I admit that I may have exaggerated on some aspects of my presentation, however, I am fairly confident the overall gist of it is correct.
The Army does not have the resources to keep go-to-war combat forces properly trained.
At the end of each fiscal year, the amount of fuel and ammo available to conduct training is very low, to the point that training tempo's are difficult, if not impossible to sustain.
That the Army did lower it's recruitment standards to get more folks in the door.
That soldiers, due to decreased training tempo's and increased peacekeeping tempos, won't have enough time to develop and maintain proficiencies with their issued, new-technology equipment.
That the disparity in these tempos and budget constraints will not allow the soldier to develop and maintain the proper proficiencies.
I can accept that Transmeta's chip may not be involved in the Land Warrior project specifically, however, the basic point here is that we don't need to load soldiers up with even more gear, when they can't even maintain proficiencies with the other gear they currently have. I'm not speaking of pounds of gear, I am speaking of the complexity of the gear to the operator. You can make the equipment lighter, but if someone has to stop and screw with it, they can get killed while trying to get their enhanced capability equipment back on line.
I'm sure there is plenty of positive press out on the recent exercise held at Ft. Polk. My own discussions with participants are that it involves a lot of waiting for engineers (PM's - are you a PM?) to figure out how all the equipment interfaces together. Then, the forces start moving again, then wait to ask where is the data, and resolve more technical problems.
The fact still remains that those who are moving more quickly and shooting more effectively (right target, right ammunition to service the target), are more likely to survive and win. More intel and ability to deliver the ammo to the target + "where are they" coupled with "where am I" as another person pointed out, is also critical to the equation of battlefield survival. The problem, and the happy medium would be to accomplish the latter, without hindering the former.
Better Technology to accomplish the mission should not be at the expense of speed or provide distractions to the soldier on the ground. If you can figure out a way to do that, then I say BRAVO. But if you cannot and soldiers are distracted from looking down the street and instead focus on getting their technology back on-line, then you have done a disservice and will cost lives.
Yeah, Ok, so I guess the keeper of the Kernel will get a silver beret instead of a black one, that way, instead of fooling that everyone is high speed, we'll know who really is.
Now, as far as what these chips will be used for, there is a project called the "Land Warrior" project. The goal of this project seems to be to try and load a soldier up with almost every ungodly amount of sensory equipment as one can pack onto an individual human. We're talking like 45 extra pounds of technology, a heavier, albiet, more capable weapon system with things like rangefinders, Laser Target Designators and thermal sights all built into a rifle, with a grenade launcher and 5.56 round capablity, all in a single system.
The soldiers will have to also contend with sensory equipment integrated to thier helmet and a head's up display that can communicate terrain and other types of intel. The commander will be able to see what each soldier sees and intel can be shared from any one element on the battlefield to almost any other point.
This program assumes, in my view as an *infantryman* that the average soldier, who they just lowered the entrance standard (ASVAB - GT score) on so that they could get recruitment numbers up, will have a clue as to operating all this crap while still maintaining eyes on that critical 40-65 feet in front of them in an urban environment.
Uh, just a minute Bob, I have to reboot. Or "my head's up display got smudged from my camoflauge, and while I'm cleaning it so I can see what the heck might be around the next corner, I get whacked from some 3rd world irregular who leaned out the window across the street.
Now, these are bold strides that the military is trying to make in advancing thier state of technology. But technology alone is no *magic bullet* which will enable soldiers on the ground to be more lethal, if they can't move or don't have the intelligence to work the equipment they have been issued. We've barely got enough time to get people to be really effective as regular infantrymen and can't even afford enough fuel and bullets to have soldiers learn their basic jobs. So, now were going to buy all this neato technology that goes beyond the current (and future) warfighting need?
But hey, I hear they sure are going to be wearing neat hats pretty soon. Goes to show you, when someone was thinking "Can we do this", someone else forgot to ask "should we"?
But hey, good for Transmeta and all that. I'm sure those who got in at the IPO will be happy. As for the everyday soldier who has to content with all this stuff and doesn't even have the resources to maintain basic proficencies it won't mean a damn, not now, and surely not after they get loaded up with a lot more crap that their units will let them use about once a quarter.
Yes, this may be great and all for the reason stated, that "ISP competition will still be a major factor, helping to keep connection prices low." BUT! - this should also be construed as the court saying that they are out of the purview of the FCC completely, therefore, the FCC cannot weigh in on forcing an opening of AOL IM to others who wish to enter the space currently monopolized by AOL's refusal to open same.
What would the Internet be without "content?" It would be a valueless collection of silent machines with gray screens.
Didn't he mean to say, a valueless collection of silent machines with blue screens? Does Universal own Pinochio? Oh, yes, different studio, different puppet.
Now that they have a name, Geeko, Bah!, The thing is that now that they've named it Geeko, they'll have to somehow figure out how to make it wear thick black BC glasses and a pocket protector so he'll conform to the expectations of the rest of the country.
Or, perhaps, if they're really smart, they'll make him into a geek pocket protector, so that he's peering over the top of a pocket, with a couple holes for pens, a small LCD/clock oriented upwards, 4MB of RAM for MP3s and of course, a hole small enough to be reserved for a stylus. They could give these away at the next Linux World.
Well, I had to smash my VCR this evening. After all, it was a technology that was obviously created to bypass a copyright. Damn the politicians, damn the DMCA, Damn the MPAA, the DVDCCA and the RIAA.
Just hold on there Hoss - before you go doling out your hard earned bucks for some run of the mill bag made by the mass manufacturers, you've got to check out JANDD Mountaineering in Santa Barabara.
They started their businesss over 10 years ago making saddlebags for bicycles. Today, they make probably 40-50 different bags and all of them are tough, bombproof, etc... as their roots are in saddlebags which have to take a lot of abuse.
About 3 years ago they started getting a lot of requests from the customer base on having a laptop bag with cushioning and all, so they modified a large selection of thier bags with an interior support system.
Today, I simply will not buy a non-jandd bag at all, given that I've never had one of their bags wear out. The drag part is that they got burned a long time ago and have not developed a web presence so you have to call information in Santa Barbara, CA, get the catalogue, etc... But it is well worth the wait as you'll have an awesome bag that everyone will ask you where you got it and you won't have to get another one for 10-15 years. It will outlast 2-3 laptops no problem.
