Neither one. My enlistment contract was for 3 months and 24 weeks active duty.
I meant 3 years and 24 weeks. But I just got home and looked at my contract and it says 3 years, 19 weeks. Oh well.
That's about 41-42 months. A little more than 31, I think.
I meant 41, there, not 31, but it was just over 40 months, actually.
BTW, I don't think E-5 on the standard track was 31 months when I was in, I think it was 36, and I don't recall what the TIG requirment was, which is where I was going from. Clinton was lowering force strength at the time.
I was content being an E-4 until my section chief pointed out that it was time for me to be thinking about promotion.
Actually, it was rather amusing, because he handed me a board study guide, and I opened it up and on the page I turned to, the following text appeared:
Q: What birds are poisonous to eat?
A: No birds are poisonous, however they vary greatly in taste.
Now, if I'm contemplating living off of birds and other wild animals, I'm probably not in a situation where I care much about what they taste like.
I was hoping, though, that once I saw the board that one of them (the DivArty CSM would have been the best, he had a good sense of humor) would use this question, because I imagined myself there trying to answer with a straight face: "Sergeant Major, no birds are poisonous, however... they vary greatly in taste, Sergeant Major."
Damn straight the Sergeant Major is going to come out and make sure that his best soldier gets board'ed. Mine did.
And your First Sergeant? He should have even more reasons than the Sergeant Major.
It might have something to do with the fact that they might not have known where I was at the time. We were only told where we were going at the last possible moment.
42 months. That's an interesting number. It's not 36 and it's not 48.
So, the Army kept you in past your 3 year enlistment -or- the Army let you out before your 4 year enlistment had expired.
Neither one. My enlistment contract was for 3 months and 24 weeks active duty.
That's about 41-42 months. A little more than 31, I think.
And very few of them have the self delusion to believe that they'd make better choices than a Major General.
I can point out another instance where I would have made a better choice than a Colonel. You see, we had a Colonel disappear while I was at Drum. He didn't show up to work. They locked his entire batallion down.
Three days later, they found him off the side of a trail. He decided to go run alone (despite a division policy from the CG saying that NOBODY does PT alone. Not even the CG.) Had a heart attack during his run.
This guy was probably thinking "Gee, I'm a Colonel, I should be able to run alone." And run alone he did. He died, and his whole batallion got locked down for something they didn't know anything about.
You see, *I* wouldn't have gone running alone. Mostly because when a Colonel does that and someone finds out, maybe he gets a slap on the wrist. As an E-4, I'd have gotten an article 15 for violating a general order.
Again, E5 only takes 31 months time in service. That makes 11 months that the Army refused to promote such an outstanding soldier such as yourself.
Like I said, the points were fairly high. I had to work hard for more points. My knees kept me from getting good run times, but I went from an average score on sit-ups and push-ups to maxing them. I went out and requalified on the M16 with another unit, to get a better rifle score. I got certifications beyond what I needed to do my job. (Combat lifesaver, SATS, Unit Armorer (I got distinguised honor grad here), and several DSST and CLEP tests.) I took a class at the local community college. Everything to get more points, but it took time.
I was also TDY during 5 of the months I would have been eligible. I was assigned to transition for a certain amount of time (transition units don't promote, as you know), and I didn't care about getting points until after I was eligible. That left me about 5 months to get almost 700 points.
You say that YOU would know to stop when a spotlight is aimed at your car.
Great. Now think about what would happen if EVERY soldier in Iraq would STOP their vehicle when a spotlight was aimed at it.
Yep, the enemy's kill ratio would be almost 100%. All they'd need is a spotlight and some shooters. The soldier stops the car and the shooters light it up from the sides.
Okay, I can grant this point. "Stopping" isn't the right idea, turning around is. My point with that was that some 80-something iraqi cars were turned around at that block. The only car that didn't respond to the block was the MG from Italy.
Watch for very public announcements of changes to their SOP being announced.
I agree with you here. I'm not saying things couldn't have been done better, but I fail to see how you can assume the Italian MG also performed flawlessly. Nobody's perfect.
Awwww, so you were almost promoted and then the mean Army TDY'd you before you could appear before the board. That is so sad.
So sad because it is bullshit. I was promoted to E5 while on TDY. I was promoted to E4 while on TDY. The "promotion board" is nothing. My battalion held them every month. You claimed you were DivArty so it should have been even easier for you.
I don't think it was sad. I didn't need E5 anyway, I wasn't planning on staying in, and even if I had, it wouldn't have done much good... read on:
When I was on TDY, it was me and a handfull of others. We were not anywhere near where a promotion board could be held. They weren't going to fly out the Sergeant Major, First Sergeant, etc, to the middle of nowhere on my behalf for a promotion board.
But things change. Particularly forms in the Army. That link even states, specifically, that
Third, the "Security Debriefing Acknowledgement," which appears in the SF 189-A, but not the SF 189,is included in the SF 312. Its use is optional at the discretion of the implementing agency.
That is the part you claimed to have signed.
That's right. The SF312 was approved at least as early as 1998 and the 1-91 includes the security debriefing statement (Pay attention: it says "Standard Form 312 CLASSIFIED INFORMATlON NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT (SF 312; Rev. 1-91)"). The 1-91 version is the one I signed, including the security debriefing statement. Bill Clinton made the form mandatory in 1995.
But, nothing short of me driving up to Seattle and showing you the papers myself is going to convince you. Even then, you could simply dismiss the photocopy as a forgery.
Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that you really spent 36 months in the Army and not 34.
More like just short of 42 months. 3 years plus training time. (You might think just under 6 months is a somewhat larger training time, it was. I asked for airborne school on enlistment, but I bowed out of it after I learned I was afraid of heights. It also nullified my unit of choice agreement, too, and thus I did not go to Fort Bragg upon finishing AIT.) I continued on temporary assignment (we called it "temporary party"... there were also the "permanent party" people that couldn't get clearances that were destined to change MOS or be stuck at the AIT unit hoping for their clearance) at Ft. Sill, until I arrived at Ft. Drum.
You want to know why I was stuck at Sill for so long? Fine, I'll come out and say it. I was crossing a crosswalk in the PX parking lot, when someone came flying around the corner in their POV and hit me about 30 miles an hour. I was laid up in physical therapy treating the hyperextension of both knees, which kept me at Sill until I was off profile. Over time, this caused a deterioration of my knees over time, and got me a permanent no-running profile (while I was in the reserves).
You think I like admitting that I got a permanent profile? I don't. I've always suspected it's why they didn't take me to Afghanistan, even though I was still in IRR at the time and got ordered to MEPS, which resulted in a new physical and the same results. I no longer met the physical profile for my MOS because of the knees.
This would have happened on active duty if I stayed in, and would have been a career killer anyway.
That only leaves the TDY to account for, which is none of your business.
Call me a liar if you like. It's inconsequential, and means nothing to me coming from someone who makes the implication that someone's military service is "nothing" unless that person has personally gone out and killed someone.
So, we're still right where we started, with me claiming I signed SF 312, you saying it's not possible. Both of us trying to prove it via a slough of regulations, executive orders, etc. But no
Actually, there was a 1995 executive order that mandated the use of the nondisclosure agreement. This is the executive order was implemented in regulation by AR 380-5. However, the executive order issued by Bill Clinton on April 17, 1995, and went into effect 180 days later.
The executive order requires anyone with access to classified information to sign an approved NDA, That approved NDA was SF 312. More information on this here. See questions 3 and 4, specifically.
Go ahead, claim more service time (with the awards and medals) and show what a loser you are for not being worthy of promotion... or Admit that you didn't serve the time you've hinted at and that you didn't sign the forms you claimed.
I entered service in 1995. Promotion points for my MOS were high for E-5 in 1998, but not unachievable. I was studying for the promotion board when I had an abrupt TDY assignment in the latter half of 1998. When I returned, I was assigned to the transition unit and never attended the promotion board.
