Did you like using it? I've always felt it was a poor replacement for MIRC, AIM and the rest. Besides the fact that you have to log in to the Portal, it's also impossible to find anyone you're looking for. I talked to the Portal support desk about it and they told me it was because they never linked the usernames in Bantu with the ones in the Portal---completely missed the boat!
Web-based, SSL encrypted system. I've personally used it and find it sub-par. It's not designed to compete with AIM, et al. It can't.
What it does have going for it is that the AF has tight control over its network. You can't install MSN messenger, AIM, YIM, Trillian etc. without getting picked up by the admins. And the ports are already blocked. Being a web-based client, it doesn't require an installation, nor does it take up any extra ports.
Regarding encryption and monitoring, the AF can monitor, but don't assume it does. There's enough going on without bothering to sort through every love not and chat conversation between Airman Snuffy and his girl. If there's reason to suspect espionage, it'll be watched. But if any info is going out through this hunk of dren called Bantu, I'd be surprised.
Honestly, it's no big news inside the AF. The Air Force Portal (my.af.mil) has enjoyed some success, but it's still a solution looking for a problem in some ways.
I can say from personal experience that having a video system in the rooms of our two children (4 & 1 yrs) has been extremely informative and helpful to parenting.
We have a simple "Summer's Eve" setup (IR cams, three channel B&W rcvr). Ran us a total of $150 with two cameras but it was the cheapest option I could find given my limited expertise and the need for a reliable system (didn't want to be rebooting etc at 1 AM). Quality is good enough (sleep, awake, playing around, reading), but not that high.
For the nay-sayers I will say that the camera profoundly helped my wife and I understand our son (and later our daughter). We learned what kind of behavior accompanies what kind of cries and how best to respond to it (or not). Now that he's older, we can see what he's doing in his room when we put him to bed. We learned that sleeping isn't an immediate response to the door closing.
Monitoring of any kind should be taken for what it is: augmentation of natural senses. It helps, but should not replace, good parental instincts (which seem to be something any/.er can pick up if you read the posts from posters w/out children...).
Want cheap, go Summer's Eve. You won't fool the babysitter though. The cameras are pretty big and the range is limited.
Uhh...no. Wrong, incorrect, off-base (pun intended). The Air Force does not need, want, endorse, or otherwise envision a draft.
Sir.Cracked is right about the force shaping program. In point of fact, it's no secret that the Air Force is having a problem with getting people TO LEAVE. (something about patriotism, job satisfaction, being a part of something bigger than yourself)
We don't WANT a draft, don't NEED a draft, and don't LIKE the draft.
1. Draftees have to be trained like everyone else. Volunteers (by virtue of wanting to be there) tend to learn better than draftees. Since we need specific skillsets, more training is going to be required. (e.g. knowing Arabic does not an intelligence officer make)
2. Draftees only stay for a limited amount of time. With a draft, the AF loses a well-established incentive program that has managed to keep a lot of people with needed skills for a long time. With a draft, we'll have a lot of people for two years, max.
3. The AF has had an all-volunteer force (AVF) for over thirty years. There are but a handful of personnel still on active duty who joined when the draft was still in force. If we go back to a draft, the culture shift would be devastating. Every single policy decision, every strategy has, directly or indirectly, has to consider how it will impact the volunteer force. A draft would be more work than those skills gain.
4. The skills the Selective Service is planning to draft all require careful security screening and trust. These are not areas that draftees would be just dropped into.
5. Why draft when you can contract? Contractors can be found in every aspect of military forces. They're no longer being kept back in the US--they're on the front lines. Easier to buy a ready-made capability than draft it and force it out of the draftees. You draft infantry, not computer techs.
6. The AF is doing pretty well, despite what "experts" on here might think. The Army might be hurting, but I doubt it. Look at the millions being poured into recruiting (airforce.com). The DOD isn't about to abandon this strategy.
While I'm not a fan of this proposal, I do have experience with driving there. I got a safety briefing when I arrived in Albuquerque (pretty much the only city in the entire state).