To your knowledge, has anyone ever gained access to the Large Gov'ment Automated Keyword Scan System operated by the largest english speaking nations of the world? If yes, what do you know about the system that has not been in the press?
The Warrior Ethic and Mentality
on
Gates of Fire
·
· Score: 1
OK, this may seem like a crass publicity stunt, but this week is the 10 year anniversary of Operation Just Cause where over 2000 Rangers parachuted onto hot Drop Zones at two airfields in Panama. Red tracers met each aircraft as they unloaded thier human combat loads. There is a memorial site with combatant narratives here. If you think the Rangers had a twisted sense of humor, I can't imagine what it was like being a Spartan.
What I want to know is can you turn the headlights off and just drive with the night vision camera turned on for the ultimate in stealth transportation. This is great for those of us who occasionally drive long stretches of deserted deserted road at times. And would be useful in cutting down on the incedence of useless deer mutilations, not to mention the damage done to vehicles in hitting these and other "soft targets", er, I mean obstacles. Yes, I know, I was talking about the desert.
I find it perfectly acceptable for our country to participate in Cyberwarfare. In fact, we already can do, in the physical world, that which may be attainable through an over-the-wire attack.
We have missles which can shut down power grids, either temporarily or permanently (an infrastructure attack). Why not just shut it down over a network?
We have missles which can cause the enemy to see 15 aircraft coming in to attack, when in fact, a missle sent the signal(good deception techniques) and we are attacking elsewhere with F117s. Why not just send the signal over the wire or even better, alter the system to be disfunctional?
The objective in warfare (before Clinton anyway), was to fight and win. Now, with the continued advent of Operations Other Than War and limited objective warfare, Cyberwarfare seems to be an even more attractive option, given the relative costs in human suffering (by Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines of the United States and their families). The risks involved in such operations are much greater since the objective is not to totally annhilate the enemy, but to pacify him and then co-exist within the same physical space for an undetermined period of time and with ill-advised rules of engagement. Would you want to be on the ground then, or have a family member or friend out risking their lives? Or would you rather reduce the need for it through an over-the-wire attack?
Now, I'm not advocating Cyberwarfare to the extent that we isolate and shut down mission critical equipment in hospital facilities by shutting down a power grid, but if we engage such targets with munitions anyway, wouldn't it make sense to engage the target at lower cost and risk to human life of our nation and forces?
An argument that I've seen presented is that we are more dependent on information infrastructure than other nations so we ought not to provoke other nations by using the same. In the USA, we have a rather decentralized information infrastructure, highly redundant systems, and data backup performed for all critical systems. I would argue that even if another nation were able to attack us, it would not take that long to recover.
Now, Russia was also mentioned in the article and you'd have to pay some attention to the fact that they strongly oppose the use of Cyberwarfare. Why is this? Could it be that they have a very centralized information infrastructure, very few redundant systems and cannot regularly perform data backup? I would think this to be the case.
Anyway, our own government, having developed the most sophisticated military technology in the world is already the number one target for hostile "cyberwarfare" attacks. Just because they have occured during a time when we are not actively engaging an enemy does not mean that it does not happen, or that it does not constitute "cyberwarfare".
Whenever in warfare, there is a chance to use a supporting weapon such as mortars, artillerly, etc... we have what is known as pre-plotted targets that can be used as a point of reference to speed up the engagement process at a critical time of need. Some (or many) of you may be aware of the many different scenarios the military develops and prepares appropriate contingency plans. Do you think that the NSA does not already have solutions plotted to shut down as many critical systems throughout the world as possible should the need ever arise to do so? These are the targets of tomorrow. It brings about a whole new meaning to "pushing the button".
Information Warfare, Cyberwarfare, etc... was started a long time ago and it is here to stay. We are already under attack and will continue to be attacked since we have superior technology that many others want, and that some other nations have already obtained from us.
Ah yes, of course, Brand Recognition. A very good objective.
Still, a more subtle presentation of Tux would be desireable, rather than just big and bold in the center. It's a tough task, to convey all the positive uses for the OS in an image.
I would not feature Tux at all. It may be a cute mascot of sorts as others have mentioned, but certainly it will not communicate to the masses what Linux is about. It might make your task much more difficult, but the Penguin is a no-brainer easy way out.
The image should focus on the positive aspects of Linux and disregard, completely, Adobe, MS, or other software publishers who do not support Linux.
I mean, if the arguments for using Linux have to include a discourse on why something else is bad or wrong in order to convince someone to use Linux, then isn't that just giving FUD to those the community argues uses FUD themselves?
I've got to think that most of you are a little more innovative than that and that a good image of Linux can be created that rests on its own merits.
In the news I read, the reasons given for nixing Digital Signatures had to do with creating a second class of enforceable, legally binding contracts. I wholeheartedly agree with this. There is no sense in rushing into a new use of technology and forcing it down the throats of consumers who will not understand the message they are receiving. Contract law is one area that is clear enough for a great many people to understand. It is well thought out and well documented in the Uniform Commercial Code and a great many state laws.
This applies to a whole huge list of transaction types and contract law situations.
A company may distribute a recall notice to connected consumers. The consumer thinks it is junk mail and deletes it. Who is responsible for a future situation where the product defect caused an accident? The consumer could be asked to digitally sign the copy they were sent acknowledging reciept of the recall, but was something this basic included in the bill?
Data Integrity Issues: What happens when a consumer's data is lost and it contained contracts in electronic form? Can he get a copy from the other party?
What happens when the corporation loses their copy? If it's a contract that I have the only copy left, may I say I don't have a copy either and stop taking actions for which the agreement applies if the terms are later found to be unfavorable?
We would be forcing the courts to decide the question: Did the consumer sign and when did the consumer sign? Typically, a corporate attorney would make better use of terminology and understand the issues better than the consumers attorney. Would you trust that the outcome in determining such basic facts to be favorable?
As much as I love technology and all the cool benefits of it in terms of information flow, I think that for something as important as this, it's imperative that the plan be well thought out and understood by even those who do not understand the underlying technology. It was prudent to wait.
So, who cares about key length? Really. If the consumer will not even understand they are entering a legally binding agreement or receiving information which legally binds them, then we are not ready as a society to take the step. It's really as simple as that, and all the different arguments about the technological merits of one solution vs another can just sit by the wayside until these larger issues are worked out and understood.
If that doesn't take place first, then passing a digital signature act will be something the goverment does to us, not for us.
