I'm sure there is little to no standard on de-classified computer systems in the govt.
Totally not true. SBU systems (sensitive but unclassified) have very clear standards. Encryption and interconnection standards are very precise. Drives get wiped, etc.
I know in DoD these are taken seriously. In other departments? I think things are more slack at the Dept of Agriculture, for instance.:-)
The reform has to get through Congress and ratified by state legislatures. It's called a Constitutional amendment.
No one cares enough. There will be no reform.
If the Dems didn't want Republicans to play dirty pool, a few things might have changed in the past.
Iran-Contra was probably the key thing here. Iran-Contra happened because the US Congress took it upon themselves to dictate foreign policy to the President in regards the Nicaraguan Sandinista regime by striking all funding for the Contra rebels from the budget. A few Reagan administration people chose to insulate the President from the issue while concocting an off-budget methodology of funding the Contras. While Ollie North took the hit on this one (along with a few other people like Eliot Abrams who ultimately got pardoned), the key thing here was the active use of independent prosecutors by the Democrat-dominated Congress of the time to attempt to extend the Congress' power to include dictating foreign policy. This power grab resembles the current one with judges to some extent. Note the stark lines of partisanship drawn.
Perhaps not defending that perjuring impeached ex-President might have helped also. I mean, take a look at how the Republicans responded to Nixon's shit and how the Dems responded to Clinton - Nixon was informed the Republican party wouldn't defend him (resigning shortly thereafter), while Clinton got a pass by the Democrats. So much for the rule of law. It wasn't about sex, it was about perjury. It wasn't about a third rate burglary in Nixon's case, it was about covering shit up and lax controls in the executive branch.
Also, the 2000 election fiasco was pretty ass backwards too. Gore never had a lead, ever. But instead they dragged the process through the mud. Karl Rove said ok to that. Let's play by those rules. Everything since then I see as just the Republicans accepting the Democrats' changed ground rules for conduct. This applies to the Texas redistricting, the California recall, that lameass funeral political rally for whatshisface in Minnesota (and the response thereof), hauling Lautenberg and Mondale out of the crypt for one more run:-), and the bullshit about judges.
Partisanship has ground the government to a halt and will only be solved when one party or another gets 60 votes in the Senate to change the parliamentary rules to eliminate filibusters, in effect. At that point things will proceed again. That Senate rules problem is one of those nice guy issues, kind of like SMTP in today's day and age - it was ok when everyone was cool, but now it's unacceptable because we are all shits.
Life goes on, you either lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Last point, claiming morality in politics is laughable. Through the years politics have sucked. They have gotten a little worse lately though.
You have regular sex (vasectomy is suggested in these cases - no, it doesn't hurt you wussies)
Dude, having your nuts out on a table for a half hour while the urologist uses a cigar tube with a car cigarette lighter in it to cauterize your vas deferens does not hurt, but when the urologist forgets to give you enough local, those stitches in your scrotum hurt like hell.
I was offered a choice, "I will give you two more shots of local and wait 15 minutes with you open for it to take effect, or I can finish the 3 stitches now with no anasthesia."
I took choice 2. Ouch.
I still cringe to this day. Thank goodness for Percocet.
Well, Napoleon thought it useful, along with many other works. It has been studied more or less religiously in military academies worldwide. Rommel took a mild interest in it. These aren't insignificant minds. Hell, it was clear von Mellenthin (the author of the excellent book 'Panzer Battles' on his journey as a general staff officer in the Wehrmacht) had a sampling of it as well.
Leading men and moving them on campaign has been altered by technology, but the basic premise of same has not changed a whit in 2500 years. Sure, our troops today are better educated and far better equipped, but they will break and run just as easily if they aren't motivated and led appropriately. They will be killed without purpose if not maneuvered effectively.
A better guide could be arrived at by a modern author who was familiar with modern technology and trends in warfare. The problem with that is that Sun Tzu's pronouncements are philosophical in many cases and hard to render in the crisp technical language modern military writers tend to use.
At the very least, Sun Tzu deserves to be remembered as the first to compile wisdom on the battlefield in a single tome.
You could make the same argument about nearly any elementary textbook. Sun Tzu was writing to his audience, which were not well educated and did not have educational opportunities that we would find familiar. The point you miss about it is that he simplifies the concepts of warfare down to very basic principles. Prior to reading such a text, warfare would need to be learned through actual experience. This tends to kill your most promising students quickly, hence the value of what Sun Tzu sought to teach. Since warfare hasn't changed much in actual practice during written history, it is still useful.