I signed the SF 312, the copy of which I have in my posession, in Dec, 1998.
I can admit that they now make enlisted sign NDA's. That's because I'm a man and don't have to attempt to bolster my ego by being anonymous on web sites.
Are you sure you've got no ego-boosting going on? You've been pissed off from the start that I might know more about something than you, and you've just *had* to be right this entire time.
And I can show that the NDA's are a very recent change and did not coincide with your previously stated service dates.
Except your date is wrong. The SF 312 has been required since 1995, per the executive order or Bill Clinton, Commander in Chief at the time. The aforementioned AR 380-5 says as much, since the executive order is what caused its creation.
We both know that executive orders go into effect, and the specific regulation follows. Bill Clinton mandated NDAs in 1995.
No, I said I was at 10th Mountain Division during that time, which is exactly what the post you referenced says. Learn to read and actually understand what you're reading. You are proof that the American education system has been failing for a long time.
Hmmm, revision 1-00.
Note that it says "Previous edition unusable" which implies that there was a previous edition.
Guess what the revision date on *my* SF 312 is? 1-91.
Proof that that version exists? here: "The new Standard Form (SF) 312, "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," is now available through the government supply system and should be used in place of the previous 1991 version. The form, actually approved in January 2000, was prevented from a timely release due to administrative delays. The General Services Administration (GSA) will make the new form available by early April, both in electronic and hard copy format. In the meantime, copies can be made from the pdf version of the SF 312, attached to this announcement." (Bold text placed to facilitate your reading comprehension.)
Note that you found the current one approved in January 2000.
Here is proof that an even earlier version exists: "(a) SF 312, SF 189, and SF 189-A are nondisclosure agreements between the United States and an individual. The prior execution of at least one of these agreements, as appropriate, by an individual is necessary before the United States Government may grant that individual access to classified information. From the effective date of this rule, September 29, 1988, the SF 312 shall be used in lieu of both the SF 189 and the SF 189-A for this purpose."
So, we have that the SF312 was in use from September 29, 1988.
Make all the claims you want to. It doesn't matter to me. I did 7 years and got out in 1990.
You mean, got kicked out in 1990 because someone figured out you don't have any reading comprehension, and you jump to conclusions before you've put even an ounce of thought in.
I don't have to play games with words like you claiming to be a "veteran" (no combat time and only 34 months in service) to boost my self-esteem. Nor do I have to spin lies about forms I was required to sign before they were even printed.
I never claimed to be a combat veteran (as in, earned a combat patch), and you know it. The government still defines me as a "veteran", the dictionary definition agrees, and I put in my required time, all 8 years split up between active duty, reserves, and IRR (during which I was called up twice, so it's not like I sat twiddling my thumbs for a few years). I may not have been stationed in a combat zone, but I did more for my country than the average person has. I also got the chance to make sure some people didn't shoot each other up. I was even able to help save some lives in a disaster area, too. You want to criticize me for not having seen *actual* combat (mostly due to timing), go ahead, I'm sure you are someone's hero.
Anyway, I have proved the existence of the SF312 as early as 1988, which is well before I left the service, and before you claim to have left. You might not have signed one because you got your clearance revoked, in which case they give you a different form, if the same procedures in AR 380-5 were in effect in 1990.
You made the claim "Enlisteds don't sign NDAs with the Army" * I have told you I retain a photocopy of it. (I even dug through all my paperwork to make sure, and found it.) * Once I found my copy, I gave you the form number, SF 312, revision 1-91. * I have told you when and where I last signed one, and what office administered it to me. * I have shown the regulation that required me to have signed at least a portion of it at the time. An
ie from Syracuse, NY to Boston ma is $400 flying takes 3hours including time spent waiting.
Driving takes 5 hours, non-stop
Rail takes 12 hours, price I don't know.
And that's why the train is so sad.
Greyhound service from Watertown, NY to South Station in Boston was around $60 and took 9 hours in 1997. (Which was the last time I did that trip.) That's 3 hours faster than your figure for the train, even though it's what, about 70 miles further away.
Anyway, I decided to check the Amtrak web site to get some info on service from Syracuse to Boston.
The Amtrak fare finder shows 3 schedules from Syracuse to Boston's South Station. One is 8.5 hours, fare $32, stop in Albany. Two is 10 hours, fare $63, stop in NYC. Three is 11 hours, $63, also stops in NYC.
This would be just about any CPU where you could target an ANSI C compiler.
Is there any CPU where you can't?
A member of the "classic" (previous to the ATtiny and ATmega) AVR family of MCUs, the AT90S1200, has no RAM at all (and no interface to external RAM, which is common for MCUs), only a 3-level hardware stack. You would be surprised at how many things you can do without RAM - and surprisingly enough, Imagecraft managed to implement a C compiler for it?!
Regardless, my question above is not rhetorical.
I doubt there are many. I imagine all CPUs in use today have at least a mostly complete implementation of ANSI C that targets it.
Which was pretty much my point. Any system with volatile memory and a C program that maintains a function pointer could *theoretically* be vulnerable to a memory alteration attack. Whether arbitrary code could be executed may or may not be possible. It wouldn't possible to get your own code executed on a true Harvard-architecture processor, but you might be able to change what code is running (maybe get a privelege escalation or access to a monitor or command prompt.) At the very least a crash could be forced.
Depending on the exploit, one does not even need to force a crash or execute code, either. Overwriting other data may be the valuable part of an attack. (Think electronic voting.)
Here's a clue. If it was an Army NDA, then there would be a standard Army form number that you could quote. But you can't, can you?
SF 312, and it is required by AR 380-5.
Oh look, the army even has AR380-5 online right here
Anyway, there are a lot of words in AR 380-5 with three or more syllables in there. I'm not sure you'd comprehend it. But if you decide to give it a shot, pay special attention to chapter 6.
Oh wait, here's why I would have seen it at outprocessing! Amazing things, PDFs:
6.5 b. All DA personnel who are retiring, resigning, being discharged, or will no longer have access to classified information, will out-process through the command security manager's office or other designated command office. During this out-processing the individual will be informed that security clearance and access to classified information has terminated and that the individual still has an obligation to protect any knowledge they have of classified information. DA personnel will sign a debriefing statement during out-processing. The debriefing statement will either be the NDA Security Debriefing Acknowledgement section of the SF 312, or DA Form 2962 (Security Termination Statement). The debriefing, as a minimum, will consist of informing the individual of the continuing obligation to protect classified information accessed, the admonition that discussion or other revelation of classified information to unauthorized persons is prohibited, provide instructions for reporting any unauthorized attempt to gain access to classified information, advise the individual of the prohibition against retaining classified material when leaving the command, and remind the individual of the potential civil and criminal penalties for failure to fulfill these continuing responsibilities. The same procedures will be followed for DA personnel still employed and still in service whose security clearance has been withdrawn, denied (after interim access was granted), or revoked either for cause or for administrative reasons due to lack of need for future access to classified information. In these cases both civilian and military DA personnel will execute the debriefing statement.(Emphasis mine)
Actually, rereading the regulation leads me to believe I must have also signed some portion of either an SF 312 or SF 189 at a previous time, as well. Probably along with my inprocessing at either Ft. Sill or Ft. Drum, though if I did, I don't have a copy of that one.
In any case, I signed all sections of the new SF 312.
So, guess where I signed this SF 312, the copy of which I have in my posession? Right there in the DivArty S2 office, when I was receiving the debriefing that I had to go through before box 15 could be stamped on my outprocessing form.
Wanna guess how I know where and when I signed this particular one? There's my signature right there, and under "witness" is the signature of the same guy at the S2 who stamped my clearance form. The dates also happen to match.
So, you have: (a) The form number, SF 312, "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement". (NDA = Nondisclosure Agreement, in case you're too stupid to figure it out, which I suspect you are.) (b) The AR that requires it.