The part about this that is totally unethical is that they are rotating banner ads over your article, essentially deriving income from your work. If you had an agreement with them whereby they compensated you for your work and posted it on their site that would be acceptable. They would be reselling it then. But that has not happened, they ripped you off, without even asking.
By them posting thier copyright, they are purporting that they "own" the work as others would need thier permission to copy it.
This is time to take action. Legal action. You not only deserve the right that they post your copyright, since you own the work, but you should also demand compensation, since they are using your intellectual property to derive income through the ad rotation.
That is correct, there is not, and you made a valid point here. But how many different people run small businesses over the web that include hotels and/or supermarkets? Typically, those are very well capitalized businesses where they have the resources to fund their own apps.
ON the other hand, there are probably a faily large pile of people out there running small businesses on the web, where the most commonly encountered activities are selling/supporting a product or service that they wish to ship themselves.
The most common tasks associated with that are contact management, accounting, correspondence, POS, perhaps label making and package tracking. If it's strictly a web based business, you can drop the POS, although the author of this "Ask/." has requested it.
I myself would like to be able to accomplish all these tasks using Linux, but right now have to copy/paste from a bunch of Windows apps. So, who is going to get it right first with a single, well integrated application? Will it be someone who develops for Linux, or someone who develops for Windows?
Most all the entries say the same thing as this one, with respondents replying with check out this POS or that Accounting SW. I think he was requesting a well integrated application that did Contact Management, Correspondence, Accounting and POS.
While it's easy to chime in with easily identifiable solutions, most of these sound to be narrowly focused and that is the problem that the author laments. You're probably telling him what he already knows, that there is an abundant supply of narrowly focused applications for a broad number of tasks, but there is not a well integrated solution for all of them.
Can anyone provide direction as to a program that does it all, or of anyone who has integrated other programs to address all these tasks? If yes, then you can answer this guy's question and would be a help to me as I have been looking at the same problem.
This is a common problem for many people. The ideal specification would allow the company to share data across the various apps. I am talking about doing your order input, billing, business correspondence and package label printing all from the same app. There is no such thing.
But since Linux is used primarily for servers and is getting more popular for the desktop as well, you'd think someone would have a mind to develop and market an app which can seamlessly take data from the e-commerce side of a site, verify a cybercash deposit, into order fulfillment, over to write correspondence, UPS shipping labels, then add in a UPS functionality that allows you to feed the data back to the site so that customers can track thier package. This currently requires too much damn copy/paste using windows apps or re-entry of data to be fun. I haven't learned of any Linux apps which do all these functions and sorry if I'm ruffling feathers here, but I'm not going to switch back and forth between OSs to accomplish minor tasks related to completing the same job. The minumum shared data is of course, the customer demographic.
Is there even an accounting program out that just includes UPS label making as an integrated function?
Someone will slap me down here, either for asking for too much, not being a programmer, or expecting too little. I don't see a viable solution on the horizon for such a product, but I'd pay as much as $600 for it if it did all that. I wouldn't pay what the large companies want, which is in excess of $2500, plus a % of sales.
I want to thank whoever wrote the virus as I was infected by this and had my.doc and.xls files zapped. The recovery was easy enough and since I don't use those programs all that much I wasn't a major loser in this.
1. I now have an even greater incentive to get the tape drive I should have gotten long ago to back my system up.
2. I now also have an even greater incentive to De-windows my machines and make the move to Linux. So, I signed up for the Linux Basic Course at TMCC here in Reno that will be given by Jay at Aztech and Sam at USAWorks!, the bigwigs at our local LUG. They've been gently prodding me for long enough now anyway.
I got the virus from someone at one of our military installations and I can only imagine that it's run quite ramapantly through the US Federal Goverment as almost all our government installations use MS exclusively. Whoever wrote that it affected only MS Outlook users was wrong. I don't use Outlook or MSIE, I use NN4.6 and the virus did share the negativity with me. However, it is true that only MS Outlook users can resend it.
Anyway, thanks again, anonymous programmer, you did me a favor.
If you think I took a cheap shot at CNN, imagine how the men who performed that mission felt at what CNN did to them.
You are correct in that if the military could secretly bomb a country, that it is also capable of performing other covert operations. There is no leap involved in that deduction. However, that does not include shooting the citizens of our own country, and fellow soldiers at that. That crosses a line that no man I know would be willing to EVER cross, and that includes the ones I know who were involved in that mission.
Arnett was fired because he deserved to be fired, for broadcasting a story that insinuated a lie, and for omitting significant facts that would debunk the insinuation (ie; he was the one who hid the extra "1" and made 2+2 appear to equal 5). Look to see if he files suit against CNN for it, then look to see how it is resolved. That's where the truth will be determined, where disinterested parties make the decisions regarding where the truth really does lie. I know where the smart money will be bet, and it's not on Arnett.
If Arnett fabricated a story, or left out significant facts on an event and the story was about you, I don't think you'd be wrong to tell Arnett to get fscked either, and give him no more additional information on anything. I think it would be entirely appropriate that you did so, whether you did so as a private citizen, major public figure, or government entity.
He didn't burn a bridge by exposing the truth, he did it by fabricating a false conclusion and ommiting facts from his story. There is a difference. But, I can understand how someone might misinterpret that and see it as he is banned for exposing a truthful story that no one wanted out. The fact that there were no veterans stepping forward, even anonymously, to corroborate Arnett is pretty significant to me.
Now, if your bar tilted higher in favor of the media cause you think the people working there are inherently more honest that people who have served in the military you should consider that we're all pretty much the same. We have the same same desires and fears and hate a lie about ourselves more than anything. Is it just that you trust people - more or less - based on what they do for a living? Is that a leap?
It seems that you have very little to go on, other than general assumptions, and incorrect ones at that. I have spoken with men who were involved in the planning and the conduct of the mission themselves. I have never heard of, nor has anyone I have spoken with, any mission which targeted POWs or so called "deserters" or whatever CNN called them. The military does not perform such missions and never has. Since I know participants, I am in a position to know. You sir, are not. You are only in a position to throw mud because you've been fed a line and apparently have bitten down hard.