This is not to say that any discussion of battlefield maneuver is going to be cranially stimulating anyway. "Manoeuvre sur les derrieres" was the key to many of Napoleon's successful campaigns. It sounds very technical if you don't understand the French. I think we'd all agree that "March into the enemy's rear", which is what that means, isn't quite so imposing. In fact it's pretty much common sense, right? It's roughly the same thing Sun Tzu was saying with his "Attack him where he is unprepared" quote.
In regards the other Sun Tzu quotes, Napoleon didn't lose a single battle in Russia. In fact, Borodino was quite the victory given the close match of sizes of the armies involved and the fact that he was nearing Moscow, the furthest penetration into Russia he made. It seems Sun Tzu was proven out in this case.
Napoleon's failure is simple and well-accepted. He was unable, logistically, to support over 600,000 troops given the restrictions of horsed transport and the poor communication possibilities in Russia. Lack of quality roads and lack of navigable rivers along the axis of advance were key here. If you can't feed your troops, your army collapses.
"An army marches on its stomach." - seems like common sense again, doesn't it? Apparently it wasn't for Napoleon, who said it in the first place. This is the same guy that caused Clausewitz and Jomini to write extensive volumes on his campaigns. He also dominated military thinking till at least the First World War.
Bottom line, technical descriptions of warfare aren't that complicated. It's the logistics and man-management that are fraught with complexity.
Good reading: The Campaigns of Napoleon (Chandler, 1966) The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli
Hasn't everyone stopped doing business with Yahoo yet?
When my email box was full of spam that they basically wouldn't do anything about, I terminated my account with extreme prejudice. Sure, the wallet was handy for buying phone cards and for dealing with my favorite Taiwanese reseller of motherboards, but I can type in my credit card number rather than deal with their boatloads of spam.
The thing I hate about Yahoo, most of all, is that they make it as difficult as possible to find a customer service contact. Any business that doesn't give a shit about its customers is doomed ultimately - Yahoo is pretty much headed that way.
Re:Like Ozymandias in WATCHMEN
on
News at a Glance
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If comic book writers didn't have writers like Shelley to plagiarize, they'd never meet their monthly deadlines. Sort of like how people who do movie scores rape the classics.
Someone with discipline is ready to run a business, ready to take control of their lives. The army isn't the only place, moreover it's the least place where discipline counts.
Besides, look at all the ex-military people who do great in the private sector world. It isn't a bad way to be.
Admiration is a fanboy feeling bereft of truth. I'm contemptuous of it. I do not admire anyone. I respect people, however.
Respect the truth - the truth is fear. The fear that they could do harm to you in some way, shape or form. You desire to avoid those consequences, hence you respect.
You respect the police officer because he could harm you, harass you, take precious hours and days away from your life.
You respect your ex-wife because she can make your life miserable.
You respect your children because they can put you in a nursing home someday.
Your notions of admiration...if I wanted to be harsh i'd call them immature, not tempered by cynicism as they appropriately should be. You will learn for yourself, however. You're mixing respect with like. The two don't mix. I respect a lot of people I don't like. The real world is like that.
I was raised being treated as an adult. I think it is the best way. I got to learn my lessons young when the consequences were minimal instead of being treated like a child and having my rage and immaturity boil until I was old enough to have my actions seriously affect my life.
Ok. I am with you IF I had a kid like you.
Not all kids are like you.
I got raised in a house with 8 kids. Some of us were decent. Some were shits. My stepfather was a pretty smart guy and knew that not every one of them could be treated identically for best results. Some could be talked to. Some had to be hammered hard to get the point across.
My advice is the best cut at doing so if you lack his perception of what to do with a particular kid.
As for me, my daughters are both decent kids and do not need to be treated quite so harshly. A negative word from me is enough to reduce them to tears. If I get those - I know I got my point across. If I had a boy, I suspect he'd be a shit like I was and need the harsh regimen as depicted in the original parent.
If you have no reason to worry about someone, why respect them?
You need another watch of the Godfathers 1 and II. Note what happens to Marlon Brando when he looks stupid in front of the other families. Note what Michael does to fix things. That's how respect is earned.
Obviously killing people is illegal, but with your own child, there are many lesser ways of accomplishing the same goal.
If you can't wield control in your own house, and permit your children to do things to harm you without extracting fearful vengeance and deterring it from happening again, then my advice cannot help you.
A firm hand is required if you want kids that are going to grow up right. Otherwise they spend years learning things that a well-raised child already knows, like discipline.