Do you need more, or is this sufficient?
Oh, the regulation says: a. Prior to granting access to classified information, DA personnel will receive a briefing outlining their responsibility to protect classified information and will sign the SF 312 (Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA))
Given that you claim to have been in, and have never signed or even see one (and the regulation says DA personnel are required to sign one, and doesn't make any exceptions), I think it's time for me to conclude that YOU are the liar.
You were never in the service. I suspect that you play a little too much America's Army in your parents basement.
Santa Easter Bunny Tooth Fairy Your military service.
Read it again, dumbass. I said I signed the NDA at the time I took that form to S2 for outprocessing.
I'll quote myself:
... right there in box 15 of form DA-137-1, where it says "Security Debriefing" (which involved signing the NDA), and "Anti-terrorism Briefing") which involved listening to short lecture.
I specifically said that signing the NDA was part of the "Security Debriefing", which I had to do to get the stamp in the box on the outprocessing form. Go back to school and learn how to read.
Yeah, an "NDA" that has a block for "Weight Control Program".
Take all the guesses you want. That's just as valid as me saying you got the boot because you don't comprehend written English, which you don't.
Furthermore, I'd point out at this time that if you *really* wanted to check, you could call the 10th Mtn. DivArty S2 and *ask* if they made anyone sign NDAs on ETS. You claim to have served, it'd be really simple for you to get the number and check.
The IIR does NOT say ANYTHING about your service.
That's "IRR". Idiot.
Meanwhile, the guy you were talking about is a NATIONAL HERO in his home country and has the President of his country investigating his death.
And a fine line separates idiocy from heroism, doesn't it? He's a national hero because he rescued a pinko like you.
Yet you still claim that you know more than he did...
Damn right. I would have been smart enough to stop or turn around when the laser and spotlight came on me... not to mention the warning shots.
I'm sure you would have gone ahead and gotten shot, though. Since you clearly don't have any level of reading comprehension, it is likely that if someone pointed a laser and spotlight at you, you'd keep driving because you lack enough gray matter to comprehend what that means, despite it being well publicized.
That's funny, because during the part of the final clearance process for ETS, I had to visit the S2 and sign said NDA, a copy of which happens to be in my paperwork, and the S2 office stamp seems to be on my papers, right there in box 15 of form DA-137-1, where it says "Security Debriefing" (which involved signing the NDA), and "Anti-terrorism Briefing") which involved listening to short lecture.
I was a higher rank than you, in for longer than you and I had a higher security clearance than you.
With all due respect (which is about none, from my point of view), you don't know what clearance I had, nor do you know much else about me. Your rank also means jack shit to me at this point.
You're a liar.
You're ignorant and delusional.
But that's okay. My honorable discharge certificate, DD214, several medals, various training certs and certificates of achievement, and 8 years total service (including a few that were in IRR, but I was called up *twice* during that time after Sept. 11 - nothing came of either one, though) all speak to my service.
So you really have no experience in these issues, do you?
I don't need to give you details or tell you of my experience because you have no need to know and I'd be violating the NDA I signed upon my departure.
Oh, that's right. You don't understand the meaning of "specifically" and you have no direct experience with any of this and the highest you've got was E-4.
Doesn't matter because you are so superior to me, right?
I also only mentioned my last held rank based on pay grade. There was a period time where I was frocked to Sergeant. That lasted until they found a qualified person who really was an E-5 to fill the position. I figured the only legitimate claim I could make was SPC since the frock wasn't a real promotion.
Newsflash, kid. The enemy does observe. The enemy adapts his attacks based upon those observations.
Trying to hide info that the enemy already has is worse than a waste of time. You have to assume that the enemy knows everything, already.
Then why classify anything at all, eh?
Why use SINCGARS radios when we can just assume the enemy can track the hopset and has broken all your COMSEC keys? It'd be cheaper to stick with old PRC-series radios and speak in the clear.
What is the point of any obfuscation?
Why not just hand over our designs for thermonuclear weapons to other countries? They've obviously got spies who have figured it all out, anyway.
Part of my job was working with various S2/G2 personnel. I think I understand information security pretty damn well.
You assume they have all the information, but you do *not* validate it or give them more.
And you do not know more than a Major General.
Spoken like an officer!
That particular rank and title of that person is of little consequence, especially when rank and title can be meaningless (special commissions like the division dentist who happens to be Colonel and never held any lower rank) or mean everything (think Captain in the Army vs. Captain in the Navy.)
I might not know more than an American infantry Major General about specific infantry tactics,
Time to toot my own bugle:
I can think of plenty of individual subject areas where I might know a lot more than a Major General.
Especially when I developed the subject area in question. I personally briefed a Major General and a Colonel about the revised SOP I had developed for my unit that increased our targeting accuracy and efficiency over what they were doing before I had arrived. Since I had personally written it and was directly involved in the development of the procedures, I pretty much was the authority on the subject, and these two officers wanted to learn from me.
You see, this visiting unit wanted to implement the same procedures, and so they asked me for this presentation. (Assuming, of course, that the 1LT had given them a rundown of what I'd done before they wanted to see my presentation.) I got an AAM for it, too. In the award recommendation, the commander wrote: "His technical knowledge exceeds those of greater rank."
Your all-knowing officers would never have wanted to learn anything from me.
And no, I was never in the Middle East, and wasn't physically in the AO of any "combat" operation. I've pulled "security" operations and done "humanitarian relief".
I pretty much agree with the other reply to you as to what information was potentially damaging.
You assume the enemy has been that observant. I think that is a good assumption. That still does not warrant giving operational information out as if they surely had it already.
When I was doing target processing, it would have been possible for those in rogue mortar and artillery positions to figure out which ones I made the recommendation to neutralize, given enough time. That doesn't mean I wanted my procedures publicized so that the criteria was known.
He was a MAJOR GENERAL operating in Iraq. Please check your facts.
Big fucking deal. Rank and title don't necessarily mean anything.
The "Surgeon GENERAL" of the United States is a VICE ADMIRAL of the Navy. What does that mean?
Perhaps you should learn something about special commissions.
I was a mere SPECIALIST in the 10th Mountain Division (you may recognize that unit from the report), and I, for damn sure, know how to pass through friendly lines. You obtain route clearance, and then you make your way without assuming that every checkpoint knows about your clearance. You have an alternate route planned.
The MAJOR GENERAL clearly assumed he had route clearance when he did not. A poor assumption, and a definite mistake.
If we assume that the events happened the way soldiers at the block say, then he should have known what the green laser and spot meant, given that he was a MAJOR GENERAL, and should have stopped the car. Instead, he ignored the roadblock, and the SPECIALIST manning the machine gun fired some warning shots. The MAJOR GENERAL ignored the fact that he was being fired on, and got shot up by the SPECIALIST, who did exacly like I would have done.
Their mission had expired and they WERE LEFT OUT THERE because it was not COMMUNICATED to them.
That doesn't matter, and in fact supports the soldiers case that they did the right thing. Every Army soldier memorizes the General Orders for guard, which I reproduce here:
1. I will guard everything within the limits of my post and quit my post only when properly relieved.
2. I will obey my special orders and perform all of my duties in a military manner.
3. I will report violations of my special orders, emergencies, and anything not covered in my instructions to the commander of the relief.
Pay very special attention to "... and quit my post only when properly relieved." They were not properly relieved, so they were right to continue carrying out their special orders (run the blocking point).
The MAJOR GENERAL, being a MAJOR GENERAL and oh-so-smart, should have recognized that the block was in force by the spot and laser. If he didn't recognize this fact, then he was ignorant or uninformed about American SOP. If he did recognize it, he made a conscious decision to ignore it.
You have to assume the enemy has all the information you do before you start operations. Otherwise, when the enemy DOES know something that you are relying upon him to NOT know, you're fucked.
