These are a new generation of Army commander who have much more in common with today's geek than you would expect. Both are technology-centric men who are interested in the network and the applications we run on it, including games. I've had the opportunity to meet both men and I have to say that the generational issues regarding technology have been overcome with the arrival of men like this in command. Before them, perhaps the Army's senior leadership was brought up in an era before personal computing. That is no longer the case.
Who allowed this to happen? I mean, okay, the ship sank there, but why wasn't it cleaned up along with the millions of tons of other war junk from WWII that was disposed of?
This is a perfect example of the insurance dictum that 'claims do not go away'. You need to settle them (ie, fix the problem).
For every incidence of hypochondria that you cite (which in effect is what you are saying) there is someone like me who refuses to see a doctor unless dragged in chains to the door of the office and then prodded by a bayonet.
Mods: How exactly is it insightful to suggest that everyone in the US is a hypochondriac anyway? Sounds like a bunch of European moderators this morning - woops, that's every morning.
The problem with your attitude is that you neglect the myriad cases where a GP can be a very useful triage device. The GP can identify those with bacterial infections that need antibiotics, which frankly is the only reason I go. The GP can tell you to go to the hospital.
Otherwise, who gives a shit how often the hypochondriacs go to the doctor? In the US we have enough GPs to handle triage. Sounds like Canada doesn't, to the detriment of their supposedly 'superior' health care system. Hint: it's only superior because they have ours right next door. If China were their next door neighbor I suspect things would be different.
Life is not a right. We all have to keep up our end. Absent that ethic, everything ultimately falls apart.
Re:Major security issues...
on
Semper WiFi
·
· Score: 1
The question in the grandparent post was "is there a secure WiFi network".
That said, your question is an interesting one, moreso than you know. Let's look at it from an axiomatic viewpoint - any network connection in harm's way is going to be considered sensitive and most likely classified. Draw conclusions from there.
Re:Major security issues...
on
Semper WiFi
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes. The Harris company has produced a WiFi network that is capable of carrying Top Secret data. You need a waiver from an appropriate authority to even get this gear, and you'd best be government.
That said, they aren't talking about deploying one here. This is commercial off the shelf equipment they are talking about in the article. Grossly insecure.
In Iraq, this might work. Good line of sight and all. In Afghanistan - listen, i've seen pictures people brought back from Afghanistan in the last 2 years. It looks like Mordor with the high black mountains surrounding you. Line of sight is a big issue. IOW, this is a half baked scheme for Afghanistan.
Those who produce appropriate content do not need copy protection. They know how to inject value add into their presence, making the money invested worthwile.
Copy protection is for the benefit of manufacturers of shrink wrap products. I submit that none of us really want a shrink wrap product. That implies no updates. No moving to new platforms. No Linux version. The use of the word 'franchise'. Very rarely is a sequel even as good as the original. Why would we want companies focused on bringing out tired old versions of the same old shit?
In sum, someone will always produce PC games. The market is huge. Whether it's the current idiots who do is another question.
Vote with your wallet. I don't fly unless absolutely positively there is no other way to get to there from here in a reasonable time frame. Otherwise, I avoid airports. They consume my time and have wasteful, feelgood 'security measures' which actually provide no security at all.
The last straw for me was having my shoes searched three times on the way to a plane. I was wearing a pair of sneakers. No metal in there.
Government mandated security measures in airports are geared to one goal, and one goal only - maintaining the status quo in the airline industry. It's an attempt to construct a valid excuse for the next hijacking. "After all, we made you show ID and confiscated your 3/4" long insulin needles, don't blame us."
Security professionals my ass, they don't have a chance in hell of catching a committed hijacker either before 9/11 or now. Get people used to that idea and stop with the stupid 'security' crap. You can also die on your morning commute to a truck driver snorting crank. Get a grip, death is all around us. You could drop dead reading this post. Really.
Admittedly the 68k boxes were paltry low-end 486 class performers even in their best incarnation, but many a person was running Win98 on a comparable machine in 1998.
I'll answer my own question: "DirectX games". That's about it.
To be fair, if I put up my 1996 version of Slackware on the net or a copy of System 7.5.3 on an old 68k Macintosh I wouldn't have these problems, at least not to that degree.
If Congress thought there was a problem, they could take control back at any time.
