It always wierds me out when people think that they and a bunch of their buddies can take on a determined US Army batallion. I like to illustrate how this point is with unarmed combat, but the argument applies eqully well to armed combat.
I'll admit, I didn't make it past the above before I just started laughing.
You opinion just amazes me. I need only say one word to point out how silly all your ranting is:
Vietnam.
That was a real cakewalk for us wasn't it? Maybe you're still not getting the point. Here's another example:
The American Revolution
The side with the most tanks/guns/whatever doesn't always win. There are lots of other issues here like: motivation (fighting for money vs. fighting for your life), home field advantage, difficulty finding the enemy, etc.
Of course, the issue is even more complicated than this. It's more like a thermonuclear war. Even if we "beat" Russia, would be win? The grandparent doesn't have to beat a whole bunch of marines to make a point.
The fact that the US population is well-armed is like Russia having nukes:
Does it matter if they aren't quite as good?....the next word is: deterrent.
This could be crossing the line, especially WRT the language being used. Calling someone a "security risk" does not sound very good, does it? And how is HE a risk, their explanation is going to be something that judge Judy definately wouldn't tolerate.
I don't recommend you mention your ex-company's name publically since you have already lost this battle and you do not need to be seen as disgruntled in any way (cut off all contact to save yourself, otherwise the enemy consultants may blame the next breakin on YOU. they might anyway).
What kind of crazy stance is this? Fear, fear and more fear?
If he didn't attack them, they can't do @#$%, meanwhile he can sue them for slander if they try to claim he did.
Like the time they opened their home-computer archetecture at the same time Apple closed theirs, spawning the PC Clone market and bringing the price of home computers far below that of the cheapest car.
IBM did no such thing. Their hardware was cloned by other manufacturers. IBM tried had to prevent this from happening, including suing the company which reverse engineered the PC BIOS.
It amazes me how many fools out the think that government is supposed to be just accepted however it is done.
Thinking for yourself about whether or not a particular law is just is fundamental to the existence of democracy.
It's "un-american" NOT to think about whether or not a laws makes sense. Each of us Americans (apologies everyone else) shares a little bit of responsibility for our own government. That's how a democracy works. Attitudes like the grandparent post's are why ours isn't working so well right now.
If your cell phone runs out of money, you can't call anymore. But if your EZPass (or whatever) runs out of money, how do they make you pay?
The same way they deal with people going through the EZ Pass line with no pass at all.
Don't count on it (at least in NJ). The NJ Turnpike has been time-stamping their entry/exit toll tickets for as long as I've been driving (long enough to have waited in gas lines during the 1st OPEC oil embargo), and they haven't done this simple math exercise yet. Why would they start just because there's a new layer of technology??
NYS has been stamping tickets as well and they HAVE given out tickets this way. It rarely happens though. If you see a cop sitting at the toll both, you may just decide to wait a little bit if you've been going 80mph the whole way.
EZ Pass makes it MUCH easier to send out mass amounts of tickets. Think about this:
You're a commuter who usually speeds to work on the highway. If they were to start giving out tickets via EZ Pass on a Monday, how many tickets would you have before you got the first one in the mail?
And FYI, they are already using the EZ Pass system to send out "warnings" to speeders.
I think it just means they need to be selective about what they put on your HUD.
Would you really mind if a brake warning light popped up to tell you that you had just lost all your brake fluid?
Also, it doesn't have to be on every second you're on your bike. It could pop up for half a second to indicate what gear you just shifted into. Warn you that redline is approaching, and otherwise only show up when you push an easy to reach button.
There's no good reason this can't be configuable enough to give to only the information you want. It IS safer than looking down, and having it be off most of the time would let you spot those deer.
I so totally agree about the other post's "cognitive dissonace" statement.
This device is the same size as a ipod, but stomps it into the ground in terms of features.
Somehow this makes it a "knockoff" and the ipod has a better "feature set"?
Your post just smacks of:
'So what if it can do everything mine can do plus more with no real drawbacks, mine is somehow still better. I don't really know why, but I refuse to believe that another device could be better.'
A good example of cognitive dissonance at work.