The principle of not underestimating the enemy does *not* mean that you just hand him information that he might not have.
The enemy may have been able to *see* in person some of the information that was released, but they probably did not know our military's assessment of itself and the enemy's tactics. That is useful information.
Once again. You may assume an enemy has the information, but you do not give it to him.
FWIW, I'm a 10th Mountain Division Artillery veteran.
I was a 10th Mountain Division soldier from Feb. 1996 to Dec. 1998.
I dunno about the impact. I expect the iraqi insurgents already have a much better idea of how our security operations work than they can gain through this document. After all they have the opportunity to actually observe this operations and how they react to their attacks.
Observation is one thing, but one thing your eyes don't necessarily tell you is what the opponent thinks about itself and its own tactics. This report now gives out that information to the enemy, and includes information about combat readiness and the perceived effectiveness of the enemy's tactics.
It also gives more extensive information on what the various SOPs (standard operating procedures) have to say about certain sitations than you can gain by observation.
I expect the information was just concealed as a matter of course in case it might contain something of value to the enemy. Still though your overall point is valid. There is no reason the public really needs to know this stuff and it is better safe than sorry with information which might let them kill more soldiers.
Precisely, and since this directly affects some of the units I'd worked with, I fully support the (time-limited*) "censorship" of this kind of information. The idiot that failed to do it effectivly needs some severe discipline.
I've got friends and former coworkers in Iraq, and the release of this kind of information doesn't help them one bit.
(* meaning that after the conflict is over, plus some time, the full report should be (have been) released.)
I would have said that the most obvious hardware-specific feature, that would protect against stack overflows, is Harvard architecture (vs. Von Neumann, present in almostall CPUs today).
Nobody mentions it because there is a serious weakness in the Harvard architecture when it comes to modern computing: You can't implement just-in-time compiler for Java, for instance.
Sometimes, there is good reason to execute "data".
Harvard architecture is great for certain applications, however, including DSPs and of course the microcontrollers you mentioned.
(Some people call the split instruction/data cache architecture in modern von Neumann CPUs "Harvard", but it's not the same. Once a cache flush happens, all bets are off.)
It should be noted that any architecture that supports pointers to executable code (function pointers) that can stored in "data" memory are vulnerable to memory alteration/corruption exploits in poorly written programs. This would be just about any CPU where you could target an ANSI C compiler.
The stack grows downward on the vast majority of architectures, including PowerPC, ARM, SPARC, and MIPS. The only architectures I've come across where stacks grow up are PA-RISC and i960.
I can't speak from personal experience for any of these other than MIPS, but when programming in MIPS assembly, the stack grows downward by convention only, since the stack is manually manipulated. If you wanted to go against convention, you could grow it upward, too.
Examples storing and retrieving a 32-bit word return address to the stack: (32-bit MIPS)
#"Conventional"... stack grows downward.
sub $sp,$sp,4
sw $ra,0($sp)
# other code here
lw $ra,0($sp)
add $sp,$sp,4
jr $ra
#"Unconventional".. stack grows upward.
add $sp,$sp,4
sw $ra,0($sp)
# other code here
lw $ra,0($sp)
sub $sp,$sp,4
jr $ra
I've heard that's how it works for PPC, too. I'd also guess that the SPARC's stack is also manually manipulated, seeing as the architecture was developed at the same time as MIPS.
Having grown up in the (very fertile) Willamette Valley in Oregon
And as a typical Willamette Valley resident, are still quite ignorant about what the Eastern Oregon high desert is like, as evidenced by statements like this:
OTOH, five acres in the Eastern Oregon high desert makes for a good barrier between you and your neighbors and not much else.
Apparently you have never heard of irrigation. You see, I grew up on a small-acreage "farm" in Central Oregon (another peeve, we differentiate into more than just "Eastern Oregon" over here), just outside of Redmond, and we've have plenty of water for plants an animals, including these "garden" things that you Valley folks think are unique to your area.
What we don't have is mold, craploads of allergens, tree-sitters (an advantage to not having trees), and constant rainfall in the winter. All of which I never liked in the first place, and since I've attended the University of Oregon, have learned to *really* dislike.
Now, back to the topic at hand. If you want to set up a wireless network, assumming the property is somewhat rectangular, you can make use of standard (read: cheap) wireless equipment. Make sure you get dual-antenna access points that can transmit on both antennas. Set up the network like this:
Note, I had damn good ASCII art going on before the lameness filter made me have to ditch it.
So, client machines connect to AP on channel 4 in zone A, either 1 or 11 (maybe disallow most client connections on one of the two) on B, and 7 in zone C. Linking nodes in A and C would probably be a cantenna or other hooked up to a wireless bridge. Set up your router anywhere, but B is probably a good choice. Note that you can move things around, and extend this setup to cover more area.
This setup has the advantage of maximum channel separation between each zone assuming there is fair coverage overlap. (It is also generally safe to use channels 1, 4, 7, and 11 without much degradation in overlap areas.)
This is simply a public safety issue. Period. Should we rely on a private entity to provide hurricane or tornado warnings? Does this apply to NOAA weather radio?
The reason weather data is made available to the public is because it enables the public to go about their business in a safer manner that is planned around the obstacles that weather tosses in the way.
From commercial passenger and freight aircraft, ships, and other forms of commercial transit, to the commuter just trying to get to work, free weather data from NOAA is an essential part of the economy.
Shall we require pilots to subscribe to AccuWeather in order to know the weather forecast for their flight path? I think not.
Normally, I'm not a fan of the government doing what private business can do, but NOAA has become essential to public infrastructure. It's not a perfect analogy, but you wouldn't let a for-profit private company run the (armed) police department, while it may be perfectly appropriate for private companies to provide *additional* security services on top of what the public provides through the police.
Start writing your representatives and Senators now.
I'm sorry but I really feel that Congress should be spending time protecting flesh and blood people rather than paper created "persons".
You mean like [artists, actors, screenwriters, grips, directors, producers, programmers who write special effects software, investors, marketers, cinema employees, and all the other flesh-and-blood people that make a living off of the legitimate movie/music trade] that leaked movies and music hurt in the pocketbook?
They asked you not to use RF-transmitting devices on the plane. So why do you ignore them?
Oh wait. You probably also ignore that big red octagon with the letters "STOP" written on it while you drive.
Or, if you bike, you probably ignore traffic signals, stop signs, and every other rule that ALL vehicles are supposed to follow.
Maybe you eat lunch on the public transit right under the sign that says "PLEASE DO NOT EAT WHILE ON THE TRAIN" (substitute bus, etc.).
20 in a school zone? F that!
Granted, some rules are just flat-out stupid (most have damn good reasons for existing, like school zones), but when you are making use of someone's service, you are in a social contract to obey their rules. That includes not transmitting RF on the plane, whether or not it affects the avionics.
I'm going to call bullshit. Maybe this happened, but it isn't as simple or innocent as you make it out to be.
1. If you weren't booked, you probably don't have an arrest record for the incident.
2. In any case, in order for it to be a "felony arrest" you would have to have been arrested and charged with Theft in the First Degree or some other felony, which you weren't. (I cited an Oregon statute because in a later post you mentioned that it was a Fred Meyer's in one of Oregon's larger towns - I'd be willing to bet it's Eugene.)
3. Even if you do have an arrest record for this incident, it'd be simple to get it expunged if you were never booked and/or prosecuted due to lack of evidence. I can only think of a few reasons that "it's not likely [you'll] succeed". One is because you have other arrests where you were booked and possibly convicted that you didn't mention in your story. It's also possible you gave the cops a hard time (yelling things like "fuck you - I didn't do anything!" over and over again... which I personally witnessed an actual shoplifter yell while he was being arrested, right after I watched them retrieve the stolen merchandise from down his pants). Giving cops a hard time makes them write little notes in their notebook about how you resisted arrest. If you didn't do anything, resisting arrest is just flat out stupid.
