Even so when you go from a liquid to a gas let alone a solid to a gas you increase volume by well allot! Considering the epic calamity that is ~man sized boiler, say the type that was used to power to power stream tractors makes when it bursts; it should be clear that a phaser blast is not turning the victim into a gas or plasma. If it did that, it would be very disruptive and probably harmful to anyone in the immediate vicinity. Yet in Star Trek you can safely stand next to someone that is being disintegrated by phaser/disruptor.
Probably talk about "international norms" as if that is real thing or something...
Then invent some reasons those "norms" don't apply to us; when China not excited about their patron state being bombed/invaded and a fight on their back porch exercises their UN veto.
I don't share your sentiment but along those lines; if I were given a time machine set to take me back to 1939, and one bullet. I'd use the bullet on Allen Dulles not Adolf Hitler.
You don't need your own tree. Its mature area of the kernel. You just keep your patch and once in blue moon modify it slightly if some day it stops applying cleanly.
Frankly I think Mike is crazy. Dell has lots fronts open that have big dollar costs. Even if your competition is inept like HP, Dell has better odds as a public company raising the money to compete.
Mike seems to want to focus on the PC/Server spaces again there is no money there.
Storage, Managed Security Services, could easily bleed the company dry if it has to use financing to pay for the R&D efforts. One misstep that puts them out for a "generation" of storage or something and it could be curtains. Why Mike who is already rich enough wants to put his own skin in the game now escapes.
If he does not like how the company is being run, he should divest himself take his winnings and move on to something else. Leave Dell to the like of Carl to run or run into the ground whichever.
There is no beer now, but you gota look at it this way. What is the first thing any respectable settlers have done throughout history? They figure out how to make beer, wine, or some other spirit from the available food stuffs and materials; that's what. There are good odds that if any of the get to Mars at all one of these applicants will be the first Martian Brewmeister.
The trouble is this explanation may well be correct, but when we hit a minimum ice level like last year it's ZOMG TEH GLOBAL WARMIN! But when it's not something that supports AGW then it's just weather.
I am not suggesting yelling at anyone. I am more suggesting giving them the cold shoulder. These are people who fundamentally have betrayed the trust that was given them. You can't make genuine connections with the people willing to work in this environment; its painfully clear that nobody can succeed in the present environment by being genuine. Even look at Snowden he got where he got by being something very different than what he presented himself as.
You can never trust a spook. I think Snowden is hero personally but I would not consider him trust worthy at the same time. That is trouble with a really good liar; even the people who know them well can't tell and when someone is that good a lying the prudent thing to do is always consider they may be at anytime doing just that.
I have meet plenty of government types and known plenty of people who went on to be government types. They don't share my personality at all. Not one of them would be honest with anyone they did not like. They'd be very accommodating and suck up; figuring that person might be useful later..
No what we need at his point is to work at depriving government access to the best and brightest; because there just are not enough well-adjusted people reaming there. The fact that things have gone this far should tell you that. Its painfully clear nobody in authority at the three letters cares about doing the right thing; and its also clear they have enough minions who are to frightened to stand up and say "no" or just as twisted themselves to get it done over any of those well-adjusted folks objections.
Yes you do. Keep spreading the word that Government can't be trusted and that you and your fellow citizens should NOT cooperate with agents of government. They ask for info tell them to get a warrant. You see something, say NOTHING. They want to "contribute" to your project attend your conference etc, you respond get lost FED. Start excluding people who work for three letters from social events, etc.
If all of us citizens stand up and just say no; it will make these programs way less effective. If we treat these Constitution shredding collaborators like the criminals they are and black ball them; it will be increasingly hard for government to find people to do this stuff.
We can change this thing but voting in the horse race won't do it. Its gotta be done from the ground. Make working for the NSA something to be embarrassed about.
As long as these methods the military/security complex are working right or wrong the power hungry will use and abuse them. We need to make them no longer work. Make the price tag of this type of signals intelligence the loss of all good human intelligence and being subject to disdainful stairs and "we don't serve your kind here" everytime a badge comes out; things would start to change.
This has been historically true but working in the security industry I see it chaning. Shit has started to roll back up hill if you will. The data breach laws, in the health and financial sectors, and the realization that the rest of the world now has the manufacturing capability to leverage your IP against you if they do still it in those sectors, has the CXO and board of directors types worried.
They are starting to internalize what these can do your public image and stock price. While the blood sacrifice of some IT guy might been sufficient in the past when the investor gods come demanding an offering it might be only their blue blood that will do.
