Oh for a mod point. Zogger, man, I knew I had you marked as a friend for a reason. Ike straight up told Mr. and Mrs. America that forces beyond their control were trying to subvert and sabotage the ideas this country was founded on. Yet... as you say, hardly anyone can even quote the most telling line, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."
The only way to do THAT is to make friends...and know them well. A third party isn't going to be able to determine if someone will be a good friend for you or not.
Hear hear! I was a RTCW player for a while, and even with Punkbuster there are plenty of ways to screw up a competitive game. Thus, I played on the same server every night, and got to know the other regulars. This particular server had an online forum, which we used to talk about cheaters and jerks so we'd know to vote to kick them. Come to think of it... I think I'll go play some wolf.
I agree that constructing an AI that can interact with the human world the way people do will be very difficult. However, I think it would be much easier to emobdy the AI in it's own "computer" world , i.e., that of CPUs, disks, I/O, networks, etc.. This is especially true when you take into account that an AI will probably need to (re-)program itself over time. That's the direction I'm taking in my research anyway, YMMV.
I was kind of trying to avoid getting into the punishment argument, thus my categorization of my remarks as a simplification. Spank seemed like a good metaphor for punishment to me, but maybe the word has too much baggage to be useful in this discussion. Perhaps time-out would suit better? Or sending them to bed without supper?
Please though, let's not get hung up on the issue of punishment. Let us instead concentrate on the flip side of the coin, rewarding good behavior. When I speak of rewards I don't mean food treats. I mean admiration, praise, recognition amongst peers, etc. Most of all though, I mean that the reward action invokes good feelings in the child out of proportion to the action itself. A gold star is itself materially valueless; mere paper and glue. It is the feeling generated in the child that is the real reward.
So please allow me to modify my original question: Leaving aside for the moment the issue of punishments, how can you reward a computer? What is the equivalent to giving a computer a gold star? How do you make a computer feel good about itself? How do you help a computer take pride in it's actions? In doing the right thing? In being helpful without prospect of material reward because being helpful makes it feel good?
I believe the secret to accomplishing so-called "Real AI" lies in the answers to these questions.
Actually upon rethinking... screw thinking.. I want a machine that has emotion...I want a machine that gets pissed off and tries to electrocute Garry Kasparov after loosing a chess game
I agree that "emotional" responses are at least part of the secret to accomplishing "real" AI. I'd be more interested in a machine that chooses not to electrocute Kasparov, even though Gary has really pissed it off. Who wants a artifically intelligent savage?
I dont' want a robot slave that is commanded to follow Asimov's laws of robtics by immuteable rules hard-wired into it. I want a help-mate that chooses to be moral because it is the right thing to do, and is genuinely pleased to be able to be of service to it's fellow sentient beings.
The problem with this is, simplifying for the sake of argument, people genreally learn to be moral during childhood through a system of just rewards and punishments. Which points up the real questions: How do you spank a computer? How do you give a computer a gold star?
I get the impression though that many AI researchers see Hofstader as a heretic. That's too bad because I think the ideas he and his team have developed hold more promise than any other approach to AI currently extant.
It's not really a shooter per se, but Netrek is quite playable on older machines and slower connections. Plus it's a damn good game. Maybe the best team game ever written.
Not to pick nits, but the First Age hero Glorfindel is indeed the Glorfindel who carries Frodo to Imladris to save him from the Nazgul.
I thought the same as you (and have argued vehemently that there were two Glorfindels) but I happen to be reading The History of Middle Earth, Vol. XII at the moment. To wit...
The only real resource we have to answer this question is in The Peoples of Middle-earth (The History of Middle-earth Vol. 12): XIII Last Writings, Glorfindel. Christopher Tolkien dates the notes he gives here at 1972, the year before his father's death.
These notes clear up one question immediately: at the time of the writing of The Lord of the Rings, Glorfindel of Rivendell was not conceived as the same character as Glorfindel of Gondolin. Tolkien says, 'Its use [i.e. the name 'Glorfindel'] in The Lord of the Rings is one of the cases of the somewhat random use of the names found in the older legends... which escaped reconsideration in the final published form...'.