Also, FYI, a very good set of headphones can be had for around $100 (Sennheiser HD-495, entry-level Grado's). Amazing headphones can be had for $300 (Sennheiser HD-600).
winning the big lawsuit: whatever it costs to pay the lawyers.
proving your business strategy: whatever it costs to pay the lawyers.
telling the entire tech industry "don't fuck with me": priceless
Exactly.
This guy's pretending to look at this from a financial and logical standpoint but he's ignoring lots of costs.
IBM says Linux is worth 1 BILLION dollars a year to them. SCO's FUD campaign has affected this market. (How much is debatable.) What's 1% of 1 billion?
He's acting as if the "don't @#$% with me message" has no value, which is wrong.
He's ignoring the value of:
1. Restoring IBM's image
2. Preventing future lawsuits
HINT: If SCO as a company was worth zero dollars, there are still incentives to sue them and win.
You can't treat this as if there are only two piles of money here. There's IBM's, there's SCO's and then there's money that IBM is trying to get from future customers.
Consider this: It would cost more to put someone who steals my car in jail than my car is worth, so why do we, as a society, put the thief in jail?
To find the answer, ask youself what would happen to car thefts and car sales if we were to quit prosecuting theives.
You can't honestly try to compare DVD players and software development!
Sure I can. Collaboration doesn't mean there is no duplication of effort. You're not seeing the forest for the trees.
Look, you're missing the point. The original post you replied to was just pointing out the falicy of the whole "dividing your resources" argument. He did that quite well.
He wasn't claiming that capitalism is doomed, he was pointing out the obvious flaw someone else's reasoning.
If the OP had his way, there'd be one company for each product. That's not capitalism. Have the state be that one source, and you're in socialism, teetering on the edge of communism.
Easy there Mr. McCarthy, there are no commies here. The poster was using the generally accepted premise the capitalism is efficient DESPITE (or perhaps because of) duplication of effort.
Do potential users still need DOD approval and/or security clearances?
I assume there is some sort of approval process, but I don't have details.
This still sounds like they're talking about government agencies only, just ones who aren't directly warfighting units.
Right, like the FAA for instance. I don't know if they're offering this to private companies or not. It wouldn't suprise me too much if they allowed cellular providers to use them.
Can these receivers be used for more than just timing and synchronization?
Maybe. The reason you use military GPS for timing is that differential GPS just can't help you. You would need a "perfect" clock inside your differential GPS source, and if you had that, you'd just put it in the device that needs accurate timing. It wouldn't suprise me if the military said no to anyone wanting you use these recievers for something besides timing, as there are alternatives.
GPS recievers give you timing accuracy in the tens of nanoseconds. This accuracy is necessary for synchronizing time division multiplexed communications systems (some cellular networks) for example. There are other applications which rely on this level of timing accuracy as well.
Obviously YOU misunderstand capitalism. Go take an economics course.
Capitalism encourages duplication of efforts in the form of multiple competing products/vendors. How many different companies are making DVD players right now? This was his point, and this "splitting of resources" is one of the fundamental concepts of capaitalism.
Leave your cellphone at home. Expecting an emergency call that could get you fired/dumped/etc? DON'T GO TO THE MOVIES.
Why be such an asshole?
I should be able to go into a movie and put my phone on vibrate. If it goes off, I can go outside the theatre to take that important call. If that distrubs your movie waching too much, you should probably just kill yourself.
As far as your rights, you have no right to interfere with my cellphone call in an elevator anymore than you have a right to stop a private face-to-face converstion. Try that next time you're in an elevator, turn to some guys having a conversation and tell them to STFU, and whine about your "rights". See how quickly you discover your "right" to be punched in the head.
If you can handle hearing other people's converstions, you shouldn't go out in public.
My point is that they DO give out military GPS receivers (and codes, duh) for select non-military applications. The first site was one which sells these revievers.
If you look at the lists on that second page, you can see a list of projects which have these recievers.
What was your point exactly?
That you're wrong. You said: "Military GPS receivers aren't being used in non-military critical infrastructure applications", which is not true.
I not sure how you got it into your head that you're an authority on this subject, but you're 100% wrong. I'm not about to give out anymore information than is publicly availible on the 'net, but I suggest you start with those two sites. The Zyfer site has a number of highly informative PDF's.
