I've got a two 8800 series cards (one 8800GT, one 8800GTS), and I live in a place with no air conditioning. If these cards were subject to heat failure the way the Inquirer has been hollering about - one or both would have died by now. Particularly the one in my wife's computer - it's a Shuttle box, which runs toasty. It's been rock solid, running 24/7 for more than a year now.
I'm not suggesting there is NO problem - but the Inquirer has been talking about this like all of these cards are just waiting to die. With no A/C, and temps in the house above 90F during the summer, they should be dead if the Inq is to be believed. Perhaps I'm just lucky, but I still aint buying the story.
a) The traffic you're talking about is on what's known as the NIPRNET - meaning UNCLASSIFIED information is what it's supposed to carry. The optional encryption that I refer to is optional because it's really intended to protect FOUO (For Official Use Only) information and other data at around the same level of sensitivity. It is not intended to protect classified information of ANY level. That being said, if the information is of ANY classification rating, it should never have been on the NIPRNET. Meaning - the jackass who posted it is the problem, not the optional encryption.
b) The encryption system in question is actually a PKI setup with two factor authentication (this is public knowlege if you Google it). Encrypting individual messages may draw attention to them, but you have yourself a fine old time trying to decrypt them.
c) There is a whole seprate network devoted to classified information. It is known that the Russians gave up on American cryptography a long time ago - it's that good. If the information was important enough to be protected, that's where it should have gone. Again - if there's a PEBKAC issue or an operator headspace issue it's not something that can be addressed until AFTER the screwup occurs. It doesn't matter how good your security is if your people aren't trained.
Look folks, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the problem is here.
a) Military computer users suffer from the same lack of applications training that corporate users do, therefore their rate of screwups is no higher than any other userbase. The do receive more computer security briefings than your average corp user, but that doesn't make up for lack of understanding on the part of the user when it comes to knowing how to use anything.
b) The Air Force and Army *DO* have email encryption. However, it is user selectable - i.e., when emailing anything it is up to the user to make the determination if the encryption is warranted, and then select the option.
c) The problem here is with the SENDER. The owner/operator of the email domain at Mildenhall is not at fault. You can't troubleshoot a problem with people on the OTHER end of a problem situation. If they aren't using the Exchange GAL and typing in an @.com address instead of an @af.mil address, you really can't resolve the PEBKAC for them, can you?
A lot of pundits on the topic of console vs. PC seem to keep ignoring a subset of PC gamers - the Power Gamer (we know who we are).
The top echelon of PC hardware will ALWAYS offer better performance than the latest console - and a lot of software houses (Lionhead comes to mind) are constantly seeking to push the envelope - not just graphically but in terms of AI and interactivity.
Consoles are great - but no substitute for the power of a screamin' PC box. Sure, PCs can be a pain in the ass to code for because of the mishmash of hardware on the market - but a lot of gamers will build new PCs to experience the best a new title has to offer. Knowing that this audience exists will keep software houses producing for the PC until there are no more games to be played. Nuff said.
Probably came from a 'Network Security Consultant', not a network engineer. The cost of course includes the hours billed by the consultant, who advises you on how to 'secure' your network.
Remember, a consultant is someone who'll steal your watch, then make you pay them to tell you the time.
PEOPLE will be uncomfortable interacting with these kinds of services. They don't care if the robot is a better dentist - they will more often prefer the "safety" of a human. Tell your wife "Hey, to hell with that HUMAN gynecologist - the robot is MUCH more precise!"
The human factor for many services is immense. Imagine an expert system/AI that's the perfect psychologist. It may be able to diagnose and offer therapy for many people - but the machine/human interaction will likely diffuse if not erase the value of the therapy. People NEED human interaction in many scenarios for their psychological well being.
Something he doesn't seem to be figuring in here is that there are significant number of professions where:
a) people would be uncomfortable in interacting with machine services (i.e. a robotic dentist or gynecologist), or
b) there are protectections by labor union and/or political interests and therefore unlikely to convert to full automation - even in the interest of increased efficiency (a good example would be the United Auto Workers).
Can anyone second the opinion that at least he wouldn't be as bad as the other proposed Man of Steel - Nicholas Cage? (Hey at least Reeves has hair...)
How can voters be expected to trust a voting mechanism when there is no accountability? I don't give two sh*ts about the machine being proprietary. If the machine's method cannot be audited publicly it has NO business being used for any public business.
Whoever orchestrated the purchase of these machines: a) has no business in office, and b) probably got a kickback from the manufacturer.
The part of this that's really irritating of course is: Who is it that ultimately decides the validity of the data? I've read very few reports commissioned on behalf of any government agencies that contained figures that could be considered concrete, i.e. "there are X widgets in the DOD inventory". Generally what are reported are statistical results - "eighty two and a half percent of all households headed by white males are likely to own one or more upright vacuum cleaners". So who is it that decides? Are the originators of said data allowed a rebuttal of any kind? Is there an arbitration process to determine whose figures are closer to reality? Or is it just the party involved who can afford the better lawyer?
Slashdot Mirror
I've got a two 8800 series cards (one 8800GT, one 8800GTS), and I live in a place with no air conditioning. If these cards were subject to heat failure the way the Inquirer has been hollering about - one or both would have died by now. Particularly the one in my wife's computer - it's a Shuttle box, which runs toasty. It's been rock solid, running 24/7 for more than a year now.