Tolkien was far from happy with this state of affairs, however, and it seems that he intended to reconcile the problem by uniting the two strands of the story. In summary, the notes tell us that Glorfindel's spirit returned to the Halls of Waiting, but was after a time re-embodied by the Valar. He then returned to Middle-earth (either in the mid-Second Age, or as a companion of the Istari in the Third). For the full story of his return, refer to The Peoples of Middle-earth.
Against the computer Balance of Power was okay, as you could judge just how far you could push the AI before they would nuke you. However, against a human opponent this game was pointless.
I used to play chess against a professor of mine every afternoon. One day I asked him to try BoP on the Mac SE in his office just to try something new. Once he realized that by escalating every time he could force me into either backing down and losing face in the game (thus lowering my score if memory seves me correctly) or ending the game via a nuclear war, it kind of lost it's fun factor.
That being said, there was something deeply satisfying about telling your opponent, "You'll have my response via the North Pole!"
I used to put G4 on in the background quite often while I was working. The commercials, being mostly about games, were at least less annoying than commercials for cars or tampons. I like to hear people talking when I'm doing chores, so that's why TV instead of music.
Anyway, after some exposure to the channel, I found Arena. I would actually sit and watch this show because A) Wil was on it and B) I thought the idea of the competition was cool. For those unfamiliar, Arena was a computer and console game competition between two teams of four. (theoretically, anyway, see Wil's journal)
Then Wil wasn't on anymore. I thought, "Oh maybe he's doing a movie or something and that's why they put these two pretty boys on the show." Then I read the above/. journal by Wil. I have not put on G4 even once since then.
A citizen's insurrection to correct the misdeeds of our government cannot stand up to our professional military.
I will note that this is much the same as the position of the ACLU on the Second Amendment. (Fair Disclosure: I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU, though I don't agree with their conclusion on this matter.)
As a student of military affairs, it is obvious to me that any attempt to fight a set-piece battle force-on-force with the U.S. military is pretty much doomed from the outset unless your men and equipment measure up to ours.
However, that does not mean that it is impossible to successfully engage and defeat our forces. Allow me to recommend The Battle for Hunger Hill by Daniel P. Bolger (ISBN 0891414533). This is the story of Colonel Bolger's experience at the Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana. FYI, Ft. Polk is where the U.S. armed forces train for what they call "Low Intensity Conflict" and "Operations Other Than War".
As I understand Col. Bolger's account, the OPFOR at Ft. Polk regularly hands even elite units their ass with only a comparative handful of men. The typical "enemy" soldier at Ft. Polk is armed only with a rifle, a few grenades, and perhaps a sidearm. They work in teams of four men, which take on units of company size with ease. Astoundingly, the OPFOR teams use exactly three basic drills against an enemy unit: Break Contact, Box Ambush, and Baited Trap Ambush.
These teams do have some support in the form of mortar fires, but these must be of necessity sporadic and consist of only a few rounds when available. If memory serves me correctly, the mortar teams sometimes move the not-designed-to-be-man-portable-tubes by hand in order to avoid counter-battery fires.
Another book that, while fiction, might prove both educational and entertaining is The Prince, by Jerry Pournelle and S. M. Stirling (ISBN 0743435567). This is a compilation of the Falkenberg's Legion saga into a single volume. Much of the story concerns a ultra-modern military force fighting a well-funded and equipped guerrilla/terrorist uprising.
All of which is to say that small teams of highly motivated and dedicated individuals can and do defeat much larger units of our armed forces. Now, I'm not suggesting that every pick-up truck full of heavily-armed rednecks fits this description, but I think you'll allow that some of them might.
I would further point out that every member of the U.S. armed forces swears an oath to "[...] support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic;".
Imagine for a moment a hypothetical future in which the people have staged a general revolt against the federal government of the United States. For the sake of argument assume that this is a good-faith revolution with the stated goal of the restoration of constitutional government to the U.S. Furthermore, assume that the arguments for armed revolt are legitimate and beyond reproach, and a neutral outside observer would say that the President was an enemy of the Constitution. Now imagine the minds of the commanders. They have sworn oaths to both defend the Constitution and obey the President, each of which is now in direct opposition. I believe that at least some unit commanders would chose to join the rebellion. For further reading please see The Origins of the Military Coup of 2012 by Lt. Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr.
