I'm thinking the motive is to prevent damage to morale, but I can't see how the order is any less destructive on morale than the contents of these documents.
Try again. Plenty of military personnel in Afghanistan already had (and still have!) access to this information. They're just not allowed to use an unclassified computer to view it on a public website.
So, yes, I'm saying that anyone who's downloaded those documents has, in fact, committed a crime.
Now it's up to the DoJ to figure out what to do about that.
It's not clear to me that it's criminal to download this stuff if you have no clearance at all. The typical response to a leak is to neither confirm nor deny its authenticity (though this case might be different, since the Pentagon has at least implicitly confirmed this leak), so someone without a clearance can't possibly determine whether something is truly classified. Furthermore, ordinary citizens aren't expected to know the levels of classification and the rules for handling classified information.
Regulations be damned. Information posted to a public website is automatically declassified whether they like it or not.
No, it's not. In fact, the usual procedure is to not comment on what is claimed to be leaked classified information, so as not to confirm the information. Obviously this case is a bit different in scope, but the policy is the same. Leaked classified information is still classified.
This is exactly what has stopped me from viewing the documents. Currently they are considered classified. And it's a huge breach of the USMC and my current security clearance (which is high enough to view these documents anyways) to have any copies of these documents on my personal computer or any other computer that isn't secure.
And even if you were given a digital copy of these to view on your classified computer, you couldn't do so because you don't have the need-to-know. (Otherwise, you'd have access through official means!)
This story is ridiculous. Basically, folks with security clearances are being expected to follow the rules for handling classified information. That's all.
$150k in NY City is akin to about $90-100k elsewhere. A good salary to be sure, but imho doesn't account for the high pressure/risk of the job at hand.
Exactly. When I was on the job market a while back, I got a lot of calls from recruiters pitching these types of jobs. I was honestly surprised at how low the salaries were, given the long hours and high stress of the jobs, as well as the cost of living in NYC.
Ah. now I understand. You simply wanted to use Slashdot to promote your services for free.
In the post you replied to, jtrant wrote: "whoever started this thread didn't check with me [i'm not that hard to find] or with BoingBoing about the circumstances under which my image was used." The AC who submitted this story had nothing to do with the picture used at BoingBoing.
If there are two possible combinations in a given lottery, the probability one ticket winning is indeed 1/2.
Can you not read? Let me repeat it for you. In the Monty Hall problem, there are in fact two doors to choose from - not three. Everything that happens before Monty asks if you want to switch you choice IS NOT PART OF THE GAME.
You're wrong. (This can be seen by simply enumerating the possibilities.) To connect this to the lottery example, suppose there are n total combinations, and you pick combination A. Then the lottery sponsor tells you that all of the remaining combinations, except for some specified combination B, are definitely not winning combinations. Are combination A and B now equally likely to be winners? No! Since there are n possible choices and you picked 1, the sponsor can ALWAYS pick n-2 of the n-1 that remain and guarantee that those are losing combinations. This doesn't change your odds of winning. Combination A has a winning probability of 1/n, and thus combination B has a probability of 1-1/n.
You don't need to exclude fraternal twins, since they are no different in terms of gender distribution than non-twin siblings. Identical twins, however, do violate the assumption that the gender probabilities are independent.
Here's a non-randomized version (under the assumptions that boys and girls are equally likely, and that each day of the week is also equally likely): from __future__ import division import itertools days = ["M","T","W","Th","F","Sat","Sun"] sex = ["B","G"]
# generate all single birth possibilities births = list(itertools.product(days,sex))
# all possible pairs pairs = list(itertools.product(births,repeat=2))
# pairs where at least one is a boy born on Tuesday tues_boys = [p for p in pairs if p[0] == ('T','B') or p[1] == ('T','B')]
both_boys = [p for p in tues_boys if p[0][1] == 'B' and p[1][1] == 'B']
print "Boy born on Tuesday: ", len(tues_boys) print "Two boys: ", len(both_boys) print "Probability: ", len(both_boys)/len(tues_boys)
And the output: % python tuesday.py Boy born on Tuesday: 27 Two boys: 13 Probability: 0.481481481481
Not the parent, posting in general reply to all the morons answering to this statement:
Not sure how this got a tagged as an NSA video, it's from the DSS. The DSS is the organization responsible for granting security clearances. The process they're describing is the polygraph you take to receive certain security clearances. Anyone who is taking this polygraph has applied for a Top Secret-level security clearance.
with "that's not true, I have a TS clearance, but I didn't have to take the poly."