Don't you remember the part where there were hundreds of angry veterans protesting that the story was a lie? When was the last time you heard hundreds of people arguing passionately about something they had total conviction in that their position was the truth? I didn't see CNN doing that. They released a story saying they would investigate and see if what the veterans said was true. Why would they need to do that, unless they didn't do a good job of it the first time(ie; they were not sure that the story was credible, even after they aired it, to the detriment of every family whose relative as MIA, as well as to the detriment of the men who conducted the mission?
If you think a multibillion dollar company won't stand up to pressure put on them when the stand is based on principle, ie; the chance that Arnett was correct, then you are wrong. They would never have done that unless, low and behold, they found out that Arnett was wrong.
As to them standing by their story, they are involved in litigation over that story and the stakes are very high. Do you seriously think they would admit fault, pay $100M and lose all credibility as a source of news? Guess again. You say you trust their judgement "a hell of a lot more", etc... I guess the profit motive and CNN using this story to try and propel their new "hardcopy" type show means nothing to you? Did you even consider that, or did that not hit your stream of ill-concieved logic since it may disprove your theory that they have good judgement?
Selective reporting? Heavy editing? Ever hear of it? Perhaps I can insinuate that you are an idiot, and include the parts of your comments that would support my argument and omit the ones where you sound credible. Perhaps that is something that people would want to hear since I could write it in such a way as to sound scandalous? Perhaps I could use that in a new venue I could create and a lot of people would tune in to see how stupid you really are. I could sell ad space there and perhaps some of those visitors would tune in again and I'd get some repeat viewers. Sound familiar? I don't suppose that is what CNN did to get their ratings, is it? No, they are far too honest for that, aren't they?
Also, I never stated the US military can do no wrong, did I? That's just more cold water you are trying to throw on me. But since you don't know me, and can't possibly know what I think, then I guess that kind of sums up your position on "embracing and extending" now doesn't it?
Yes, CNN is great at covering War. Let's not forget how they defamed the Special Operations community in their appallingly inaccurate reporting on Operation Tailwind, of which they knew before hand that the story was false, and they ran it anyway. Ted Turner is to the military what Bill Gates is to the Open Source community.
I really think you should refrain from commenting about war. Period. The last time you commented, you suggested this was a "technowar". Now it seems you come to the realization that this war has a face that's all too human and that real suffering is occuring. But of course, you are probably only thinking about the families that are either on the receiving end of NATO bombs, or on the receiving end of an atrocity that you will never experience or even see first hand.
To quote some other genius: "War is Hell". But there is a hell of lot more to it than machines, advanced microchips, sensing equipment and delivery systems. We have sent real people over there to fight, and to guide these machines, nothing more than tools really, to try and end some of the suffering, by inflicting more suffering. As much as you deny it, lives are at risk. The men and women from our country who are over there, and their families who miss them and are worried sick about them, are certainly not mechanical. There is real suffering, of a different nature of course than the other two previously mentioned class of people, being experienced by our countrymen also.
So, I guess you can remark all you want on the sordid morality of it all, but please don't deny the effort and sacrifices that thousands of others are making to try and end it. It may not be the best solution, but those who have to impliment the plan, didn't devise it. Some other guy who knows just as much, apparently as you, about war and military strategy did.
The Internet is a media outlet to those who chase news on it. One group is trying to blast the other's antenna(ie; server) from a remote location, nothing more. The Internet is much more than that of course, to many others, but since I don't have a buzzword bingo card handy, I'll refrain from stating the obvious.
The media is just as ridiculous as you are Jon, for trying to be emphatic and clear about something for which they have little understanding. In their case it's the 'Net, in your case it's war.
That was a very eloquent essay on the limitations of "technowar". You are correct about many of your assumptions. However, there are many others where you are far off the mark and those would be to state that there has been a substitution where 'machines' wage war in the place of humans. The fact that the modern day military uses machines in it's conduct of war, that they use electronic means to gather intelligence, acquire target information and direct munitions is not what is being debated in your piece. We know that all of these events are occuring.
I don't think you are suggesting that once we develop these tools, that we not use them. I also don't think you are suggesting that your neighbor or friend be denied tools which could spare his life, that you wish the technology is not available to him. I think your main point here is that a primitive and determined culture, using nationalism as a tool to motivate it's citizens, make a formidable and entrenched force, not easily defeated through the dedicated use of technology. I am arguing that this is not a techno-war as you call it. It is the media who promotes the idea of a technowar, not necessarily the military.
I don't presume to know everything about technology, but I do know a few things about the military and the mindset of those who make the decisions to direct it. I would ask you to consider the difference between military commanders, ie; US and NATO Commanders, and Politicians, ie; the President of the United States.
I have not heard a former military commander of any stature, argue against the use of ground forces in this conflict. In fact, all have been advocates for their use. These are men who have spent 30+ years in the military and have led units ranging in size from only 30 up to 1 million personnel (the entire military as in the commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These are men who have studied strategies of ancient leaders such as Sun Tzu, and studied it for it's direct and intended application, not some pseudo-business application to learn how to motivate a corporation.
On the other hand, the President has never spent a single day in the military and does not understand how to apply it to achieve a goal. He even remarked today that he thought NATO could enforce a peace agreement from the air. My question to you is: Have you heard any military commanders make such remarks?
You can bet the military commanders directing the military are fairly pissed off at the present time, both because Bill Clinton is the one in the office right now, but more importantly, because he does not have the resolve to take the decisive action that needs to be taken, and will eventually be taken, to resolve this conflict and restore the Ethnic Albanians to rebuild their homes in Kosovo, which is the introduction of ground forces. (I don't assume to know everything about Kosovo and the roots of the conflict either)
I would like to ask you who is flying all those aircraft over there? Machines? Who recovered the F117 pilot whose plane was probably shot down? Was it a machine? Or where they dedicated professionals who would do everything in their power to not let their comrades be taken captive?
Who guided all those bombs into targets in Iraq? Was it machines? Or where there people on the ground guiding them in? I imagine you don't recall an AC130 Spectre Gunship going down in Iraq during the Gulf War? I guess then that you didn't know that they stayed on station a bit too long, protecting several Special Forces soldiers who were surrounded by Tanks. The surrounded soldiers were one of many teams that were guiding aircraft deep into Iraqi rear areas. And you say it is just machines?
When President Clinton said "We take care of our own", he was exactly correct. Although he doesn't have a clue how deep that runs in the military, or that he will make no personal sacrifice to ensure that we will "take care of our own", he was correct.