Just like *they* can never make an unbrakable copy protection, Will *we* ever be able to completely anonymous while on the Net.
Okay, here's the answer: No.
Why?
It's all about rescources:
It's impossible to create
"unbreakable" crypto because the processes needs to be reversible and given enough resources and time the proper decryption method can be found.
Simlarly, it's impossible to be perfectly anonymous on an untrusted network like the internet because, given enough resources, someone can always find out who you are. In the case of freenet you have to worry that if every single computer you connect to is controlled by "them", they can obviously see what is going into and out from your PC.
The goal is to make it as hard a possible to trace you. This can be done a bnch of different ways, but I'll give you an example:
Say you have a p2p network like gnutella, but instead of sending file directly, there's a certaing probability that you will send your file via another node. Add some crypto, blah, blah,blah.
One of these days I'll get around to writing a paper on this stuff.
Military GPS receivers aren't being used in non-military critical infrastructure applications, but the receivers they are using are probably more accurate than standard military GPS receivers.
You should say that unless you know what you're talking about.
It's not their "fault", it's just an issue of common decency. If I see someone getting in a car with a flat tire, I tell them. It's not my fault that the tire is flat. Sure, they could file some silly lawsuit if their call falls on them while changing the tire, but I'm not afraid of that. If I was afraid of things that stupid I would probably never leave my house.
In Dell's case this analogy isn't even bad enough. They're the mechanic in charge of the car's engine and they're explicitly not telling the guy to fix his flat tire. Then they get to try and troubleshoot a car with a flat tire.
Its a whole other story though, if Dell starts advising people to break these agreements. Granted, they are legally gray, but thats the point entirely of not wanting to get into the fray and being a potential party to breaking a contractual agreement.
They wouldn't be advising them to break agreements. They have no knowedge of any agreement.
Say you agree to stab a fork into your shoulder and leave it there. I come along and tell you there's a fork in your shoulder and you should take it out. What's the big f#@%^ing deal!!
Sure it's against some contract YOU signed but I don't have anything to do with that contract!
A lawsuit avoided entirely is better than a lawsuit won.
First off, what a wimpy thing to say. Second, it's not better if it costs you customer goodwill. Third, I'm thinking about suing you just for saying that, but I'll settle out of court right now for $20.
"Seriously, nothing to see here folks. It's common sense."
Hang on, no it's not. If a customre calls with no clue what's causing problems and the Dell support person on the phone knows, common sense (not to mention common decency) dictates that they point them towards a simple spyware solution. Common sense does not suggest you avoid mentioning the likely source of the problem; it does require that you send your customer to the ISP or the OS vender or in any way start them on a fruitless runaround when you could simply say "spybot might solve your problem".
I understand Dell's liability concerns regarding EULA's they know nothing about, but it smacks of cowardice when a corporate behemoth is afraid to give decent tech support. Are they that afraid of Gator and other scumbag spyware companies?
EXACTLY.
Sure it's not Dell's fault the spyware is there, but common decency says they should not pretend they don't know what's wrong and refuse to offer help.
It amazes me the legal B.S. that people are afraid of when computers are involved. If we were talking about cars, it would be obvious that Dell is being completely moronic.
Example:
[Driver gets flat tire. Calls OnStar.]
Driver: Hello. I have a flat tire, could you tell me how to change it?
OnStar: I'm sorry, we can't do that. You may have entered into a contract of questionalbe legality which prevents you from removing the tires on your car. Sure, you're the one who may or may not have signed this contract, but we're still not going to help you. We're not even going to ask if you've entered into this imaginary contract. We're afraid just giving you this small bit of help might land GM in court with some tiny company, who grossed less than we pay any given one of our VP's. Goodbye.
Slashdot Mirror
It always wierds me out when people think that they and a bunch of their buddies can take on a determined US Army batallion. I like to illustrate how this point is with unarmed combat, but the argument applies eqully well to armed combat.
....the next word is: deterrent.
I'll admit, I didn't make it past the above before I just started laughing.
You opinion just amazes me. I need only say one word to point out how silly all your ranting is:
Vietnam.
