Why is it I have to take my fricken' shoes off at the airport -- when I'm a US citizen who has a house, a mortgage, two kids and a wife if it is perfectly fine to have a random "Outsourced programmer" write code for a Nuclear Missile? There is no way you can protect from all the avenues of attack from a committed person. Your best shot is to make sure you are dealing with allies. I mean, sure, check my shoes -- but make sure you know who is on the plane, and even more important -- who is in charge of security in the country. I don't think my shoes are nearly as dangerous as each hour with Donald Rumsfeld in charge.
Sure code review is important. But its just as dumb as checking shoes... it's about the people. If I were a person who wanted to bring down America, I could do all manner of physical mischief -- none of it with a receipt or with email, and so none of the massive spying the government does would have any effect. Oh, and I would also vote for Republicans (too easy). Not having radiation detectors at ports is a huge issue. Disenfranchising people and making them hate you is a huge issue. Blinking lights and puffs of air in a detector booth -- not so much.
If you cannot trust the people who work on a project -- you cannot trust the project. It isn't a simple matter of bug detection. I could be coding fine, taking pictures of the screen, and sending everything to my "comrade."
But this is about profit -- the only motive right now.
October 24, 2006 -- US Air Force official's past raises eyebrows. On December 7, 2005, the US Air Force officially recognized "cyberspace" as one of its warfare domains -- along with air and outer space. In early November, Air Force officials will gather in Washington to form a new US Air Force Command -- the Air Force Cyberspace Command. It will have authority to launch wars in cyberspace. The new command is largely the brainchild of Dr. Lani Kass, director of the Air Force Cyberspace Task Force.
Kass' past has many US government computer security officials puzzled and concerned. From 1979 to 1981, Kass served as a Major in the Israeli Defense Forces. This was at a time when Israel was targeting America's most closely held secrets through its Navy spy, Jonathan Pollard. After her service in the IDF, Kass integrated into the Washington national security establishment, the private sector serving as an entree. From 1982 to1985, Kass was Director of the Russian Research Center at Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Bethesda, Md. (an odd name considering that Russia was then called the Soviet Union by every national security entity). From 1985 to 2005, Kass was Professor of Military Strategy and Operations at National War College at National Defense University in Fort McNair, Washington.
Kass previously served in the Dick Cheney Defense Department, having worked from 1992 to 1993 as Special Assistant to the Director, Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate (J-5), Joint Staff at the Pentagon. She returned to the Pentagon under Defense Secretary William Cohen and continued to serve under Donald Rumsfeld. From 2000 to 2001, Kass was Senior Policy Adviser and Special Assistant for Strategic Initiatives to the Director, Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate (J-5) and from January 2006 to the present, she has been the Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force, and Director of CSAF's Cyberspace Task Force.
Lani Kass: Israeli Defense Force veteran heading up Air Force Cyberpace warriors.
>> So, we have a White House that seems it is appropriate, to set watchdogs on our most security sensitive departments, who have questionable loyalty? Last I checked, Israel was an ally but always won of questionable loyalty. When not selling technology to China, they seem to be a bit too fair weather for me.
We have problems that go way, way beyond simple software. We have a government that is questionable. Until that is solved, all these interesting points are moot.
When all the hubbub was going on about Dubai buying US ports. Our government sold them 7 military plants on US soil.
Then there are all our politicians, who it is so very difficult to tell if they are incompetent or working for some other foreign power to weaken the United States. Since it is so hard to tell, I have to ask; "what would be the difference?"
I don't think the world works the way we think it does, with pitched armies, and Communists plotting against Capitalists. I think it's just various spheres of influence by Criminal Syndicates who own the people in power, and then use the "debate issues" to keep the citizens of various countries worried about people in other countries invading them.
It's all an extortion racket. We don't need to fear China, or Libya... we just need to worry about the whim of what the Bernanke summit decides when it's time to draw straws on which country gets torn apart for profit. Obviously, Afghanistan and Iraq had the short straws in 2003.
Whatever software or hardware we elect to throw money at only matters for the various companies at the trough who get to get paid to keep the charade going.
Oh, and read the waynemadsenreport.com about the splendid profit that Afghanistan drug exports are making for the CIA and the Russian mob. UNOCAL gets its oil pipeline, and Dubai launders Opium profits. World continues to spin on its axis.
Thanks Slashdot Parent, you've done a better job making my point for me.
Would we accept a routine game that put a gun to our head and gave us a 1 in 200 chance of putting a bullet in our brain? No. But we ask that of pregnant mothers. The tests are NOT accurate -- there are false positives and then you get risk factors like "1 in 244" -- how useful is that? To me, it seems that there are some very useful tests, and then others that may be driven by labs wanting to charge for tests.
My wife had a miscarriage of our first son, and we suspect it was because of a Uterine ultrasound... also due to insecurity we had over other meaningless tests. We learned later that the fetus at two months should not have this sort of ultrasound because it can stop the heart. Otherwise, everything showed this fetus to be perfectly healthy.
So my wife went through the miscarriage, and had a D&C. We don't morn the "fetus" but it was a pretty sad and traumatic thing for my wife. She was really paranoid with the next attempt, so I went to every class I could with her -- for comfort.
On the second child (third pregnancy), I didn't bother with any tests, other than the standard. This one also was positive for Downs and also came out perfectly healthy (very much above average in size and intelligence). Other than education, taking good vitamins (get the ones from the health food store and take fatty acids -- ignore the prescribed crap vitamins), and some hand-holding, the pre-baby help was not very useful. I'm sure it would be with an abnormality -- but there would still be only two choices; go to term or abort. Would I want to do heart surgery in-vitro? No. Let nature take it's course and start over.
Until we have real control over health, moralizing and pretending we have "doctors" who can change the results is just a painful process of fooling ourselves.
Just be healthy, take it easy, deal with whatever happens. Best advice I can give.
If the risk went from 1 in 300 to 1 in 150, the risk went up, not down.
Of course-- your right. I meant to say it the other way. The ultrasound showing the baby's form being within norms reduced the chance of Downs Syndrome by half, from 1 in 150 to 1 in 300.
My point is that the amniocentesis test has about a 1 in 250 chance of causing severe damage to the baby.
So, we have tests that go to nervous mothers, and the results are less accurate than the chance of damage by further testing. Amniocentesis is the main technique but there are more.
The problem is, that stress and anxiety are at least as much of a health risk to pregnancy as any of these risk assessments. This became clear to me when helping my wife through her pregnancy. I attended about 10 different education classes just so that I could reassure her about risks.
Nobody worth voting for will ever run for office again, because they won't want to subject their family to constant paparazzi-style intimidation in their daily lives.
I think you are a little too late on that. Nobody worth voting for became the Republican party. Democrats merely became the choice for "no fascism, please."
I think it Ironic that the parent post talks about "Dean, shooting his mouth off." as though that were equivalent to Allen being a fascist. News Flash -- everyone has a spirited pep rally among their supporters. The only difference between Dean and all the other candidates was, that he was the only one criticizing the FCC for media consolidation the week before. The result? The "Yeehaw!" heard round the world was played over 2000 times that week. How is that a news story? It isn't, the Media was picking a tamer Democratic candidate for us.