You could say that the fact that the government troops would posses WMD might tip the balance in their favor, but I'm not sure even a cynical and corrupt U.S. regime would use WMD on their own soil. It is also unclear to me whether such WMD use would attract outside aid or intervention.
In conclusion, I think that the only time armed revolt b
Is it any wonder that a society adept at mass production would find ways to mass produce those things that still must be men and not machines? If only we could do this in our inner city public schools.
My, er... hypothosis -- theories are actually well reasoned and researched which this comment certainly isn't -- is that the US has been doing this, after a fashion, for nearly a century.
Consider this: Each year, from just about every high-school in the US, a group of at least 22 young men graduates that have been specially trained in working as a team during close-order conflict with an enemy. This team is composed of young men with varying specialties such as leadership, deception and subtlety, speed and agility, and strength and power. These categories map nicely to military concepts such as officers, scouts, riflemen, and heavy-weapons crews. These young men are constantly drilled, exceptionally fit, and used to harsh discipline. Of course I speak of those high-school heros, the (US) football team.
Basically every high-school in the US turns approximately one infantry platoon worth of fit and disciplined men every year. According to my calculations (admittedly based on my imperfect understanding of current US Army Light Infantry Division TOE) this yields around three modern Infantry Battalions per 50 schools (i.e. One Division's worth of foot-soldiers). That's just the football teams mind you.
In this all-volunteer era, perhaps this isn't so significant. However, until the end of the draft in 1973, this constituted a significant strategic advantage for the US, as war planners could count on a steady stream of suitable men.
Given that these are the facts, let's look down the rabbit hole and see what we find...
The game of US Football was invented at the end of the 19th century. The main credit for this is given to a man named Walter Camp, born April 17, 1859, in the city of New Haven, Connecticut. He was a star athlete, making varsity for every sport in which he participated. He also had a fine mind, rising to the top of the New Haven Clock Company during his career. Some of you may have guessed that Mr. Camp also attended his home-town university, Yale. Couple this with the fact that football's popularity started with competitions between Yale and her fellow Ivy League schools and it's almost like a "paint-your-own-consipracy" kit.
Please understand, I am in no way seriously suggesting during the late 1800s the finest minds in the US conspired to design a game such that it would be almost tailor-made for training young men into military roles. Nor did they with malice of forethought set out to invent a game that would eventually be played in just about every secondary-school in the United Sates. And I am certainly not suggesting that these great minds could predict that their game would eventually churn out many division's worth of men each year. To the best of my ability to determine, the men who invented football were simply athletes tired of English-style Rugby. They wanted an American game. It does make you think though.
In conclusion, I believe that, whether by accident or design, such a set-up could be fairly described as exactly what the parent post insinuated: A Soldier Factory.
I will note that my Grandfather, who taught me this poem, served in WWII and was a patriotic man. I wonder sometimes if he would feel as I do, that the deeds done lately don't exactly stir a man's soul? Or might he castigate me as a un-patriotic, un-american thought criminal?
Just a moth-eaten rag On a worm-eaten pole It doesn't seem likely To stir a man's soul 'Twas the deeds that were done 'Neith that moth-eaten rag When the pole was a staff And the rag was a flag
You ask how I fare? Friend, would you believe I am stoked?
I once had the kind of soul-crushing, life-draining job I see you describe: Cram-downs from the management, missed paydays, and a stunning sale announcement just before all the employees were handed their hats and rushed off at the end of a workday. This was back when the net was just emerging from itâ(TM)s embryonic form, long before Arthur Anderson and Enron. Harder to handle was the constant belittlement from management because I had funny ideas about this Internet thing, and it was something they knew little of and understood even less. I made plenty of big mistakes, it was my first âoerealâ job. I freely admit I was far from a model employee. Of course, I didnâ(TM)t personally raid the pension fund and try to screw my ex-employees out of their 401k money either.
In the ensuing years I found occasional work as a consultant, but couldnâ(TM)t seem to find the right environment to settle down in. Not to mention the trials and tribulations of independent consulting including nightmare environments, contract shenanigans, evil-doing clients, and the classic, âoeI never said that,â defense. While never soul-crushing per se, these engagements did range from hair-raising to nut-clenching.
Finally though, Iâ(TM)ve managed to come up with something that works for me in the sense that I get to control my own destiny, I do work that satisfies me creatively, and I donâ(TM)t have to add nearly as many people to my Book of Grudges. Being able to live with the person I see in the mirror each morning is also quite a bonus.