What, the impression that you're watching their every move when you are? The simple truth? This is what you don't want your children to know?
If they can't trust you, why should you be able to trust them. Don't imagine you can get away with it. Kids aren't stupid, especially not around technology.
Your parental status doesn't mean you hold all the cards -- eventually, you're going to need your children's respect, and that has to be earned.
Rule 1 for earning respect is never to look impotent. Looking over their shoulders is impotent.
Set reasonable rules. Ie, no online gambling, no porn, whatever it is that you want. Make sure you think that the rules are reasonable and have the willpower to enforce every single one them. Otherwise you are wasting your time.
Keep excellent logs. Redirect everything through a proxy if you have to, but LOG EVERYTHING.
Never watch what they are doing. It creates the wrong impression.
Ask them what they have been doing online if you feel it significant, or they have been spending a lot of time there. Get them used to talking with you about stuff.
Do spot checks of the logs based upon this information.
Try to get them into a position where they have a choice whether to lie or tell the truth (and you know it). Be slick about this - don't be acting dumb.
If they lie, let them walk away. Come back to them the next day with the fact that you know they lied. Don't get angry, but put the cold fear of God into them. Make them suffer. Jerk the network connection for the computer for a week and ground them. Tell them next time, two weeks. Time after that, forever, and keep them in the house for a nice long time. Tell them you can tolerate many things, but not lying.
Bask in the glow of having done the best you can for your kids. They will, in general, follow your rules now.
On a personal note, i'd never try to enforce a 'no porn' rule on teenage boys. It's damn stupid. Even my mom was cool with the porn mags in my night table when I was a kid. We had a don't ask don't tell rule. She didn't clean that drawer - it was my one sanctum of privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, it made me laugh.
I'm sure there is little to no standard on de-classified computer systems in the govt.
:-)
Totally not true. SBU systems (sensitive but unclassified) have very clear standards. Encryption and interconnection standards are very precise. Drives get wiped, etc.
I know in DoD these are taken seriously. In other departments? I think things are more slack at the Dept of Agriculture, for instance.
I'm glad it's not only me that think Fleet Bank sucks ass.
They fuck me over every goddamn pay period with shit like that.
They weren't making enough off fees so I suppose they had to do some creative stuff to create income.
The reform has to get through Congress and ratified by state legislatures. It's called a Constitutional amendment.
:-), and the bullshit about judges.
No one cares enough. There will be no reform.
If the Dems didn't want Republicans to play dirty pool, a few things might have changed in the past.
Iran-Contra was probably the key thing here. Iran-Contra happened because the US Congress took it upon themselves to dictate foreign policy to the President in regards the Nicaraguan Sandinista regime by striking all funding for the Contra rebels from the budget. A few Reagan administration people chose to insulate the President from the issue while concocting an off-budget methodology of funding the Contras. While Ollie North took the hit on this one (along with a few other people like Eliot Abrams who ultimately got pardoned), the key thing here was the active use of independent prosecutors by the Democrat-dominated Congress of the time to attempt to extend the Congress' power to include dictating foreign policy. This power grab resembles the current one with judges to some extent. Note the stark lines of partisanship drawn.
Perhaps not defending that perjuring impeached ex-President might have helped also. I mean, take a look at how the Republicans responded to Nixon's shit and how the Dems responded to Clinton - Nixon was informed the Republican party wouldn't defend him (resigning shortly thereafter), while Clinton got a pass by the Democrats. So much for the rule of law. It wasn't about sex, it was about perjury. It wasn't about a third rate burglary in Nixon's case, it was about covering shit up and lax controls in the executive branch.
Also, the 2000 election fiasco was pretty ass backwards too. Gore never had a lead, ever. But instead they dragged the process through the mud. Karl Rove said ok to that. Let's play by those rules. Everything since then I see as just the Republicans accepting the Democrats' changed ground rules for conduct. This applies to the Texas redistricting, the California recall, that lameass funeral political rally for whatshisface in Minnesota (and the response thereof), hauling Lautenberg and Mondale out of the crypt for one more run
Partisanship has ground the government to a halt and will only be solved when one party or another gets 60 votes in the Senate to change the parliamentary rules to eliminate filibusters, in effect. At that point things will proceed again. That Senate rules problem is one of those nice guy issues, kind of like SMTP in today's day and age - it was ok when everyone was cool, but now it's unacceptable because we are all shits.
Life goes on, you either lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Last point, claiming morality in politics is laughable. Through the years politics have sucked. They have gotten a little worse lately though.
