> If the FAA doesn't like it, there is always
Canada. My guess is that the Canuks would love to have a potential multi-billion dollar space program open up in their purview. If not Canada, then Mexico, Brazil, France or Austrailia.
I was about to say "Mexico, Brazil, or Australia, sure, maybe French Guinea or whatever, but never Canada", because Canada's nowhere near (nor does own any land near) the equator.
But now that you mention it, it's a piggyback vehicle based on an airplane! If the carrier vehicle is capable of midair refueling, Burt can launch from anywhere on the planet.
No more big geographical premium for being near the equator, no huge "launch pad" infrastructure to build, no restrictions like "Can only launch $FOO-sats from Vandenburg, can only launch $BAR-sats from Cape Canaveral", just take off from any runway, fly to whatever latitude is appropriate for your payload's desired inclination, point the plane in the desired direction, and punch it. Turn the carrier vehicle around and fly home.
> Thus, they're debating about doing away with leap seconds altogether. One possible substitute is a 'leap hour' every thousand years.
Why not?
Asshats from the Industrial Revolution days make us do a frickin' "leap hour" twice a year anyways, one of which violates causality.
Fuckin' Daylight Savings Time.
What drooling asshat decided that it'd be a good idea if, every year, there was one day when everyone's heart/respiration rates slowed down to one beat/breath per hour, and about six months later, these same people should be able to start a 20 minute download that finishes 40 minutes before it started?
Fine if you've got a black hole nearby for the former, and fine if you can travel faster than light for the latter.
The day we have those technologies, fine. Until then, no, no, no, no, no, these are bad, bad, bad, bad, bad ideas.
> X prize is no threat to NASA, if anything, it's a private resource that NASA can tap to further it's own objectives (space station, another moon mission, mars missions, etc).
In a perfect world, yes.
In the real world, when Congress tells NASA that due to the availability of a $10M launch platform, (as opposed to the $500M Shuttle) that NASA's launch budget is being cut by 98%, NASA cares very much.
In the real real world, when $CONTRACTOR tells $LOBBYIST to tell $CONGRESSMAN that the existence of a $10M launch platform threatens $100M per year of funding for jobs in his district, Rutan has to be very careful. Not so much of NASA, or evil Men-In-Black conspiracy theories, but of the FAA and other legal roadblocks that Congress can put up to stop him in order to keep the pr0k a flowin'.
> When it's a couple inches from my back, I don't really distinguish between exploding and burning really fast.
Speak for yourself. When it's a couple inches from my back is when I'd tend to be very concerned with the distinction between rapid combusion and explosion:)
> Classic. I'm sure there's a nasa engineer out there somewhere paraphrasing the words of Homer Simpson "I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day, then it was every other day, and now I'm lucky if I can find one night per week with which to get funky."
OK, guilty as charged of first degree hyperbole.
Basically, I wanted to make it clear that NASA's failures aren't engineering-related, they're political.
> The quote that thrilled me the most in the article though was that Mssr. Rutan and co. were not looking for additional funding. This organization seems to be as unlike NASA's current leadership as is possible.
> I was just figuring it could be either a) unmanned supply rockets b) overlapping shuttle mission schedules (I'll watch your back, you watch mine),
Unmanned supply rockets could work - but if the Shuttle mission is to just put the payload up, well, why not just launch the payload on the unmanned rocket?
I'd love to see overlapping mission schedules, but that's just not gonna happen with three Shuttles and multi-month turnaround times.
(The original NASA plan of turnaround times in weeks, not months, plus a dozen Orbiters, could have done overlapping missions, but then, if NASA could have done all of that, the Shuttle wouldn't be such a barrier to space exploration, and we wouldn't be having this debate.)
Given that all scheduled Shuttle launches are ISS milk runs, the one good thing is that the Shuttle can make it to ISS's orbit, and always will be able to, for the rest of its life.
It's just a sad irony that the only science-oriented Shuttle mission was the one to have the problem - because it was the only Shuttle in an orbit that made sure it was not capable of reaching ISS, and it was the only Shuttle without a Canadarm, which guaranteed that no in-orbit inspection of the wing could have taken place either.
Had the same damage happened on any other flight, the Orbiter could have, and would have, been inspected, and it could have, and would have, docked with ISS for long enough for a Russian supply vehicle to save the crew, even if the Orbiter itself was too badly damaged to re-enter. (In which case it would have been brought down on autopilot for either a safe burnup over the Pacific, or - had it survived re-entry - I think it was capable of landing on either autopilot or from ground-based remote operators on the West coast.)