Ultimately these guys are likely everyone else they want to secure what they feel is theirs. Before that meant putting up really good numbers, and you could also shift the blame for a disaster onto some subordinate if things did not work out. Now that is slightly less true with respect to IT and an interest in solving the problems rather than papering over them is developing.
Or, more to the point, they don't understand it even if you try to tell them.
I call BS. I know this is contrary to widely held Slashdot opinion but for the most part people don't get into upper management without know which side of the bread to butter. Sure there are cases where you have the "Vice President of being the CEO's step son" and "Chief Flirt with the Ownership" and its true lots of people are promoted to their level of incompetence; but upper management is mostly as smart you probably are and with better social skills.
If they don't understand its because you talking to them at a detailed level on topic you have lots of time in learning invested in and they don't. If your sentence ends with "... and then after a short no-op sled BAM!" you probably are doing it wrong.
They want to know know about risk. What is likely hood someone could and would exploit the vulnerability. What harm can happen if they do. Then if you get a question like "but I don't understand I thought we had a firewall" You can answer with analogies like; "well we have guard that normally sits up but the front entrance. He makes it hard for people to come in and walk out with stuff normally; but if the latch is left broken on the dock door someone might pull up toss a bunch of product in the back of pickup and drive off before he even get to the other end of the plant to do something about it"
I respectfully disagree. This almost needs to be a pure C implementation and like I said use few or no external libraries. Java script and HTML renders are big beasts. You can't possibly audit them as an end user. Yea the C compiler is to big and complex for most people to practically audit as well; hence what I said about posting md5sums, so you have some verification if imperfect that your compiler is producing output that really corresponds to the input code you just audited.
When the method is javascript in the browser; sourced from the very same service you are sending the encrypted data off to than yes; client side encryption is BS and probably offers so much attack surface it reduces security.
The fundamental problem here is you are running 'untrusted code' to handle sensitive information. There is a solution here. A small simple OSS program easily audited. Probably needs to be real real basic command line utility using few if any external libraries so people can post the md5sums of the output generated on their favorite platform by their favorite compiler and linker; that way everyone can compare, notes.
This would be too difficulte for 99% of Mega's users to deal with though.
I would argue that this provides an opportunity for our government to either show the warrants are not "shaky" but the result of good police procedure with sound probable cause arguments, or if they are not get rid of the bad agents and impeach the bad judges. This would enhance our people's faith in good just law enforcement and strengthen our society.
As it is today, given everything else that has come out recently and all the lies Uncle Sam has been caught in on these subjects; I am more incline to take the Russians at there word. Consequently it makes it a tougher environment for law enforcement when they can't count on cooperation form their fellow cotizens
If your equipments scale goes to 100 and the reading you get is 100; than its pretty incompetent to report that value as anything other than 'its at least 100'
Right and this is going to be very interesting to watch. Sure the House has a Republican majority, but you only need 17 defectors, to pass legislation.
There is virtually zero chance you can't find 17 GOP votes for something like this. Consider the recent Egypt situation and the whole embarrassing "we determined we don't have to make a determination if there has been a coup thing." This ordinarily would present a huge (and justified) opportunity to lambast the president about the "rule of law" maybe even start an impeachment process but you see none of it. All that foreign aide money gets spent back here, in largely GOP Congregational districts. So there no GOP effort to see the law followed. The same is true here, any action like this and the eyes of the defense contractor crowd just fills with dollar signs.
I doubt the GOP will support a Syria en mass though, its unpopular and we are nearing the half way point in their terms; and its to good an opportunity to make the president appear weak and foolish leading into the debt ceiling and budget negotiations. So I think it will get a tepid reception on the GOP side of the isle.
Its his own party that will make or break or it. Can the president bring his party along in supporting an unpopular military action with the Bush era's "I voted for it before I was against it" still so fresh in everyone's mind? This was definitely a punt on the Presidents part; he is a coward and does not want to politically own anything. When he could not get Camron's government on board he is now running to Congress for political cover He should have gone to Congress first that would be the Constitutionally respectful thing to do. But we all know Obama is shithead who thinks he is above the law and the only thing that matters to him is politics. This was a change to "act tough and play rough" and its backfired, the real question now is how much mud will stick to him for it. I truly hope Congress says "hell no" because I think that is right for our nation; but I also really want them to soundly reject it because it will make Obummer look like the self righteous ass he is.
