Note: if you have 400 times as high budget for the war as the enemy, and you spend $300 for every $1 you cost the enemy, you're still winning.
The problem begins if you have 400 times as high budget, but spend $500 per $1 damage...
Consider IIWW Eastern Front. Soviets won, despite taking roughly 2x as high losses as Germany. Simply, Soviets had more than 2x the power to throw at them.
He'd let us slack off all day. He never complained about us being late, even by two hours or so. We got games onto the work computers, played over LAN, he'd sometimes join. He would assign tasks, then push deadlines for us as they flew by. He'd deflect any unreasonable requests from the outside, overestimate the time needed, very rarely asserted any control over us. If not the fact that apart from him we had a team leader, who was energetic, competent and could have a good grip over all projects, I don't think we'd ever get anything done. That meant we weren't entirely spoiled rotten... but yeah, we were spoiled. But yeah, huge vacations, gaming on rigs more powerful than anyone had at home, slacking off, coming late, and a boss who never even frowned about this, shielding us from any upper management and other "external threats" very efficiently. We loved him to bits for that.
You've got to admit he was horrible for the company though. Projects going over budget and way past deadline, simple stuff billed like severe overhauls, and all the goodies corporation could provide for the employees for free...
Some time after that there was a grand restructuring, all the teams dissolved and reassembled from scratch, and I got assigned elsewhere, he got an entirely different team to spoil, but hell, I won't forget him. Awesome guy for the employees, horrible for the corp.
Their clear alternative was not issuing any statement. "Due to court proceedings we are forced to decline any statement", period. They'd still look like scumbags, but at least not as hypocritical scumbags.
Belkin made the shitty move of inserting own commercials into http traffic going through their routers in 2003 and insisted they did nothing wrong. I was never affected, didn't own anything by Belkin at the time, but had several opportunities since. And when shopping, immediately disregarded any product with "Belkin" on the box.
Kodak issued a shitty takedown notice on some guy's site, after having trademarked a name he'd been using for years. That was in... 1999 I believe. Kodak didn't get a penny from me ever since.
Yeah, in case of a firm that is primarily a military contractor, true the PR losses may be low. But sure as hell there are people, who remember this kind of shit.
Well they could either refuse a statement altogether, or offer "We will conduct an internal investigation to determine whether our policies have been violated." - it's fairly neutral, and can be taken both ways (did the HR violate the policies, or did the guy do?), but in this context it would sound definitely reassuring.
Besides - they are ears deep in shit; denying everything will only get them deeper. The obvious solution would be to find a scapegoat - some overzealous HR employee or such - and turn everything into a big mistake, no ill intent. By issuing the statement in current form they are doing absolutely nothing to reduce the losses through litigation and look like total scumbags, PR-wise. They are not getting out of this unscathed, but they could at least minimize their PR losses.
If BAE systems are as honest in business with their customers and partners as they are with their employees, you're better off going elsewhere.
Their "official statement" - it's not even "I can explain!" - it's like your wife walks in on you as you're balls deep in your mistress, then without stopping, you say "But darling, I never cheated on you and never will!" in-between thrusts. "...and I refuse to comment on what I'm doing right now and here."
Apparently they don't really care about the bounds as defined by the Courts that much. Never mind, while I never claimed what they produce is worthless, they produce it at a certain cost - and not just budgetary, but a cost to the society as a whole: privacy, liberties, justice, public order, stability, respect to the government, public health and safety. And at times these costs outweigh benefits by far - but since they are "hidden", never directly compared against the benefits - CIA can incur any costs it wishes, as long as the purely financial budget isn't exceeded and the violations aren't too obvious, it can do this with impunity.
Iran-Contras might have provided USA with certain benefits - but you'd be hard-pressed to argue they were well worth the costs it incurred.
Funny. I just reread it. None of the entries states anything of actual benefit to the country, or anyone for that matter. The entirety of existence of CIA is fulfilling a pointless and baseless whim of the president - deliver intelligence. With absolutely zero rationale given. Zero authority for doing anything else.
Yep, looks exactly like your typical runaway optimizer AI, the paper-cliper. Unable to determine conditions at point X for an intelligence report? Nuke it, then report "conditions:nuclear crater" with full authority. Given presidential candidate might limit the agency's ability to collect intelligence? Lead another candidate to win. Given intelligence collection project needs funds? Smuggle drugs.
Yeah, Pretorian Guard, meant to protect the emperor of Rome, and doing so as long as the emperor is the Guard's obedient puppet, killing him as soon as he shows any signs of independence. Quite nominal, and thoroughly fucked up.