The whole point of the Fed was to depoliticize currency and banking in the US. It makes great fodder for tinfoil hat types/Art Bell listeners to concoct conspiracy theories about, but the Fed is rather transparent and focused on its goal which is embodied in section 2A of the Federal Reserve Act:
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.
During my time there, I saw two things going on. First, reliable armed guard maintained over large gold and currency reserves. Second, incredible amounts of statistics gathering with the intent of producing a firm picture of current banking and economic trends.
No Star Chambers, no evil men and smoke filled rooms.
Please...take your own advice. Every government agency has its own egotistical leader and egotistical employees who want credit for their own work. Believing that they are all mindless automatons who toe the governmental line is asinine.
The Fed was specificially designed to be neither government nor private - a weird combination only seen in places like MITRE. Government auditors aren't going to even see the Fed as the same team, since they don't answer to the same people. They'd be all too willing to crap all over the Fed.
I used to work for the Fed for a bit. I work for the DoD now. I've seen both cultures and they aren't the same at all.
Remove your tin foil hat, it's constricting the blood flow to your brain.
The Federal Reserve is a system set up by capitalists (banks) for capitalists (banks).
Wrong. The Federal Reserve System was set up by an act of Congress December 23, 1913. The Fed is a public/private organization with a complex structure that makes the Board of Governors Federal employees (like Mr. Greenspan) and the staffs of the regional banks private sector employees. Your questions about what it does will be answered somewhat here.
Instead of giving the money to individuals (which is the way it should be done in a truly free system), they pass it out to their buddies in the banking system who make a profit by leasing the money to individual borrowers.
How is this crap insightful? The Fed makes short-term loans to individual banks. These loans are at low interest rates but must be paid back quickly also. Banks also deposit cash reserves with the Fed. There is no 'giving' of money. Even if there were, that's a silly sentiment. "Let's power the economy by giving away worthless paper currency to everyone." It would be worthless because everyone had it in equal measure without any value being attached.
The Federal Reserve also has a very powerful way of making a shit load of money: inflation. They just print a lot more money that they would be allowed to print if the system were regulated by just laws. Who or where does all this money goes to? I have no idea.
Yes, you don't have any idea. You're completely clueless about our financial system. You probably aren't aware that at any moment, there are a few hundred billion in coin and currency in circulation (600 bil or so in 2003). The US GDP in 2003, for instance, was something on the order of 11 trillion dollars. Search that document, it's there. Please note that we aren't even considering bank deposits, stock ownership or any other securities, like bonds.
An intelligent person might come to the conclusion that most money doesn't exist as currency at all. It's only written on paper or stored in a computer somewhere. You'd be right if you came to that conclusion. Therefore, the Fed printing 100 billion more of $100 bills would have a negligible effect anyway.
There's an even more compelling reason why your statement above is stupid. The Fed doesn't *GIVE OUT* money. The funds are either loaned in the short term, or given out of the member bank's deposits to the Fed. Therefore, there is no inflationary pressure associated with $100 bills going to Bank X since they are paid for one way or another.
So how exactly were they making money off of this? Answer: they aren't. They make most of their money off of check processing and ACH transfers which they act as the middleman for.
Essentially, we have the wolves in charge of the chicken coop. There're making a killing, so to speak, and there's nothing you and I can do about it. Other than complain.
Next time you make a comment about something, how about knowing something...anything about what it is you are commenting about?
These people were doing a job like everyone else. They were government employees. This wasn't trailblazing - we've sent how many people to LEO now? Must be closing in on 1000 individual trips. Your morning commute does not constitute heroism, and neither does this.
"Real" trucks have something called an ICC bumper, it's a rectangular thing that hangs down from the back of the truck and prevents cars from going under it and decapitating the passengers of same.
They usually have reflectors on them and/or reflective tape. You probably have seen them before.
I wish more people would get the chance to read this. unfortunately they have to read at -1 or 0 to see your reasons.
1 makes me wonder why the men think it's appropriate to criticize your dress. I wouldn't think of it.
2 sounds like something women suffer in almost every field. Individual people matter. I do not believe that every male scientist is like that, everywhere. Sounds like a cultural thing that needs to be broken up where you work. Maybe you can be instrumental in doing so?
3 and 4 shows the dangers of trying to right societal wrongs via government power, ie the EEOC, etc. It doesn't say much about the relative abilities of women, though I will note it is human nature to criticize when there is a perception of unfairness. In the end, two wrongs do not make a right. You, unfortunately, get to pay the price. I feel for you.