The first big question is what is your status as a business entity?
If youâ(TM)re employed through a contract agency, youâ(TM)re kind of stuck. They are effectively your bosses. You are their employee. As such your arrangement with the customer is constrained by whatever your company has set up with them. They charge the customer more than you cost, and keep the profits. Try to go to work for a customer and theyâ(TM)ll bitch up a storm. Still, this can be an okay deal, as long as you can find an honest outfit to work for.
On the other hand, if you have your own company, you have more flexibility. The customer contracts with your company to provide some service. Thatâ(TM)s your job. Of course, you also have to handle all the business development, billing, taxes and such that go along with having a small business. On the upside, you keep the profits that would have gone to the agent. The downside is youâ(TM)ll have to pay for any benefits like health insurance or retirement out of those profits. The nature of the arrangement with the customer is up to you. The trick is to manage it to your advantage.
If you think of the customer as the boss, or let them force you into the role of employee, youâ(TM)re out of the game before it even started. Theyâ(TM)ll treat you like a regular employee. They might even put you through their regular interview process. You get all the responsibility and headaches of being an employee, without most of the benefits. In the end, of course, you are only a contractor and not a real employee, and as such disposable and interchangeable. Geeksploitation, if you will. There are some places where being a contract employee (as opposed to a consultant) isnâ(TM)t so bad, but they also donâ(TM)t tend to have openings.
Alternatively, you can think of yourself as the boss of your consulting firm and your customer as your Client. By Client I mean not just the party by which your firm is being retained to perform certain services at some rate of compensation, but also the notion of a valued customer with whom your firm can form a lasting and mutually beneficial relationship. Contract negotiation is beyond the scope of this discussion, but it is critical your contract meets your needs as well as your clients. All too often the legal dep
The INL still has a homepage, though it hasn't been updated since the fall. The INL is pretty much the only competative netrek league.
They definately still play. I get traffic on my team's mailing list about games and times. (Shoutz Outz to SMACK Pack! Kick the plasma old school boyz!) I'm so rusty and old that I don't even practice anymore though.
I originally posted this comment deeper in this discussion (Comment #5490723). However, I thought I'd repost it at the top level due to the level of misinfomation I found in subsequent comments.
Not to sound, you know.. anti-Slashdot.. But has anyone ever produced any kind of PROOF that this is the case?
A quick Google for 60 Minutes and Echelon turned up this transcript of a 60 Minutes piece I once saw on Echelon.
As I recall, the jist of the story is that Echelon basically intercepts every possible bit that it can, all over the world. (The man interviewed states, "Every square inch [of planet Earth].") However, both the US and UK have anti-domestic-spying legislation that the intellegence community finds inconvenient. Thus the UK spys on US citizens and vice-versa. Then they swap the intel. All of which, believe or not, is perfectly legal and above board, apparently.
While this legerdemain is very clever, I judge it to be immoral and without honor. To think that, at least in the US, most of these men swear an oath to defend the United States and the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Absolutely without honor.
Not to sound, you know.. anti-Slashdot.. But has anyone ever produced any kind of PROOF that this is the case?
A quick Google for 60 Minutes and Echelon turned up this transcript of a 60 Minutes piece I once saw on Echelon.
As I recall, the jist of the story is that Echelon basically intercepts every possible bit that it can, all over the world. (The man interviewed states, "Every square inch [of planet Earth].") However, both the US and UK have anti-domestic-spying legislation that the intellegence community finds inconvenient. Thus the UK spys on US citizens and vice-versa. Then they swap the intel. All of which, believe or not, is perfectly legal and above board, apparently.
While this legerdemain is very clever, I judge it to be immoral and without honor. To think that, at least in the US, most of these men swear an oath to defend the United States and the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Absolutely without honor.
I know this is two right ons in the same thread, but...
Right on, Man. My little voice keeps telling me to get out of the computer biz altogether. As someone else pointed out in a similar discussion, if you're going to take all the fun out of working in computing, what's the point?
I've read through the posts here and I think I see what is confusing everyone:
Most people, no matter their class or station, can only learn manners at the point of a sword. It has always been thus, and isn't likely to change in the future. This is why I believe in bringing back the Code of the Duel. It would also go a long way towards clearing out the frivolous lawsuits in the court system.