"14erCleaner" proves the point that others make; People need to read about candidates. We have to go to publicly-funded elections, and we have to remove the horse-race nonsense that appears on TV. Public broadcasting, and free access to TV and Radio airwaves (which is included in broadcasting licenses) needs to be fairly distributed to candidates.
Otherwise, you let the media pick the candidate for people like 14erCleaner, who don't know anything about Howard Dean, but yet are easily manipulated by nonsense and cannot discern real outbursts from clips taken out of context.
The problem is the education and BS detecting abilities of the electorate -- The Bush Administration is only the natural symptom of the disease.
I can't totally disagree with your rebuttal. Democracy is the worst system-- except for all the others so far.
I'm just saying that, that Liberalism, is a fundamental faith in humans to be able to rise above themselves--that people can be tought to make good decisions.
Conservatives, I believe, have a fundamental distrust of Democracy, and so favor corporations because those who can pool capital have shown some decision-making skill. But Corporatism, ultimately becomes Fascism or Communism, because large corporations actually embrace the state and create barriers to entry.
That's what we are seeing now. I'd much rather the follow of the rabble in politics, than the corporation.
No, they've only had 6 years and millions of $ to get this right.
Do these things "happen" on your bank teller machine? No.
It's all these "little happy accidents" that add up. They always favor the Republicans. This story may prove to be "no big deal" but already in Georgia, we have reports that peoples ballots are getting thrown out for not using "the right number" from the drivers license.
Look, people are registered to vote by name on a list in each county. Trying to vote in more than one place is a pain, and a felony -- so that is a lot of risk that can only get a few votes for one individual. Meanwhile, there is no penalty for ChoicePoint accidentally throwing out 80,000 ballots in Florida in 2004. Why are these things never tested, or the voters informed with time to respond to questions about their right to vote? Um, because Republicans want to cheat... I think it's obvious.
A poorly registered touch screen could cause a lot of bad votes -- just like a butterfly ballot that has a check box on one side of the paper that doesn't line up with the name. The NeoCons can and do spend a lot of time thinking up these little tricks. Then they get to disparage the stupidity of the Liberal voters in the Media, and drown out people who are upset.
I'm mad as hell -- and there is no possible way for Republican candidates to NOT lose both the house and senate this November if the elections are honest. They have nothing but 100 moral scandals in the news, a failed economy, and two failed wars. They have nothing to win on.
There is going to have to be a squeeky-clean election to prove to me any integrity in the system, and right now all I trust is paper ballots that are counted by people from both parties.
When I had my first son, the test results came back "Positive" for Downs Syndrome. When I asked; "what are the chances?" The answer was; 1 in 300. How could we verify this? Amniosentisis (sorry about spelling) -- which is to sample the amniotic fluid in the spine of the baby. The risks were 1 in 244 (about) for killing the fetus.
We went with a detailed ultrasound, and the chances dropped to 1 in 150.
With about 300 different diseases tested in babies, I could see that to guarantee NO disease, you could easily do tests that would guarantee NO BABY.
I was pressured to make sure on these tests, because my wife was so anxious. Personally, I would prefer tests not even be implemented if they cannot provide a 1 in 100 chance or better. The stress caused by these false positives is more of a threat than the diseases, since for First Born children, about half never come to term (a lot of embryos don't come to term, but a woman won't be aware of them unless they test -- I could surmise this number has gone up because there are now more sensitive and cheaper tests).
There needs to be more privacy on these tests -- due to Insurance companies not wanting to insure sick people, and there needs to be more accuracy for real risks.
Why not make the leader whoever is willing to set up a coalition of business persons who will stop at nothing to attain power?
By quitting any other work but politics, they could devote themselves 100% to politics.
But because there may be other's trying to win power -- these people will have to push even harder. So they would be working on their attaining power, and not any sort of administration work -- that's for down-time.
And because they have 100% commitment, and are going to have to out-compete other 100% committed to attaining power individuals, they'll have to get financial sponsors -- forget about unreliable individual donations -- that's too much work. The candidate who consentrates on just a few deep pockets will often win over the populist. Just spend the money on good press.
So that means the politico will have to sell legislation for financial support.
So, by making it tougher to vote -- you will basically create the system we have now; Corporate Sponsored. Because average citizens don't have the time to get involved and so elites who show commitment shut them out.
>> I think a better system would be one of education and easier access. IF people don't understand why voting is important, then in a good Democracy, we should be teaching that. If you think that one person should get MORE votes because they think harder about it, then perhaps you really don't believe in Democracy.
>> I'd say the real reason that so many people don't vote, is that they ARE discouraged. They don't think it matters, they don't know who to trust, and they are too busy.
I agree that some might be just plain lazy... but again, that's education.
I think we could set up an online voting system. It's really the verification process that is crucial -- you allow the voter themselves to verify their own vote and the system just might work. All votes would ultimately be tied to a unique ID -- and the voter gets the UNIQUE ID to check online. Anonymous and 1 to 1 correlation.
>> You've just described why I think Libertarians are nuts; They want lots of roads, but apparently everyone must build their own. In a Libertarian society, there can be no infrastructure because everyone is a self-sufficient renaissance man/woman.
Though I would go along with no standing army, and every citizen spends a year in military or community service training for free college.
All Libertarians contradict themselves all the time. I know I'll get labelled as flame bait for this -- but it is absolutely true, and unless they realize their great logical flaw, they will always have NO power. It's kind of like the Republicans being against government and then getting office... you cannot have a modern society without government. The more you ignore the infrastructure and what we actually need government for, the more it will be abused.
Right now, our government seems to think it functions as a military resource procurement system to support multinational business. It doesn't see itself as a system that creates prosperity for its citizens, or education, or health. Does anyone see where this will lead? If government doesn't provide SOME safety net and protection for the health and jobs of its citizens, we all will have to stop work to get our spinach tested... people will lose confidence in a marketplace that allows Eli Lilly to put mercury in immunizations (to save money), and then helps that company cover it up.
Libertarians have not helped frame the right arguments. They should have been screaming about the loss of Habeus Corpus and Media Consolidation... not fricken' hand gun laws. Freedom of speech is so much more important than the right to bear arms -- because in an information economy, if you don't have the right information, you don't even know who is taking your liberty. By the time they come for the guns of the Rugged Individualists, it's too late.
From what I've heard we have 5 reporters in GitMo who have not been charged.
Also, about 72 have been killed in Iraq -- more than WW II and Vietnam combined.
Al Jazeera has had 3 stations "accidentally" blown up by the US, and there was a memo sent to Blair that showed Bush was asking for them to be targeted.
With Bush's Enabling Act signed, we may never know if individual reporters have just been taken-- labelled as enemy non-combatants.
Then we have at least 5 public incidents showing that reporters have received government money to support various Bush programs.
We have CBS getting rid of Dan Rather -- a seasoned and well respected journalist, for a document that has yet to be proven false -- just the accusation got him canned. While we have reporters who get things wrong all the time that favor the Bush administration who are doing just fine in their careers.