I would urge you to consider what I have written here. Perhaps you can take the time to learn what it is our military really does. Perhaps you will realize that the "technowar" is a media event, having very little in common with the reality of people, using the machines as tools, to protect their life, that of their fellow soldier and that lives are at risk. Or perhaps you can just sit in the security of your living room watching it on TV, thinking about it, and enjoying the fruits of freedom created and maintained by the efforts of others. Perhaps you don't care(?)
I am not an advocate of war. I am, however, realistic enough to know that when the time comes to take terrain, that men in airplanes alone are not suited to the task. I would guess that the military commanders representing our interests at NATO are of a similar mind. There is no such thing as a 'clean war', very often men will die in the attempt to defeat a motivated enemy. They know this. The President, however, is either ignorant or in denial. It seems from what you have written, that you believe he represents the military mindset.
I can't think of a single good reason to not use every tool we can develop to make the job easier for the soldiers who must risk their lives, to see that the will of our nation(or at least its politicians) is done. They are the ones who are the most exposed to injury and death here. If you asked a single one if they approved of 'softening up the Serbs' prior to their having to go in and do the dirty part of the job, I don't think you'd get a single response in the negative. And to be quite honest, they really don't give a sh*t how it is done, so long as they don't come home in a body bag.
On the other hand, some of the 'techno-tools' they have been using that you don't mention:
A Tomahawk missle which emmits massive EMP on detonation. Our pilots have to be clear of the area when this goes off. They then enter to do their work when the ionization subsides. This tends to disable a power grid for a while, and fries the circuit boards on the Serbs AA batteries. Would you rather have them not have this tool and fly into a greater threat?
The ability to deploy a missle or have an airplane project a signal representing the signature of a squadron of aircraft. This is the use of technology to cause a deception. The enemy then illuminates their ground radar systems attached to their anti-aircraft batteries. Other planes quickly follow with missles which hone in on radar to remove the threat. Would you rather they not use this tool?
I hope you re-evaluate your position that the military is convinced it is possible to win a war from the air agaist a determined enemy. You should give them a little more credit than that.
Slashdot Mirror
I can accept that Transmeta's chip may not be involved in the Land Warrior project specifically, however, the basic point here is that we don't need to load soldiers up with even more gear, when they can't even maintain proficiencies with the other gear they currently have. I'm not speaking of pounds of gear, I am speaking of the complexity of the gear to the operator. You can make the equipment lighter, but if someone has to stop and screw with it, they can get killed while trying to get their enhanced capability equipment back on line.
I'm sure there is plenty of positive press out on the recent exercise held at Ft. Polk. My own discussions with participants are that it involves a lot of waiting for engineers (PM's - are you a PM?) to figure out how all the equipment interfaces together. Then, the forces start moving again, then wait to ask where is the data, and resolve more technical problems.
The fact still remains that those who are moving more quickly and shooting more effectively (right target, right ammunition to service the target), are more likely to survive and win. More intel and ability to deliver the ammo to the target + "where are they" coupled with "where am I" as another person pointed out, is also critical to the equation of battlefield survival. The problem, and the happy medium would be to accomplish the latter, without hindering the former.
Better Technology to accomplish the mission should not be at the expense of speed or provide distractions to the soldier on the ground. If you can figure out a way to do that, then I say BRAVO. But if you cannot and soldiers are distracted from looking down the street and instead focus on getting their technology back on-line, then you have done a disservice and will cost lives.
Now, as far as what these chips will be used for, there is a project called the "Land Warrior" project. The goal of this project seems to be to try and load a soldier up with almost every ungodly amount of sensory equipment as one can pack onto an individual human. We're talking like 45 extra pounds of technology, a heavier, albiet, more capable weapon system with things like rangefinders, Laser Target Designators and thermal sights all built into a rifle, with a grenade launcher and 5.56 round capablity, all in a single system.
The soldiers will have to also contend with sensory equipment integrated to thier helmet and a head's up display that can communicate terrain and other types of intel. The commander will be able to see what each soldier sees and intel can be shared from any one element on the battlefield to almost any other point.
This program assumes, in my view as an *infantryman* that the average soldier, who they just lowered the entrance standard (ASVAB - GT score) on so that they could get recruitment numbers up, will have a clue as to operating all this crap while still maintaining eyes on that critical 40-65 feet in front of them in an urban environment.
Uh, just a minute Bob, I have to reboot. Or "my head's up display got smudged from my camoflauge, and while I'm cleaning it so I can see what the heck might be around the next corner, I get whacked from some 3rd world irregular who leaned out the window across the street.
Now, these are bold strides that the military is trying to make in advancing thier state of technology. But technology alone is no *magic bullet* which will enable soldiers on the ground to be more lethal, if they can't move or don't have the intelligence to work the equipment they have been issued. We've barely got enough time to get people to be really effective as regular infantrymen and can't even afford enough fuel and bullets to have soldiers learn their basic jobs. So, now were going to buy all this neato technology that goes beyond the current (and future) warfighting need?
But hey, I hear they sure are going to be wearing neat hats pretty soon. Goes to show you, when someone was thinking "Can we do this", someone else forgot to ask "should we"?
But hey, good for Transmeta and all that. I'm sure those who got in at the IPO will be happy. As for the everyday soldier who has to content with all this stuff and doesn't even have the resources to maintain basic proficencies it won't mean a damn, not now, and surely not after they get loaded up with a lot more crap that their units will let them use about once a quarter.
Yes, this may be great and all for the reason stated, that "ISP competition will still be a major factor, helping to keep connection prices low." BUT! - this should also be construed as the court saying that they are out of the purview of the FCC completely, therefore, the FCC cannot weigh in on forcing an opening of AOL IM to others who wish to enter the space currently monopolized by AOL's refusal to open same.
Didn't he mean to say, a valueless collection of silent machines with blue screens? Does Universal own Pinochio? Oh, yes, different studio, different puppet.
Or, perhaps, if they're really smart, they'll make him into a geek pocket protector, so that he's peering over the top of a pocket, with a couple holes for pens, a small LCD/clock oriented upwards, 4MB of RAM for MP3s and of course, a hole small enough to be reserved for a stylus. They could give these away at the next Linux World.
Well, I had to smash my VCR this evening. After all, it was a technology that was obviously created to bypass a copyright. Damn the politicians, damn the DMCA, Damn the MPAA, the DVDCCA and the RIAA.