All that being said, I think the proper way to handle especially rude cell phone users is to whip out your digital voice recorder and start recording their conversation. Consider:
"So then I told them that Uncle Roy's sores were healing up fine. Wait.. Hold on, Betty... What are you doing?" "Just recording the ambient noise here for a music project I'm working on." "Recording?!? This is a private conversation!" "You're having a private conversation on a wireless phone in a public place?" "Why, I... Uh... I gotta go, Betty. This really rude person is standing behind me in the checkout line."
Just like Colt.45 Malt Liquor, it works every time.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh for a mod point. Zogger, man, I knew I had you marked as a friend for a reason. Ike straight up told Mr. and Mrs. America that forces beyond their control were trying to subvert and sabotage the ideas this country was founded on. Yet... as you say, hardly anyone can even quote the most telling line, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."
Anyway, man, Right on and Power to the People.
Hear hear! I was a RTCW player for a while, and even with Punkbuster there are plenty of ways to screw up a competitive game. Thus, I played on the same server every night, and got to know the other regulars. This particular server had an online forum, which we used to talk about cheaters and jerks so we'd know to vote to kick them. Come to think of it... I think I'll go play some wolf.
I agree that constructing an AI that can interact with the human world the way people do will be very difficult. However, I think it would be much easier to emobdy the AI in it's own "computer" world , i.e., that of CPUs, disks, I/O, networks, etc.. This is especially true when you take into account that an AI will probably need to (re-)program itself over time. That's the direction I'm taking in my research anyway, YMMV.
You're welcome. /bow
I was kind of trying to avoid getting into the punishment argument, thus my categorization of my remarks as a simplification. Spank seemed like a good metaphor for punishment to me, but maybe the word has too much baggage to be useful in this discussion. Perhaps time-out would suit better? Or sending them to bed without supper?
Please though, let's not get hung up on the issue of punishment. Let us instead concentrate on the flip side of the coin, rewarding good behavior. When I speak of rewards I don't mean food treats. I mean admiration, praise, recognition amongst peers, etc. Most of all though, I mean that the reward action invokes good feelings in the child out of proportion to the action itself. A gold star is itself materially valueless; mere paper and glue. It is the feeling generated in the child that is the real reward.
So please allow me to modify my original question:
Leaving aside for the moment the issue of punishments, how can you reward a computer? What is the equivalent to giving a computer a gold star? How do you make a computer feel good about itself? How do you help a computer take pride in it's actions? In doing the right thing? In being helpful without prospect of material reward because being helpful makes it feel good?
I believe the secret to accomplishing so-called "Real AI" lies in the answers to these questions.
I agree that "emotional" responses are at least part of the secret to accomplishing "real" AI. I'd be more interested in a machine that chooses not to electrocute Kasparov, even though Gary has really pissed it off. Who wants a artifically intelligent savage?
I dont' want a robot slave that is commanded to follow Asimov's laws of robtics by immuteable rules hard-wired into it. I want a help-mate that chooses to be moral because it is the right thing to do, and is genuinely pleased to be able to be of service to it's fellow sentient beings.
The problem with this is, simplifying for the sake of argument, people genreally learn to be moral during childhood through a system of just rewards and punishments. Which points up the real questions: How do you spank a computer? How do you give a computer a gold star?
Is anyone else thinking along these same lines?
Just guessing here, but I believe the grandparent post was refering more to the work of people like Douglas Hofstader than work being done on artifical neural networks. I can highly recommend Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought as an introduction to this branch of AI research.
I get the impression though that many AI researchers see Hofstader as a heretic. That's too bad because I think the ideas he and his team have developed hold more promise than any other approach to AI currently extant.
It's not really a shooter per se, but Netrek is quite playable on older machines and slower connections. Plus it's a damn good game. Maybe the best team game ever written.
http://www.netrek.org
http://www.google.com/search?q=netrek
I thought the same as you (and have argued vehemently that there were two Glorfindels) but I happen to be reading The History of Middle Earth, Vol. XII at the moment. To wit...
q.v. http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/g/glorfindel.html
Seriously, though, Lazlo does have all the best lines doesn't he? Consider...