Then we have the Lincoln Group and various others that have received mucho dinero to create propaganda in Iraq and even Australia, that is then reported as news in the US -- all with the intention of creating the idea of a controversy over WMDs in Iraq.
About 90% of our media is owned now by 5 different corporations. Clearchannel has control of about 80% of radio.
NPR has had Bush appointed cronies at the top. Their business news features very conservative folks from the Wall Street Journal. As a Liberal, I've noticed them handling issues with kid gloves -- the idea that a "neutral" news organization would say that the election in 2004 in Ohio was "controversial" is utter garbage. The top three people, including Blackwell, who were in charge of elections in that state are under indictment. The fraud was mutlifaceted and massive. There were areas that had more votes for Bush than had registered voters. So the idea that it's just a lot of "controversy" and not just stone cold fraud, is a reflection of our compromised media. Take it from a Liberal; there is FSTV and there is the Keith Olberman show that might give you our side of the story. That's about it. CNN or NPR are just as watered down as Fox news.
>> Sorry to be a day late and a dollar short. I can understand that none of what I'm saying is getting reported. Try looking at the BBC or offshore news; you'll get huge stories like the Downing Street Memos. In the US, you will get days and days of a woman in Aruba.
>> I'm not a quantum expert, but this stuff seems to make a lot of sense to me -- at least if you are buying the drinks.
What a Quantum Cubit does, as I've read (and it makes sense in my Quantum imaginations), is it can compute ALL POSSIBLE ANSWERS at one time. When I flip this sheet of paper over, it also has some winning lottery numbers -- also made obsolete by Quantum Computers if you believe the hype -- but not really since all numbers are valid answers.
But conventional encryption won't work -- but passwords will. All possible solutions are available... But the problem is recognizing which one of the possible "solutions" is true. In a password, I would think that there is no right and wrong answer.
Like if I encrypted this page -- one of the possible solutions would be exactly what I wrote, and perhaps even a thousand "plausible" text messages that I never wrote.
You would then have to look at the solutions, and guess that it should be english, with at least decent grammar. So your "recognizing engine" is the critical part.
It doesn't make instantaneous "cracking" of all encryption -- but it does make it many magnitudes easier.
>> The other issue -- at a guess, is that the "Environment" has more impact on the Cubit. This is going to be many more times effected than simple magnetic media. But part of that could be solved by using multiple cubits and statistically sampling them. Any accidental environmental pollution that "collapses" the quantum computations by "observation" could be factored out. Computing power is CHEAP now -- but errors and erroneuous false "true" answers are your new problem. So you waste computing power to error check a lot more. I would think you'd also want to operate on differently "tuned" quantum materials -- but I guess they'll figure that out when the run into the issue. Don't say I didn't warn you.
This is about time when you need to pony up some Red Bull to put in my Vodka.
I think part of the problem is that we still have an old paradigms for Computing. I've thought for some time that the "off/on" bit is mainly a limit of "how" we compute. If we used light, for instance, we could use many overlapping frequencies and gates that sample "hue" or work on one color and not another. Instead of 24 off/on pulses for a character, you could have one value for a word.
This comes into play with Quantum Computing, because it is solving a "different thing." You still need conventional computing to figure out "which answer." So Douglas Adams was right, the answer is 42 but it takes a bigger computer to figure out what the question was.
The paper's authors, Lian-Ao Wu and Daniel Lidar of the University of Toronto in Canada, suggest that quantum malware could take on many guises. It might appear in the form of a highly destructive hidden logic gate that flips or erases quantum bits. Maybe it will be a quantum algorithm designed to scramble data in particularly malicious ways. What is certain is that it's coming. "The arrival of quantum malware," they warn, "is a matter of time."
I think this paper was published, because it could fill a writer's article with something he could understand "scary virus," about a subject that has no chance of getting him in trouble. Vista isn't even out yet... so there is no PowerPoint for Quantum to test the theory.
Nothing new there. It all depends upon the Logic and "computing" scientists will do AROUND the Quantum computing -- which I'm guessing at first will just do specific "tricks." Like store lots of data in holes, compute very complicated math quickly, and probably probability. It's all going to be in attacking the software AROUND the quantum bits. So its the LOGIC that will change. Like an encryption would be two algorithms rather than a discrete code. They would have infinite answers along a curve -- so finding the solution(s) would not help. Locking the access to a Quantum computer, when you have other Quantum computers and
Take the main course of Elementary to College books necessary and buy up a decent version of English, Math, General Science, and whatever others are popular and on budget.
Universities could then make part of the education professorship, to add to the WikiUniversity.
A big expense of students and schools is books -- why the government doesn't enlist the aide of Universities to supply them -- well that is an entire blog in itself. The idea that Math and English need the "new" $100 book to replace the old one is silly, but Wikipedia could go a long way to FREE cash-strapped schools from the tyranny of "closed-market" educational books.
I wonder if this device bends light, or just makes it "transparent" to certain frequencies like Microwaves.
Randomized crystals create glass, perhaps a randomized carrier frequency could make solids transparent to microwaves. The tip here could be the materials chosen -- and thus this would only work for machines made of such material, rather than as some sort of vehicle a person could ride in.
My guess is you could create a camera, a transmitter, and some sort of hover device and cloak it in these materials. The trick would be to do all that, and then make it not leave an infra-red or electromagnetic trace, as I'm sure the trick they are using would produce a bit of the latter and some of the former to "tune" the meta-materials. It's two-dimensional because the wave pattern is directed -- I'm guessing the 3-dimensional "transparency" would require a lot more computation.
>> Of course there is a way to do this and it would make an object "not effected by Gravity." But it wouldn't create a pocket universe or actually control gravitons (which I'm thinking are more like threaded vacuums or miniture wormholes if you want to describe them). This effect I call Gravity Lensing, but I wouldn't go into any more detail than that... any more than that and I'll have to destroy my collection of comic books. Marvell and DC are already on my trail.;-)
The "Gartner Group" I believe is just One Dude. His prognostications seem to be very influenced, if you ask me. Why anyone quotes him probably has much to do with what they want to say anyway, but it just sounds better coming from a "Respected Research Group."
If America shut down grain exports, most of Africa would starve -- quickly.
If you do a search on world leaders who have been caught up in really disgusting abuses of power, people, and kids, you will get a who's who list of the people involved.
LEADERS are compromised and corrupted and become part of our Empire -- we don't bother with expensive standing armies. How many troops did we have in Iraq when Reagan and Bush were sending weapons, nerve agents, and nuclear materials to Iraq? Saddam was our man. We supported Al Qaeda when they were tearing part the USSR. They got in our way over a UNOCAL gas pipeline, and now we are in Afghanistan -- Pipeline is now complete.
The idea that you are going to see something on a map, or tanks and guns patrolling a border is very old fashioned. The real control is in a Bank somewhere. The only difference between the Mob and our government is a matter of scale.
Read the Book; "Confessions of an Economic Hitman."
>> We don't need to "control" the country -- we OWN the leader of that country. Guatemala is a clear example. Our organizations have been assasinating politicians in oil-rich and latin American nations for years to allow our banking and corporate interests access. Then the country goes into debt and becomes dependent on the World Bank. Right now, this World Bank is strong-arming debtor nations to support Guatemala at the UN rather than Venezuela. All so that South Korea can put their man in charge of the UN who is backed by the Moonies. Convoluted stuff, eh?