Fucking bullshit. Nobody had seen that video; which having been around for months you want us to accept just happen to lead to a mob all that time later. The press desperate to cover for Obama ran around Libya asking people if they'd seen or even heard about it and the answer was almost always 'No'.
The facts are those attacks were lead by anit-US and Islamic theocracy groups; if they used the video as a cover it was after the fact, certainly not a pretext. It was either an intelligence failure ( probably as we have nothing but SigInt anymore ), or gross negligence by the State Department and the Administration.
You right it has not been long and no we haven't forgotten.
Your point dos nothing to address the parents contention that they do in fact continue killing and indiscriminately; if in an incidental way. Or is your argument that if I take out the powerstanion with a cruse missile; causing their to be no way to run the waste water treatment plant, resulting in thousands of children being sickened they were some how legitimate military targets?
This punish Assad argument is stupid you punish the average Syrian as much as you punish Assad or any of those in power. Now if by 'limited' you mean just a handful for missiles fired are the personal residences of Assad, and his immediate family. Maybe but we won't do anything that 'limited' and if we did we would be accused of violation or attempted violation the rules around political assassinations.
These are my problems with the Geneva Convention and lots of the "just war theory" branches out there:
None of them really address why uniform soldiers are a special class of folks you're allowed to slaughter guilt free. The fact is many of them are conscripts or otherwise don't have much choice in their lot. Many of them don't have a dog in the fight, they are the dog in the fight; they probably just want it over in lots of cases more than they care for the outcome.
If you issue is so import its worth killing and maiming over don't you have duty to win the conflict and settle the matter as quickly as possible? We have various conflicts on a slow burn in the middle east for a century now. People are still die; arguments about people being able to pick up and move on after the 'war' are moot when the war never really ends. Having 'rules' of engagement makes the condition of war tolerable and that isn't a good thing; it reduces interest in lasting peace.
There is no such thing as a civilian target. Militaries don't fight wars societies do. The guy on the line with a gun got there on truck witch rolled on rubber ties made a plant by civilian works, who were able to be there because civilian farms were growing their food, and civilian teachers were watching their kids all day. Again I come back to if the issue was worth killing and maiming over you have both a responsibility to win, and to win a lasting peace. To that end you must defeat the society waging war against you. The only just war is a total, if you don't need to fight a total war, war was probably not the right answer in the first place.
But what possible reason is there of stripping the bos of HIS moral responsibility for putting the driver in that position
Because when you try and make everyone responsible for everything the outcome is nobody is responsible for anything. The next level out is someone is going to suggest the telco can reasonably know if a phone is in a moving vehicle; so how come they failed to hold the messages until the phone was not observed to be traveling at rate a speed beyond a running human?
In your case I could argue the Boss has special reason to if not know at least think the trucker is going to be driving, after all its what he is paying the guy to do all day. So should he not be able to text his driver or should we keep it simple and say its really the drivers responsibility to wait for a safe time to read and reply to messages? He could do this before departing a fuel stop for example.
At somepoint you just have to say, he wait the trucker is they guy behind at the controls of 18 tons of steel, he needs to be doing everything in his power to make that safe. Ultimately its his choice and his alone to read that text message or not.
If his boss is insisting he does something illegal that endangers his safety in the work place (his truck); I am sure OSAH or someone at the DOL would love to hear about it. We have all this government for some reason right? Maybe he should use it?
That is silly. There was never a need for a fully secure 802.11 specific solution. From the outset anyone who wanted that could just use IPSec tunneled or otherwise, either with 3DES or AES.
That is what people were always advised to do; if they needed both privacy and to run a traditionally clear text protocol over wifi. I have been part of Enterprise wifi deployment in one way or another since 802.11 because a standard and at no point did even any of the vendors attempt to pass WEP off as doing anything more than keeping unapproved clients off your wlan and preventing causal snooping. It was never billed as a replacement for running an transport or application layer cipher; even if the two talkers were layer 2 adjacent.
WEP was never designed to be "secure" it was designed to be inexpensive so low (compute) power devices could use it. It stands for "Wired Equivalent Privacy" which is not very private. Passively tapping your UTP Ethernet segment isn't exactly hard. All WEP was ever expected to do was discourage the causal snoop; a lock of honest people if you will.