5 is a personal matter and you have to develop your own standards for self-esteem and stop worrying so much what other people think. Thicken thine skin.
6 is similar. That's a personal matter, not one for colleagues. You need to determine the correct balance. Opinions are like assholes - everyone has one. Yours is the only one that matters in this case.
7 is a problem whether you are male or female. Maybe you're not asserting yourself sufficiently. Sometimes you have to slap someone around to assert yourself (not in a literal sense, of course).
8 sounds like your management are a bunch of assholes. That isn't universal in any field. I'd be updating a resume rather than quitting my chosen field.
9 is a reaction of ANYONE to authority. Female managers traditionally have a problem with achieving balance between openness and friendliness and discipline. It's a struggle to achieve a mix of both.
To conquer this, examine how you chastise your students. Improve your technique. It's wisdom - not intelligence - that governs this skill. Put yourself in the students' shoes and come up with a winning strategy for achieving your goals in terms of behavior and work product. Maybe you need to take them in private and give them a tongue lashing. Maybe you have to be less shrill, or more shrill. I don't know - you do, though.
Yes, it sounds like a management seminar. Despite that, it's simple logic that if one tack isn't working, you try another. Take this as a learning experience - my first management experience wasn't great, but I learned things that I applied later and became better and better at running groups.
10 is...no one gets much respect for what they do. Self-esteem is just that, based in yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
LTG Peter Cuviello (Army G-6/CIO 2000-2003)
LTG Stephen Boutelle (Army G-6/CIO 2003-present)
These are a new generation of Army commander who have much more in common with today's geek than you would expect. Both are technology-centric men who are interested in the network and the applications we run on it, including games. I've had the opportunity to meet both men and I have to say that the generational issues regarding technology have been overcome with the arrival of men like this in command. Before them, perhaps the Army's senior leadership was brought up in an era before personal computing. That is no longer the case.
Who allowed this to happen? I mean, okay, the ship sank there, but why wasn't it cleaned up along with the millions of tons of other war junk from WWII that was disposed of?
This is a perfect example of the insurance dictum that 'claims do not go away'. You need to settle them (ie, fix the problem).
For every incidence of hypochondria that you cite (which in effect is what you are saying) there is someone like me who refuses to see a doctor unless dragged in chains to the door of the office and then prodded by a bayonet.
Mods: How exactly is it insightful to suggest that everyone in the US is a hypochondriac anyway? Sounds like a bunch of European moderators this morning - woops, that's every morning.
The problem with your attitude is that you neglect the myriad cases where a GP can be a very useful triage device. The GP can identify those with bacterial infections that need antibiotics, which frankly is the only reason I go. The GP can tell you to go to the hospital.
Otherwise, who gives a shit how often the hypochondriacs go to the doctor? In the US we have enough GPs to handle triage. Sounds like Canada doesn't, to the detriment of their supposedly 'superior' health care system. Hint: it's only superior because they have ours right next door. If China were their next door neighbor I suspect things would be different.
Life is not a right. We all have to keep up our end. Absent that ethic, everything ultimately falls apart.
The question in the grandparent post was "is there a secure WiFi network".
That said, your question is an interesting one, moreso than you know. Let's look at it from an axiomatic viewpoint - any network connection in harm's way is going to be considered sensitive and most likely classified. Draw conclusions from there.
Yes. The Harris company has produced a WiFi network that is capable of carrying Top Secret data. You need a waiver from an appropriate authority to even get this gear, and you'd best be government.
That said, they aren't talking about deploying one here. This is commercial off the shelf equipment they are talking about in the article. Grossly insecure.
In Iraq, this might work. Good line of sight and all. In Afghanistan - listen, i've seen pictures people brought back from Afghanistan in the last 2 years. It looks like Mordor with the high black mountains surrounding you. Line of sight is a big issue. IOW, this is a half baked scheme for Afghanistan.
There are issues here that I can't discuss regarding the lack of bandwidth available to the deployed personnel except to say that the DoD is seriously delinquent in lofting more comsats for itself.
Good job, you've discovered a new methodology for earning karma.
Aww, the grandparent just thinks he's going to get laid by being respectful.
Fact is, that tack rarely works. Great way to become 'just friends' with an ugly chick though.