But it's also what happened when we rigged elections in the Ukraine and Mexico -- perhaps even the Conservative (NeoCon) leader in Candada. And who can forget the NeoCon leader in Israel? Didn't a man get shot and then he got the position? Yeah, read the current news; He's suspected for pedophilia, embezzling, and physically abusing a woman. Seems to fit right in with the rest who seem connected in this ring of exploiting nations for their resources and screwing the common man in those countries.
It's all about profit and it all seems to head to offshore banks. So America can expect the same results from Globalization as the third-world. We will all be in debt, and working off debts we never incurred.
We already support the MEK in our country, which is backed by the Hezbollah (Iran) and ALSO the CIA. Go figure.
Jeb Bush is best friends with the man who blew up a Cuban airliner.
>> So when you say "imperialistic" that is a quaint notion from when we had decliared kings and nations. I couldn't even tell you the Trustees holding the cards here, because it would be in a holding company somewhere. You could start with Bernanke and Carlysle, however.
Sorry to sound like a nut -- but I'm just telling you the exact truth, no matter how much it might veer from your view of the world.
" For 50 years we've pretended that things were different in space; everyone would ignore national rivalries and history and stare with awe at the daring feats of cosmonauts and astronauts. It was a nice fantasy and flew in the face of reality. The Apollo missions grew out of a fear of sleeping "under a communist moon." " >> We couldn't trust it so we went ahead and broke it before anyone else?
Nuclear non-proliferation worked well, until Bush exited the system in 2003. Now there is no incentive to NOT go nuclear.
The same can be said of weaponizing space... if the country with the most power to abuse the system can refrain and set up a system to police abuse, then there is a great incentive for lesser powers to NOT abuse the system. But, by breaking trust ahead of time, there is NO incentive to NOT weaponize.
That sort of logic is doomed to failure.
Also, look at past discussions on this topic -- it would be relatively easy to blow up a few tons of shratnel in space and make it impossible for any satellites to exist for years. -- Denying space to everyone seems like a good option for nations who are totally out-classed by a US weaponized space system, and pretty easy to accomplish.
Create a very powerful cannon, and it doesn't matter if we have total pre-emption of all "space lanes" -- the rail-gun could just launch junk into space. Game over. You don't need to have a space program. Even North Korea without a super gun (AFAIK), could use a nuclear-powered rocket and blast junk into space. A few 1kiloton timed explosions can achieve orbit if you don't care about the mess.
This idea, like so many from the NeoCons, seems morally bankrupt and poorly thought-out. People like this could never make a living in the private sector. You might as well waste another half-trillion $ on a failed anti-missile, missile system.
>> Could we call collective decision-making Democracy?
Selective decision-making is good with Engineering -- I don't want to launch a rocket on what most people think.
What is missing here is the "information dessemination." I think if a large group of people is made to understand the underlying facts, groups of people can make "wise" choices.
But that is the problem; having the time, initiative and coordination to get people to understand the situation. Into this gulf steps the "expert." The expert digests all the information, and gives us the opinion that we would probably form -- ideally.
But, after all the "expertisation" of information digesting we have experienced in the 1980s -- well this just created a new environment for the Propagandist.
The Propagandist digests all the information, and finds what fits the scheme they are paid to support. To the Public at large, when the propagandist is presented like an Expert, they are giving pre-chewed propaganda -- not pre-digested information.
What we really need is an organization, paid by the public, that becomes a mediator or authority that grants and removes "expert" status. That used to be some of the role of the Public Broadcasting Service.
What we have now is nothing but a Corporate/Political shill-fest masquerading as information. Whatever mathematical formula you might want to use, must come up with a way to disincentivize the "deceiver" in the mix.
Because even if you want a model for a Democratic decision-making system, you still have to look at the person counting the votes. What is that persons agenda, and how do we make them honest.
The trick to this system might be to place "secret voters" and fake Propagandists -- if the authorities in charge do not exlude or penalize these people, then the system is broken. You still have the issue of making a credible false "deceiver" in the mix, but until the system can handle both INFORMATION propagation in an a-political way, and can verify that the system has not been corrupted to favor an agenda -- the system is going to get corrupted.
Like what we have in America today, if you want to be honest about it.
No working 14 hours a day, and liking it is called "indoctrinated."
Yeah, been there, done that. I want to "have a life." Why should someone be proud that they worked 80 hours a week to make someone else rich?
It's fine that people work hard and try to better themselves, but that shouldn't just be the goal. But business want's more labor cheaper, so they keep pushing out the message that the only value is productivity and purchasing. Occassionally, I want to see my son play soccer. Getting more "time off" makes me feel like a winner now.
I think the idea that "all Indian support is exceptional" is because we are used to meeting the exceptional from that country. I'm pretty sure that when you deal with the "Average Indian" -- you aren't going to be getting any better of a worker talent-wise. Work ethic is another factor -- but I suppose a lot of that culture is effected by "easy living" and a sense of "opportunity" -- so first generation immigrants in America are hard workers, while by comparison their children are closer to average. When India has a Billion people -- you have a larger pool of exceptional people to pick from, and they are relatively cheap. But as business moves to India, wages will rise and the exceptional people will be harder to find for the same money.
Of course then a business can outsource to China. But eventually, you end up with the "average" person to hire.
The average school in America is probably not doing a great job -- too many political "fixes" that don't try to find the best solution. Just look at "No Child Left Behind" forcing schools to teach to the test -- who uses "tests" when figuring out problems in a business? But even with the rapid reduction in education quality, we still have very good top schools like MIT -- as good as anywhere. The big difference is, that India and China are seeing education as a resource, and are investing in it... while in our country there is the constant pressure to chase the lowest common denominator. Culturally we have a real problem.
But then, the Heyday of America is probably come and gone -- everything changes.
But once you move the important technical parts of your business, to say India, what is to prevent the people who know how to do your business from just moving across the street one day and creating a business to compete with you? How short-sighted is this lack of loyalty to America for a few more points of profit?
In a few years, Boeing will be competing like Ford with a Chinese airplane manufacturer that will be using all of the technology and training that Boeing taught the good people of China. The race for cheap labor will eventually backfire on the executive class -- because I'm sure that it's a lot easier to replace them "brain wise" than to replace an aeronautics engineer.
Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina came out and spoke against this new power quite eloquently.
Giving the "President the tools he needs for this war," are only necessary when they have no evidence. If the government has evidence, they can follow habeus corpus. When they have NO CASE AT ALL, they can "use the special tools" and you are in much worse shape.
Notice the number of trials that we've seen? Must be a lot of need for "special tools to fight this war," going on.
Slashdot Mirror
Either we have "foreign enemies" or we don't.
Why is it I have to take my fricken' shoes off at the airport -- when I'm a US citizen who has a house, a mortgage, two kids and a wife if it is perfectly fine to have a random "Outsourced programmer" write code for a Nuclear Missile? There is no way you can protect from all the avenues of attack from a committed person. Your best shot is to make sure you are dealing with allies. I mean, sure, check my shoes -- but make sure you know who is on the plane, and even more important -- who is in charge of security in the country. I don't think my shoes are nearly as dangerous as each hour with Donald Rumsfeld in charge.