Slashdot Mirror
Even so when you go from a liquid to a gas let alone a solid to a gas you increase volume by well allot! Considering the epic calamity that is ~man sized boiler, say the type that was used to power to power stream tractors makes when it bursts; it should be clear that a phaser blast is not turning the victim into a gas or plasma. If it did that, it would be very disruptive and probably harmful to anyone in the immediate vicinity. Yet in Star Trek you can safely stand next to someone that is being disintegrated by phaser/disruptor.
Probably talk about "international norms" as if that is real thing or something...
Then invent some reasons those "norms" don't apply to us; when China not excited about their patron state being bombed/invaded and a fight on their back porch exercises their UN veto.
I don't share your sentiment but along those lines; if I were given a time machine set to take me back to 1939, and one bullet. I'd use the bullet on Allen Dulles not Adolf Hitler.
You don't need your own tree. Its mature area of the kernel. You just keep your patch and once in blue moon modify it slightly if some day it stops applying cleanly.
Frankly I think Mike is crazy. Dell has lots fronts open that have big dollar costs. Even if your competition is inept like HP, Dell has better odds as a public company raising the money to compete.
Mike seems to want to focus on the PC/Server spaces again there is no money there.
Storage, Managed Security Services, could easily bleed the company dry if it has to use financing to pay for the R&D efforts. One misstep that puts them out for a "generation" of storage or something and it could be curtains. Why Mike who is already rich enough wants to put his own skin in the game now escapes.
If he does not like how the company is being run, he should divest himself take his winnings and move on to something else. Leave Dell to the like of Carl to run or run into the ground whichever.
There is no beer now, but you gota look at it this way. What is the first thing any respectable settlers have done throughout history? They figure out how to make beer, wine, or some other spirit from the available food stuffs and materials; that's what. There are good odds that if any of the get to Mars at all one of these applicants will be the first Martian Brewmeister.
The trouble is this explanation may well be correct, but when we hit a minimum ice level like last year it's ZOMG TEH GLOBAL WARMIN! But when it's not something that supports AGW then it's just weather.
Can't have it both ways
I am not suggesting yelling at anyone. I am more suggesting giving them the cold shoulder. These are people who fundamentally have betrayed the trust that was given them. You can't make genuine connections with the people willing to work in this environment; its painfully clear that nobody can succeed in the present environment by being genuine. Even look at Snowden he got where he got by being something very different than what he presented himself as.
You can never trust a spook. I think Snowden is hero personally but I would not consider him trust worthy at the same time. That is trouble with a really good liar; even the people who know them well can't tell and when someone is that good a lying the prudent thing to do is always consider they may be at anytime doing just that.
I have meet plenty of government types and known plenty of people who went on to be government types. They don't share my personality at all. Not one of them would be honest with anyone they did not like. They'd be very accommodating and suck up; figuring that person might be useful later..
No what we need at his point is to work at depriving government access to the best and brightest; because there just are not enough well-adjusted people reaming there. The fact that things have gone this far should tell you that. Its painfully clear nobody in authority at the three letters cares about doing the right thing; and its also clear they have enough minions who are to frightened to stand up and say "no" or just as twisted themselves to get it done over any of those well-adjusted folks objections.
In Soviet America its always April 1st.
Yes you do. Keep spreading the word that Government can't be trusted and that you and your fellow citizens should NOT cooperate with agents of government. They ask for info tell them to get a warrant. You see something, say NOTHING. They want to "contribute" to your project attend your conference etc, you respond get lost FED. Start excluding people who work for three letters from social events, etc.
If all of us citizens stand up and just say no; it will make these programs way less effective. If we treat these Constitution shredding collaborators like the criminals they are and black ball them; it will be increasingly hard for government to find people to do this stuff.
We can change this thing but voting in the horse race won't do it. Its gotta be done from the ground. Make working for the NSA something to be embarrassed about.
As long as these methods the military/security complex are working right or wrong the power hungry will use and abuse them. We need to make them no longer work. Make the price tag of this type of signals intelligence the loss of all good human intelligence and being subject to disdainful stairs and "we don't serve your kind here" everytime a badge comes out; things would start to change.
This the correct position. Anyone in government must be assumed hostile until conclusively proven otherwise.
This has been historically true but working in the security industry I see it chaning. Shit has started to roll back up hill if you will. The data breach laws, in the health and financial sectors, and the realization that the rest of the world now has the manufacturing capability to leverage your IP against you if they do still it in those sectors, has the CXO and board of directors types worried.
They are starting to internalize what these can do your public image and stock price. While the blood sacrifice of some IT guy might been sufficient in the past when the investor gods come demanding an offering it might be only their blue blood that will do.
