or its facilities for security reasons (they don't want terrorists bombing the grocery store, let alone the commanders' offices). The Army has opted out of third-party mapping of their property.
Other places, like public museums and libraries, couldn't care less if someone made a map of their site, but have a "No dogs allowed" sign at the door. Public parks allow dogs, but post signs saying "Dogs must be on a leash". The assumption inherit in all of these situations is that by opening the area to the public they are allowing any use of that area (as long as no one breaks any laws). Any restrictions on such use are posted publically, so that visitors know the rules.
It seems reasonable to me that if I invite the public into my private property, whether in the real world or online, that they will act however they want if I don't make clear how I want them to act - short of telepathy they have no way of knowing otherwise. If they start breaking the rules I've set down, then I'll do everything in my power to kick them out (honeypots for web crawlers online, an introduction to my 12-gauge in real life if a polite "please leave" doesn't work).
In any case, I think that "opt-out" is the right model in both cases. The availability of the web site and the publication of the URL constitute an unspoken contract between myself and the public that they may use that space for whatever purpose I don't forbid, including setting up business elsewhere giving out maps for how to navigate my site.
What do you mean you can't fill out clearance request forms on computer? The last time I filled out a security clearance application (I had my 5-year renewal last year) it was on the computer. When I first applied for my clearance ('96) someone entered my application into a computer for error checking and transmission to the Powers That Be(TM). When was your last renewal?
I'll admit that I wrote out my first application by hand for a trained monkey to fat-finger in. I'm glad that these days they trust me to load the software on my home computer and email the encrypted output to the trained monkey - that way he only has to verify that the application had no errors before sending it Higher(TM).
Face it, the government is full of lazy people who want to get paid for having an important job - any amount of work that trained monkey can shift off to me the better, in his opinion.
Hmm... that came off sounding more bitter than I meant it to. My apologies to anyone at Higher(TM) that I've offended.:)
because of its complexity, a tank manual, on the other hand, would be heavily pornographic.
I recently heard about a kid in PLDC [1] who "improved" the illustrations for one of the manuals available to the class in exactly this way. According to the story, the kid was a very talented illustrator, so much so that when you looked at the final product it appeared to have been printed that way, not retouched.
After the audience stopped laughing at the idea, the storyteller reminded all of us that the kid got sent home with paperwork saying that he failed the course, would not be re-admitted, and that his career as a soldier was essentially over. That's the new Army for you.
[1] Primary Leadership Development Course, the school they send you to before you become a Sergeant
I also find it really depressing that Blizzard have been unable to find a group of 5000 people to test, whom they have trusted with their beta versions and who have no doubt signed all sorts of non-disclosure agreements, but who are willing to abide by that and not release the games to warez sites.
Do you have any idea what you're asking??? The US Government spends weeks (it used to be months) and $10-100K per person doing background checks on people to establish that a person can be trusted with confidential information, and after all that we still have people giving secrets away! So you're suggesting that Blizzard spend $10K * 5000 screening the volunteers to ensure that they aren't part of a warez ring? Oh, wait, that doesn't count the rejection rate, make that $10K * (5K + $unknown_number_of_disqualified_applicants). Let's not even talk about the delay in time-to-market that they would take while doing the background checks.
Yes, it's sad, but unless Blizzard is willing to take active steps to ensure that the volunteers are trustworthy they have to accept the fact that a certain number of copies of every Beta release will go directly to the crackers and show up on warez sites in less than a day. I'm sure that Blizzard is aware of this, and has made the right financial decision - let the crackers have it and save the money for more important things.
From what I've heard, Alfred Nobel hated mathematicians because his wife ran off with one. Of course, I heard this in High school from one of my teachers, so who knows if it's reliable info. A fun rumor, nevertheless...
What about Bowie, MD? You wouldn't think people who live there would pronounce it "boo-ie". Go figure.