My guess is that you are not telling the whole truth (or whole story) here. An off-duty cop in the parking lot would have no way of knowing if a store employee told you just to keep walking, unless you didn't just "walk out". Also, most Fred Meyer's stores I've ever seen have two sets of doors at each entrance. The security scanner is on inside, so there are two sets of doors between it and the outside. How did the cop hear the alarm?
I bet you exited the store while store employees were following you out trying to get you to stop, which they can do in Eugene, among other cities in Oregon. It is also likely your demeanor left much to be desired (given that we are talking about Oregon), and the combination of things gave the officer probable cause. There is no such thing as an off-duty cop when there is reason for him/her to believe a crime is being committed.
If you had just casually walked out and nobody was chasing you and asking you to stop, then I find your scenario highly unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither one. My enlistment contract was for 3 months and 24 weeks active duty.
I meant 3 years and 24 weeks. But I just got home and looked at my contract and it says 3 years, 19 weeks. Oh well.
That's about 41-42 months. A little more than 31, I think.
I meant 41, there, not 31, but it was just over 40 months, actually.
BTW, I don't think E-5 on the standard track was 31 months when I was in, I think it was 36, and I don't recall what the TIG requirment was, which is where I was going from. Clinton was lowering force strength at the time.
I was content being an E-4 until my section chief pointed out that it was time for me to be thinking about promotion.
Actually, it was rather amusing, because he handed me a board study guide, and I opened it up and on the page I turned to, the following text appeared:
Q: What birds are poisonous to eat?
A: No birds are poisonous, however they vary greatly in taste.
Now, if I'm contemplating living off of birds and other wild animals, I'm probably not in a situation where I care much about what they taste like.
I was hoping, though, that once I saw the board that one of them (the DivArty CSM would have been the best, he had a good sense of humor) would use this question, because I imagined myself there trying to answer with a straight face: "Sergeant Major, no birds are poisonous, however... they vary greatly in taste, Sergeant Major."
Damn straight the Sergeant Major is going to come out and make sure that his best soldier gets board'ed. Mine did.
And your First Sergeant? He should have even more reasons than the Sergeant Major.
It might have something to do with the fact that they might not have known where I was at the time. We were only told where we were going at the last possible moment.
42 months. That's an interesting number. It's not 36 and it's not 48.
So, the Army kept you in past your 3 year enlistment
-or-
the Army let you out before your 4 year enlistment had expired.
Neither one. My enlistment contract was for 3 months and 24 weeks active duty.
That's about 41-42 months. A little more than 31, I think.
And very few of them have the self delusion to believe that they'd make better choices than a Major General.
I can point out another instance where I would have made a better choice than a Colonel. You see, we had a Colonel disappear while I was at Drum. He didn't show up to work. They locked his entire batallion down.
Three days later, they found him off the side of a trail. He decided to go run alone (despite a division policy from the CG saying that NOBODY does PT alone. Not even the CG.) Had a heart attack during his run.
This guy was probably thinking "Gee, I'm a Colonel, I should be able to run alone." And run alone he did. He died, and his whole batallion got locked down for something they didn't know anything about.
You see, *I* wouldn't have gone running alone. Mostly because when a Colonel does that and someone finds out, maybe he gets a slap on the wrist. As an E-4, I'd have gotten an article 15 for violating a general order.
Again, E5 only takes 31 months time in service. That makes 11 months that the Army refused to promote such an outstanding soldier such as yourself.
Like I said, the points were fairly high. I had to work hard for more points. My knees kept me from getting good run times, but I went from an average score on sit-ups and push-ups to maxing them. I went out and requalified on the M16 with another unit, to get a better rifle score. I got certifications beyond what I needed to do my job. (Combat lifesaver, SATS, Unit Armorer (I got distinguised honor grad here), and several DSST and CLEP tests.) I took a class at the local community college. Everything to get more points, but it took time.
I was also TDY during 5 of the months I would have been eligible. I was assigned to transition for a certain amount of time (transition units don't promote, as you know), and I didn't care about getting points until after I was eligible. That left me about 5 months to get almost 700 points.
You say that YOU would know to stop when a spotlight is aimed at your car.
Great. Now think about what would happen if EVERY soldier in Iraq would STOP their vehicle when a spotlight was aimed at it.
Yep, the enemy's kill ratio would be almost 100%. All they'd need is a spotlight and some shooters. The soldier stops the car and the shooters light it up from the sides.
Okay, I can grant this point. "Stopping" isn't the right idea, turning around is. My point with that was that some 80-something iraqi cars were turned around at that block. The only car that didn't respond to the block was the MG from Italy.
Watch for very public announcements of changes to their SOP being announced.
I agree with you here. I'm not saying things couldn't have been done better, but I fail to see how you can assume the Italian MG also performed flawlessly. Nobody's perfect.
So sad because it is bullshit. I was promoted to E5 while on TDY. I was promoted to E4 while on TDY. The "promotion board" is nothing. My battalion held them every month. You claimed you were DivArty so it should have been even easier for you.
I don't think it was sad. I didn't need E5 anyway, I wasn't planning on staying in, and even if I had, it wouldn't have done much good... read on:
When I was on TDY, it was me and a handfull of others. We were not anywhere near where a promotion board could be held. They weren't going to fly out the Sergeant Major, First Sergeant, etc, to the middle of nowhere on my behalf for a promotion board.
But things change. Particularly forms in the Army. That link even states, specifically, that
That is the part you claimed to have signed.
That's right. The SF312 was approved at least as early as 1998 and the 1-91 includes the security debriefing statement (Pay attention: it says "Standard Form 312 CLASSIFIED INFORMATlON NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT (SF 312; Rev. 1-91)"). The 1-91 version is the one I signed, including the security debriefing statement. Bill Clinton made the form mandatory in 1995.
But, nothing short of me driving up to Seattle and showing you the papers myself is going to convince you. Even then, you could simply dismiss the photocopy as a forgery.
Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that you really spent 36 months in the Army and not 34.
More like just short of 42 months. 3 years plus training time. (You might think just under 6 months is a somewhat larger training time, it was. I asked for airborne school on enlistment, but I bowed out of it after I learned I was afraid of heights. It also nullified my unit of choice agreement, too, and thus I did not go to Fort Bragg upon finishing AIT.) I continued on temporary assignment (we called it "temporary party"... there were also the "permanent party" people that couldn't get clearances that were destined to change MOS or be stuck at the AIT unit hoping for their clearance) at Ft. Sill, until I arrived at Ft. Drum.
You want to know why I was stuck at Sill for so long? Fine, I'll come out and say it. I was crossing a crosswalk in the PX parking lot, when someone came flying around the corner in their POV and hit me about 30 miles an hour. I was laid up in physical therapy treating the hyperextension of both knees, which kept me at Sill until I was off profile. Over time, this caused a deterioration of my knees over time, and got me a permanent no-running profile (while I was in the reserves).
You think I like admitting that I got a permanent profile? I don't. I've always suspected it's why they didn't take me to Afghanistan, even though I was still in IRR at the time and got ordered to MEPS, which resulted in a new physical and the same results. I no longer met the physical profile for my MOS because of the knees.
This would have happened on active duty if I stayed in, and would have been a career killer anyway.
That only leaves the TDY to account for, which is none of your business.
Call me a liar if you like. It's inconsequential, and means nothing to me coming from someone who makes the implication that someone's military service is "nothing" unless that person has personally gone out and killed someone.
So, we're still right where we started, with me claiming I signed SF 312, you saying it's not possible. Both of us trying to prove it via a slough of regulations, executive orders, etc. But no
Actually, there was a 1995 executive order that mandated the use of the nondisclosure agreement. This is the executive order was implemented in regulation by AR 380-5. However, the executive order issued by Bill Clinton on April 17, 1995, and went into effect 180 days later.