That was a real cakewalk for us wasn't it? Maybe you're still not getting the point. Here's another example:
The American Revolution
The side with the most tanks/guns/whatever doesn't always win. There are lots of other issues here like: motivation (fighting for money vs. fighting for your life), home field advantage, difficulty finding the enemy, etc.
Of course, the issue is even more complicated than this. It's more like a thermonuclear war. Even if we "beat" Russia, would be win? The grandparent doesn't have to beat a whole bunch of marines to make a point.
The fact that the US population is well-armed is like Russia having nukes:
Does it matter if they aren't quite as good?
VERY good point.
This could be crossing the line, especially WRT the language being used. Calling someone a "security risk" does not sound very good, does it? And how is HE a risk, their explanation is going to be something that judge Judy definately wouldn't tolerate.
I don't recommend you mention your ex-company's name publically since you have already lost this battle and you do not need to be seen as disgruntled in any way (cut off all contact to save yourself, otherwise the enemy consultants may blame the next breakin on YOU. they might anyway).
What kind of crazy stance is this? Fear, fear and more fear?
If he didn't attack them, they can't do @#$%, meanwhile he can sue them for slander if they try to claim he did.
Why choose the lesser evil? Cthulhu in 2004!
That would make an awesome bumper sticker!
Like the time they opened their home-computer archetecture at the same time Apple closed theirs, spawning the PC Clone market and bringing the price of home computers far below that of the cheapest car.
IBM did no such thing. Their hardware was cloned by other manufacturers. IBM tried had to prevent this from happening, including suing the company which reverse engineered the PC BIOS.
And they say security through obscurity just doesn't work.
BwahahahAHAHa
Thank you.
It amazes me how many fools out the think that government is supposed to be just accepted however it is done.
Thinking for yourself about whether or not a particular law is just is fundamental to the existence of democracy.
It's "un-american" NOT to think about whether or not a laws makes sense. Each of us Americans (apologies everyone else) shares a little bit of responsibility for our own government. That's how a democracy works. Attitudes like the grandparent post's are why ours isn't working so well right now.
I think it's great that something is being done about spamming, though I don't think it's a criminal but a civil offense.
What's not criminal about fraud?
If your cell phone runs out of money, you can't call anymore. But if your EZPass (or whatever) runs out of money, how do they make you pay? The same way they deal with people going through the EZ Pass line with no pass at all.
Don't count on it (at least in NJ). The NJ Turnpike has been time-stamping their entry/exit toll tickets for as long as I've been driving (long enough to have waited in gas lines during the 1st OPEC oil embargo), and they haven't done this simple math exercise yet. Why would they start just because there's a new layer of technology??
NYS has been stamping tickets as well and they HAVE given out tickets this way. It rarely happens though. If you see a cop sitting at the toll both, you may just decide to wait a little bit if you've been going 80mph the whole way.
EZ Pass makes it MUCH easier to send out mass amounts of tickets. Think about this:
You're a commuter who usually speeds to work on the highway. If they were to start giving out tickets via EZ Pass on a Monday, how many tickets would you have before you got the first one in the mail?
And FYI, they are already using the EZ Pass system to send out "warnings" to speeders.
I think it just means they need to be selective about what they put on your HUD.
Would you really mind if a brake warning light popped up to tell you that you had just lost all your brake fluid?
Also, it doesn't have to be on every second you're on your bike. It could pop up for half a second to indicate what gear you just shifted into. Warn you that redline is approaching, and otherwise only show up when you push an easy to reach button.
There's no good reason this can't be configuable enough to give to only the information you want. It IS safer than looking down, and having it be off most of the time would let you spot those deer.
I so totally agree about the other post's "cognitive dissonace" statement.
This device is the same size as a ipod, but stomps it into the ground in terms of features.
Somehow this makes it a "knockoff" and the ipod has a better "feature set"?
Your post just smacks of:
'So what if it can do everything mine can do plus more with no real drawbacks, mine is somehow still better. I don't really know why, but I refuse to believe that another device could be better.'
A good example of cognitive dissonance at work.
Also, FYI, a very good set of headphones can be had for around $100 (Sennheiser HD-495, entry-level Grado's). Amazing headphones can be had for $300 (Sennheiser HD-600).
winning the big lawsuit: whatever it costs to pay the lawyers.
proving your business strategy: whatever it costs to pay the lawyers.
telling the entire tech industry "don't fuck with me": priceless
Exactly.