> "We are not seeking funding and are not selling anything. We are in the middle of an important research program - to see if manned space access can be done by other than the expensive government programs," Rutan explained. > >Rutan said that after today, plans call for his group to go "back into hiding," to complete the flight tests and conduct the space flights.
I don't blame him. If I threatened doom for six billion dollars a year of NASA Shuttle Pork, I'd want to be in hiding, too!:)
Burt - you rock. You rock in the way that NASA used to rock. You rock in the way most NASA engineers would love to be allowed to rock.
No matter what NASA does to try and shut you down, please don't stop.
> Even if it couldn't be repaired quickly, they might luck out with the launch windows and be able to launch another ship/shuttle to offload the crew, and nudge the damaged into a higher orbit to buy some time. Maybe having a rescue mission waiting in the wings becomes a new launch criteria.
Mothball the Shuttle and build a new heavy launch vehicle? No way!
Much better to - in addition to $500M per Shuttle launch - deciding that you now need an extra $200M per launch to keep a second shuttle on warm standby, 24/7, any time the first shuttle is in orbit.
NASA's new bold innovative approach to space exploration offers at least a 40% increase in budgets for entrenched Shuttle bureaucracies and a commensurate boost to Shuttle contractors spread far and wide through every Congressional district, without having to do any more of that pesky science stuff that just gets in the way of good old-fashioned pork.
> Tell that to the Victorians, who were of an opinion that tuberculosis was a romantic disease, and that women who fainted a lot and couldn't do anything on their own were ideal.
Note to self: When I invent the Time Machine, I'm going back to the Victorian era and becoming a doctor.
The "cure" for "hysteria" was probably the best-kept secret of Victorian women... and the best-kept secret of Victorian doctors, too.:):):)
> Guys always liked video games more. Even back when it was Space Invaders and Asteroids.
Pac-man was the first game that brought women into the arcades.
Its success was rather like Tomb Raider, actually -- it was a good game first, and the fact that it didn't involve "spaceships and big guns" came second. It wasn't designed to attract females only, it was designed to attract everyone.
> I sure as hell hope you've done something FOR them in return for the sacrifices they made to get you that computer and help you go to University. Something besides talk about ROI....
Absolutely. There are many things the government promised my parents, for instance, (and for which they paid, and I'm still paying, taxes), where said government has neither the intention nor the ability of delivering. Those are the things that (thanks to the money I'm permitted to keep out of the tax pool) I will be able to provide for my parents. (In fact, at the rate things are going, they may end up seeing as good a return on their investment as I do;-)
> But no, technologies are born fully refined and completely debugged from the disembodied head of Thomas Edison which he preserved in his "last" invention.
<injoke>No, that was the disembodied head of John Romero</injoke>
Re:It's All Just Cost Of Doing Business
on
FTC vs Spammers
·
· Score: 1
> Personally I love the Idea of Declaring them Enemy Combatants engaged in cyberterrorism..
I've gotten spam routed through open relays in.mil space.
If a.mil server falls over because its disk spool is filled with bounces, I'd certainly hope that qualifies for some hard time. Double if we're at war when it happens.
> > [ debate about whether one gets more ass-pounding in federal or state prisons snipped ] >
> It's a shame that you think state sanctioned torture is acceptable! Why the hell would you endorse rape?!
Whoa, wait a minute there. This is spammer ass we're talking about getting pounded.
That's not rape. Bestiality, sure, but not human-on-human nonconsensual sex.
Besides, the fact that he's the "married but lonely" spammer... the irony is positively delicious. Wait'll he finds out just how "lonely" Guido's been, especially having been locked away from his wife for six years, with his only email contacts with the outside world have been thousands of spams telling him about all that h0t 4ss cr4v1ng h4rd d1ck1ng!
Mr. Westby, while you serve your time, may you be buggered repeatedly (if you don't want Guido's unsolicited dickings every night, just OPT OUT!), may you contract AIDS from said buggerings (if you wanted to be protected from viruses, you should have bought a pirated copy of NORTON SYSTEMWORKS 2003 from George Allen Moore!), may the disease cripple and sicken you for years (you could have taken EFFECTIVE HERBAL REMEDIES to prevent this!), and may you finally die after a protracted but ultimately futile battle with pneumonia.