The executive order requires anyone with access to classified information to sign an approved NDA, That approved NDA was SF 312. More information on this here. See questions 3 and 4, specifically.
Go ahead, claim more service time (with the awards and medals) and show what a loser you are for not being worthy of promotion...
or
Admit that you didn't serve the time you've hinted at and that you didn't sign the forms you claimed.
I entered service in 1995. Promotion points for my MOS were high for E-5 in 1998, but not unachievable. I was studying for the promotion board when I had an abrupt TDY assignment in the latter half of 1998. When I returned, I was assigned to the transition unit and never attended the promotion board.
I signed the SF 312, the copy of which I have in my posession, in Dec, 1998.
I can admit that they now make enlisted sign NDA's. That's because I'm a man and don't have to attempt to bolster my ego by being anonymous on web sites.
Are you sure you've got no ego-boosting going on? You've been pissed off from the start that I might know more about something than you, and you've just *had* to be right this entire time.
And I can show that the NDA's are a very recent change and did not coincide with your previously stated service dates.
Except your date is wrong. The SF 312 has been required since 1995, per the executive order or Bill Clinton, Commander in Chief at the time. The aforementioned AR 380-5 says as much, since the executive order is what caused its creation.
We both know that executive orders go into effect, and the specific regulation follows. Bill Clinton mandated NDAs in 1995.
So you were in from "Feb. 1996 to Dec. 1998".
No, I said I was at 10th Mountain Division during that time, which is exactly what the post you referenced says. Learn to read and actually understand what you're reading. You are proof that the American education system has been failing for a long time.
Hmmm, revision 1-00.
Note that it says "Previous edition unusable" which implies that there was a previous edition.
Guess what the revision date on *my* SF 312 is? 1-91.
Proof that that version exists? here: "The new Standard Form (SF) 312, "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," is now available through the government supply system and should be used in place of the previous 1991 version. The form, actually approved in January 2000, was prevented from a timely release due to administrative delays. The General Services Administration (GSA) will make the new form available by early April, both in electronic and hard copy format. In the meantime, copies can be made from the pdf version of the SF 312, attached to this announcement." (Bold text placed to facilitate your reading comprehension.)
Note that you found the current one approved in January 2000.
Here is proof that an even earlier version exists: "(a) SF 312, SF 189, and SF 189-A are nondisclosure agreements between the United States and an individual. The prior execution of at least one of these agreements, as appropriate, by an individual is necessary before the United States Government may grant that individual access to classified information. From the effective date of this rule, September 29, 1988, the SF 312 shall be used in lieu of both the SF 189 and the SF 189-A for this purpose."
So, we have that the SF312 was in use from September 29, 1988.
Make all the claims you want to. It doesn't matter to me. I did 7 years and got out in 1990.
You mean, got kicked out in 1990 because someone figured out you don't have any reading comprehension, and you jump to conclusions before you've put even an ounce of thought in.
I don't have to play games with words like you claiming to be a "veteran" (no combat time and only 34 months in service) to boost my self-esteem. Nor do I have to spin lies about forms I was required to sign before they were even printed.
I never claimed to be a combat veteran (as in, earned a combat patch), and you know it. The government still defines me as a "veteran", the dictionary definition agrees, and I put in my required time, all 8 years split up between active duty, reserves, and IRR (during which I was called up twice, so it's not like I sat twiddling my thumbs for a few years). I may not have been stationed in a combat zone, but I did more for my country than the average person has. I also got the chance to make sure some people didn't shoot each other up. I was even able to help save some lives in a disaster area, too. You want to criticize me for not having seen *actual* combat (mostly due to timing), go ahead, I'm sure you are someone's hero.
Anyway, I have proved the existence of the SF312 as early as 1988, which is well before I left the service, and before you claim to have left. You might not have signed one because you got your clearance revoked, in which case they give you a different form, if the same procedures in AR 380-5 were in effect in 1990.
You made the claim "Enlisteds don't sign NDAs with the Army"
* I have told you I retain a photocopy of it. (I even dug through all my paperwork to make sure, and found it.)
* Once I found my copy, I gave you the form number, SF 312, revision 1-91.
* I have told you when and where I last signed one, and what office administered it to me.
* I have shown the regulation that required me to have signed at least a portion of it at the time. An
bah, accidentally clicked "submit" with my touchpad.
The last sentence was supposed to be "I'd have taken that trip by train, but never thought about it, really. Greyhound was easy."
ie from Syracuse, NY to Boston ma is $400 flying takes 3hours including time spent waiting.
Driving takes 5 hours, non-stop
Rail takes 12 hours, price I don't know.
And that's why the train is so sad.
Greyhound service from Watertown, NY to South Station in Boston was around $60 and took 9 hours in 1997. (Which was the last time I did that trip.) That's 3 hours faster than your figure for the train, even though it's what, about 70 miles further away.
Anyway, I decided to check the Amtrak web site to get some info on service from Syracuse to Boston.
The Amtrak fare finder shows 3 schedules from Syracuse to Boston's South Station. One is 8.5 hours, fare $32, stop in Albany. Two is 10 hours, fare $63, stop in NYC. Three is 11 hours, $63, also stops in NYC.
I'd have taken that tr
Is there any CPU where you can't?
A member of the "classic" (previous to the ATtiny and ATmega) AVR family of MCUs, the AT90S1200, has no RAM at all (and no interface to external RAM, which is common for MCUs), only a 3-level hardware stack. You would be surprised at how many things you can do without RAM - and surprisingly enough, Imagecraft managed to implement a C compiler for it?!
Regardless, my question above is not rhetorical.
I doubt there are many. I imagine all CPUs in use today have at least a mostly complete implementation of ANSI C that targets it.
Which was pretty much my point. Any system with volatile memory and a C program that maintains a function pointer could *theoretically* be vulnerable to a memory alteration attack. Whether arbitrary code could be executed may or may not be possible. It wouldn't possible to get your own code executed on a true Harvard-architecture processor, but you might be able to change what code is running (maybe get a privelege escalation or access to a monitor or command prompt.) At the very least a crash could be forced.
Depending on the exploit, one does not even need to force a crash or execute code, either. Overwriting other data may be the valuable part of an attack. (Think electronic voting.)
SF 312, and it is required by AR 380-5.
Oh look, the army even has AR380-5 online right here
Anyway, there are a lot of words in AR 380-5 with three or more syllables in there. I'm not sure you'd comprehend it. But if you decide to give it a shot, pay special attention to chapter 6.
Oh wait, here's why I would have seen it at outprocessing! Amazing things, PDFs:
Actually, rereading the regulation leads me to believe I must have also signed some portion of either an SF 312 or SF 189 at a previous time, as well. Probably along with my inprocessing at either Ft. Sill or Ft. Drum, though if I did, I don't have a copy of that one.
In any case, I signed all sections of the new SF 312.
So, guess where I signed this SF 312, the copy of which I have in my posession? Right there in the DivArty S2 office, when I was receiving the debriefing that I had to go through before box 15 could be stamped on my outprocessing form.
Wanna guess how I know where and when I signed this particular one? There's my signature right there, and under "witness" is the signature of the same guy at the S2 who stamped my clearance form. The dates also happen to match.
So, you have: (a) The form number, SF 312, "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement". (NDA = Nondisclosure Agreement, in case you're too stupid to figure it out, which I suspect you are.)
(b) The AR that requires it.
Do you need more, or is this sufficient?
Oh, the regulation says: a. Prior to granting access to classified information, DA personnel will receive a briefing outlining their responsibility to protect classified information and will sign the SF 312 (Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement
(NDA))
Given that you claim to have been in, and have never signed or even see one (and the regulation says DA personnel are required to sign one, and doesn't make any exceptions), I think it's time for me to conclude that YOU are the liar.