What part of the poly required being a subset of the TS clearance set don't you get? Are you ALL that bad at reading comprehension? Or maybe you just can't think critically and missed the day in 3rd grade when they taught that all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares?
You left out the next sentence in the GP's post: "This process is pretty much the same for anyone applying for these clearances, doesn't matter if they'll be working at the NSA, another three-letter agency, in the armed forces, or for a private defense contractor."
It's enough to drive the pissant commie sympathizers to bother someone else. Or maybe not. [nytimes.com]
Precisely the problem.
The FBI has a similar problem - you can smoke (but not inhale) and become President (Clinton, Bush II, Obama) - but you can't join the FBI if you answer honestly.
Actually, the FBI has relaxed those rules somewhat:
Isn't mentioning your clearance level grounds for having it taken away?
No. If a clearance itself were classified, you couldn't even get to your office, since you wouldn't be able to discuss your clearance with the guard at the gate, because neither of you would be able to reveal that you had clearances until both of you had verified each other's clearance.
Maschke is obviously not impartial, but you can verify the overall process by reading polygraph examiner training information, some examples of which are available here:
They already calibrate it by telling you what to say to a question (ie: Answer "yes" to the following:" Are you in the state of Virginia?)
Contrary to popular belief, that is not how polygraphs are calibrated. The "control questions" are ones where the subject is assumed to be (or sometimes coerced into) lying about a topic that isn't actually important to the interview.
Anyone who is taking this polygraph has applied for a Top Secret-level security clearance. This process is pretty much the same for anyone applying for these clearances, doesn't matter if they'll be working at the NSA, another three-letter agency, in the armed forces, or for a private defense contractor.
The Department of Energy doesn't require polygraphs for Top Secret equivalent clearances. DOE can use polygraphs in some cases, but many DOE scientists have been arguing against mandatory polygraphs. For example:
...do they do with uncooperative respondents? If someone refuses to say anything but "Mickey Mouse" while strapped to their glorified E-meter, would that be seen as an exercise in 5th amendment rights in the States? I mean, if ANYTHING they say about lie detectors is true, then someone's nonverbal responses to questions should be considered "speech," right?
I don't know of any situation in which you can be forced to submit to a polygraph. However, your security clearance will probably be revoked or denied.
There's a third issue: salaries. Programming talent is used to silicon valley pay grades, not military pay grades. How many employees would be willing to leave their current position and take a 50% pay cut to work for the government? Would you be willing to trust the code of someone working for $40K/year?
Actually, there are a lot of government programming jobs that pay decently. I work at a government research lab, and the pay is competitive with industry (though no stock options, etc.), and I've seen a lot of FBI/NSA/CIA job postings for computer scientists that advertise 6-figure salaries.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm thinking the motive is to prevent damage to morale, but I can't see how the order is any less destructive on morale than the contents of these documents.
Try again. Plenty of military personnel in Afghanistan already had (and still have!) access to this information. They're just not allowed to use an unclassified computer to view it on a public website.
So, yes, I'm saying that anyone who's downloaded those documents has, in fact, committed a crime.
Now it's up to the DoJ to figure out what to do about that.
It's not clear to me that it's criminal to download this stuff if you have no clearance at all. The typical response to a leak is to neither confirm nor deny its authenticity (though this case might be different, since the Pentagon has at least implicitly confirmed this leak), so someone without a clearance can't possibly determine whether something is truly classified. Furthermore, ordinary citizens aren't expected to know the levels of classification and the rules for handling classified information.
Regulations be damned. Information posted to a public website is automatically declassified whether they like it or not.