May the last thing you hear be the echoing of your raspy breath against the cold steel walls, may the last thing you smell be the latex on the gloves of the medic who intubates you, and may the last thing you taste be your own blood-tinged sputum, and may every other spammer on the face of the earth be watching, live, via webcam.
Yes, Mr. Westby, you and your kind are that hated.
FTC - you rule. Sometimes it's necessary to put a few heads on pikes, "pour encourager les autres." Please. MORE HEADS. MORE PIKES.
> "Well-to-do families are more likely to have access than less well-off families." Who would have guessed....
Yeah. Next thing you know, they'll be saying that less well-off families who put $200 into a computer and $20/month into dialup (as opposed to $200 on Air Jordans and $20/month on ESPN), tend to become better off.
I was the first one in my family to go to University. I make twice what my parents make at half their age.
No, my family wasn't dirt-poor, but we weren't rich. I could never have gone to Harvard. It wasn't until a couple of years ago that I found out that my folks had to take out a frickin' loan to get me that Apple ][ that I begged for, and that got me started.
As a result of high school hacking with that box, I never lacked for summer jobs during my college years, and I was able to graduate debt-free and land myself a good job that started off a great career.
Over 20-odd years, my folks' original investment has cranked out the kind of ROI that investment managers have wet dreams about. (I wrote that has hyperbole, but then worked it out based on the cost of the machine and the income my career has generated. My parents' ROI cleans Warren Buffet's clock)
> What does "stabilize" mean, anyway? Halting devel work on GNOME 2 because work on GNOME 3 has started?
Hint: If you're using an HP workstation, you're probably not using it to keep up with the state of the art in fancy desktops.
If my boss is paying me $100K per year to do CAD, and then he buys me a brand-new $20K CAD package that runs fine under CDE, and it just happens to work under GNOME (for about a week before another dependency makes it stop working again), guess what desktop I'm gonna be using?
> > Is there a general trend in free software to move slower than business likes? > > Yes, and it is a good thing. Because Free software can evolve indpendently of corporate timetables, it will evolve at a much more natural pace. One thing Microsoft can do nothing about is the fact that Free software is always moving forward (on average, of course).
As living proof of the superiority of Free software's "more natural pace" approach to software development, observe naturally-paced Netscape's total and absolutely dominant market share domination over the rush job that was Internet Explorer. The infidel dogs from Redmond continue to throw themselves suicidally into the flames gushing forth from the mighty lizard.
> Absolutely, but those people you mentioned are pro-privacy first and pro-industry second.
Exactly. As you say - if her mandate is to protect citizens' privacy, industry concerns should come second.
(Regardless of who's in power, there'll never be a shortage of pro-business, anti-privacy lobbyists to counterbalance any excesses on the part of even the most radical Privacy Czar:)
> To directly address the most common analogy I've seen in the comments: This is less like calling in Kevin Mitnick to help beef up security, and more like a hacker/cracker calling in Mitnick's lawyer to advise him on ways to stay out of trouble even though his goal is still to try to get away with hacking into systems.
Amen.
To address the original poster's question - no, it has nothing to do with the fact that she was selected by a conservative administration. (And for the record, I speak as one who happens to support much of what that administration has done in both foreign and domestic policy over the past couple of years, even at the occasional expense of karma points:)
HomeSec's charged with, well, keeping our sorry asses safe. I suspect they're doing so to the best of their ability, without any particularly evil intent. Alas, I also suspect that they Just Don't Get It when it comes to privacy.
Personally, I see no conflict between that mandate and privacy - indeed, I would argue that better privacy protections make for a more secure citizenry. (The scariest threat to My Sorry Ass would be an economic destabilization scenario based on a widespread DTOI - "Distributed Theft of Identity" - attack; in an economy heavily reliant on consumer credit and accurate risk assessment by lending institutions, a DTOI could do to our banking/credit system what a DDOS does to border routers).
Regrettably, I believe the new Czar's job will be as as the poster said - to do the same things for HomeSec that she did for Doubleclick. That is, to advise how far they can push it before running afoul of the law, and to suggest what sorts of new laws ought to be lobbied for in the future to permit things to be pushed further.
That's HomeSec's right - to accomplish their mandate as they see fit, and to request (through the bully pulpit of the Executive branch) that Congress pass new legislation that will enable them to accomplish said mandate. My concern is that with a worldview that ignores consumer privacy, they may well end up bringing about the very sort of problems they're charged with guarding against.