Ultimately these guys are likely everyone else they want to secure what they feel is theirs. Before that meant putting up really good numbers, and you could also shift the blame for a disaster onto some subordinate if things did not work out. Now that is slightly less true with respect to IT and an interest in solving the problems rather than papering over them is developing.
Or, more to the point, they don't understand it even if you try to tell them.
I call BS. I know this is contrary to widely held Slashdot opinion but for the most part people don't get into upper management without know which side of the bread to butter. Sure there are cases where you have the "Vice President of being the CEO's step son" and "Chief Flirt with the Ownership" and its true lots of people are promoted to their level of incompetence; but upper management is mostly as smart you probably are and with better social skills.
If they don't understand its because you talking to them at a detailed level on topic you have lots of time in learning invested in and they don't. If your sentence ends with "... and then after a short no-op sled BAM!" you probably are doing it wrong.
They want to know know about risk. What is likely hood someone could and would exploit the vulnerability. What harm can happen if they do. Then if you get a question like "but I don't understand I thought we had a firewall" You can answer with analogies like; "well we have guard that normally sits up but the front entrance. He makes it hard for people to come in and walk out with stuff normally; but if the latch is left broken on the dock door someone might pull up toss a bunch of product in the back of pickup and drive off before he even get to the other end of the plant to do something about it"
I respectfully disagree. This almost needs to be a pure C implementation and like I said use few or no external libraries. Java script and HTML renders are big beasts. You can't possibly audit them as an end user. Yea the C compiler is to big and complex for most people to practically audit as well; hence what I said about posting md5sums, so you have some verification if imperfect that your compiler is producing output that really corresponds to the input code you just audited.
When the method is javascript in the browser; sourced from the very same service you are sending the encrypted data off to than yes; client side encryption is BS and probably offers so much attack surface it reduces security.
The fundamental problem here is you are running 'untrusted code' to handle sensitive information. There is a solution here. A small simple OSS program easily audited. Probably needs to be real real basic command line utility using few if any external libraries so people can post the md5sums of the output generated on their favorite platform by their favorite compiler and linker; that way everyone can compare, notes.
This would be too difficulte for 99% of Mega's users to deal with though.
I would argue that this provides an opportunity for our government to either show the warrants are not "shaky" but the result of good police procedure with sound probable cause arguments, or if they are not get rid of the bad agents and impeach the bad judges. This would enhance our people's faith in good just law enforcement and strengthen our society.
As it is today, given everything else that has come out recently and all the lies Uncle Sam has been caught in on these subjects; I am more incline to take the Russians at there word. Consequently it makes it a tougher environment for law enforcement when they can't count on cooperation form their fellow cotizens
If your equipments scale goes to 100 and the reading you get is 100; than its pretty incompetent to report that value as anything other than 'its at least 100'
Right and this is going to be very interesting to watch. Sure the House has a Republican majority, but you only need 17 defectors, to pass legislation.
There is virtually zero chance you can't find 17 GOP votes for something like this. Consider the recent Egypt situation and the whole embarrassing "we determined we don't have to make a determination if there has been a coup thing." This ordinarily would present a huge (and justified) opportunity to lambast the president about the "rule of law" maybe even start an impeachment process but you see none of it. All that foreign aide money gets spent back here, in largely GOP Congregational districts. So there no GOP effort to see the law followed. The same is true here, any action like this and the eyes of the defense contractor crowd just fills with dollar signs.
I doubt the GOP will support a Syria en mass though, its unpopular and we are nearing the half way point in their terms; and its to good an opportunity to make the president appear weak and foolish leading into the debt ceiling and budget negotiations. So I think it will get a tepid reception on the GOP side of the isle.
Its his own party that will make or break or it. Can the president bring his party along in supporting an unpopular military action with the Bush era's "I voted for it before I was against it" still so fresh in everyone's mind? This was definitely a punt on the Presidents part; he is a coward and does not want to politically own anything. When he could not get Camron's government on board he is now running to Congress for political cover He should have gone to Congress first that would be the Constitutionally respectful thing to do. But we all know Obama is shithead who thinks he is above the law and the only thing that matters to him is politics. This was a change to "act tough and play rough" and its backfired, the real question now is how much mud will stick to him for it. I truly hope Congress says "hell no" because I think that is right for our nation; but I also really want them to soundly reject it because it will make Obummer look like the self righteous ass he is.