Being able to look at ugly chicks as if they were beautiful would be a gift beyond price.
Those who produce appropriate content do not need copy protection. They know how to inject value add into their presence, making the money invested worthwile.
Copy protection is for the benefit of manufacturers of shrink wrap products. I submit that none of us really want a shrink wrap product. That implies no updates. No moving to new platforms. No Linux version. The use of the word 'franchise'. Very rarely is a sequel even as good as the original. Why would we want companies focused on bringing out tired old versions of the same old shit?
In sum, someone will always produce PC games. The market is huge. Whether it's the current idiots who do is another question.
Only an idiot gives his life for feckless losers who wouldn't do the same for him.
Holding a job requires making compromises. I do my best.
Vote with your wallet. I don't fly unless absolutely positively there is no other way to get to there from here in a reasonable time frame. Otherwise, I avoid airports. They consume my time and have wasteful, feelgood 'security measures' which actually provide no security at all.
The last straw for me was having my shoes searched three times on the way to a plane. I was wearing a pair of sneakers. No metal in there.
Government mandated security measures in airports are geared to one goal, and one goal only - maintaining the status quo in the airline industry. It's an attempt to construct a valid excuse for the next hijacking. "After all, we made you show ID and confiscated your 3/4" long insulin needles, don't blame us."
Security professionals my ass, they don't have a chance in hell of catching a committed hijacker either before 9/11 or now. Get people used to that idea and stop with the stupid 'security' crap. You can also die on your morning commute to a truck driver snorting crank. Get a grip, death is all around us. You could drop dead reading this post. Really.
What exactly *can't* a Macintosh do?
Admittedly the 68k boxes were paltry low-end 486 class performers even in their best incarnation, but many a person was running Win98 on a comparable machine in 1998.
I'll answer my own question: "DirectX games". That's about it.
To be fair, if I put up my 1996 version of Slackware on the net or a copy of System 7.5.3 on an old 68k Macintosh I wouldn't have these problems, at least not to that degree.
I don't absolve Microsoft at all.
A laissez-faire capitalist system results in boom times and depressions. The Fed attempts to ameliorate the cycle, rather successfully in my view.
The Fed is regularly audited by the GAO.
If Congress thought there was a problem, they could take control back at any time.
The whole point of the Fed was to depoliticize currency and banking in the US. It makes great fodder for tinfoil hat types/Art Bell listeners to concoct conspiracy theories about, but the Fed is rather transparent and focused on its goal which is embodied in section 2A of the Federal Reserve Act:
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.
During my time there, I saw two things going on. First, reliable armed guard maintained over large gold and currency reserves. Second, incredible amounts of statistics gathering with the intent of producing a firm picture of current banking and economic trends.
No Star Chambers, no evil men and smoke filled rooms.
Sorry to burst everyone's bubble.
Quit hiding behind idealities. This is REALITY.
Please...take your own advice. Every government agency has its own egotistical leader and egotistical employees who want credit for their own work. Believing that they are all mindless automatons who toe the governmental line is asinine.
The Fed was specificially designed to be neither government nor private - a weird combination only seen in places like MITRE. Government auditors aren't going to even see the Fed as the same team, since they don't answer to the same people. They'd be all too willing to crap all over the Fed.
I used to work for the Fed for a bit. I work for the DoD now. I've seen both cultures and they aren't the same at all.
Remove your tin foil hat, it's constricting the blood flow to your brain.
The GAO and the Comptroller General can review their books anytime they want. That's what an audit is.
The GAO is the accounting arm of Congress.
ie. your site is full of it, as are you.
The Federal Reserve is a system set up by capitalists (banks) for capitalists (banks).
Wrong. The Federal Reserve System was set up by an act of Congress December 23, 1913. The Fed is a public/private organization with a complex structure that makes the Board of Governors Federal employees (like Mr. Greenspan) and the staffs of the regional banks private sector employees. Your questions about what it does will be answered somewhat here.
Instead of giving the money to individuals (which is the way it should be done in a truly free system), they pass it out to their buddies in the banking system who make a profit by leasing the money to individual borrowers.
How is this crap insightful? The Fed makes short-term loans to individual banks. These loans are at low interest rates but must be paid back quickly also. Banks also deposit cash reserves with the Fed. There is no 'giving' of money. Even if there were, that's a silly sentiment. "Let's power the economy by giving away worthless paper currency to everyone." It would be worthless because everyone had it in equal measure without any value being attached.