Frankly, I like the "split mandate" approach chosen by NSA. Half the organization is out to 0wn all their base. The other half is out to make sure all 0ur base are secure, because the Bad Guys are trying to 0wn it.
I think the same approach could work in HomeSec/Privacy issue. Half the organization is out to implement TIA on "them", and the other half exists to make sure "our" information is secure from compromise and leakage, because the Bad Guys are trying to compromise and leak it.
But hey, I'm not in Cabinet, so I'll help myself to a nice steaming cup of STFU now:-)
> > All industries use private information for their own profit. Who would you suggest they use? > > Someone anti-industry, like Ralph Nader
Or someone pro-industry like Bruce Schneier, Phil Zimmerman, Eben Moglen, or Lawrence Lessig. (My dream picks: Schneier first, Lessig second.)
I don't care if my Privacy Czar is pro-industry or not. I care if they're pro-privacy or not. Unless "Privacy Czar" one of those backwards honorifics like "Drug Czar", in which case, yeah, someone from Doubleclick is perfect.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I was about to say "Mexico, Brazil, or Australia, sure, maybe French Guinea or whatever, but never Canada", because Canada's nowhere near (nor does own any land near) the equator.
But now that you mention it, it's a piggyback vehicle based on an airplane! If the carrier vehicle is capable of midair refueling, Burt can launch from anywhere on the planet.
No more big geographical premium for being near the equator, no huge "launch pad" infrastructure to build, no restrictions like "Can only launch $FOO-sats from Vandenburg, can only launch $BAR-sats from Cape Canaveral", just take off from any runway, fly to whatever latitude is appropriate for your payload's desired inclination, point the plane in the desired direction, and punch it. Turn the carrier vehicle around and fly home.
Why not?
Asshats from the Industrial Revolution days make us do a frickin' "leap hour" twice a year anyways, one of which violates causality. Fuckin' Daylight Savings Time.
What drooling asshat decided that it'd be a good idea if, every year, there was one day when everyone's heart/respiration rates slowed down to one beat/breath per hour, and about six months later, these same people should be able to start a 20 minute download that finishes 40 minutes before it started?
Fine if you've got a black hole nearby for the former, and fine if you can travel faster than light for the latter.
The day we have those technologies, fine. Until then, no, no, no, no, no, these are bad, bad, bad, bad, bad ideas.
In a perfect world, yes.
In the real world, when Congress tells NASA that due to the availability of a $10M launch platform, (as opposed to the $500M Shuttle) that NASA's launch budget is being cut by 98%, NASA cares very much.
In the real real world, when $CONTRACTOR tells $LOBBYIST to tell $CONGRESSMAN that the existence of a $10M launch platform threatens $100M per year of funding for jobs in his district, Rutan has to be very careful. Not so much of NASA, or evil Men-In-Black conspiracy theories, but of the FAA and other legal roadblocks that Congress can put up to stop him in order to keep the pr0k a flowin'.
Speak for yourself. When it's a couple inches from my back is when I'd tend to be very concerned with the distinction between rapid combusion and explosion :)
OK, guilty as charged of first degree hyperbole.
Basically, I wanted to make it clear that NASA's failures aren't engineering-related, they're political.
> The quote that thrilled me the most in the article though was that Mssr. Rutan and co. were not looking for additional funding. This organization seems to be as unlike NASA's current leadership as is possible.
Word.
Unmanned supply rockets could work - but if the Shuttle mission is to just put the payload up, well, why not just launch the payload on the unmanned rocket?
I'd love to see overlapping mission schedules, but that's just not gonna happen with three Shuttles and multi-month turnaround times.
(The original NASA plan of turnaround times in weeks, not months, plus a dozen Orbiters, could have done overlapping missions, but then, if NASA could have done all of that, the Shuttle wouldn't be such a barrier to space exploration, and we wouldn't be having this debate.)
Given that all scheduled Shuttle launches are ISS milk runs, the one good thing is that the Shuttle can make it to ISS's orbit, and always will be able to, for the rest of its life.
It's just a sad irony that the only science-oriented Shuttle mission was the one to have the problem - because it was the only Shuttle in an orbit that made sure it was not capable of reaching ISS, and it was the only Shuttle without a Canadarm, which guaranteed that no in-orbit inspection of the wing could have taken place either.