Sure code review is important. But its just as dumb as checking shoes... it's about the people. If I were a person who wanted to bring down America, I could do all manner of physical mischief -- none of it with a receipt or with email, and so none of the massive spying the government does would have any effect. Oh, and I would also vote for Republicans (too easy). Not having radiation detectors at ports is a huge issue. Disenfranchising people and making them hate you is a huge issue. Blinking lights and puffs of air in a detector booth -- not so much.
If you cannot trust the people who work on a project -- you cannot trust the project. It isn't a simple matter of bug detection. I could be coding fine, taking pictures of the screen, and sending everything to my "comrade."
But this is about profit -- the only motive right now.
And even when you solve the "outsourcing problem" we have a MAJOR ISSUE, with this; http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
October 24, 2006 -- US Air Force official's past raises eyebrows. On December 7, 2005, the US Air Force officially recognized "cyberspace" as one of its warfare domains -- along with air and outer space. In early November, Air Force officials will gather in Washington to form a new US Air Force Command -- the Air Force Cyberspace Command. It will have authority to launch wars in cyberspace. The new command is largely the brainchild of Dr. Lani Kass, director of the Air Force Cyberspace Task Force.
Kass' past has many US government computer security officials puzzled and concerned. From 1979 to 1981, Kass served as a Major in the Israeli Defense Forces. This was at a time when Israel was targeting America's most closely held secrets through its Navy spy, Jonathan Pollard. After her service in the IDF, Kass integrated into the Washington national security establishment, the private sector serving as an entree. From 1982 to1985, Kass was Director of the Russian Research Center at Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Bethesda, Md. (an odd name considering that Russia was then called the Soviet Union by every national security entity). From 1985 to 2005, Kass was Professor of Military Strategy and Operations at National War College at National Defense University in Fort McNair, Washington.
Kass previously served in the Dick Cheney Defense Department, having worked from 1992 to 1993 as Special Assistant to the Director, Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate (J-5), Joint Staff at the Pentagon. She returned to the Pentagon under Defense Secretary William Cohen and continued to serve under Donald Rumsfeld. From 2000 to 2001, Kass was Senior Policy Adviser and Special Assistant for Strategic Initiatives to the Director, Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate (J-5) and from January 2006 to the present, she has been the Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force, and Director of CSAF's Cyberspace Task Force.
Lani Kass: Israeli Defense Force veteran heading up Air Force Cyberpace warriors.
>> So, we have a White House that seems it is appropriate, to set watchdogs on our most security sensitive departments, who have questionable loyalty? Last I checked, Israel was an ally but always won of questionable loyalty. When not selling technology to China, they seem to be a bit too fair weather for me.
We have problems that go way, way beyond simple software. We have a government that is questionable. Until that is solved, all these interesting points are moot.
Think hardware.
When all the hubbub was going on about Dubai buying US ports. Our government sold them 7 military plants on US soil.
Then there are all our politicians, who it is so very difficult to tell if they are incompetent or working for some other foreign power to weaken the United States. Since it is so hard to tell, I have to ask; "what would be the difference?"
I don't think the world works the way we think it does, with pitched armies, and Communists plotting against Capitalists. I think it's just various spheres of influence by Criminal Syndicates who own the people in power, and then use the "debate issues" to keep the citizens of various countries worried about people in other countries invading them.
It's all an extortion racket. We don't need to fear China, or Libya... we just need to worry about the whim of what the Bernanke summit decides when it's time to draw straws on which country gets torn apart for profit. Obviously, Afghanistan and Iraq had the short straws in 2003.
Whatever software or hardware we elect to throw money at only matters for the various companies at the trough who get to get paid to keep the charade going.
Oh, and read the waynemadsenreport.com about the splendid profit that Afghanistan drug exports are making for the CIA and the Russian mob. UNOCAL gets its oil pipeline, and Dubai launders Opium profits. World continues to spin on its axis.
Thanks Slashdot Parent, you've done a better job making my point for me.
Would we accept a routine game that put a gun to our head and gave us a 1 in 200 chance of putting a bullet in our brain? No. But we ask that of pregnant mothers. The tests are NOT accurate -- there are false positives and then you get risk factors like "1 in 244" -- how useful is that? To me, it seems that there are some very useful tests, and then others that may be driven by labs wanting to charge for tests.
My wife had a miscarriage of our first son, and we suspect it was because of a Uterine ultrasound... also due to insecurity we had over other meaningless tests. We learned later that the fetus at two months should not have this sort of ultrasound because it can stop the heart. Otherwise, everything showed this fetus to be perfectly healthy.
So my wife went through the miscarriage, and had a D&C. We don't morn the "fetus" but it was a pretty sad and traumatic thing for my wife. She was really paranoid with the next attempt, so I went to every class I could with her -- for comfort.
On the second child (third pregnancy), I didn't bother with any tests, other than the standard. This one also was positive for Downs and also came out perfectly healthy (very much above average in size and intelligence). Other than education, taking good vitamins (get the ones from the health food store and take fatty acids -- ignore the prescribed crap vitamins), and some hand-holding, the pre-baby help was not very useful. I'm sure it would be with an abnormality -- but there would still be only two choices; go to term or abort. Would I want to do heart surgery in-vitro? No. Let nature take it's course and start over.
Until we have real control over health, moralizing and pretending we have "doctors" who can change the results is just a painful process of fooling ourselves.
Just be healthy, take it easy, deal with whatever happens. Best advice I can give.
If the risk went from 1 in 300 to 1 in 150, the risk went up, not down.
Of course-- your right. I meant to say it the other way. The ultrasound showing the baby's form being within norms reduced the chance of Downs Syndrome by half, from 1 in 150 to 1 in 300.
My point is that the amniocentesis test has about a 1 in 250 chance of causing severe damage to the baby.
So, we have tests that go to nervous mothers, and the results are less accurate than the chance of damage by further testing. Amniocentesis is the main technique but there are more.
The problem is, that stress and anxiety are at least as much of a health risk to pregnancy as any of these risk assessments. This became clear to me when helping my wife through her pregnancy. I attended about 10 different education classes just so that I could reassure her about risks.
Or.... more likely....
Nobody worth voting for will ever run for office again, because they won't want to subject their family to constant paparazzi-style intimidation in their daily lives.
I think you are a little too late on that. Nobody worth voting for became the Republican party. Democrats merely became the choice for "no fascism, please."
I think it Ironic that the parent post talks about "Dean, shooting his mouth off." as though that were equivalent to Allen being a fascist. News Flash -- everyone has a spirited pep rally among their supporters. The only difference between Dean and all the other candidates was, that he was the only one criticizing the FCC for media consolidation the week before. The result? The "Yeehaw!" heard round the world was played over 2000 times that week. How is that a news story? It isn't, the Media was picking a tamer Democratic candidate for us.
"14erCleaner" proves the point that others make; People need to read about candidates.