This guy's pretending to look at this from a financial and logical standpoint but he's ignoring lots of costs.
IBM says Linux is worth 1 BILLION dollars a year to them. SCO's FUD campaign has affected this market. (How much is debatable.) What's 1% of 1 billion?
He's acting as if the "don't @#$% with me message" has no value, which is wrong.
He's ignoring the value of:
1. Restoring IBM's image
2. Preventing future lawsuits
HINT: If SCO as a company was worth zero dollars, there are still incentives to sue them and win.
You can't treat this as if there are only two piles of money here. There's IBM's, there's SCO's and then there's money that IBM is trying to get from future customers.
Consider this:
It would cost more to put someone who steals my car in jail than my car is worth, so why do we, as a society, put the thief in jail?
To find the answer, ask youself what would happen to car thefts and car sales if we were to quit prosecuting theives.
premise the capitalism=premise THAT capitalism
You can't honestly try to compare DVD players and software development!
Sure I can. Collaboration doesn't mean there is no duplication of effort. You're not seeing the forest for the trees.
Look, you're missing the point. The original post you replied to was just pointing out the falicy of the whole "dividing your resources" argument. He did that quite well.
He wasn't claiming that capitalism is doomed, he was pointing out the obvious flaw someone else's reasoning.
If the OP had his way, there'd be one company for each product. That's not capitalism. Have the state be that one source, and you're in socialism, teetering on the edge of communism.
Easy there Mr. McCarthy, there are no commies here. The poster was using the generally accepted premise the capitalism is efficient DESPITE (or perhaps because of) duplication of effort.
Do potential users still need DOD approval and/or security clearances?
I assume there is some sort of approval process, but I don't have details.
This still sounds like they're talking about government agencies only, just ones who aren't directly warfighting units.
Right, like the FAA for instance. I don't know if they're offering this to private companies or not. It wouldn't suprise me too much if they allowed cellular providers to use them.
Can these receivers be used for more than just timing and synchronization?
Maybe. The reason you use military GPS for timing is that differential GPS just can't help you. You would need a "perfect" clock inside your differential GPS source, and if you had that, you'd just put it in the device that needs accurate timing. It wouldn't suprise me if the military said no to anyone wanting you use these recievers for something besides timing, as there are alternatives.
GPS recievers give you timing accuracy in the tens of nanoseconds. This accuracy is necessary for synchronizing time division multiplexed communications systems (some cellular networks) for example. There are other applications which rely on this level of timing accuracy as well.
Obviously YOU misunderstand capitalism. Go take an economics course.
Capitalism encourages duplication of efforts in the form of multiple competing products/vendors. How many different companies are making DVD players right now? This was his point, and this "splitting of resources" is one of the fundamental concepts of capaitalism.
So the evidence you're citing actually undermines the point you were trying to make
i tepaper.pdf
No, it doesn't. It says "for approved users" but it never says what the criteria for being approved is.
Read this paper about "black key" SAASM GPS.
http://www.zyfer.com/briefings/saasmmil-nasafacwh
The military GPS you have experience with is "red key".
"Black key" achitecture allows for unclassified cyrpto keys and hardware.
Leave your cellphone at home. Expecting an emergency call that could get you fired/dumped/etc? DON'T GO TO THE MOVIES.
Why be such an asshole?
I should be able to go into a movie and put my phone on vibrate. If it goes off, I can go outside the theatre to take that important call. If that distrubs your movie waching too much, you should probably just kill yourself.
As far as your rights, you have no right to interfere with my cellphone call in an elevator anymore than you have a right to stop a private face-to-face converstion. Try that next time you're in an elevator, turn to some guys having a conversation and tell them to STFU, and whine about your "rights". See how quickly you discover your "right" to be punched in the head.
If you can handle hearing other people's converstions, you shouldn't go out in public.
My point is that they DO give out military GPS receivers (and codes, duh) for select non-military applications. The first site was one which sells these revievers.
If you look at the lists on that second page, you can see a list of projects which have these recievers.
What was your point exactly?
That you're wrong. You said: "Military GPS receivers aren't being used in non-military critical infrastructure applications", which is not true.