I've seen this movie dozens of times, and this scene makes me laugh every time. Okay so I'm lame, but damn it, geeks have to stick together!
Then again, what else are you going to use a laser that can heat things up as hot as a star for
Making enormous Swiss cheese?
Against the computer Balance of Power was okay, as you could judge just how far you could push the AI before they would nuke you. However, against a human opponent this game was pointless.
I used to play chess against a professor of mine every afternoon. One day I asked him to try BoP on the Mac SE in his office just to try something new. Once he realized that by escalating every time he could force me into either backing down and losing face in the game (thus lowering my score if memory seves me correctly) or ending the game via a nuclear war, it kind of lost it's fun factor.
That being said, there was something deeply satisfying about telling your opponent, "You'll have my response via the North Pole!"
q.v. http://slashdot.org/~CleverNickName/journal/20695
/. journal by Wil. I have not put on G4 even once since then.
I used to put G4 on in the background quite often while I was working. The commercials, being mostly about games, were at least less annoying than commercials for cars or tampons. I like to hear people talking when I'm doing chores, so that's why TV instead of music.
Anyway, after some exposure to the channel, I found Arena. I would actually sit and watch this show because A) Wil was on it and B) I thought the idea of the competition was cool. For those unfamiliar, Arena was a computer and console game competition between two teams of four. (theoretically, anyway, see Wil's journal)
Then Wil wasn't on anymore. I thought, "Oh maybe he's doing a movie or something and that's why they put these two pretty boys on the show." Then I read the above
Message to G4: Wil Wheaton has a posse!
I will note that this is much the same as the position of the ACLU on the Second Amendment. (Fair Disclosure: I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU, though I don't agree with their conclusion on this matter.)
As a student of military affairs, it is obvious to me that any attempt to fight a set-piece battle force-on-force with the U.S. military is pretty much doomed from the outset unless your men and equipment measure up to ours.
However, that does not mean that it is impossible to successfully engage and defeat our forces. Allow me to recommend The Battle for Hunger Hill by Daniel P. Bolger (ISBN 0891414533). This is the story of Colonel Bolger's experience at the Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana. FYI, Ft. Polk is where the U.S. armed forces train for what they call "Low Intensity Conflict" and "Operations Other Than War".
As I understand Col. Bolger's account, the OPFOR at Ft. Polk regularly hands even elite units their ass with only a comparative handful of men. The typical "enemy" soldier at Ft. Polk is armed only with a rifle, a few grenades, and perhaps a sidearm. They work in teams of four men, which take on units of company size with ease. Astoundingly, the OPFOR teams use exactly three basic drills against an enemy unit: Break Contact, Box Ambush, and Baited Trap Ambush.
These teams do have some support in the form of mortar fires, but these must be of necessity sporadic and consist of only a few rounds when available. If memory serves me correctly, the mortar teams sometimes move the not-designed-to-be-man-portable-tubes by hand in order to avoid counter-battery fires.
Another book that, while fiction, might prove both educational and entertaining is The Prince, by Jerry Pournelle and S. M. Stirling (ISBN 0743435567). This is a compilation of the Falkenberg's Legion saga into a single volume. Much of the story concerns a ultra-modern military force fighting a well-funded and equipped guerrilla/terrorist uprising.
All of which is to say that small teams of highly motivated and dedicated individuals can and do defeat much larger units of our armed forces. Now, I'm not suggesting that every pick-up truck full of heavily-armed rednecks fits this description, but I think you'll allow that some of them might.
I would further point out that every member of the U.S. armed forces swears an oath to "[...] support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic;".
Imagine for a moment a hypothetical future in which the people have staged a general revolt against the federal government of the United States. For the sake of argument assume that this is a good-faith revolution with the stated goal of the restoration of constitutional government to the U.S. Furthermore, assume that the arguments for armed revolt are legitimate and beyond reproach, and a neutral outside observer would say that the President was an enemy of the Constitution. Now imagine the minds of the commanders. They have sworn oaths to both defend the Constitution and obey the President, each of which is now in direct opposition. I believe that at least some unit commanders would chose to join the rebellion. For further reading please see The Origins of the Military Coup of 2012 by Lt. Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr.
You could say that the fact that the government troops would posses WMD might tip the balance in their favor, but I'm not sure even a cynical and corrupt U.S. regime would use WMD on their own soil. It is also unclear to me whether such WMD use would attract outside aid or intervention.