IIRC, approx. a third of the cars on the road between 7 PM and 3 AM on Thursday through Sunday nights are being operated by drunk drivers. And something like half of the cars on the road are being driven without insurance. (I have no reference for these stats, it was what I was told)
I do know that my insurance rates for my own car went through the roof when I got there, and I was introduced to a new concept: mandatory "uninsured motorist" insurance. The chances of getting hit weren't just high, they were also pretty good that whoever hits me won't pay (and they didn't).
Say what you like about these laws, but that is one state that needs to do something about drunk driving. It's way out of control there.
After looking at their site, I have to wonder if they didn't *request* that number...after all, they'll only send you a list of their "specials" if you give them your email addy AND five bucks. (Keeping in mind that these are probably their leftover, screwed up, and nobody-came-back-and-paid-or-picked-them-up inventory)
There is a group out there looking for IT skills..
on
Volunteer Work Abroad?
·
· Score: 1
They pay pretty well, don't do layoffs (well, only once every 25 years or so...), and give pretty good bonuses for IT professionals.
The only down side is guaranteed employment for three to four years.
I realize not everyone on this board is an American citizen, but those that are might consider military service as an option.
Besides, the majority of missions (those that aren't in the news because they've become so routine) being performed prior to 9/11 were humanitarian-related.
Good points, all. Your command of history far exceeds mine and I bow to it.
While those disputes are relatively minor (to us, perhaps), I use them as a point against the original argument regarding expansion. I agree that the level of foreign intervention is lower than that of the US, but seems to be based much more unilaterally than ours. I know the "coalition" and "alliance" arguments are thin--I won't dispute that we pressure (or bully) others into going along, but we do go for the team effort over the individual one.
Yes, China has replaced the USSR as "enemy #1". Then again, they were a threat from the time of Mao. But the USSR was a bigger threat, and we dealt with it. The threat now centers on non-proliferation, and China is a rogue nation in this arena.
I don't profess to know all that much about China's history. I try to assemble information about my arguments, but tend to explore those that support my opinion. Guilty as charged.
Again, thanks for pointing out the errors, but I still stand by the foundation of my argument--They're still a threat (to the US at least), and don't think they have altruistic intentions. They're as nationalistic as any other large country that holds sway within its own political sphere.
You're right. China doesn't send spy planes over America.
Then again, we didn't send a spyplane over China. We operated outside of the internationally recognized borders of China according to the standard agreed upon by every other nation. China only decides that in this instance that doesn't apply. (Does this sound vaguely like the Korean Air Lines shoot-down back in the 80's?--I realize that's stretching too far back for some, but the "oldsters" among us can agree/dissent)
Of course we're checking up on the Chinese. Have they ever given us a reason not to? Our failure to pay attention to the Chinese resulted in thousands of Marines dead at the Chosin Reservoir when the "volunteer army" of the Chinese poured over into North Korea. Our intelligence helped keep a nuclear war from starting when this "peaceful" nation decided to launch ICBM missiles across the Strait of Taiwan--I'd say that's probably a good thing.
You contradict yourself in your vision of China. You call China (of the future) a "King Khan" state but say that "it also does not have territorial ambitions". First, "King Khan" is right. Ever heard of Genghis Khan? Conquered almost all of Asia and moved as far as Germany on his way west before he died? Things haven't changed much. The CIA World Factbook lists 13 territorial disputes currently involving China and its neighbors. Maybe these are just "claiming back old lands, like Taiwan" (not included in this count). Then again, China's been around a few centuries--it can claim anything it wants on that argument!
Have you considered the fact that Chinese culture considers anyone not Chinese (specifically Han) to be nothing more than "barbarians" or "foreign devils"? Most cultures are no better at this, but please don't make the Chinese out to be any less nationalistic, or any less ready to force their culture on another, than they are.
Interesting points you've made, yes. But you see this issue through a decidedly rose-colored glass, IMHO
Slashdot Mirror
Very customizable and tasks (as the individual wiping profiles are called) can be customized to be fast or extremely thorough.
And he's right. It's cleared for use in wiping classified disks, so I'm pretty sure it'll cover HIPAA too.