This doesn't say jack about conversion rate from 6.x-9.x Red Hat to the Enterprise product though.
I am interested in that. You would assume that people who bought the enterprise product would pay for their support - otherwise why buy it?
Sounds like the bleeding obvious to me. They lowball an expectation and their analysis is proved flawed. This is news? Must be a slow day.
Actually the IDE interface on the motherboard is just a 'host adapter' while the brains reside on the 'master' drive.
The slave drive is just that: a slave. Therefore it behooves you to put the most modern drive in as the master to avoid compatibility issues.
This was much more significant back in the days when I had my first WD 40mb - not so much now.
I take my hat off to you sir, that is a well written reply.
I hope at least one politician in your region is not a total idiot.
Best of luck.
Now *I* want to kick your ass because my marriage sucked ass! Damn bitch got fat and didn't put out worth a shit.
heh heh
It's just envy. Please tell me you have to take Viagra or something...
You have regular sex (vasectomy is suggested in these cases - no, it doesn't hurt you wussies)
Dude, having your nuts out on a table for a half hour while the urologist uses a cigar tube with a car cigarette lighter in it to cauterize your vas deferens does not hurt, but when the urologist forgets to give you enough local, those stitches in your scrotum hurt like hell.
I was offered a choice, "I will give you two more shots of local and wait 15 minutes with you open for it to take effect, or I can finish the 3 stitches now with no anasthesia."
I took choice 2. Ouch.
I still cringe to this day. Thank goodness for Percocet.
To who?
Well, Napoleon thought it useful, along with many other works. It has been studied more or less religiously in military academies worldwide. Rommel took a mild interest in it. These aren't insignificant minds. Hell, it was clear von Mellenthin (the author of the excellent book 'Panzer Battles' on his journey as a general staff officer in the Wehrmacht) had a sampling of it as well.
Leading men and moving them on campaign has been altered by technology, but the basic premise of same has not changed a whit in 2500 years. Sure, our troops today are better educated and far better equipped, but they will break and run just as easily if they aren't motivated and led appropriately. They will be killed without purpose if not maneuvered effectively.
A better guide could be arrived at by a modern author who was familiar with modern technology and trends in warfare. The problem with that is that Sun Tzu's pronouncements are philosophical in many cases and hard to render in the crisp technical language modern military writers tend to use.
At the very least, Sun Tzu deserves to be remembered as the first to compile wisdom on the battlefield in a single tome.
You could make the same argument about nearly any elementary textbook. Sun Tzu was writing to his audience, which were not well educated and did not have educational opportunities that we would find familiar. The point you miss about it is that he simplifies the concepts of warfare down to very basic principles. Prior to reading such a text, warfare would need to be learned through actual experience. This tends to kill your most promising students quickly, hence the value of what Sun Tzu sought to teach. Since warfare hasn't changed much in actual practice during written history, it is still useful.
This is not to say that any discussion of battlefield maneuver is going to be cranially stimulating anyway. "Manoeuvre sur les derrieres" was the key to many of Napoleon's successful campaigns. It sounds very technical if you don't understand the French. I think we'd all agree that "March into the enemy's rear", which is what that means, isn't quite so imposing. In fact it's pretty much common sense, right? It's roughly the same thing Sun Tzu was saying with his "Attack him where he is unprepared" quote.
In regards the other Sun Tzu quotes, Napoleon didn't lose a single battle in Russia. In fact, Borodino was quite the victory given the close match of sizes of the armies involved and the fact that he was nearing Moscow, the furthest penetration into Russia he made. It seems Sun Tzu was proven out in this case.
Napoleon's failure is simple and well-accepted. He was unable, logistically, to support over 600,000 troops given the restrictions of horsed transport and the poor communication possibilities in Russia. Lack of quality roads and lack of navigable rivers along the axis of advance were key here. If you can't feed your troops, your army collapses.
"An army marches on its stomach." - seems like common sense again, doesn't it? Apparently it wasn't for Napoleon, who said it in the first place. This is the same guy that caused Clausewitz and Jomini to write extensive volumes on his campaigns. He also dominated military thinking till at least the First World War.
Bottom line, technical descriptions of warfare aren't that complicated. It's the logistics and man-management that are fraught with complexity.
Good reading:
The Campaigns of Napoleon (Chandler, 1966)
The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli
Hasn't everyone stopped doing business with Yahoo yet?