I can tell yhat you didn't move to Chevy Chase from Bowie or Odenton (or, for that matter, anywhere in Anne Arundel County). You probably aren't native to Maryland at all. Here's how I know:
The cities of Odenton and Bowie were both named after Oden Bowie, the the first president of The Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Company (and later elected Governor of Maryland). He pronounced his name boo-ee, as did his whole family. The pronunciation difference is intentional, and probably due to their Scottish ancestry. The pronunciation is preserved to separate these Bowies from those of "lesser" lineage.
The Bowies are considered heroic State historical figures. The Bowie family was one of the first to settle the area that would become Maryland in about 1702, and as such is one of the oldest in the state. Other notable Bowies from this family include Rezin Pleasant Bowie, Jr (the inventor of the Bowie knife, also correctly pronunced boo-ee), and Col. James Bowie who died defending the Alamo.
So, I guess the singer David Bowie is cool enough (I love his music), but being a Maryland native I have to hold it against him that he pronounces his name wrong:^)
they can't trust the sources. Having performed collection missions it's obvious to me that the AI list is a misinformation magnet. Since _anyone_ can submit, people who were interested in subverting the collection effort would be anxious to post erroneous or misleading information. The quality of the various sources would be completely random (even among the truthful sources), and there would be no guarantee that further information on any of the posts would be available (you can't give assignments to the submitters and they might not give important updates on their own).
Even assuming that all of the reports were factual (ie. actually came from a newspaper or witnessed first hand) it would take a great deal of analyst time to separate the signal from the noise (s/n in the media being quite low), which is why "open source" intelligence is generally viewed with skepticism even after analysis. Trusted networks are already in place for watching CNN and the various newspapers, and there are teams dedicated to their analysis, so an untrusted network doing the same thing isn't likely to get a lot of respect.
I'm very skeptical of the professionalism of anyone who would brief one of the posts on the AI list to a general. Generals usually want summaries and analysis of collected data, not the raw data itself - especially if it's of potentially dubious origin. It would be appropriate to attach the post to an information report, describe its source, and forward it to analysts; but to present it as final, analyzed intelligence is misleading and dangerous.
Further, in the big scheme of things, open source intelligence counts as one "discipline" in the minds of the analysts, just as all data derived from imagery collection platforms are lumped into the "image intelligence" discipline. Giving it undue credit (especially to the detriment of other intelligence disciplines) would be bad policy, even in a perfect world.
Open source intelligence doesn't "[appear] less valuable than classified information because it does not carry the classification mystique", it is generally less valuable because of its unpredictability, poor information quality, and high susceptibility to subversion.
The US Army defines terrorism (for its own purposes) as "any act designed to influence an audience beyond the immediate vicitms". The "classical terrorist" you describe is actually a sabateur, and the crimes you describe him as committing fit better under the definition of "subversion".
This is why terrorists generally have demands completely unrelated to the violent act committed, and have no problem with killing their victims. The vicitms aren't the people they're trying to manipulate.
Similarly, worm writers _should_ be considered criminals and held liable for the damage they produce, just as any other sabateur should. However, if they haven't declared a digital "holy war" against the devils in Redmond and claim that they will continue until no Fortune 500 company runs Microsoft software anywhere in their organisation, then they aren't terrorists.
Summary:
script kiddie who defaces a web site with "J00 R H4X0R3D!!!" == vandal
script kiddie who defaces a web site with "Let this be a warning to all others who run the Redmond Beast's operating system" == terrorist
>So, would the ethics of todays US Army have cost
>us the campaign had they been the ethics used by
>the US Army of WW2?
You seem to be asking "would disclosure of Enigma's compromise have caused the certain loss of the war?" It's hard to say for sure, even in retrospect. You might as well ask, "would faster dissemination of information to field commanders have given us a tactical edge over Germany, allowing us to finish the war sooner?" Current philosophy and doctrine seem to say "no" to the first question and "probably" to the second.
Remember that even if Germany had found out about Enigma's compromise they didn't really have anything to replace it with, so they'd have been forced to either abandon it completely for something less reliable/fast/secure or somehow recall the encoding wheels and distribute new ones to all of their stations. In either case their communications would be disrupted or interceptable (or both) until a new and better system was in place. Besides, even if they did manage to change the wheels in all of the Nazi stations, how long would it have taken Turing to break the code again if it were based on the same principles? It's kinda like the situation with the DVD CCA and DeCSS modernly...;^)
I'm no historian, though, so take this with a grain of salt...