Mother always said I'd go blind doing this...who knew??
Did you like using it? I've always felt it was a poor replacement for MIRC, AIM and the rest. Besides the fact that you have to log in to the Portal, it's also impossible to find anyone you're looking for. I talked to the Portal support desk about it and they told me it was because they never linked the usernames in Bantu with the ones in the Portal---completely missed the boat!
You're wrong. It's Bantu IM. I've used it. USJFCOM has nothing to do with the Air Force Portal and not much more to do with the Air Force...
Web-based, SSL encrypted system. I've personally used it and find it sub-par. It's not designed to compete with AIM, et al. It can't.
What it does have going for it is that the AF has tight control over its network. You can't install MSN messenger, AIM, YIM, Trillian etc. without getting picked up by the admins. And the ports are already blocked. Being a web-based client, it doesn't require an installation, nor does it take up any extra ports.
Regarding encryption and monitoring, the AF can monitor, but don't assume it does. There's enough going on without bothering to sort through every love not and chat conversation between Airman Snuffy and his girl. If there's reason to suspect espionage, it'll be watched. But if any info is going out through this hunk of dren called Bantu, I'd be surprised.
Honestly, it's no big news inside the AF. The Air Force Portal (my.af.mil) has enjoyed some success, but it's still a solution looking for a problem in some ways.
I can say from personal experience that having a video system in the rooms of our two children (4 & 1 yrs) has been extremely informative and helpful to parenting.
/.er can pick up if you read the posts from posters w/out children...).
We have a simple "Summer's Eve" setup (IR cams, three channel B&W rcvr). Ran us a total of $150 with two cameras but it was the cheapest option I could find given my limited expertise and the need for a reliable system (didn't want to be rebooting etc at 1 AM). Quality is good enough (sleep, awake, playing around, reading), but not that high.
For the nay-sayers I will say that the camera profoundly helped my wife and I understand our son (and later our daughter). We learned what kind of behavior accompanies what kind of cries and how best to respond to it (or not). Now that he's older, we can see what he's doing in his room when we put him to bed. We learned that sleeping isn't an immediate response to the door closing.
Monitoring of any kind should be taken for what it is: augmentation of natural senses. It helps, but should not replace, good parental instincts (which seem to be something any
Want cheap, go Summer's Eve. You won't fool the babysitter though. The cameras are pretty big and the range is limited.
Uhh...no. Wrong, incorrect, off-base (pun intended). The Air Force does not need, want, endorse, or otherwise envision a draft.
Sir.Cracked is right about the force shaping program. In point of fact, it's no secret that the Air Force is having a problem with getting people TO LEAVE. (something about patriotism, job satisfaction, being a part of something bigger than yourself)
We don't WANT a draft, don't NEED a draft, and don't LIKE the draft.
1. Draftees have to be trained like everyone else. Volunteers (by virtue of wanting to be there) tend to learn better than draftees. Since we need specific skillsets, more training is going to be required. (e.g. knowing Arabic does not an intelligence officer make)
2. Draftees only stay for a limited amount of time. With a draft, the AF loses a well-established incentive program that has managed to keep a lot of people with needed skills for a long time. With a draft, we'll have a lot of people for two years, max.
3. The AF has had an all-volunteer force (AVF) for over thirty years. There are but a handful of personnel still on active duty who joined when the draft was still in force. If we go back to a draft, the culture shift would be devastating. Every single policy decision, every strategy has, directly or indirectly, has to consider how it will impact the volunteer force. A draft would be more work than those skills gain.
4. The skills the Selective Service is planning to draft all require careful security screening and trust. These are not areas that draftees would be just dropped into.
5. Why draft when you can contract? Contractors can be found in every aspect of military forces. They're no longer being kept back in the US--they're on the front lines. Easier to buy a ready-made capability than draft it and force it out of the draftees. You draft infantry, not computer techs.
6. The AF is doing pretty well, despite what "experts" on here might think. The Army might be hurting, but I doubt it. Look at the millions being poured into recruiting (airforce.com). The DOD isn't about to abandon this strategy.