Fucking bullshit. Nobody had seen that video; which having been around for months you want us to accept just happen to lead to a mob all that time later. The press desperate to cover for Obama ran around Libya asking people if they'd seen or even heard about it and the answer was almost always 'No'.
The facts are those attacks were lead by anit-US and Islamic theocracy groups; if they used the video as a cover it was after the fact, certainly not a pretext. It was either an intelligence failure ( probably as we have nothing but SigInt anymore ), or gross negligence by the State Department and the Administration.
You right it has not been long and no we haven't forgotten.
Your point dos nothing to address the parents contention that they do in fact continue killing and indiscriminately; if in an incidental way. Or is your argument that if I take out the powerstanion with a cruse missile; causing their to be no way to run the waste water treatment plant, resulting in thousands of children being sickened they were some how legitimate military targets?
This punish Assad argument is stupid you punish the average Syrian as much as you punish Assad or any of those in power. Now if by 'limited' you mean just a handful for missiles fired are the personal residences of Assad, and his immediate family. Maybe but we won't do anything that 'limited' and if we did we would be accused of violation or attempted violation the rules around political assassinations.
Exactly..
These are my problems with the Geneva Convention and lots of the "just war theory" branches out there:
None of them really address why uniform soldiers are a special class of folks you're allowed to slaughter guilt free. The fact is many of them are conscripts or otherwise don't have much choice in their lot. Many of them don't have a dog in the fight, they are the dog in the fight; they probably just want it over in lots of cases more than they care for the outcome.
If you issue is so import its worth killing and maiming over don't you have duty to win the conflict and settle the matter as quickly as possible? We have various conflicts on a slow burn in the middle east for a century now. People are still die; arguments about people being able to pick up and move on after the 'war' are moot when the war never really ends. Having 'rules' of engagement makes the condition of war tolerable and that isn't a good thing; it reduces interest in lasting peace.
There is no such thing as a civilian target. Militaries don't fight wars societies do. The guy on the line with a gun got there on truck witch rolled on rubber ties made a plant by civilian works, who were able to be there because civilian farms were growing their food, and civilian teachers were watching their kids all day. Again I come back to if the issue was worth killing and maiming over you have both a responsibility to win, and to win a lasting peace. To that end you must defeat the society waging war against you. The only just war is a total, if you don't need to fight a total war, war was probably not the right answer in the first place.
But what possible reason is there of stripping the bos of HIS moral responsibility for putting the driver in that position
Because when you try and make everyone responsible for everything the outcome is nobody is responsible for anything. The next level out is someone is going to suggest the telco can reasonably know if a phone is in a moving vehicle; so how come they failed to hold the messages until the phone was not observed to be traveling at rate a speed beyond a running human?
In your case I could argue the Boss has special reason to if not know at least think the trucker is going to be driving, after all its what he is paying the guy to do all day. So should he not be able to text his driver or should we keep it simple and say its really the drivers responsibility to wait for a safe time to read and reply to messages? He could do this before departing a fuel stop for example.
At somepoint you just have to say, he wait the trucker is they guy behind at the controls of 18 tons of steel, he needs to be doing everything in his power to make that safe. Ultimately its his choice and his alone to read that text message or not.
If his boss is insisting he does something illegal that endangers his safety in the work place (his truck); I am sure OSAH or someone at the DOL would love to hear about it. We have all this government for some reason right? Maybe he should use it?
What if a radio DJ makes a shocking announcement and he knows or has special reason to know someone may be listing while driving?
This one seems nutty to me; making anyone responsible for the safe operation of a car beyond the one operating it seems kinda foolish.
That is silly. There was never a need for a fully secure 802.11 specific solution. From the outset anyone who wanted that could just use IPSec tunneled or otherwise, either with 3DES or AES.
That is what people were always advised to do; if they needed both privacy and to run a traditionally clear text protocol over wifi. I have been part of Enterprise wifi deployment in one way or another since 802.11 because a standard and at no point did even any of the vendors attempt to pass WEP off as doing anything more than keeping unapproved clients off your wlan and preventing causal snooping. It was never billed as a replacement for running an transport or application layer cipher; even if the two talkers were layer 2 adjacent.
WEP was never designed to be "secure" it was designed to be inexpensive so low (compute) power devices could use it. It stands for "Wired Equivalent Privacy" which is not very private. Passively tapping your UTP Ethernet segment isn't exactly hard. All WEP was ever expected to do was discourage the causal snoop; a lock of honest people if you will.