No, it's not. In fact, the usual procedure is to not comment on what is claimed to be leaked classified information, so as not to confirm the information. Obviously this case is a bit different in scope, but the policy is the same. Leaked classified information is still classified.
This is exactly what has stopped me from viewing the documents. Currently they are considered classified. And it's a huge breach of the USMC and my current security clearance (which is high enough to view these documents anyways) to have any copies of these documents on my personal computer or any other computer that isn't secure.
And even if you were given a digital copy of these to view on your classified computer, you couldn't do so because you don't have the need-to-know. (Otherwise, you'd have access through official means!)
This story is ridiculous. Basically, folks with security clearances are being expected to follow the rules for handling classified information. That's all.
$150k in NY City is akin to about $90-100k elsewhere. A good salary to be sure, but imho doesn't account for the high pressure/risk of the job at hand.
Exactly. When I was on the job market a while back, I got a lot of calls from recruiters pitching these types of jobs. I was honestly surprised at how low the salaries were, given the long hours and high stress of the jobs, as well as the cost of living in NYC.
Ah. now I understand. You simply wanted to use Slashdot to promote your services for free.
In the post you replied to, jtrant wrote: "whoever started this thread didn't check with me [i'm not that hard to find] or with BoingBoing about the circumstances under which my image was used." The AC who submitted this story had nothing to do with the picture used at BoingBoing.
Good choice of number:
12^3 + 1^3 = 10^3 + 9^3 = 1729
Hey, that is a cool number!
You think Knuth uses Emacs? Heresy!
From http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/programs.html:
"The emacs-oriented desktop layouts I use on my home computer to write books..."
Your analogy is just plain stupid.
If there are two possible combinations in a given lottery, the probability one ticket winning is indeed 1/2.
Can you not read? Let me repeat it for you. In the Monty Hall problem, there are in fact two doors to choose from - not three. Everything that happens before Monty asks if you want to switch you choice IS NOT PART OF THE GAME.
You're wrong. (This can be seen by simply enumerating the possibilities.) To connect this to the lottery example, suppose there are n total combinations, and you pick combination A. Then the lottery sponsor tells you that all of the remaining combinations, except for some specified combination B, are definitely not winning combinations. Are combination A and B now equally likely to be winners? No! Since there are n possible choices and you picked 1, the sponsor can ALWAYS pick n-2 of the n-1 that remain and guarantee that those are losing combinations. This doesn't change your odds of winning. Combination A has a winning probability of 1/n, and thus combination B has a probability of 1-1/n.
Note to the Editors: If by some chance you run another story linking to this guy's website, use Coral Cache. Please.
No, please link to correct site. Coral Cache is blocked by many corporate web filters as a "proxy avoidance" site.
--no twins
You don't need to exclude fraternal twins, since they are no different in terms of gender distribution than non-twin siblings. Identical twins, however, do violate the assumption that the gender probabilities are independent.
There are two possibilities in the second (real) game, not three. The car is behind either door number 1 or door number 2.
If I buy a ticket for this week's lottery, one of two things will occur:
a) I will win the jackpot
b) I will not win the jackpot
There are two possible outcomes here, yet the probability that I win is (unfortunately!) not 1/2.
Here's a non-randomized version (under the assumptions that boys and girls are equally likely, and that each day of the week is also equally likely):
from __future__ import division
import itertools
days = ["M","T","W","Th","F","Sat","Sun"]
sex = ["B","G"]
# generate all single birth possibilities
births = list(itertools.product(days,sex))
# all possible pairs
pairs = list(itertools.product(births,repeat=2))
# pairs where at least one is a boy born on Tuesday
tues_boys = [p for p in pairs if p[0] == ('T','B') or p[1] == ('T','B')]
both_boys = [p for p in tues_boys if p[0][1] == 'B' and p[1][1] == 'B']
print "Boy born on Tuesday: ", len(tues_boys)
print "Two boys: ", len(both_boys)
print "Probability: ", len(both_boys)/len(tues_boys)
And the output:
% python tuesday.py
Boy born on Tuesday: 27
Two boys: 13
Probability: 0.481481481481
yes, but it doesn't have negative numbers. I always loved the fact that there was a negative number too...
e^{i * \pi} IS a negative number. A symbol doesn't need a '-' in front of it to be negative.