We have to go to publicly-funded elections, and we have to remove the horse-race nonsense that appears on TV. Public broadcasting, and free access to TV and Radio airwaves (which is included in broadcasting licenses) needs to be fairly distributed to candidates.
Otherwise, you let the media pick the candidate for people like 14erCleaner, who don't know anything about Howard Dean, but yet are easily manipulated by nonsense and cannot discern real outbursts from clips taken out of context.
The problem is the education and BS detecting abilities of the electorate -- The Bush Administration is only the natural symptom of the disease.
I can't totally disagree with your rebuttal. Democracy is the worst system-- except for all the others so far.
I'm just saying that, that Liberalism, is a fundamental faith in humans to be able to rise above themselves--that people can be tought to make good decisions.
Conservatives, I believe, have a fundamental distrust of Democracy, and so favor corporations because those who can pool capital have shown some decision-making skill. But Corporatism, ultimately becomes Fascism or Communism, because large corporations actually embrace the state and create barriers to entry.
That's what we are seeing now. I'd much rather the follow of the rabble in politics, than the corporation.
No, they've only had 6 years and millions of $ to get this right.
Do these things "happen" on your bank teller machine? No.
It's all these "little happy accidents" that add up. They always favor the Republicans. This story may prove to be "no big deal" but already in Georgia, we have reports that peoples ballots are getting thrown out for not using "the right number" from the drivers license.
Look, people are registered to vote by name on a list in each county. Trying to vote in more than one place is a pain, and a felony -- so that is a lot of risk that can only get a few votes for one individual. Meanwhile, there is no penalty for ChoicePoint accidentally throwing out 80,000 ballots in Florida in 2004. Why are these things never tested, or the voters informed with time to respond to questions about their right to vote? Um, because Republicans want to cheat... I think it's obvious.
A poorly registered touch screen could cause a lot of bad votes -- just like a butterfly ballot that has a check box on one side of the paper that doesn't line up with the name. The NeoCons can and do spend a lot of time thinking up these little tricks. Then they get to disparage the stupidity of the Liberal voters in the Media, and drown out people who are upset.
I'm mad as hell -- and there is no possible way for Republican candidates to NOT lose both the house and senate this November if the elections are honest. They have nothing but 100 moral scandals in the news, a failed economy, and two failed wars. They have nothing to win on.
There is going to have to be a squeeky-clean election to prove to me any integrity in the system, and right now all I trust is paper ballots that are counted by people from both parties.
Great point parent.
When I had my first son, the test results came back "Positive" for Downs Syndrome. When I asked; "what are the chances?" The answer was; 1 in 300. How could we verify this? Amniosentisis (sorry about spelling) -- which is to sample the amniotic fluid in the spine of the baby. The risks were 1 in 244 (about) for killing the fetus.
We went with a detailed ultrasound, and the chances dropped to 1 in 150.
With about 300 different diseases tested in babies, I could see that to guarantee NO disease, you could easily do tests that would guarantee NO BABY.
I was pressured to make sure on these tests, because my wife was so anxious. Personally, I would prefer tests not even be implemented if they cannot provide a 1 in 100 chance or better. The stress caused by these false positives is more of a threat than the diseases, since for First Born children, about half never come to term (a lot of embryos don't come to term, but a woman won't be aware of them unless they test -- I could surmise this number has gone up because there are now more sensitive and cheaper tests).
There needs to be more privacy on these tests -- due to Insurance companies not wanting to insure sick people, and there needs to be more accuracy for real risks.
Why stop there?
Why not make the leader whoever is willing to set up a coalition of business persons who will stop at nothing to attain power?
By quitting any other work but politics, they could devote themselves 100% to politics.
But because there may be other's trying to win power -- these people will have to push even harder. So they would be working on their attaining power, and not any sort of administration work -- that's for down-time.
And because they have 100% commitment, and are going to have to out-compete other 100% committed to attaining power individuals, they'll have to get financial sponsors -- forget about unreliable individual donations -- that's too much work. The candidate who consentrates on just a few deep pockets will often win over the populist. Just spend the money on good press.
So that means the politico will have to sell legislation for financial support.
So, by making it tougher to vote -- you will basically create the system we have now; Corporate Sponsored. Because average citizens don't have the time to get involved and so elites who show commitment shut them out.
>> I think a better system would be one of education and easier access. IF people don't understand why voting is important, then in a good Democracy, we should be teaching that. If you think that one person should get MORE votes because they think harder about it, then perhaps you really don't believe in Democracy.
>> I'd say the real reason that so many people don't vote, is that they ARE discouraged. They don't think it matters, they don't know who to trust, and they are too busy.
I agree that some might be just plain lazy... but again, that's education.
I think we could set up an online voting system. It's really the verification process that is crucial -- you allow the voter themselves to verify their own vote and the system just might work. All votes would ultimately be tied to a unique ID -- and the voter gets the UNIQUE ID to check online. Anonymous and 1 to 1 correlation.
>> You've just described why I think Libertarians are nuts;
... not fricken' hand gun laws. Freedom of speech is so much more important than the right to bear arms -- because in an information economy, if you don't have the right information, you don't even know who is taking your liberty. By the time they come for the guns of the Rugged Individualists, it's too late.
They want lots of roads, but apparently everyone must build their own.
In a Libertarian society, there can be no infrastructure because everyone is a self-sufficient renaissance man/woman.
Though I would go along with no standing army, and every citizen spends a year in military or community service training for free college.
All Libertarians contradict themselves all the time. I know I'll get labelled as flame bait for this -- but it is absolutely true, and unless they realize their great logical flaw, they will always have NO power. It's kind of like the Republicans being against government and then getting office... you cannot have a modern society without government. The more you ignore the infrastructure and what we actually need government for, the more it will be abused.
Right now, our government seems to think it functions as a military resource procurement system to support multinational business. It doesn't see itself as a system that creates prosperity for its citizens, or education, or health. Does anyone see where this will lead? If government doesn't provide SOME safety net and protection for the health and jobs of its citizens, we all will have to stop work to get our spinach tested... people will lose confidence in a marketplace that allows Eli Lilly to put mercury in immunizations (to save money), and then helps that company cover it up.
Libertarians have not helped frame the right arguments. They should have been screaming about the loss of Habeus Corpus and Media Consolidation
>> Jinkies, I was instantly worried that the Bush Crime Syndicate had made a mistake and allowed a pro-Citizen bureaucrat into a position of power.
I should have realized we'd never get that lucky.
From what I've heard we have 5 reporters in GitMo who have not been charged.
Also, about 72 have been killed in Iraq -- more than WW II and Vietnam combined.
Al Jazeera has had 3 stations "accidentally" blown up by the US, and there was a memo sent to Blair that showed Bush was asking for them to be targeted.
With Bush's Enabling Act signed, we may never know if individual reporters have just been taken-- labelled as enemy non-combatants.
Then we have at least 5 public incidents showing that reporters have received government money to support various Bush programs.
We have CBS getting rid of Dan Rather -- a seasoned and well respected journalist, for a document that has yet to be proven false -- just the accusation got him canned. While we have reporters who get things wrong all the time that favor the Bush administration who are doing just fine in their careers.