I'm not suggesting there is NO problem - but the Inquirer has been talking about this like all of these cards are just waiting to die. With no A/C, and temps in the house above 90F during the summer, they should be dead if the Inq is to be believed. Perhaps I'm just lucky, but I still aint buying the story.
Consider:
a) The traffic you're talking about is on what's known as the NIPRNET - meaning UNCLASSIFIED information is what it's supposed to carry. The optional encryption that I refer to is optional because it's really intended to protect FOUO (For Official Use Only) information and other data at around the same level of sensitivity. It is not intended to protect classified information of ANY level. That being said, if the information is of ANY classification rating, it should never have been on the NIPRNET. Meaning - the jackass who posted it is the problem, not the optional encryption.
b) The encryption system in question is actually a PKI setup with two factor authentication (this is public knowlege if you Google it). Encrypting individual messages may draw attention to them, but you have yourself a fine old time trying to decrypt them.
c) There is a whole seprate network devoted to classified information. It is known that the Russians gave up on American cryptography a long time ago - it's that good. If the information was important enough to be protected, that's where it should have gone. Again - if there's a PEBKAC issue or an operator headspace issue it's not something that can be addressed until AFTER the screwup occurs. It doesn't matter how good your security is if your people aren't trained.
Look folks, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the problem is here.
a) Military computer users suffer from the same lack of applications training that corporate users do, therefore their rate of screwups is no higher than any other userbase. The do receive more computer security briefings than your average corp user, but that doesn't make up for lack of understanding on the part of the user when it comes to knowing how to use anything.
b) The Air Force and Army *DO* have email encryption. However, it is user selectable - i.e., when emailing anything it is up to the user to make the determination if the encryption is warranted, and then select the option.
c) The problem here is with the SENDER. The owner/operator of the email domain at Mildenhall is not at fault. You can't troubleshoot a problem with people on the OTHER end of a problem situation. If they aren't using the Exchange GAL and typing in an @.com address instead of an @af.mil address, you really can't resolve the PEBKAC for them, can you?
'nuff said!
A book I have - published back in 1988 proposed the same idea. It's a good read. Here's the Amazon link if anyone wants to try and pick up a copy:
The Pryamids
A lot of pundits on the topic of console vs. PC seem to keep ignoring a subset of PC gamers - the Power Gamer (we know who we are).
The top echelon of PC hardware will ALWAYS offer better performance than the latest console - and a lot of software houses (Lionhead comes to mind) are constantly seeking to push the envelope - not just graphically but in terms of AI and interactivity.
Consoles are great - but no substitute for the power of a screamin' PC box. Sure, PCs can be a pain in the ass to code for because of the mishmash of hardware on the market - but a lot of gamers will build new PCs to experience the best a new title has to offer. Knowing that this audience exists will keep software houses producing for the PC until there are no more games to be played. Nuff said.
Probably came from a 'Network Security Consultant', not a network engineer. The cost of course includes the hours billed by the consultant, who advises you on how to 'secure' your network.
Remember, a consultant is someone who'll steal your watch, then make you pay them to tell you the time.
SCO execs HAVE been dumping their shares:
SCO Senior Suits Dump Shares
I understand that - but you missed my point:
PEOPLE will be uncomfortable interacting with these kinds of services. They don't care if the robot is a better dentist - they will more often prefer the "safety" of a human. Tell your wife "Hey, to hell with that HUMAN gynecologist - the robot is MUCH more precise!"
The human factor for many services is immense. Imagine an expert system/AI that's the perfect psychologist. It may be able to diagnose and offer therapy for many people - but the machine/human interaction will likely diffuse if not erase the value of the therapy. People NEED human interaction in many scenarios for their psychological well being.
Something he doesn't seem to be figuring in here is that there are significant number of professions where:
a) people would be uncomfortable in interacting with machine services (i.e. a robotic dentist or gynecologist), or
b) there are protectections by labor union and/or political interests and therefore unlikely to convert to full automation - even in the interest of increased efficiency (a good example would be the United Auto Workers).
Can anyone second the opinion that at least he wouldn't be as bad as the other proposed Man of Steel - Nicholas Cage? (Hey at least Reeves has hair...)
The obvious question is:
How can voters be expected to trust a voting mechanism when there is no accountability? I don't give two sh*ts about the machine being proprietary. If the machine's method cannot be audited publicly it has NO business being used for any public business.
Whoever orchestrated the purchase of these machines: a) has no business in office, and b) probably got a kickback from the manufacturer.
(Yeah I'm cynical. It's a hobby.)
This isn't exactly shocking news.
We have:
1) Lies
2) Damn Lies
3) Statistics
The part of this that's really irritating of course is: Who is it that ultimately decides the validity of the data? I've read very few reports commissioned on behalf of any government agencies that contained figures that could be considered concrete, i.e. "there are X widgets in the DOD inventory". Generally what are reported are statistical results - "eighty two and a half percent of all households headed by white males are likely to own one or more upright vacuum cleaners". So who is it that decides? Are the originators of said data allowed a rebuttal of any kind? Is there an arbitration process to determine whose figures are closer to reality? Or is it just the party involved who can afford the better lawyer?
Orwellian indeed.