In conclusion, I think that the only time armed revolt b
My, er... hypothosis -- theories are actually well reasoned and researched which this comment certainly isn't -- is that the US has been doing this, after a fashion, for nearly a century.
Consider this: Each year, from just about every high-school in the US, a group of at least 22 young men graduates that have been specially trained in working as a team during close-order conflict with an enemy. This team is composed of young men with varying specialties such as leadership, deception and subtlety, speed and agility, and strength and power. These categories map nicely to military concepts such as officers, scouts, riflemen, and heavy-weapons crews. These young men are constantly drilled, exceptionally fit, and used to harsh discipline. Of course I speak of those high-school heros, the (US) football team.
Basically every high-school in the US turns approximately one infantry platoon worth of fit and disciplined men every year. According to my calculations (admittedly based on my imperfect understanding of current US Army Light Infantry Division TOE) this yields around three modern Infantry Battalions per 50 schools (i.e. One Division's worth of foot-soldiers). That's just the football teams mind you.
In this all-volunteer era, perhaps this isn't so significant. However, until the end of the draft in 1973, this constituted a significant strategic advantage for the US, as war planners could count on a steady stream of suitable men.
Given that these are the facts, let's look down the rabbit hole and see what we find...
The game of US Football was invented at the end of the 19th century. The main credit for this is given to a man named Walter Camp, born April 17, 1859, in the city of New Haven, Connecticut. He was a star athlete, making varsity for every sport in which he participated. He also had a fine mind, rising to the top of the New Haven Clock Company during his career. Some of you may have guessed that Mr. Camp also attended his home-town university, Yale. Couple this with the fact that football's popularity started with competitions between Yale and her fellow Ivy League schools and it's almost like a "paint-your-own-consipracy" kit.
Please understand, I am in no way seriously suggesting during the late 1800s the finest minds in the US conspired to design a game such that it would be almost tailor-made for training young men into military roles. Nor did they with malice of forethought set out to invent a game that would eventually be played in just about every secondary-school in the United Sates. And I am certainly not suggesting that these great minds could predict that their game would eventually churn out many division's worth of men each year. To the best of my ability to determine, the men who invented football were simply athletes tired of English-style Rugby. They wanted an American game. It does make you think though.
In conclusion, I believe that, whether by accident or design, such a set-up could be fairly described as exactly what the parent post insinuated: A Soldier Factory.
I can't tell if this is satire or a troll, which in my mind marks it as a first class example of either form.
Either way, nicely done, revery!
You ask how I fare? Friend, would you believe I am stoked?
I once had the kind of soul-crushing, life-draining job I see you describe: Cram-downs from the management, missed paydays, and a stunning sale announcement just before all the employees were handed their hats and rushed off at the end of a workday. This was back when the net was just emerging from itâ(TM)s embryonic form, long before Arthur Anderson and Enron. Harder to handle was the constant belittlement from management because I had funny ideas about this Internet thing, and it was something they knew little of and understood even less. I made plenty of big mistakes, it was my first âoerealâ job. I freely admit I was far from a model employee. Of course, I didnâ(TM)t personally raid the pension fund and try to screw my ex-employees out of their 401k money either.
In the ensuing years I found occasional work as a consultant, but couldnâ(TM)t seem to find the right environment to settle down in. Not to mention the trials and tribulations of independent consulting including nightmare environments, contract shenanigans, evil-doing clients, and the classic, âoeI never said that,â defense. While never soul-crushing per se, these engagements did range from hair-raising to nut-clenching.
Finally though, Iâ(TM)ve managed to come up with something that works for me in the sense that I get to control my own destiny, I do work that satisfies me creatively, and I donâ(TM)t have to add nearly as many people to my Book of Grudges. Being able to live with the person I see in the mirror each morning is also quite a bonus.
The first big question is what is your status as a business entity?
If youâ(TM)re employed through a contract agency, youâ(TM)re kind of stuck. They are effectively your bosses. You are their employee. As such your arrangement with the customer is constrained by whatever your company has set up with them. They charge the customer more than you cost, and keep the profits. Try to go to work for a customer and theyâ(TM)ll bitch up a storm. Still, this can be an okay deal, as long as you can find an honest outfit to work for.