They started their businesss over 10 years ago making saddlebags for bicycles. Today, they make probably 40-50 different bags and all of them are tough, bombproof, etc... as their roots are in saddlebags which have to take a lot of abuse.
About 3 years ago they started getting a lot of requests from the customer base on having a laptop bag with cushioning and all, so they modified a large selection of thier bags with an interior support system.
Today, I simply will not buy a non-jandd bag at all, given that I've never had one of their bags wear out. The drag part is that they got burned a long time ago and have not developed a web presence so you have to call information in Santa Barbara, CA, get the catalogue, etc... But it is well worth the wait as you'll have an awesome bag that everyone will ask you where you got it and you won't have to get another one for 10-15 years. It will outlast 2-3 laptops no problem.
To your knowledge, has anyone ever gained access to the Large Gov'ment Automated Keyword Scan System operated by the largest english speaking nations of the world? If yes, what do you know about the system that has not been in the press?
OK, this may seem like a crass publicity stunt, but this week is the 10 year anniversary of Operation Just Cause where over 2000 Rangers parachuted onto hot Drop Zones at two airfields in Panama. Red tracers met each aircraft as they unloaded thier human combat loads. There is a memorial site with combatant narratives here. If you think the Rangers had a twisted sense of humor, I can't imagine what it was like being a Spartan.
The objective in warfare (before Clinton anyway), was to fight and win. Now, with the continued advent of Operations Other Than War and limited objective warfare, Cyberwarfare seems to be an even more attractive option, given the relative costs in human suffering (by Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines of the United States and their families). The risks involved in such operations are much greater since the objective is not to totally annhilate the enemy, but to pacify him and then co-exist within the same physical space for an undetermined period of time and with ill-advised rules of engagement. Would you want to be on the ground then, or have a family member or friend out risking their lives? Or would you rather reduce the need for it through an over-the-wire attack?
Now, I'm not advocating Cyberwarfare to the extent that we isolate and shut down mission critical equipment in hospital facilities by shutting down a power grid, but if we engage such targets with munitions anyway, wouldn't it make sense to engage the target at lower cost and risk to human life of our nation and forces?
An argument that I've seen presented is that we are more dependent on information infrastructure than other nations so we ought not to provoke other nations by using the same. In the USA, we have a rather decentralized information infrastructure, highly redundant systems, and data backup performed for all critical systems. I would argue that even if another nation were able to attack us, it would not take that long to recover.
Now, Russia was also mentioned in the article and you'd have to pay some attention to the fact that they strongly oppose the use of Cyberwarfare. Why is this? Could it be that they have a very centralized information infrastructure, very few redundant systems and cannot regularly perform data backup? I would think this to be the case.
Anyway, our own government, having developed the most sophisticated military technology in the world is already the number one target for hostile "cyberwarfare" attacks. Just because they have occured during a time when we are not actively engaging an enemy does not mean that it does not happen, or that it does not constitute "cyberwarfare".
Whenever in warfare, there is a chance to use a supporting weapon such as mortars, artillerly, etc... we have what is known as pre-plotted targets that can be used as a point of reference to speed up the engagement process at a critical time of need. Some (or many) of you may be aware of the many different scenarios the military develops and prepares appropriate contingency plans. Do you think that the NSA does not already have solutions plotted to shut down as many critical systems throughout the world as possible should the need ever arise to do so? These are the targets of tomorrow. It brings about a whole new meaning to "pushing the button".
Information Warfare, Cyberwarfare, etc... was started a long time ago and it is here to stay. We are already under attack and will continue to be attacked since we have superior technology that many others want, and that some other nations have already obtained from us.
Still, a more subtle presentation of Tux would be desireable, rather than just big and bold in the center. It's a tough task, to convey all the positive uses for the OS in an image.
The image should focus on the positive aspects of Linux and disregard, completely, Adobe, MS, or other software publishers who do not support Linux.
I mean, if the arguments for using Linux have to include a discourse on why something else is bad or wrong in order to convince someone to use Linux, then isn't that just giving FUD to those the community argues uses FUD themselves?
I've got to think that most of you are a little more innovative than that and that a good image of Linux can be created that rests on its own merits.
In the news I read, the reasons given for nixing Digital Signatures had to do with creating a second class of enforceable, legally binding contracts. I wholeheartedly agree with this. There is no sense in rushing into a new use of technology and forcing it down the throats of consumers who will not understand the message they are receiving. Contract law is one area that is clear enough for a great many people to understand. It is well thought out and well documented in the Uniform Commercial Code and a great many state laws.
This applies to a whole huge list of transaction types and contract law situations.
As much as I love technology and all the cool benefits of it in terms of information flow, I think that for something as important as this, it's imperative that the plan be well thought out and understood by even those who do not understand the underlying technology. It was prudent to wait.
So, who cares about key length? Really. If the consumer will not even understand they are entering a legally binding agreement or receiving information which legally binds them, then we are not ready as a society to take the step. It's really as simple as that, and all the different arguments about the technological merits of one solution vs another can just sit by the wayside until these larger issues are worked out and understood.
If that doesn't take place first, then passing a digital signature act will be something the goverment does to us, not for us.
By them posting thier copyright, they are purporting that they "own" the work as others would need thier permission to copy it.
This is time to take action. Legal action. You not only deserve the right that they post your copyright, since you own the work, but you should also demand compensation, since they are using your intellectual property to derive income through the ad rotation.
ON the other hand, there are probably a faily large pile of people out there running small businesses on the web, where the most commonly encountered activities are selling/supporting a product or service that they wish to ship themselves.
The most common tasks associated with that are contact management, accounting, correspondence, POS, perhaps label making and package tracking. If it's strictly a web based business, you can drop the POS, although the author of this "Ask
I myself would like to be able to accomplish all these tasks using Linux, but right now have to copy/paste from a bunch of Windows apps. So, who is going to get it right first with a single, well integrated application? Will it be someone who develops for Linux, or someone who develops for Windows?
While it's easy to chime in with easily identifiable solutions, most of these sound to be narrowly focused and that is the problem that the author laments. You're probably telling him what he already knows, that there is an abundant supply of narrowly focused applications for a broad number of tasks, but there is not a well integrated solution for all of them.
Can anyone provide direction as to a program that does it all, or of anyone who has integrated other programs to address all these tasks? If yes, then you can answer this guy's question and would be a help to me as I have been looking at the same problem.