Had the same damage happened on any other flight, the Orbiter could have, and would have, been inspected, and it could have, and would have, docked with ISS for long enough for a Russian supply vehicle to save the crew, even if the Orbiter itself was too badly damaged to re-enter. (In which case it would have been brought down on autopilot for either a safe burnup over the Pacific, or - had it survived re-entry - I think it was capable of landing on either autopilot or from ground-based remote operators on the West coast.)
>
>*snickers*
Yeah, but there's no way I could do insider trading with her :)
>
>Rutan said that after today, plans call for his group to go "back into hiding," to complete the flight tests and conduct the space flights.
I don't blame him. If I threatened doom for six billion dollars a year of NASA Shuttle Pork, I'd want to be in hiding, too! :)
Burt - you rock. You rock in the way that NASA used to rock. You rock in the way most NASA engineers would love to be allowed to rock.
No matter what NASA does to try and shut you down, please don't stop.
Mothball the Shuttle and build a new heavy launch vehicle? No way!
Much better to - in addition to $500M per Shuttle launch - deciding that you now need an extra $200M per launch to keep a second shuttle on warm standby, 24/7, any time the first shuttle is in orbit.
NASA's new bold innovative approach to space exploration offers at least a 40% increase in budgets for entrenched Shuttle bureaucracies and a commensurate boost to Shuttle contractors spread far and wide through every Congressional district, without having to do any more of that pesky science stuff that just gets in the way of good old-fashioned pork.
What about her sister, Nelleh of Goatse? :)
Note to self: When I invent the Time Machine, I'm going back to the Victorian era and becoming a doctor.
The "cure" for "hysteria" was probably the best-kept secret of Victorian women... and the best-kept secret of Victorian doctors, too. :) :) :)
Pac-man was the first game that brought women into the arcades.
Its success was rather like Tomb Raider, actually -- it was a good game first, and the fact that it didn't involve "spaceships and big guns" came second. It wasn't designed to attract females only, it was designed to attract everyone.
Absolutely. There are many things the government promised my parents, for instance, (and for which they paid, and I'm still paying, taxes), where said government has neither the intention nor the ability of delivering. Those are the things that (thanks to the money I'm permitted to keep out of the tax pool) I will be able to provide for my parents. (In fact, at the rate things are going, they may end up seeing as good a return on their investment as I do ;-)
"Alice? Who the fuck is alice?!"
- Roy "Chubby" Brown, "Livin' Next Door To Alice"
> a) it's not a tricorder
> b) it measures the temperature rise in a thin tin film at 1K (cryocooling in your PDA, anyone?)
"Oh yeah? I'll bet I can overclock my Palm Pilot to run faster your lame-azz dual Athlon!"
- Two guys in the LLNL cafeteria, three months ago
<injoke>No, that was the disembodied head of John Romero</injoke>
I've gotten spam routed through open relays in .mil space.
If a .mil server falls over because its disk spool is filled with bounces, I'd certainly hope that qualifies for some hard time. Double if we're at war when it happens.
>
> It's a shame that you think state sanctioned torture is acceptable! Why the hell would you endorse rape?!
Whoa, wait a minute there. This is spammer ass we're talking about getting pounded.
That's not rape. Bestiality, sure, but not human-on-human nonconsensual sex.
Besides, the fact that he's the "married but lonely" spammer... the irony is positively delicious. Wait'll he finds out just how "lonely" Guido's been, especially having been locked away from his wife for six years, with his only email contacts with the outside world have been thousands of spams telling him about all that h0t 4ss cr4v1ng h4rd d1ck1ng!
Mr. Westby, while you serve your time, may you be buggered repeatedly (if you don't want Guido's unsolicited dickings every night, just OPT OUT!), may you contract AIDS from said buggerings (if you wanted to be protected from viruses, you should have bought a pirated copy of NORTON SYSTEMWORKS 2003 from George Allen Moore!), may the disease cripple and sicken you for years (you could have taken EFFECTIVE HERBAL REMEDIES to prevent this!), and may you finally die after a protracted but ultimately futile battle with pneumonia.
May the last thing you hear be the echoing of your raspy breath against the cold steel walls, may the last thing you smell be the latex on the gloves of the medic who intubates you, and may the last thing you taste be your own blood-tinged sputum, and may every other spammer on the face of the earth be watching, live, via webcam.
Yes, Mr. Westby, you and your kind are that hated.
FTC - you rule. Sometimes it's necessary to put a few heads on pikes, "pour encourager les autres." Please. MORE HEADS. MORE PIKES.
>
> The fact the world hasn't caught on to this is simply a glitch.