The Federal Reserve also has a very powerful way of making a shit load of money: inflation. They just print a lot more money that they would be allowed to print if the system were regulated by just laws. Who or where does all this money goes to? I have no idea.
Yes, you don't have any idea. You're completely clueless about our financial system. You probably aren't aware that at any moment, there are a few hundred billion in coin and currency in circulation (600 bil or so in 2003). The US GDP in 2003, for instance, was something on the order of 11 trillion dollars. Search that document, it's there. Please note that we aren't even considering bank deposits, stock ownership or any other securities, like bonds.
An intelligent person might come to the conclusion that most money doesn't exist as currency at all. It's only written on paper or stored in a computer somewhere. You'd be right if you came to that conclusion. Therefore, the Fed printing 100 billion more of $100 bills would have a negligible effect anyway.
There's an even more compelling reason why your statement above is stupid. The Fed doesn't *GIVE OUT* money. The funds are either loaned in the short term, or given out of the member bank's deposits to the Fed. Therefore, there is no inflationary pressure associated with $100 bills going to Bank X since they are paid for one way or another.
So how exactly were they making money off of this? Answer: they aren't. They make most of their money off of check processing and ACH transfers which they act as the middleman for.
Essentially, we have the wolves in charge of the chicken coop. There're making a killing, so to speak, and there's nothing you and I can do about it. Other than complain.
Next time you make a comment about something, how about knowing something...anything about what it is you are commenting about?
Thank you.
These people were doing a job like everyone else. They were government employees. This wasn't trailblazing - we've sent how many people to LEO now? Must be closing in on 1000 individual trips. Your morning commute does not constitute heroism, and neither does this.
I bet you don't know their names.
I'm looking forward to having a real flak cannon.
Anyone else call the bio-rifle a 'splooge gun'?
"Real" trucks have something called an ICC bumper, it's a rectangular thing that hangs down from the back of the truck and prevents cars from going under it and decapitating the passengers of same.
They usually have reflectors on them and/or reflective tape. You probably have seen them before.
I wish more people would get the chance to read this. unfortunately they have to read at -1 or 0 to see your reasons.
...no one gets much respect for what they do. Self-esteem is just that, based in yourself.
1 makes me wonder why the men think it's appropriate to criticize your dress. I wouldn't think of it.
2 sounds like something women suffer in almost every field. Individual people matter. I do not believe that every male scientist is like that, everywhere. Sounds like a cultural thing that needs to be broken up where you work. Maybe you can be instrumental in doing so?
3 and 4 shows the dangers of trying to right societal wrongs via government power, ie the EEOC, etc. It doesn't say much about the relative abilities of women, though I will note it is human nature to criticize when there is a perception of unfairness. In the end, two wrongs do not make a right. You, unfortunately, get to pay the price. I feel for you.
5 is a personal matter and you have to develop your own standards for self-esteem and stop worrying so much what other people think. Thicken thine skin.
6 is similar. That's a personal matter, not one for colleagues. You need to determine the correct balance. Opinions are like assholes - everyone has one. Yours is the only one that matters in this case.
7 is a problem whether you are male or female. Maybe you're not asserting yourself sufficiently. Sometimes you have to slap someone around to assert yourself (not in a literal sense, of course).
8 sounds like your management are a bunch of assholes. That isn't universal in any field. I'd be updating a resume rather than quitting my chosen field.
9 is a reaction of ANYONE to authority. Female managers traditionally have a problem with achieving balance between openness and friendliness and discipline. It's a struggle to achieve a mix of both.
To conquer this, examine how you chastise your students. Improve your technique. It's wisdom - not intelligence - that governs this skill. Put yourself in the students' shoes and come up with a winning strategy for achieving your goals in terms of behavior and work product. Maybe you need to take them in private and give them a tongue lashing. Maybe you have to be less shrill, or more shrill. I don't know - you do, though.
Yes, it sounds like a management seminar. Despite that, it's simple logic that if one tack isn't working, you try another. Take this as a learning experience - my first management experience wasn't great, but I learned things that I applied later and became better and better at running groups.
10 is
Good luck.
There are too many giddy social engineers in society today who truly believe that we can (and should!) do anything.
A simple question like 'Where are the hordes of women turned away from the sciences?' would be sufficient to rebut this whole silly premise.