But since Linux is used primarily for servers and is getting more popular for the desktop as well, you'd think someone would have a mind to develop and market an app which can seamlessly take data from the e-commerce side of a site, verify a cybercash deposit, into order fulfillment, over to write correspondence, UPS shipping labels, then add in a UPS functionality that allows you to feed the data back to the site so that customers can track thier package. This currently requires too much damn copy/paste using windows apps or re-entry of data to be fun. I haven't learned of any Linux apps which do all these functions and sorry if I'm ruffling feathers here, but I'm not going to switch back and forth between OSs to accomplish minor tasks related to completing the same job. The minumum shared data is of course, the customer demographic.
Is there even an accounting program out that just includes UPS label making as an integrated function?
Someone will slap me down here, either for asking for too much, not being a programmer, or expecting too little. I don't see a viable solution on the horizon for such a product, but I'd pay as much as $600 for it if it did all that. I wouldn't pay what the large companies want, which is in excess of $2500, plus a % of sales.
OK, let the flames begin.
I want to thank whoever wrote the virus as I was infected by this and had my .doc and .xls files zapped. The recovery was easy enough and since I don't use those programs all that much I wasn't a major loser in this.
1. I now have an even greater incentive to get the tape drive I should have gotten long ago to back my system up.
2. I now also have an even greater incentive to De-windows my machines and make the move to Linux. So, I signed up for the Linux Basic Course at TMCC here in Reno that will be given by Jay at Aztech and Sam at USAWorks!, the bigwigs at our local LUG. They've been gently prodding me for long enough now anyway.
I got the virus from someone at one of our military installations and I can only imagine that it's run quite ramapantly through the US Federal Goverment as almost all our government installations use MS exclusively. Whoever wrote that it affected only MS Outlook users was wrong. I don't use Outlook or MSIE, I use NN4.6 and the virus did share the negativity with me. However, it is true that only MS Outlook users can resend it.
Anyway, thanks again, anonymous programmer, you did me a favor.
If you think I took a cheap shot at CNN, imagine how the men who performed that mission felt at what CNN did to them.
You are correct in that if the military could secretly bomb a country, that it is also capable of performing other covert operations. There is no leap involved in that deduction. However, that does not include shooting the citizens of our own country, and fellow soldiers at that. That crosses a line that no man I know would be willing to EVER cross, and that includes the ones I know who were involved in that mission.
Arnett was fired because he deserved to be fired, for broadcasting a story that insinuated a lie, and for omitting significant facts that would debunk the insinuation (ie; he was the one who hid the extra "1" and made 2+2 appear to equal 5). Look to see if he files suit against CNN for it, then look to see how it is resolved. That's where the truth will be determined, where disinterested parties make the decisions regarding where the truth really does lie. I know where the smart money will be bet, and it's not on Arnett.
If Arnett fabricated a story, or left out significant facts on an event and the story was about you, I don't think you'd be wrong to tell Arnett to get fscked either, and give him no more additional information on anything. I think it would be entirely appropriate that you did so, whether you did so as a private citizen, major public figure, or government entity.
He didn't burn a bridge by exposing the truth, he did it by fabricating a false conclusion and ommiting facts from his story. There is a difference. But, I can understand how someone might misinterpret that and see it as he is banned for exposing a truthful story that no one wanted out. The fact that there were no veterans stepping forward, even anonymously, to corroborate Arnett is pretty significant to me.
Now, if your bar tilted higher in favor of the media cause you think the people working there are inherently more honest that people who have served in the military you should consider that we're all pretty much the same. We have the same same desires and fears and hate a lie about ourselves more than anything. Is it just that you trust people - more or less - based on what they do for a living? Is that a leap?
It seems that you have very little to go on, other than general assumptions, and incorrect ones at that. I have spoken with men who were involved in the planning and the conduct of the mission themselves. I have never heard of, nor has anyone I have spoken with, any mission which targeted POWs or so called "deserters" or whatever CNN called them. The military does not perform such missions and never has. Since I know participants, I am in a position to know. You sir, are not. You are only in a position to throw mud because you've been fed a line and apparently have bitten down hard.
Don't you remember the part where there were hundreds of angry veterans protesting that the story was a lie? When was the last time you heard hundreds of people arguing passionately about something they had total conviction in that their position was the truth? I didn't see CNN doing that. They released a story saying they would investigate and see if what the veterans said was true. Why would they need to do that, unless they didn't do a good job of it the first time(ie; they were not sure that the story was credible, even after they aired it, to the detriment of every family whose relative as MIA, as well as to the detriment of the men who conducted the mission?
If you think a multibillion dollar company won't stand up to pressure put on them when the stand is based on principle, ie; the chance that Arnett was correct, then you are wrong. They would never have done that unless, low and behold, they found out that Arnett was wrong.
As to them standing by their story, they are involved in litigation over that story and the stakes are very high. Do you seriously think they would admit fault, pay $100M and lose all credibility as a source of news? Guess again. You say you trust their judgement "a hell of a lot more", etc... I guess the profit motive and CNN using this story to try and propel their new "hardcopy" type show means nothing to you? Did you even consider that, or did that not hit your stream of ill-concieved logic since it may disprove your theory that they have good judgement?
Selective reporting? Heavy editing? Ever hear of it? Perhaps I can insinuate that you are an idiot, and include the parts of your comments that would support my argument and omit the ones where you sound credible. Perhaps that is something that people would want to hear since I could write it in such a way as to sound scandalous? Perhaps I could use that in a new venue I could create and a lot of people would tune in to see how stupid you really are. I could sell ad space there and perhaps some of those visitors would tune in again and I'd get some repeat viewers. Sound familiar? I don't suppose that is what CNN did to get their ratings, is it? No, they are far too honest for that, aren't they?
Also, I never stated the US military can do no wrong, did I? That's just more cold water you are trying to throw on me. But since you don't know me, and can't possibly know what I think, then I guess that kind of sums up your position on "embracing and extending" now doesn't it?
Yes, CNN is great at covering War. Let's not forget how they defamed the Special Operations community in their appallingly inaccurate reporting on Operation Tailwind, of which they knew before hand that the story was false, and they ran it anyway. Ted Turner is to the military what Bill Gates is to the Open Source community.