The problem is, both of those statements are akin to calling the Grand Canyon a "ditch" :)
Yeah. Next thing you know, they'll be saying that less well-off families who put $200 into a computer and $20/month into dialup (as opposed to $200 on Air Jordans and $20/month on ESPN), tend to become better off.
I was the first one in my family to go to University. I make twice what my parents make at half their age.
No, my family wasn't dirt-poor, but we weren't rich. I could never have gone to Harvard. It wasn't until a couple of years ago that I found out that my folks had to take out a frickin' loan to get me that Apple ][ that I begged for, and that got me started.
As a result of high school hacking with that box, I never lacked for summer jobs during my college years, and I was able to graduate debt-free and land myself a good job that started off a great career.
Over 20-odd years, my folks' original investment has cranked out the kind of ROI that investment managers have wet dreams about. (I wrote that has hyperbole, but then worked it out based on the cost of the machine and the income my career has generated. My parents' ROI cleans Warren Buffet's clock)
Hint: If you're using an HP workstation, you're probably not using it to keep up with the state of the art in fancy desktops.
If my boss is paying me $100K per year to do CAD, and then he buys me a brand-new $20K CAD package that runs fine under CDE, and it just happens to work under GNOME (for about a week before another dependency makes it stop working again), guess what desktop I'm gonna be using?
>
> Yes, and it is a good thing. Because Free software can evolve indpendently of corporate timetables, it will evolve at a much more natural pace. One thing Microsoft can do nothing about is the fact that Free software is always moving forward (on average, of course).
As living proof of the superiority of Free software's "more natural pace" approach to software development, observe naturally-paced Netscape's total and absolutely dominant market share domination over the rush job that was Internet Explorer. The infidel dogs from Redmond continue to throw themselves suicidally into the flames gushing forth from the mighty lizard.
Exactly. As you say - if her mandate is to protect citizens' privacy, industry concerns should come second.
(Regardless of who's in power, there'll never be a shortage of pro-business, anti-privacy lobbyists to counterbalance any excesses on the part of even the most radical Privacy Czar :)
Amen.
To address the original poster's question - no, it has nothing to do with the fact that she was selected by a conservative administration. (And for the record, I speak as one who happens to support much of what that administration has done in both foreign and domestic policy over the past couple of years, even at the occasional expense of karma points :)
HomeSec's charged with, well, keeping our sorry asses safe. I suspect they're doing so to the best of their ability, without any particularly evil intent. Alas, I also suspect that they Just Don't Get It when it comes to privacy.
Personally, I see no conflict between that mandate and privacy - indeed, I would argue that better privacy protections make for a more secure citizenry. (The scariest threat to My Sorry Ass would be an economic destabilization scenario based on a widespread DTOI - "Distributed Theft of Identity" - attack; in an economy heavily reliant on consumer credit and accurate risk assessment by lending institutions, a DTOI could do to our banking/credit system what a DDOS does to border routers).
Regrettably, I believe the new Czar's job will be as as the poster said - to do the same things for HomeSec that she did for Doubleclick. That is, to advise how far they can push it before running afoul of the law, and to suggest what sorts of new laws ought to be lobbied for in the future to permit things to be pushed further.
That's HomeSec's right - to accomplish their mandate as they see fit, and to request (through the bully pulpit of the Executive branch) that Congress pass new legislation that will enable them to accomplish said mandate. My concern is that with a worldview that ignores consumer privacy, they may well end up bringing about the very sort of problems they're charged with guarding against.
Frankly, I like the "split mandate" approach chosen by NSA. Half the organization is out to 0wn all their base. The other half is out to make sure all 0ur base are secure, because the Bad Guys are trying to 0wn it.
I think the same approach could work in HomeSec/Privacy issue. Half the organization is out to implement TIA on "them", and the other half exists to make sure "our" information is secure from compromise and leakage, because the Bad Guys are trying to compromise and leak it.
But hey, I'm not in Cabinet, so I'll help myself to a nice steaming cup of STFU now :-)
>
> Someone anti-industry, like Ralph Nader
Or someone pro-industry like Bruce Schneier, Phil Zimmerman, Eben Moglen, or Lawrence Lessig. (My dream picks: Schneier first, Lessig second.)
I don't care if my Privacy Czar is pro-industry or not. I care if they're pro-privacy or not. Unless "Privacy Czar" one of those backwards honorifics like "Drug Czar", in which case, yeah, someone from Doubleclick is perfect. :-)