When my email box was full of spam that they basically wouldn't do anything about, I terminated my account with extreme prejudice. Sure, the wallet was handy for buying phone cards and for dealing with my favorite Taiwanese reseller of motherboards, but I can type in my credit card number rather than deal with their boatloads of spam.
The thing I hate about Yahoo, most of all, is that they make it as difficult as possible to find a customer service contact. Any business that doesn't give a shit about its customers is doomed ultimately - Yahoo is pretty much headed that way.
If comic book writers didn't have writers like Shelley to plagiarize, they'd never meet their monthly deadlines. Sort of like how people who do movie scores rape the classics.
A stern ass kicking.
Seriously.
Someone with discipline is ready to run a business, ready to take control of their lives. The army isn't the only place, moreover it's the least place where discipline counts.
Besides, look at all the ex-military people who do great in the private sector world. It isn't a bad way to be.
Healthy, indeed, because they need a bit of shielding from a parent like you in order to develop sensibly.
Yeah, into a milquetoast idiot who has no discipline.
I'll always be your boss. Enjoy it.
Admiration is a fanboy feeling bereft of truth. I'm contemptuous of it. I do not admire anyone. I respect people, however.
Respect the truth - the truth is fear. The fear that they could do harm to you in some way, shape or form. You desire to avoid those consequences, hence you respect.
You respect the police officer because he could harm you, harass you, take precious hours and days away from your life.
You respect your ex-wife because she can make your life miserable.
You respect your children because they can put you in a nursing home someday.
Your notions of admiration...if I wanted to be harsh i'd call them immature, not tempered by cynicism as they appropriately should be. You will learn for yourself, however. You're mixing respect with like. The two don't mix. I respect a lot of people I don't like. The real world is like that.
Wow, you have problems. Do you really not respect anyone you're not afraid of?
If you respect someone you don't have fear of, what is it based upon? Faith?
You are set up for some serious disappointment in life. You think I have problems? I feel sorry for you.
I was raised being treated as an adult. I think it is the best way. I got to learn my lessons young when the consequences were minimal instead of being treated like a child and having my rage and immaturity boil until I was old enough to have my actions seriously affect my life.
Ok. I am with you IF I had a kid like you.
Not all kids are like you.
I got raised in a house with 8 kids. Some of us were decent. Some were shits. My stepfather was a pretty smart guy and knew that not every one of them could be treated identically for best results. Some could be talked to. Some had to be hammered hard to get the point across.
My advice is the best cut at doing so if you lack his perception of what to do with a particular kid.
As for me, my daughters are both decent kids and do not need to be treated quite so harshly. A negative word from me is enough to reduce them to tears. If I get those - I know I got my point across. If I had a boy, I suspect he'd be a shit like I was and need the harsh regimen as depicted in the original parent.
So in otherwords, you advocate that we put a perfectly good machine in a closet and completely fill up it's hard drive for no purpose whatsoever?
Never openly watch what they are doing. I thought that was pretty clear, but I guess not.
You want to nail them if they lie. You can't do that without information.
Fear is a prerequisite to respect.
If you have no reason to worry about someone, why respect them?
You need another watch of the Godfathers 1 and II. Note what happens to Marlon Brando when he looks stupid in front of the other families. Note what Michael does to fix things. That's how respect is earned.
Obviously killing people is illegal, but with your own child, there are many lesser ways of accomplishing the same goal.
If you can't wield control in your own house, and permit your children to do things to harm you without extracting fearful vengeance and deterring it from happening again, then my advice cannot help you.
A firm hand is required if you want kids that are going to grow up right. Otherwise they spend years learning things that a well-raised child already knows, like discipline.
What, the impression that you're watching their every move when you are? The simple truth? This is what you don't want your children to know?
If they can't trust you, why should you be able to trust them. Don't imagine you can get away with it. Kids aren't stupid, especially not around technology.
Your parental status doesn't mean you hold all the cards -- eventually, you're going to need your children's respect, and that has to be earned.
Rule 1 for earning respect is never to look impotent. Looking over their shoulders is impotent.
Come to the battle well-armed.
On a personal note, i'd never try to enforce a 'no porn' rule on teenage boys. It's damn stupid. Even my mom was cool with the porn mags in my night table when I was a kid. We had a don't ask don't tell rule. She didn't clean that drawer - it was my one sanctum of privacy.
No, the final insult is when you get anally penetrated by the embalmer.
:-) Draw your own conclusions.
"I'm fucking dead and i'm still getting screwed!"
One of my dad's jokes. He was instantly cremated, however