Jon:
I really think you should refrain from commenting about war. Period. The last time you commented, you suggested this was a "technowar". Now it seems you come to the realization that this war has a face that's all too human and that real suffering is occuring. But of course, you are probably only thinking about the families that are either on the receiving end of NATO bombs, or on the receiving end of an atrocity that you will never experience or even see first hand.
To quote some other genius: "War is Hell". But there is a hell of lot more to it than machines, advanced microchips, sensing equipment and delivery systems. We have sent real people over there to fight, and to guide these machines, nothing more than tools really, to try and end some of the suffering, by inflicting more suffering. As much as you deny it, lives are at risk. The men and women from our country who are over there, and their families who miss them and are worried sick about them, are certainly not mechanical. There is real suffering, of a different nature of course than the other two previously mentioned class of people, being experienced by our countrymen also.
So, I guess you can remark all you want on the sordid morality of it all, but please don't deny the effort and sacrifices that thousands of others are making to try and end it. It may not be the best solution, but those who have to impliment the plan, didn't devise it. Some other guy who knows just as much, apparently as you, about war and military strategy did.
The Internet is a media outlet to those who chase news on it. One group is trying to blast the other's antenna(ie; server) from a remote location, nothing more. The Internet is much more than that of course, to many others, but since I don't have a buzzword bingo card handy, I'll refrain from stating the obvious.
The media is just as ridiculous as you are Jon, for trying to be emphatic and clear about something for which they have little understanding. In their case it's the 'Net, in your case it's war.
Mr. Katz:
That was a very eloquent essay on the limitations of "technowar". You are correct about many of your assumptions. However, there are many others where you are far off the mark and those would be to state that there has been a substitution where 'machines' wage war in the place of humans. The fact that the modern day military uses machines in it's conduct of war, that they use electronic means to gather intelligence, acquire target information and direct munitions is not what is being debated in your piece. We know that all of these events are occuring.
I don't think you are suggesting that once we develop these tools, that we not use them. I also don't think you are suggesting that your neighbor or friend be denied tools which could spare his life, that you wish the technology is not available to him. I think your main point here is that a primitive and determined culture, using nationalism as a tool to motivate it's citizens, make a formidable and entrenched force, not easily defeated through the dedicated use of technology. I am arguing that this is not a techno-war as you call it. It is the media who promotes the idea of a technowar, not necessarily the military.
I don't presume to know everything about technology, but I do know a few things about the military and the mindset of those who make the decisions to direct it. I would ask you to consider the difference between military commanders, ie; US and NATO Commanders, and Politicians, ie; the President of the United States.
I have not heard a former military commander of any stature, argue against the use of ground forces in this conflict. In fact, all have been advocates for their use. These are men who have spent 30+ years in the military and have led units ranging in size from only 30 up to 1 million personnel (the entire military as in the commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These are men who have studied strategies of ancient leaders such as Sun Tzu, and studied it for it's direct and intended application, not some pseudo-business application to learn how to motivate a corporation.
On the other hand, the President has never spent a single day in the military and does not understand how to apply it to achieve a goal. He even remarked today that he thought NATO could enforce a peace agreement from the air. My question to you is: Have you heard any military commanders make such remarks?
You can bet the military commanders directing the military are fairly pissed off at the present time, both because Bill Clinton is the one in the office right now, but more importantly, because he does not have the resolve to take the decisive action that needs to be taken, and will eventually be taken, to resolve this conflict and restore the Ethnic Albanians to rebuild their homes in Kosovo, which is the introduction of ground forces. (I don't assume to know everything about Kosovo and the roots of the conflict either)
I would like to ask you who is flying all those aircraft over there? Machines? Who recovered the F117 pilot whose plane was probably shot down? Was it a machine? Or where they dedicated professionals who would do everything in their power to not let their comrades be taken captive?
Who guided all those bombs into targets in Iraq? Was it machines? Or where there people on the ground guiding them in? I imagine you don't recall an AC130 Spectre Gunship going down in Iraq during the Gulf War? I guess then that you didn't know that they stayed on station a bit too long, protecting several Special Forces soldiers who were surrounded by Tanks. The surrounded soldiers were one of many teams that were guiding aircraft deep into Iraqi rear areas. And you say it is just machines?
When President Clinton said "We take care of our own", he was exactly correct. Although he doesn't have a clue how deep that runs in the military, or that he will make no personal sacrifice to ensure that we will "take care of our own", he was correct.
I would urge you to consider what I have written here. Perhaps you can take the time to learn what it is our military really does. Perhaps you will realize that the "technowar" is a media event, having very little in common with the reality of people, using the machines as tools, to protect their life, that of their fellow soldier and that lives are at risk. Or perhaps you can just sit in the security of your living room watching it on TV, thinking about it, and enjoying the fruits of freedom created and maintained by the efforts of others. Perhaps you don't care(?)
I am not an advocate of war. I am, however, realistic enough to know that when the time comes to take terrain, that men in airplanes alone are not suited to the task. I would guess that the military commanders representing our interests at NATO are of a similar mind. There is no such thing as a 'clean war', very often men will die in the attempt to defeat a motivated enemy. They know this. The President, however, is either ignorant or in denial. It seems from what you have written, that you believe he represents the military mindset.
I can't think of a single good reason to not use every tool we can develop to make the job easier for the soldiers who must risk their lives, to see that the will of our nation(or at least its politicians) is done. They are the ones who are the most exposed to injury and death here. If you asked a single one if they approved of 'softening up the Serbs' prior to their having to go in and do the dirty part of the job, I don't think you'd get a single response in the negative. And to be quite honest, they really don't give a sh*t how it is done, so long as they don't come home in a body bag.
On the other hand, some of the 'techno-tools' they have been using that you don't mention:
A Tomahawk missle which emmits massive EMP on detonation. Our pilots have to be clear of the area when this goes off. They then enter to do their work when the ionization subsides. This tends to disable a power grid for a while, and fries the circuit boards on the Serbs AA batteries. Would you rather have them not have this tool and fly into a greater threat?
The ability to deploy a missle or have an airplane project a signal representing the signature of a squadron of aircraft. This is the use of technology to cause a deception. The enemy then illuminates their ground radar systems attached to their anti-aircraft batteries. Other planes quickly follow with missles which hone in on radar to remove the threat. Would you rather they not use this tool?
I hope you re-evaluate your position that the military is convinced it is possible to win a war from the air agaist a determined enemy. You should give them a little more credit than that.