I not sure how you got it into your head that you're an authority on this subject, but you're 100% wrong. I'm not about to give out anymore information than is publicly availible on the 'net, but I suggest you start with those two sites. The Zyfer site has a number of highly informative PDF's.
Just like *they* can never make an unbrakable copy protection, Will *we* ever be able to completely anonymous while on the Net.
,blah.
Okay, here's the answer: No.
Why?
It's all about rescources:
It's impossible to create "unbreakable" crypto because the processes needs to be reversible and given enough resources and time the proper decryption method can be found.
Simlarly, it's impossible to be perfectly anonymous on an untrusted network like the internet because, given enough resources, someone can always find out who you are. In the case of freenet you have to worry that if every single computer you connect to is controlled by "them", they can obviously see what is going into and out from your PC.
The goal is to make it as hard a possible to trace you. This can be done a bnch of different ways, but I'll give you an example:
Say you have a p2p network like gnutella, but instead of sending file directly, there's a certaing probability that you will send your file via another node. Add some crypto, blah, blah
One of these days I'll get around to writing a paper on this stuff.
Military GPS receivers aren't being used in non-military critical infrastructure applications, but the receivers they are using are probably more accurate than standard military GPS receivers.
u rity/indexhae.htm
You should say that unless you know what you're talking about.
http://www.zyfer.com/gsync.html
http://gps.losangeles.af.mil/user/products/ue-sec
Differential GPS doesn't help much when you're trying to synchronize a comm network.
How is this Dell's fault again? Seriously...
It's not their "fault", it's just an issue of common decency. If I see someone getting in a car with a flat tire, I tell them. It's not my fault that the tire is flat. Sure, they could file some silly lawsuit if their call falls on them while changing the tire, but I'm not afraid of that. If I was afraid of things that stupid I would probably never leave my house.
In Dell's case this analogy isn't even bad enough. They're the mechanic in charge of the car's engine and they're explicitly not telling the guy to fix his flat tire. Then they get to try and troubleshoot a car with a flat tire.
Its a whole other story though, if Dell starts advising people to break these agreements. Granted, they are legally gray, but thats the point entirely of not wanting to get into the fray and being a potential party to breaking a contractual agreement.
They wouldn't be advising them to break agreements. They have no knowedge of any agreement.
Say you agree to stab a fork into your shoulder and leave it there. I come along and tell you there's a fork in your shoulder and you should take it out. What's the big f#@%^ing deal!!
Sure it's against some contract YOU signed but I don't have anything to do with that contract!
A lawsuit avoided entirely is better than a lawsuit won.
First off, what a wimpy thing to say. Second, it's not better if it costs you customer goodwill. Third, I'm thinking about suing you just for saying that, but I'll settle out of court right now for $20.
"Seriously, nothing to see here folks. It's common sense."
Hang on, no it's not. If a customre calls with no clue what's causing problems and the Dell support person on the phone knows, common sense (not to mention common decency) dictates that they point them towards a simple spyware solution. Common sense does not suggest you avoid mentioning the likely source of the problem; it does require that you send your customer to the ISP or the OS vender or in any way start them on a fruitless runaround when you could simply say "spybot might solve your problem".
I understand Dell's liability concerns regarding EULA's they know nothing about, but it smacks of cowardice when a corporate behemoth is afraid to give decent tech support. Are they that afraid of Gator and other scumbag spyware companies?
EXACTLY.
Sure it's not Dell's fault the spyware is there, but common decency says they should not pretend they don't know what's wrong and refuse to offer help.
It amazes me the legal B.S. that people are afraid of when computers are involved. If we were talking about cars, it would be obvious that Dell is being completely moronic.
Example:
[Driver gets flat tire. Calls OnStar.]
Driver: Hello. I have a flat tire, could you tell me how to change it?
OnStar: I'm sorry, we can't do that. You may have entered into a contract of questionalbe legality which prevents you from removing the tires on your car. Sure, you're the one who may or may not have signed this contract, but we're still not going to help you. We're not even going to ask if you've entered into this imaginary contract. We're afraid just giving you this small bit of help might land GM in court with some tiny company, who grossed less than we pay any given one of our VP's. Goodbye.