You may be glad to hear that this philosophy has changed somewhat. I grew up in Fort Meade, MD and knew several employees of the NSA, including family members of mine. I remember hearing the Coventry story several times, always in the tone of "I'm glad we don't do that anymore".
Decisions of that type were made when our intelligence operations were young and took themselves much more seriously than they do now (if that's imaginable;^) I've grown up now, and work for the Army in an Intel unit. Army doctrine regarding intelligence gathered from even the most sensitive sources is that it does no one any good if it isn't transmitted to the people who need it (battle ground commander, mayor of the city about to be bombed, etc.) Saving US and civilian lives is the first priority, so at least today's US Army wouldn't sacrifice Coventry to save the Enigma; in fact, just the opposite.
Please don't judge modern intel analysts based on the poor decisions of their forebears
Slashdot Mirror
Point 1: how does drinking metabolic poisons and inhaling poisonous fumes count as "living more"? Considering that most people who are heavy smokers wish they could quit, and also considering the number of people killed by drunk driving/drivers, I'd say both count for living less.
I'd argue that life without getting drunk, hangovers, bad breath, yellow teeth, lung disease, etc. is much mre fully enjoyed. And if you can't have fun and act like an idiot without getting drunk, then you're sadly lacking in imagination/courage and I pity you.
Point 2: Moderators on crack. How is the previous post off-topic? I don't agree with it, but it has everything to do with diet and lifestyle affeting longevity.
In the Army there's a position called "Information Systems Security Officer" that deals with IT issues. Every Army computing environment needs to have one, but it doesn't have to be a Real Life Officer. Further, they don't have to have any computing experience. That's what OJT is for.
The most imoprtant qualification is that you can be trusted - it's usually someone in the counterintelligence field who gets the job, but that isn't requrired, either.
So, do these newbie ISSOs set up the networks or perform maintenance beyond setting up user accounts and keeping classified info from being smuggled out? Of course not, that's what civillian contractors are for. The Army has long since learned that, if they train soldiers for jobs like that, those soldiers soon leave the military for higher-paying jobs In the Real World, so hiring them from the outside saves a step in the process.
Look into ManTech or Kellog, Brown, and Root (KBR) if you want to get a job in Army IT. Please. The guy ManTech sent to swap out a failed hard drive for me in Bosnia got confused about how the power button worked.
You're right that it's opt-out; however, I'd argue that it's the Right Thing(TM). By setting up a web server and publishing my site's address I am inviting the world to visit my server and explore its contents.
U.S. Army bases are a decent real-world analogy - they are open to the public and invite visitors, offering museums and other recreational facilities. However, at sensitive installations photographs of the buildings and layout are prohibited, and there are signs up making that clear. The Army is open about the fact that they don't want people making maps of the base or its facilities for security reasons (they don't want terrorists bombing the grocery store, let alone the commanders' offices). The Army has opted out of third-party mapping of their property.
Other places, like public museums and libraries, couldn't care less if someone made a map of their site, but have a "No dogs allowed" sign at the door. Public parks allow dogs, but post signs saying "Dogs must be on a leash". The assumption inherit in all of these situations is that by opening the area to the public they are allowing any use of that area (as long as no one breaks any laws). Any restrictions on such use are posted publically, so that visitors know the rules.
It seems reasonable to me that if I invite the public into my private property, whether in the real world or online, that they will act however they want if I don't make clear how I want them to act - short of telepathy they have no way of knowing otherwise. If they start breaking the rules I've set down, then I'll do everything in my power to kick them out (honeypots for web crawlers online, an introduction to my 12-gauge in real life if a polite "please leave" doesn't work).
In any case, I think that "opt-out" is the right model in both cases. The availability of the web site and the publication of the URL constitute an unspoken contract between myself and the public that they may use that space for whatever purpose I don't forbid, including setting up business elsewhere giving out maps for how to navigate my site.