Not the parent, posting in general reply to all the morons answering to this statement:
Not sure how this got a tagged as an NSA video, it's from the DSS. The DSS is the organization responsible for granting security clearances. The process they're describing is the polygraph you take to receive certain security clearances. Anyone who is taking this polygraph has applied for a Top Secret-level security clearance.
with "that's not true, I have a TS clearance, but I didn't have to take the poly."
What part of the poly required being a subset of the TS clearance set don't you get? Are you ALL that bad at reading comprehension? Or maybe you just can't think critically and missed the day in 3rd grade when they taught that all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares?
You left out the next sentence in the GP's post: "This process is pretty much the same for anyone applying for these clearances, doesn't matter if they'll be working at the NSA, another three-letter agency, in the armed forces, or for a private defense contractor."
Precisely the problem.
The FBI has a similar problem - you can smoke (but not inhale) and become President (Clinton, Bush II, Obama) - but you can't join the FBI if you answer honestly.
Actually, the FBI has relaxed those rules somewhat:
http://www.fbijobs.gov/52.asp
Here's a story about the policy change:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601260.html
Isn't mentioning your clearance level grounds for having it taken away?
No. If a clearance itself were classified, you couldn't even get to your office, since you wouldn't be able to discuss your clearance with the guard at the gate, because neither of you would be able to reveal that you had clearances until both of you had verified each other's clearance.
what..do they do with uncooperative respondents?
playing Mickey Mouse games with the examiner is likely to be more psychologically revealing - more dangerous - than answering his questions directly.
Good point. Polygraphs aren't reliable, but it's still foolish to try to deceive (or just harass) a trained interrogator.
Can you provide an example?
Start on page 97:
http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf
Maschke is obviously not impartial, but you can verify the overall process by reading polygraph examiner training information, some examples of which are available here:
http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml
They already calibrate it by telling you what to say to a question (ie: Answer "yes" to the following:" Are you in the state of Virginia?)
Contrary to popular belief, that is not how polygraphs are calibrated. The "control questions" are ones where the subject is assumed to be (or sometimes coerced into) lying about a topic that isn't actually important to the interview.
Anyone who is taking this polygraph has applied for a Top Secret-level security clearance. This process is pretty much the same for anyone applying for these clearances, doesn't matter if they'll be working at the NSA, another three-letter agency, in the armed forces, or for a private defense contractor.
The Department of Energy doesn't require polygraphs for Top Secret equivalent clearances. DOE can use polygraphs in some cases, but many DOE scientists have been arguing against mandatory polygraphs. For example:
http://www.spse.org/Polygraph_comments_Livermo.html
...do they do with uncooperative respondents? If someone refuses to say anything but "Mickey Mouse" while strapped to their glorified E-meter, would that be seen as an exercise in 5th amendment rights in the States? I mean, if ANYTHING they say about lie detectors is true, then someone's nonverbal responses to questions should be considered "speech," right?
I don't know of any situation in which you can be forced to submit to a polygraph. However, your security clearance will probably be revoked or denied.
You might want to note that the footnote at the end of the letter indicates that it isn't actually an open letter. :)
He made it public back in 2003:
http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/news03.html
There's no such thing as instantaneous speed. Velocity is always distance over time. If time is zero, that's a divide by zero.
You didn't do well in calculus, did you?
There's a third issue: salaries. Programming talent is used to silicon valley pay grades, not military pay grades. How many employees would be willing to leave their current position and take a 50% pay cut to work for the government? Would you be willing to trust the code of someone working for $40K/year?
Actually, there are a lot of government programming jobs that pay decently. I work at a government research lab, and the pay is competitive with industry (though no stock options, etc.), and I've seen a lot of FBI/NSA/CIA job postings for computer scientists that advertise 6-figure salaries.