On the other hand, if you have your own company, you have more flexibility. The customer contracts with your company to provide some service. Thatâ(TM)s your job. Of course, you also have to handle all the business development, billing, taxes and such that go along with having a small business. On the upside, you keep the profits that would have gone to the agent. The downside is youâ(TM)ll have to pay for any benefits like health insurance or retirement out of those profits. The nature of the arrangement with the customer is up to you. The trick is to manage it to your advantage.
If you think of the customer as the boss, or let them force you into the role of employee, youâ(TM)re out of the game before it even started. Theyâ(TM)ll treat you like a regular employee. They might even put you through their regular interview process. You get all the responsibility and headaches of being an employee, without most of the benefits. In the end, of course, you are only a contractor and not a real employee, and as such disposable and interchangeable. Geeksploitation, if you will. There are some places where being a contract employee (as opposed to a consultant) isnâ(TM)t so bad, but they also donâ(TM)t tend to have openings.
Alternatively, you can think of yourself as the boss of your consulting firm and your customer as your Client. By Client I mean not just the party by which your firm is being retained to perform certain services at some rate of compensation, but also the notion of a valued customer with whom your firm can form a lasting and mutually beneficial relationship. Contract negotiation is beyond the scope of this discussion, but it is critical your contract meets your needs as well as your clients. All too often the legal dep
The INL still has a homepage, though it hasn't been updated since the fall. The INL is pretty much the only competative netrek league.
They definately still play. I get traffic on my team's mailing list about games and times. (Shoutz Outz to SMACK Pack! Kick the plasma old school boyz!) I'm so rusty and old that I don't even practice anymore though.
Blackraven,
SMACK Pack SC Bomber Emeritus
I guess I won't have to sell crack anymore now that I can almost take a date to the movies.
A quick Google for 60 Minutes and Echelon turned up this transcript of a 60 Minutes piece I once saw on Echelon.
As I recall, the jist of the story is that Echelon basically intercepts every possible bit that it can, all over the world. (The man interviewed states, "Every square inch [of planet Earth].") However, both the US and UK have anti-domestic-spying legislation that the intellegence community finds inconvenient. Thus the UK spys on US citizens and vice-versa. Then they swap the intel. All of which, believe or not, is perfectly legal and above board, apparently.
While this legerdemain is very clever, I judge it to be immoral and without honor. To think that, at least in the US, most of these men swear an oath to defend the United States and the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Absolutely without honor.
A quick Google for 60 Minutes and Echelon turned up this transcript of a 60 Minutes piece I once saw on Echelon.
As I recall, the jist of the story is that Echelon basically intercepts every possible bit that it can, all over the world. (The man interviewed states, "Every square inch [of planet Earth].") However, both the US and UK have anti-domestic-spying legislation that the intellegence community finds inconvenient. Thus the UK spys on US citizens and vice-versa. Then they swap the intel. All of which, believe or not, is perfectly legal and above board, apparently.
While this legerdemain is very clever, I judge it to be immoral and without honor. To think that, at least in the US, most of these men swear an oath to defend the United States and the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Absolutely without honor.
I know this is two right ons in the same thread, but...
Right on, Man. My little voice keeps telling me to get out of the computer biz altogether. As someone else pointed out in a similar discussion, if you're going to take all the fun out of working in computing, what's the point?
Power to the People!
Right on, Man. Well said.
Power to the people!
I've read through the posts here and I think I see what is confusing everyone:
.45 Malt Liquor, it works every time.
Most people, no matter their class or station, can only learn manners at the point of a sword. It has always been thus, and isn't likely to change in the future. This is why I believe in bringing back the Code of the Duel. It would also go a long way towards clearing out the frivolous lawsuits in the court system.
All that being said, I think the proper way to handle especially rude cell phone users is to whip out your digital voice recorder and start recording their conversation. Consider:
"So then I told them that Uncle Roy's sores were healing up fine. Wait.. Hold on, Betty... What are you doing?"
"Just recording the ambient noise here for a music project I'm working on."
"Recording?!? This is a private conversation!"
"You're having a private conversation on a wireless phone in a public place?"
"Why, I... Uh... I gotta go, Betty. This really rude person is standing behind me in the checkout line."
Just like Colt