What do you mean you can't fill out clearance request forms on computer? The last time I filled out a security clearance application (I had my 5-year renewal last year) it was on the computer. When I first applied for my clearance ('96) someone entered my application into a computer for error checking and transmission to the Powers That Be(TM). When was your last renewal?
:)
I'll admit that I wrote out my first application by hand for a trained monkey to fat-finger in. I'm glad that these days they trust me to load the software on my home computer and email the encrypted output to the trained monkey - that way he only has to verify that the application had no errors before sending it Higher(TM).
Face it, the government is full of lazy people who want to get paid for having an important job - any amount of work that trained monkey can shift off to me the better, in his opinion.
Hmm... that came off sounding more bitter than I meant it to. My apologies to anyone at Higher(TM) that I've offended.
I recently heard about a kid in PLDC [1] who "improved" the illustrations for one of the manuals available to the class in exactly this way. According to the story, the kid was a very talented illustrator, so much so that when you looked at the final product it appeared to have been printed that way, not retouched.
After the audience stopped laughing at the idea, the storyteller reminded all of us that the kid got sent home with paperwork saying that he failed the course, would not be re-admitted, and that his career as a soldier was essentially over. That's the new Army for you.
[1] Primary Leadership Development Course, the school they send you to before you become a Sergeant
I also find it really depressing that Blizzard have been unable to find a group of 5000 people to test, whom they have trusted with their beta versions and who have no doubt signed all sorts of non-disclosure agreements, but who are willing to abide by that and not release the games to warez sites.
Do you have any idea what you're asking??? The US Government spends weeks (it used to be months) and $10-100K per person doing background checks on people to establish that a person can be trusted with confidential information, and after all that we still have people giving secrets away! So you're suggesting that Blizzard spend $10K * 5000 screening the volunteers to ensure that they aren't part of a warez ring? Oh, wait, that doesn't count the rejection rate, make that $10K * (5K + $unknown_number_of_disqualified_applicants). Let's not even talk about the delay in time-to-market that they would take while doing the background checks.
Yes, it's sad, but unless Blizzard is willing to take active steps to ensure that the volunteers are trustworthy they have to accept the fact that a certain number of copies of every Beta release will go directly to the crackers and show up on warez sites in less than a day. I'm sure that Blizzard is aware of this, and has made the right financial decision - let the crackers have it and save the money for more important things.
Alfred Nobel hated mathematics
From what I've heard, Alfred Nobel hated mathematicians because his wife ran off with one. Of course, I heard this in High school from one of my teachers, so who knows if it's reliable info. A fun rumor, nevertheless...
Ever notice how the "rock or something" in the illustration looks an awful lot like the kevlar helmet they issue?
And, yes, the "or something..." has been the source of many good laughs for my Company as well. May it never go away.
I can tell yhat you didn't move to Chevy Chase from Bowie or Odenton (or, for that matter, anywhere in Anne Arundel County). You probably aren't native to Maryland at all. Here's how I know:
The cities of Odenton and Bowie were both named after Oden Bowie, the the first president of The Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Company (and later elected Governor of Maryland). He pronounced his name boo-ee, as did his whole family. The pronunciation difference is intentional, and probably due to their Scottish ancestry. The pronunciation is preserved to separate these Bowies from those of "lesser" lineage.
The Bowies are considered heroic State historical figures. The Bowie family was one of the first to settle the area that would become Maryland in about 1702, and as such is one of the oldest in the state. Other notable Bowies from this family include Rezin Pleasant Bowie, Jr (the inventor of the Bowie knife, also correctly pronunced boo-ee), and Col. James Bowie who died defending the Alamo.
So, I guess the singer David Bowie is cool enough (I love his music), but being a Maryland native I have to hold it against him that he pronounces his name wrong :^)
they can't trust the sources. Having performed collection missions it's obvious to me that the AI list is a misinformation magnet. Since _anyone_ can submit, people who were interested in subverting the collection effort would be anxious to post erroneous or misleading information. The quality of the various sources would be completely random (even among the truthful sources), and there would be no guarantee that further information on any of the posts would be available (you can't give assignments to the submitters and they might not give important updates on their own).