Then we have the Lincoln Group and various others that have received mucho dinero to create propaganda in Iraq and even Australia, that is then reported as news in the US -- all with the intention of creating the idea of a controversy over WMDs in Iraq.
About 90% of our media is owned now by 5 different corporations. Clearchannel has control of about 80% of radio.
NPR has had Bush appointed cronies at the top. Their business news features very conservative folks from the Wall Street Journal. As a Liberal, I've noticed them handling issues with kid gloves -- the idea that a "neutral" news organization would say that the election in 2004 in Ohio was "controversial" is utter garbage. The top three people, including Blackwell, who were in charge of elections in that state are under indictment. The fraud was mutlifaceted and massive. There were areas that had more votes for Bush than had registered voters. So the idea that it's just a lot of "controversy" and not just stone cold fraud, is a reflection of our compromised media. Take it from a Liberal; there is FSTV and there is the Keith Olberman show that might give you our side of the story. That's about it. CNN or NPR are just as watered down as Fox news.
>> Sorry to be a day late and a dollar short. I can understand that none of what I'm saying is getting reported. Try looking at the BBC or offshore news; you'll get huge stories like the Downing Street Memos. In the US, you will get days and days of a woman in Aruba.
>> I'm not a quantum expert, but this stuff seems to make a lot of sense to me -- at least if you are buying the drinks.
.. But the problem is recognizing which one of the possible "solutions" is true. In a password, I would think that there is no right and wrong answer.
... so there is no PowerPoint for Quantum to test the theory.
What a Quantum Cubit does, as I've read (and it makes sense in my Quantum imaginations), is it can compute ALL POSSIBLE ANSWERS at one time. When I flip this sheet of paper over, it also has some winning lottery numbers -- also made obsolete by Quantum Computers if you believe the hype -- but not really since all numbers are valid answers.
But conventional encryption won't work -- but passwords will. All possible solutions are available.
Like if I encrypted this page -- one of the possible solutions would be exactly what I wrote, and perhaps even a thousand "plausible" text messages that I never wrote.
You would then have to look at the solutions, and guess that it should be english, with at least decent grammar. So your "recognizing engine" is the critical part.
It doesn't make instantaneous "cracking" of all encryption -- but it does make it many magnitudes easier.
>> The other issue -- at a guess, is that the "Environment" has more impact on the Cubit. This is going to be many more times effected than simple magnetic media. But part of that could be solved by using multiple cubits and statistically sampling them. Any accidental environmental pollution that "collapses" the quantum computations by "observation" could be factored out. Computing power is CHEAP now -- but errors and erroneuous false "true" answers are your new problem. So you waste computing power to error check a lot more. I would think you'd also want to operate on differently "tuned" quantum materials -- but I guess they'll figure that out when the run into the issue. Don't say I didn't warn you.
This is about time when you need to pony up some Red Bull to put in my Vodka.
I think part of the problem is that we still have an old paradigms for Computing. I've thought for some time that the "off/on" bit is mainly a limit of "how" we compute. If we used light, for instance, we could use many overlapping frequencies and gates that sample "hue" or work on one color and not another. Instead of 24 off/on pulses for a character, you could have one value for a word.
This comes into play with Quantum Computing, because it is solving a "different thing." You still need conventional computing to figure out "which answer." So Douglas Adams was right, the answer is 42 but it takes a bigger computer to figure out what the question was.
The paper's authors, Lian-Ao Wu and Daniel Lidar of the University of Toronto in Canada, suggest that quantum malware could take on many guises. It might appear in the form of a highly destructive hidden logic gate that flips or erases quantum bits. Maybe it will be a quantum algorithm designed to scramble data in particularly malicious ways. What is certain is that it's coming. "The arrival of quantum malware," they warn, "is a matter of time."
I think this paper was published, because it could fill a writer's article with something he could understand "scary virus," about a subject that has no chance of getting him in trouble. Vista isn't even out yet
Nothing new there. It all depends upon the Logic and "computing" scientists will do AROUND the Quantum computing -- which I'm guessing at first will just do specific "tricks." Like store lots of data in holes, compute very complicated math quickly, and probably probability. It's all going to be in attacking the software AROUND the quantum bits. So its the LOGIC that will change. Like an encryption would be two algorithms rather than a discrete code. They would have infinite answers along a curve -- so finding the solution(s) would not help. Locking the access to a Quantum computer, when you have other Quantum computers and
Take the main course of Elementary to College books necessary and buy up a decent version of English, Math, General Science, and whatever others are popular and on budget.
Universities could then make part of the education professorship, to add to the WikiUniversity.
A big expense of students and schools is books -- why the government doesn't enlist the aide of Universities to supply them -- well that is an entire blog in itself. The idea that Math and English need the "new" $100 book to replace the old one is silly, but Wikipedia could go a long way to FREE cash-strapped schools from the tyranny of "closed-market" educational books.
I wonder if this device bends light, or just makes it "transparent" to certain frequencies like Microwaves.
;-)
Randomized crystals create glass, perhaps a randomized carrier frequency could make solids transparent to microwaves. The tip here could be the materials chosen -- and thus this would only work for machines made of such material, rather than as some sort of vehicle a person could ride in.
My guess is you could create a camera, a transmitter, and some sort of hover device and cloak it in these materials. The trick would be to do all that, and then make it not leave an infra-red or electromagnetic trace, as I'm sure the trick they are using would produce a bit of the latter and some of the former to "tune" the meta-materials. It's two-dimensional because the wave pattern is directed -- I'm guessing the 3-dimensional "transparency" would require a lot more computation.
>> Of course there is a way to do this and it would make an object "not effected by Gravity." But it wouldn't create a pocket universe or actually control gravitons (which I'm thinking are more like threaded vacuums or miniture wormholes if you want to describe them). This effect I call Gravity Lensing, but I wouldn't go into any more detail than that... any more than that and I'll have to destroy my collection of comic books. Marvell and DC are already on my trail.
The "Gartner Group" I believe is just One Dude. His prognostications seem to be very influenced, if you ask me. Why anyone quotes him probably has much to do with what they want to say anyway, but it just sounds better coming from a "Respected Research Group."
You still don't get it.
If America shut down grain exports, most of Africa would starve -- quickly.
If you do a search on world leaders who have been caught up in really disgusting abuses of power, people, and kids, you will get a who's who list of the people involved.
LEADERS are compromised and corrupted and become part of our Empire -- we don't bother with expensive standing armies. How many troops did we have in Iraq when Reagan and Bush were sending weapons, nerve agents, and nuclear materials to Iraq? Saddam was our man. We supported Al Qaeda when they were tearing part the USSR. They got in our way over a UNOCAL gas pipeline, and now we are in Afghanistan -- Pipeline is now complete.
The idea that you are going to see something on a map, or tanks and guns patrolling a border is very old fashioned. The real control is in a Bank somewhere. The only difference between the Mob and our government is a matter of scale.
Read the Book; "Confessions of an Economic Hitman."
>> We don't need to "control" the country -- we OWN the leader of that country. Guatemala is a clear example. Our organizations have been assasinating politicians in oil-rich and latin American nations for years to allow our banking and corporate interests access. Then the country goes into debt and becomes dependent on the World Bank. Right now, this World Bank is strong-arming debtor nations to support Guatemala at the UN rather than Venezuela. All so that South Korea can put their man in charge of the UN who is backed by the Moonies. Convoluted stuff, eh?