It's not about seeing a wad of cash on the frontdesk, it's about living to see another day, knowing you'll get a bullet to the back of your head as soon as you so much as suggest you don't like it that way.
Supposedly this year Kennedy assassination files are to be declassified. I'm reaaaaally curious if that will happen.
Their primary mission is to protect safety of USA citizens. If they find something that threatens that safety, they should stop that thing by most prudent ways available. Not copy it and keep using themselves! Yeah, that thing might make them more efficient at spying. But it makes them way less efficient at protecting the USA.
That serves furthering the position of CIA. The victorious candidate is likely to favor them, grant them better funding, which will allow them to pursue their goals more efficiently. Damage to the country be damned.
They are also meant to be an external department of DEA, by arresting drug smugglers instead of taking their money to fund own operations.
They are also meant to be the American-funded police of Mexico, and customs agency, in order not to aid smuggling weapons to Mexican mafia.
Oh, and they are meant to be bodyguards of democratically elected politicians in South America, in order not to aid the local dictators in assassinating them.
And they definitely should open public-funded hospitals to aid people, so that they can't test illegal drugs on them.
So obsessed with the letter of the mission statement, that you forget its spirit. Subjects you were meant to serve become means, and disposable resources in achieving goals that no longer serve their purpose, as the cost outweighs benefits by way too much.
CIA was created to protect safety of USA citizens. It got specific goals and means by which it would serve in that mission, and focused on them so much the mission went entirely out of focus. Collateral damage is no longer considered an issue. No matter how much CIA hurts and weakens the USA, it considers the actions a success if the "enemy" (actual or potential) is weakened in the process.
It's silly to expect a spy agency to obey the law and play always fair. But whatever it does, no matter how nefarious and slimy, it should always put the good of its citizens first. And it's ridiculous to expect whatever they might have gained through holding to these exploits outweighs the losses of the public caused by the non-disclosure. CIA no longer serves USA. CIA just serves goals of CIA, and if means to these goals conflict with the good of USA, so be it, USA be damned.
Well, let me use that one argument so often cited by American politicians:
"If you have nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear."
It's equally OK for CIA to be spying using dubiously legal and moral techniques, as is for Russia to spy on CIA and publish what they get. All legal moves in this game of chess, you play dirty you risk your dirt is used against you.
Yes, the revelations are quite unsurprising. CIA is rarely "good guys" and about never "nice guys". They do their job by ways that work, not necessarily by ways that are legal, beneficial to the wide public or morally positive. We know. Situation nominal, all fucked up.
It's just that there's absolutely no point getting outraged that someone (especially Russia!) is showing what CIA is doing. This is also situation nominal.
HOW did CIA break these encryptions? Some vulnerabilities, enormous number-crunching farm, a quantum computer, or did they find N=PN solution? Or did they waterboard the makers of the compromised software until they gave them the private keys?
You're also a dying species. Most of these, who call themselves liberals nowadays, would call you a murderous conservative nazi shitlord, probably adding something about mysogyny or racism on top of that.
Sure, until the embankments are in place, the dinghies are a good idea. But goddammit, don't protest against the embankments arguing that dinghies are a better solution!
Slashdot Mirror
Note: if you have 400 times as high budget for the war as the enemy, and you spend $300 for every $1 you cost the enemy, you're still winning.
The problem begins if you have 400 times as high budget, but spend $500 per $1 damage...
Consider IIWW Eastern Front. Soviets won, despite taking roughly 2x as high losses as Germany. Simply, Soviets had more than 2x the power to throw at them.
An awesome, horrible IT boss.
Yeah. He was awesome.
He'd let us slack off all day. He never complained about us being late, even by two hours or so. We got games onto the work computers, played over LAN, he'd sometimes join. He would assign tasks, then push deadlines for us as they flew by. He'd deflect any unreasonable requests from the outside, overestimate the time needed, very rarely asserted any control over us. If not the fact that apart from him we had a team leader, who was energetic, competent and could have a good grip over all projects, I don't think we'd ever get anything done. That meant we weren't entirely spoiled rotten... but yeah, we were spoiled. But yeah, huge vacations, gaming on rigs more powerful than anyone had at home, slacking off, coming late, and a boss who never even frowned about this, shielding us from any upper management and other "external threats" very efficiently. We loved him to bits for that.
You've got to admit he was horrible for the company though. Projects going over budget and way past deadline, simple stuff billed like severe overhauls, and all the goodies corporation could provide for the employees for free...
Some time after that there was a grand restructuring, all the teams dissolved and reassembled from scratch, and I got assigned elsewhere, he got an entirely different team to spoil, but hell, I won't forget him. Awesome guy for the employees, horrible for the corp.