Even assuming that all of the reports were factual (ie. actually came from a newspaper or witnessed first hand) it would take a great deal of analyst time to separate the signal from the noise (s/n in the media being quite low), which is why "open source" intelligence is generally viewed with skepticism even after analysis. Trusted networks are already in place for watching CNN and the various newspapers, and there are teams dedicated to their analysis, so an untrusted network doing the same thing isn't likely to get a lot of respect.
I'm very skeptical of the professionalism of anyone who would brief one of the posts on the AI list to a general. Generals usually want summaries and analysis of collected data, not the raw data itself - especially if it's of potentially dubious origin. It would be appropriate to attach the post to an information report, describe its source, and forward it to analysts; but to present it as final, analyzed intelligence is misleading and dangerous.
Further, in the big scheme of things, open source intelligence counts as one "discipline" in the minds of the analysts, just as all data derived from imagery collection platforms are lumped into the "image intelligence" discipline. Giving it undue credit (especially to the detriment of other intelligence disciplines) would be bad policy, even in a perfect world.
Open source intelligence doesn't "[appear] less valuable than classified information because it does not carry the classification mystique", it is generally less valuable because of its unpredictability, poor information quality, and high susceptibility to subversion.
The US Army defines terrorism (for its own purposes) as "any act designed to influence an audience beyond the immediate vicitms". The "classical terrorist" you describe is actually a sabateur, and the crimes you describe him as committing fit better under the definition of "subversion".
This is why terrorists generally have demands completely unrelated to the violent act committed, and have no problem with killing their victims. The vicitms aren't the people they're trying to manipulate.
Similarly, worm writers _should_ be considered criminals and held liable for the damage they produce, just as any other sabateur should. However, if they haven't declared a digital "holy war" against the devils in Redmond and claim that they will continue until no Fortune 500 company runs Microsoft software anywhere in their organisation, then they aren't terrorists.
Summary:
script kiddie who defaces a web site with "J00 R H4X0R3D!!!" == vandal
script kiddie who defaces a web site with "Let this be a warning to all others who run the Redmond Beast's operating system" == terrorist
>So, would the ethics of todays US Army have cost
;^)
>us the campaign had they been the ethics used by
>the US Army of WW2?
You seem to be asking "would disclosure of Enigma's compromise have caused the certain loss of the war?" It's hard to say for sure, even in retrospect. You might as well ask, "would faster dissemination of information to field commanders have given us a tactical edge over Germany, allowing us to finish the war sooner?" Current philosophy and doctrine seem to say "no" to the first question and "probably" to the second.
Remember that even if Germany had found out about Enigma's compromise they didn't really have anything to replace it with, so they'd have been forced to either abandon it completely for something less reliable/fast/secure or somehow recall the encoding wheels and distribute new ones to all of their stations. In either case their communications would be disrupted or interceptable (or both) until a new and better system was in place. Besides, even if they did manage to change the wheels in all of the Nazi stations, how long would it have taken Turing to break the code again if it were based on the same principles? It's kinda like the situation with the DVD CCA and DeCSS modernly...
I'm no historian, though, so take this with a grain of salt...
You may be glad to hear that this philosophy has changed somewhat. I grew up in Fort Meade, MD and knew several employees of the NSA, including family members of mine. I remember hearing the Coventry story several times, always in the tone of "I'm glad we don't do that anymore".
;^) I've grown up now, and work for the Army in an Intel unit. Army doctrine regarding intelligence gathered from even the most sensitive sources is that it does no one any good if it isn't transmitted to the people who need it (battle ground commander, mayor of the city about to be bombed, etc.) Saving US and civilian lives is the first priority, so at least today's US Army wouldn't sacrifice Coventry to save the Enigma; in fact, just the opposite.
Decisions of that type were made when our intelligence operations were young and took themselves much more seriously than they do now (if that's imaginable
Please don't judge modern intel analysts based on the poor decisions of their forebears