My opinions are my own.
While I'm not a fan of this proposal, I do have experience with driving there. I got a safety briefing when I arrived in Albuquerque (pretty much the only city in the entire state).
IIRC, approx. a third of the cars on the road between 7 PM and 3 AM on Thursday through Sunday nights are being operated by drunk drivers. And something like half of the cars on the road are being driven without insurance. (I have no reference for these stats, it was what I was told)
I do know that my insurance rates for my own car went through the roof when I got there, and I was introduced to a new concept: mandatory "uninsured motorist" insurance. The chances of getting hit weren't just high, they were also pretty good that whoever hits me won't pay (and they didn't).
Say what you like about these laws, but that is one state that needs to do something about drunk driving. It's way out of control there.
After looking at their site, I have to wonder if they didn't *request* that number...after all, they'll only send you a list of their "specials" if you give them your email addy AND five bucks. (Keeping in mind that these are probably their leftover, screwed up, and nobody-came-back-and-paid-or-picked-them-up inventory)
Yeah...382 5968 to you, too....
If only SCO made printers...
They pay pretty well, don't do layoffs (well, only once every 25 years or so...), and give pretty good bonuses for IT professionals.
The only down side is guaranteed employment for three to four years.
I realize not everyone on this board is an American citizen, but those that are might consider military service as an option.
Besides, the majority of missions (those that aren't in the news because they've become so routine) being performed prior to 9/11 were humanitarian-related.
Good points, all. Your command of history far exceeds mine and I bow to it. While those disputes are relatively minor (to us, perhaps), I use them as a point against the original argument regarding expansion. I agree that the level of foreign intervention is lower than that of the US, but seems to be based much more unilaterally than ours. I know the "coalition" and "alliance" arguments are thin--I won't dispute that we pressure (or bully) others into going along, but we do go for the team effort over the individual one. Yes, China has replaced the USSR as "enemy #1". Then again, they were a threat from the time of Mao. But the USSR was a bigger threat, and we dealt with it. The threat now centers on non-proliferation, and China is a rogue nation in this arena. I don't profess to know all that much about China's history. I try to assemble information about my arguments, but tend to explore those that support my opinion. Guilty as charged. Again, thanks for pointing out the errors, but I still stand by the foundation of my argument--They're still a threat (to the US at least), and don't think they have altruistic intentions. They're as nationalistic as any other large country that holds sway within its own political sphere.
You're right. China doesn't send spy planes over America. Then again, we didn't send a spyplane over China. We operated outside of the internationally recognized borders of China according to the standard agreed upon by every other nation. China only decides that in this instance that doesn't apply. (Does this sound vaguely like the Korean Air Lines shoot-down back in the 80's?--I realize that's stretching too far back for some, but the "oldsters" among us can agree/dissent) Of course we're checking up on the Chinese. Have they ever given us a reason not to? Our failure to pay attention to the Chinese resulted in thousands of Marines dead at the Chosin Reservoir when the "volunteer army" of the Chinese poured over into North Korea. Our intelligence helped keep a nuclear war from starting when this "peaceful" nation decided to launch ICBM missiles across the Strait of Taiwan--I'd say that's probably a good thing. You contradict yourself in your vision of China. You call China (of the future) a "King Khan" state but say that "it also does not have territorial ambitions". First, "King Khan" is right. Ever heard of Genghis Khan? Conquered almost all of Asia and moved as far as Germany on his way west before he died? Things haven't changed much. The CIA World Factbook lists 13 territorial disputes currently involving China and its neighbors. Maybe these are just "claiming back old lands, like Taiwan" (not included in this count). Then again, China's been around a few centuries--it can claim anything it wants on that argument! Have you considered the fact that Chinese culture considers anyone not Chinese (specifically Han) to be nothing more than "barbarians" or "foreign devils"? Most cultures are no better at this, but please don't make the Chinese out to be any less nationalistic, or any less ready to force their culture on another, than they are. Interesting points you've made, yes. But you see this issue through a decidedly rose-colored glass, IMHO