But it's also what happened when we rigged elections in the Ukraine and Mexico -- perhaps even the Conservative (NeoCon) leader in Candada. And who can forget the NeoCon leader in Israel? Didn't a man get shot and then he got the position? Yeah, read the current news; He's suspected for pedophilia, embezzling, and physically abusing a woman. Seems to fit right in with the rest who seem connected in this ring of exploiting nations for their resources and screwing the common man in those countries.
It's all about profit and it all seems to head to offshore banks. So America can expect the same results from Globalization as the third-world. We will all be in debt, and working off debts we never incurred.
We already support the MEK in our country, which is backed by the Hezbollah (Iran) and ALSO the CIA. Go figure.
Jeb Bush is best friends with the man who blew up a Cuban airliner.
>> So when you say "imperialistic" that is a quaint notion from when we had decliared kings and nations. I couldn't even tell you the Trustees holding the cards here, because it would be in a holding company somewhere. You could start with Bernanke and Carlysle, however.
Sorry to sound like a nut -- but I'm just telling you the exact truth, no matter how much it might veer from your view of the world.
"
... if the country with the most power to abuse the system can refrain and set up a system to police abuse, then there is a great incentive for lesser powers to NOT abuse the system. But, by breaking trust ahead of time, there is NO incentive to NOT weaponize.
For 50 years we've pretended that things were different in space; everyone would ignore national rivalries and history and stare with awe at the daring feats of cosmonauts and astronauts. It was a nice fantasy and flew in the face of reality. The Apollo missions grew out of a fear of sleeping "under a communist moon."
"
>> We couldn't trust it so we went ahead and broke it before anyone else?
Nuclear non-proliferation worked well, until Bush exited the system in 2003. Now there is no incentive to NOT go nuclear.
The same can be said of weaponizing space
That sort of logic is doomed to failure.
Also, look at past discussions on this topic -- it would be relatively easy to blow up a few tons of shratnel in space and make it impossible for any satellites to exist for years. -- Denying space to everyone seems like a good option for nations who are totally out-classed by a US weaponized space system, and pretty easy to accomplish.
Create a very powerful cannon, and it doesn't matter if we have total pre-emption of all "space lanes" -- the rail-gun could just launch junk into space. Game over. You don't need to have a space program. Even North Korea without a super gun (AFAIK), could use a nuclear-powered rocket and blast junk into space. A few 1kiloton timed explosions can achieve orbit if you don't care about the mess.
This idea, like so many from the NeoCons, seems morally bankrupt and poorly thought-out. People like this could never make a living in the private sector. You might as well waste another half-trillion $ on a failed anti-missile, missile system.
>> Could we call collective decision-making Democracy?
Selective decision-making is good with Engineering -- I don't want to launch a rocket on what most people think.
What is missing here is the "information dessemination." I think if a large group of people is made to understand the underlying facts, groups of people can make "wise" choices.
But that is the problem; having the time, initiative and coordination to get people to understand the situation. Into this gulf steps the "expert." The expert digests all the information, and gives us the opinion that we would probably form -- ideally.
But, after all the "expertisation" of information digesting we have experienced in the 1980s -- well this just created a new environment for the Propagandist.
The Propagandist digests all the information, and finds what fits the scheme they are paid to support. To the Public at large, when the propagandist is presented like an Expert, they are giving pre-chewed propaganda -- not pre-digested information.
What we really need is an organization, paid by the public, that becomes a mediator or authority that grants and removes "expert" status. That used to be some of the role of the Public Broadcasting Service.
What we have now is nothing but a Corporate/Political shill-fest masquerading as information. Whatever mathematical formula you might want to use, must come up with a way to disincentivize the "deceiver" in the mix.
Because even if you want a model for a Democratic decision-making system, you still have to look at the person counting the votes. What is that persons agenda, and how do we make them honest.
The trick to this system might be to place "secret voters" and fake Propagandists -- if the authorities in charge do not exlude or penalize these people, then the system is broken. You still have the issue of making a credible false "deceiver" in the mix, but until the system can handle both INFORMATION propagation in an a-political way, and can verify that the system has not been corrupted to favor an agenda -- the system is going to get corrupted.
Like what we have in America today, if you want to be honest about it.
No working 14 hours a day, and liking it is called "indoctrinated."
Yeah, been there, done that. I want to "have a life." Why should someone be proud that they worked 80 hours a week to make someone else rich?
It's fine that people work hard and try to better themselves, but that shouldn't just be the goal. But business want's more labor cheaper, so they keep pushing out the message that the only value is productivity and purchasing. Occassionally, I want to see my son play soccer. Getting more "time off" makes me feel like a winner now.
I think the idea that "all Indian support is exceptional" is because we are used to meeting the exceptional from that country. I'm pretty sure that when you deal with the "Average Indian" -- you aren't going to be getting any better of a worker talent-wise. Work ethic is another factor -- but I suppose a lot of that culture is effected by "easy living" and a sense of "opportunity" -- so first generation immigrants in America are hard workers, while by comparison their children are closer to average. When India has a Billion people -- you have a larger pool of exceptional people to pick from, and they are relatively cheap. But as business moves to India, wages will rise and the exceptional people will be harder to find for the same money.
Of course then a business can outsource to China. But eventually, you end up with the "average" person to hire.
The average school in America is probably not doing a great job -- too many political "fixes" that don't try to find the best solution. Just look at "No Child Left Behind" forcing schools to teach to the test -- who uses "tests" when figuring out problems in a business? But even with the rapid reduction in education quality, we still have very good top schools like MIT -- as good as anywhere. The big difference is, that India and China are seeing education as a resource, and are investing in it... while in our country there is the constant pressure to chase the lowest common denominator. Culturally we have a real problem.
But then, the Heyday of America is probably come and gone -- everything changes.
But once you move the important technical parts of your business, to say India, what is to prevent the people who know how to do your business from just moving across the street one day and creating a business to compete with you? How short-sighted is this lack of loyalty to America for a few more points of profit?
In a few years, Boeing will be competing like Ford with a Chinese airplane manufacturer that will be using all of the technology and training that Boeing taught the good people of China. The race for cheap labor will eventually backfire on the executive class -- because I'm sure that it's a lot easier to replace them "brain wise" than to replace an aeronautics engineer.
Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina came out and spoke against this new power quite eloquently.
Giving the "President the tools he needs for this war," are only necessary when they have no evidence. If the government has evidence, they can follow habeus corpus. When they have NO CASE AT ALL, they can "use the special tools" and you are in much worse shape.
Notice the number of trials that we've seen? Must be a lot of need for "special tools to fight this war," going on.
Another interesting "side effect" is that this bill is going to give a "get out of jail free card" for past actions.
Mainly, it gives the administration a pre-made immunity -- but is being sold as a protection from prosecution for CIA agents.
Personally, I don't think people should EVER be protected from "just following orders."
This is evil, and it shows everyone that we are the "bad guys." It's a lot cheaper and easier to be nice to the world.