You were never in the service. I suspect that you play a little too much America's Army in your parents basement.
Santa
Easter Bunny
Tooth Fairy
Your military service.
http://www.army.mil/usapa/eforms/pdf/A137_1.PDF
Read it again, dumbass. I said I signed the NDA at the time I took that form to S2 for outprocessing.
I'll quote myself:
I specifically said that signing the NDA was part of the "Security Debriefing", which I had to do to get the stamp in the box on the outprocessing form. Go back to school and learn how to read.
Yeah, an "NDA" that has a block for "Weight Control Program".
Take all the guesses you want. That's just as valid as me saying you got the boot because you don't comprehend written English, which you don't.
Furthermore, I'd point out at this time that if you *really* wanted to check, you could call the 10th Mtn. DivArty S2 and *ask* if they made anyone sign NDAs on ETS. You claim to have served, it'd be really simple for you to get the number and check.
The IIR does NOT say ANYTHING about your service.
That's "IRR". Idiot.
Meanwhile, the guy you were talking about is a NATIONAL HERO in his home country and has the President of his country investigating his death.
And a fine line separates idiocy from heroism, doesn't it? He's a national hero because he rescued a pinko like you.
Yet you still claim that you know more than he did
Damn right. I would have been smart enough to stop or turn around when the laser and spotlight came on me... not to mention the warning shots.
I'm sure you would have gone ahead and gotten shot, though. Since you clearly don't have any level of reading comprehension, it is likely that if someone pointed a laser and spotlight at you, you'd keep driving because you lack enough gray matter to comprehend what that means, despite it being well publicized.
Enlisted don't sign NDA's with the Army.
That's funny, because during the part of the final clearance process for ETS, I had to visit the S2 and sign said NDA, a copy of which happens to be in my paperwork, and the S2 office stamp seems to be on my papers, right there in box 15 of form DA-137-1, where it says "Security Debriefing" (which involved signing the NDA), and "Anti-terrorism Briefing") which involved listening to short lecture.
I was a higher rank than you, in for longer than you and I had a higher security clearance than you.
With all due respect (which is about none, from my point of view), you don't know what clearance I had, nor do you know much else about me. Your rank also means jack shit to me at this point.
You're a liar.
You're ignorant and delusional.
But that's okay. My honorable discharge certificate, DD214, several medals, various training certs and certificates of achievement, and 8 years total service (including a few that were in IRR, but I was called up *twice* during that time after Sept. 11 - nothing came of either one, though) all speak to my service.
So you really have no experience in these issues, do you?
I don't need to give you details or tell you of my experience because you have no need to know and I'd be violating the NDA I signed upon my departure.
Oh, that's right. You don't understand the meaning of "specifically" and you have no direct experience with any of this and the highest you've got was E-4.
Doesn't matter because you are so superior to me, right?
I also only mentioned my last held rank based on pay grade. There was a period time where I was frocked to Sergeant. That lasted until they found a qualified person who really was an E-5 to fill the position. I figured the only legitimate claim I could make was SPC since the frock wasn't a real promotion.
Newsflash, kid. The enemy does observe. The enemy adapts his attacks based upon those observations.
Trying to hide info that the enemy already has is worse than a waste of time. You have to assume that the enemy knows everything, already.
Then why classify anything at all, eh?
Why use SINCGARS radios when we can just assume the enemy can track the hopset and has broken all your COMSEC keys? It'd be cheaper to stick with old PRC-series radios and speak in the clear.
What is the point of any obfuscation?
Why not just hand over our designs for thermonuclear weapons to other countries? They've obviously got spies who have figured it all out, anyway.
Part of my job was working with various S2/G2 personnel. I think I understand information security pretty damn well.
You assume they have all the information, but you do *not* validate it or give them more.
And you do not know more than a Major General.
Spoken like an officer!
That particular rank and title of that person is of little consequence, especially when rank and title can be meaningless (special commissions like the division dentist who happens to be Colonel and never held any lower rank) or mean everything (think Captain in the Army vs. Captain in the Navy.)
I might not know more than an American infantry Major General about specific infantry tactics,
Time to toot my own bugle:
I can think of plenty of individual subject areas where I might know a lot more than a Major General.
Especially when I developed the subject area in question. I personally briefed a Major General and a Colonel about the revised SOP I had developed for my unit that increased our targeting accuracy and efficiency over what they were doing before I had arrived. Since I had personally written it and was directly involved in the development of the procedures, I pretty much was the authority on the subject, and these two officers wanted to learn from me.
You see, this visiting unit wanted to implement the same procedures, and so they asked me for this presentation. (Assuming, of course, that the 1LT had given them a rundown of what I'd done before they wanted to see my presentation.) I got an AAM for it, too. In the award recommendation, the commander wrote: "His technical knowledge exceeds those of greater rank."
Your all-knowing officers would never have wanted to learn anything from me.
When you say "veteran", what do you mean, specifically?
Veteran.
And no, I was never in the Middle East, and wasn't physically in the AO of any "combat" operation. I've pulled "security" operations and done "humanitarian relief".
I pretty much agree with the other reply to you as to what information was potentially damaging.
You assume the enemy has been that observant. I think that is a good assumption. That still does not warrant giving operational information out as if they surely had it already.
When I was doing target processing, it would have been possible for those in rogue mortar and artillery positions to figure out which ones I made the recommendation to neutralize, given enough time. That doesn't mean I wanted my procedures publicized so that the criteria was known.
Big fucking deal. Rank and title don't necessarily mean anything.
The "Surgeon GENERAL" of the United States is a VICE ADMIRAL of the Navy. What does that mean?
Perhaps you should learn something about special commissions.
I was a mere SPECIALIST in the 10th Mountain Division (you may recognize that unit from the report), and I, for damn sure, know how to pass through friendly lines. You obtain route clearance, and then you make your way without assuming that every checkpoint knows about your clearance. You have an alternate route planned.
The MAJOR GENERAL clearly assumed he had route clearance when he did not. A poor assumption, and a definite mistake.
If we assume that the events happened the way soldiers at the block say, then he should have known what the green laser and spot meant, given that he was a MAJOR GENERAL, and should have stopped the car. Instead, he ignored the roadblock, and the SPECIALIST manning the machine gun fired some warning shots. The MAJOR GENERAL ignored the fact that he was being fired on, and got shot up by the SPECIALIST, who did exacly like I would have done.
Their mission had expired and they WERE LEFT OUT THERE because it was not COMMUNICATED to them.
That doesn't matter, and in fact supports the soldiers case that they did the right thing. Every Army soldier memorizes the General Orders for guard, which I reproduce here:
Pay very special attention to "... and quit my post only when properly relieved." They were not properly relieved, so they were right to continue carrying out their special orders (run the blocking point).
The MAJOR GENERAL, being a MAJOR GENERAL and oh-so-smart, should have recognized that the block was in force by the spot and laser. If he didn't recognize this fact, then he was ignorant or uninformed about American SOP. If he did recognize it, he made a conscious decision to ignore it.
You have to assume the enemy has all the information you do before you start operations. Otherwise, when the enemy DOES know something that you are relying upon him to NOT know, you're fucked.
The principle of not underestimating the enemy does *not* mean that you just hand him information that he might not have.
The enemy may have been able to *see* in person some of the information that was released, but they probably did not know our military's assessment of itself and the enemy's tactics. That is useful information.
Once again. You may assume an enemy has the information, but you do not give it to him.
FWIW, I'm a 10th Mountain Division Artillery veteran.
I was a 10th Mountain Division soldier from Feb. 1996 to Dec. 1998.
I dunno about the impact. I expect the iraqi insurgents already have a much better idea of how our security operations work than they can gain through this document. After all they have the opportunity to actually observe this operations and how they react to their attacks.
Observation is one thing, but one thing your eyes don't necessarily tell you is what the opponent thinks about itself and its own tactics. This report now gives out that information to the enemy, and includes information about combat readiness and the perceived effectiveness of the enemy's tactics.
It also gives more extensive information on what the various SOPs (standard operating procedures) have to say about certain sitations than you can gain by observation.
I expect the information was just concealed as a matter of course in case it might contain something of value to the enemy. Still though your overall point is valid. There is no reason the public really needs to know this stuff and it is better safe than sorry with information which might let them kill more soldiers.
Precisely, and since this directly affects some of the units I'd worked with, I fully support the (time-limited*) "censorship" of this kind of information. The idiot that failed to do it effectivly needs some severe discipline.
I've got friends and former coworkers in Iraq, and the release of this kind of information doesn't help them one bit.
(* meaning that after the conflict is over, plus some time, the full report should be (have been) released.)
I would have said that the most obvious hardware-specific feature, that would protect against stack overflows, is Harvard architecture (vs. Von Neumann, present in almostall CPUs today).
Nobody mentions it because there is a serious weakness in the Harvard architecture when it comes to modern computing: You can't implement just-in-time compiler for Java, for instance.
Sometimes, there is good reason to execute "data".
Harvard architecture is great for certain applications, however, including DSPs and of course the microcontrollers you mentioned.
(Some people call the split instruction/data cache architecture in modern von Neumann CPUs "Harvard", but it's not the same. Once a cache flush happens, all bets are off.)
It should be noted that any architecture that supports pointers to executable code (function pointers) that can stored in "data" memory are vulnerable to memory alteration/corruption exploits in poorly written programs. This would be just about any CPU where you could target an ANSI C compiler.
I can't speak from personal experience for any of these other than MIPS, but when programming in MIPS assembly, the stack grows downward by convention only, since the stack is manually manipulated. If you wanted to go against convention, you could grow it upward, too.
Examples storing and retrieving a 32-bit word return address to the stack: (32-bit MIPS)I've heard that's how it works for PPC, too. I'd also guess that the SPARC's stack is also manually manipulated, seeing as the architecture was developed at the same time as MIPS.
Both of my banks also allow PDF delivery of their statements, and have for a few years. I stopped getting paper statements then.
Gee, It's a good thing the internet is such a secure transmission medium.
Having grown up in the (very fertile) Willamette Valley in Oregon
And as a typical Willamette Valley resident, are still quite ignorant about what the Eastern Oregon high desert is like, as evidenced by statements like this:
OTOH, five acres in the Eastern Oregon high desert makes for a good barrier between you and your neighbors and not much else.
Apparently you have never heard of irrigation. You see, I grew up on a small-acreage "farm" in Central Oregon (another peeve, we differentiate into more than just "Eastern Oregon" over here), just outside of Redmond, and we've have plenty of water for plants an animals, including these "garden" things that you Valley folks think are unique to your area.
What we don't have is mold, craploads of allergens, tree-sitters (an advantage to not having trees), and constant rainfall in the winter. All of which I never liked in the first place, and since I've attended the University of Oregon, have learned to *really* dislike.
Now, back to the topic at hand. If you want to set up a wireless network, assumming the property is somewhat rectangular, you can make use of standard (read: cheap) wireless equipment. Make sure you get dual-antenna access points that can transmit on both antennas. Set up the network like this:
Note, I had damn good ASCII art going on before the lameness filter made me have to ditch it.
So, client machines connect to AP on channel 4 in zone A, either 1 or 11 (maybe disallow most client connections on one of the two) on B, and 7 in zone C. Linking nodes in A and C would probably be a cantenna or other hooked up to a wireless bridge. Set up your router anywhere, but B is probably a good choice. Note that you can move things around, and extend this setup to cover more area.
This setup has the advantage of maximum channel separation between each zone assuming there is fair coverage overlap. (It is also generally safe to use channels 1, 4, 7, and 11 without much degradation in overlap areas.)
This is simply a public safety issue. Period. Should we rely on a private entity to provide hurricane or tornado warnings? Does this apply to NOAA weather radio?
The reason weather data is made available to the public is because it enables the public to go about their business in a safer manner that is planned around the obstacles that weather tosses in the way.
From commercial passenger and freight aircraft, ships, and other forms of commercial transit, to the commuter just trying to get to work, free weather data from NOAA is an essential part of the economy.
Shall we require pilots to subscribe to AccuWeather in order to know the weather forecast for their flight path? I think not.
Normally, I'm not a fan of the government doing what private business can do, but NOAA has become essential to public infrastructure. It's not a perfect analogy, but you wouldn't let a for-profit private company run the (armed) police department, while it may be perfectly appropriate for private companies to provide *additional* security services on top of what the public provides through the police.
Start writing your representatives and Senators now.
I'm sorry but I really feel that Congress should be spending time protecting flesh and blood people rather than paper created "persons".
You mean like [artists, actors, screenwriters, grips, directors, producers, programmers who write special effects software, investors, marketers, cinema employees, and all the other flesh-and-blood people that make a living off of the legitimate movie/music trade] that leaked movies and music hurt in the pocketbook?
They asked you not to use RF-transmitting devices on the plane. So why do you ignore them?
Oh wait. You probably also ignore that big red octagon with the letters "STOP" written on it while you drive.
Or, if you bike, you probably ignore traffic signals, stop signs, and every other rule that ALL vehicles are supposed to follow.
Maybe you eat lunch on the public transit right under the sign that says "PLEASE DO NOT EAT WHILE ON THE TRAIN" (substitute bus, etc.).
20 in a school zone? F that!
Granted, some rules are just flat-out stupid (most have damn good reasons for existing, like school zones), but when you are making use of someone's service, you are in a social contract to obey their rules. That includes not transmitting RF on the plane, whether or not it affects the avionics.
I'm going to call bullshit. Maybe this happened, but it isn't as simple or innocent as you make it out to be.
1. If you weren't booked, you probably don't have an arrest record for the incident.
2. In any case, in order for it to be a "felony arrest" you would have to have been arrested and charged with Theft in the First Degree or some other felony, which you weren't. (I cited an Oregon statute because in a later post you mentioned that it was a Fred Meyer's in one of Oregon's larger towns - I'd be willing to bet it's Eugene.)
3. Even if you do have an arrest record for this incident, it'd be simple to get it expunged if you were never booked and/or prosecuted due to lack of evidence. I can only think of a few reasons that "it's not likely [you'll] succeed". One is because you have other arrests where you were booked and possibly convicted that you didn't mention in your story. It's also possible you gave the cops a hard time (yelling things like "fuck you - I didn't do anything!" over and over again... which I personally witnessed an actual shoplifter yell while he was being arrested, right after I watched them retrieve the stolen merchandise from down his pants). Giving cops a hard time makes them write little notes in their notebook about how you resisted arrest. If you didn't do anything, resisting arrest is just flat out stupid.
My guess is that you are not telling the whole truth (or whole story) here. An off-duty cop in the parking lot would have no way of knowing if a store employee told you just to keep walking, unless you didn't just "walk out". Also, most Fred Meyer's stores I've ever seen have two sets of doors at each entrance. The security scanner is on inside, so there are two sets of doors between it and the outside. How did the cop hear the alarm?
I bet you exited the store while store employees were following you out trying to get you to stop, which they can do in Eugene, among other cities in Oregon. It is also likely your demeanor left much to be desired (given that we are talking about Oregon), and the combination of things gave the officer probable cause. There is no such thing as an off-duty cop when there is reason for him/her to believe a crime is being committed.
If you had just casually walked out and nobody was chasing you and asking you to stop, then I find your scenario highly unlikely.
Although the Bill of Rights is the usual place for the mandatory free porn section of the constitution.
True.
Sadly, the Oregon Constitution is missing that entry as well.
It's a obviously a grand conspiracy of Right Wingers like Bush to keep free porn out of the state constitutions!