...except respect and dignity,
Their clear alternative was not issuing any statement. "Due to court proceedings we are forced to decline any statement", period. They'd still look like scumbags, but at least not as hypocritical scumbags.
Not sure about short term memories.
Belkin made the shitty move of inserting own commercials into http traffic going through their routers in 2003 and insisted they did nothing wrong. I was never affected, didn't own anything by Belkin at the time, but had several opportunities since. And when shopping, immediately disregarded any product with "Belkin" on the box.
Kodak issued a shitty takedown notice on some guy's site, after having trademarked a name he'd been using for years. That was in... 1999 I believe. Kodak didn't get a penny from me ever since.
Yeah, in case of a firm that is primarily a military contractor, true the PR losses may be low. But sure as hell there are people, who remember this kind of shit.
Well they could either refuse a statement altogether, or offer "We will conduct an internal investigation to determine whether our policies have been violated." - it's fairly neutral, and can be taken both ways (did the HR violate the policies, or did the guy do?), but in this context it would sound definitely reassuring.
Besides - they are ears deep in shit; denying everything will only get them deeper. The obvious solution would be to find a scapegoat - some overzealous HR employee or such - and turn everything into a big mistake, no ill intent. By issuing the statement in current form they are doing absolutely nothing to reduce the losses through litigation and look like total scumbags, PR-wise. They are not getting out of this unscathed, but they could at least minimize their PR losses.
It has absolutely dumb algorithm of finding synonyms.
Asking about LED takes me to "Cryptography."
"File": "Internet Service Provider"
"Script":"Backend"
"WWW": Domain Name Servers.
It's beyond useless - it's actively harmful.
If BAE systems are as honest in business with their customers and partners as they are with their employees, you're better off going elsewhere.
Their "official statement" - it's not even "I can explain!" - it's like your wife walks in on you as you're balls deep in your mistress, then without stopping, you say "But darling, I never cheated on you and never will!" in-between thrusts. "...and I refuse to comment on what I'm doing right now and here."
Okay, so I'm clueless. Care to enlighten me: detail how MKUltra was the right thing to do? What don't I know about it that I can't judge CIA by it?
Apparently they don't really care about the bounds as defined by the Courts that much. Never mind, while I never claimed what they produce is worthless, they produce it at a certain cost - and not just budgetary, but a cost to the society as a whole: privacy, liberties, justice, public order, stability, respect to the government, public health and safety. And at times these costs outweigh benefits by far - but since they are "hidden", never directly compared against the benefits - CIA can incur any costs it wishes, as long as the purely financial budget isn't exceeded and the violations aren't too obvious, it can do this with impunity.
Iran-Contras might have provided USA with certain benefits - but you'd be hard-pressed to argue they were well worth the costs it incurred.
Funny. I just reread it. None of the entries states anything of actual benefit to the country, or anyone for that matter. The entirety of existence of CIA is fulfilling a pointless and baseless whim of the president - deliver intelligence. With absolutely zero rationale given. Zero authority for doing anything else.
Yep, looks exactly like your typical runaway optimizer AI, the paper-cliper. Unable to determine conditions at point X for an intelligence report? Nuke it, then report "conditions:nuclear crater" with full authority. Given presidential candidate might limit the agency's ability to collect intelligence? Lead another candidate to win. Given intelligence collection project needs funds? Smuggle drugs.
Yeah, Pretorian Guard, meant to protect the emperor of Rome, and doing so as long as the emperor is the Guard's obedient puppet, killing him as soon as he shows any signs of independence. Quite nominal, and thoroughly fucked up.
It's not about seeing a wad of cash on the frontdesk, it's about living to see another day, knowing you'll get a bullet to the back of your head as soon as you so much as suggest you don't like it that way.
Supposedly this year Kennedy assassination files are to be declassified. I'm reaaaaally curious if that will happen.
Same goes to you, with the bug tracking mission.
Their primary mission is to protect safety of USA citizens. If they find something that threatens that safety, they should stop that thing by most prudent ways available. Not copy it and keep using themselves! Yeah, that thing might make them more efficient at spying. But it makes them way less efficient at protecting the USA.
That serves furthering the position of CIA. The victorious candidate is likely to favor them, grant them better funding, which will allow them to pursue their goals more efficiently. Damage to the country be damned.
They are also meant to be an external department of DEA, by arresting drug smugglers instead of taking their money to fund own operations.
They are also meant to be the American-funded police of Mexico, and customs agency, in order not to aid smuggling weapons to Mexican mafia.
Oh, and they are meant to be bodyguards of democratically elected politicians in South America, in order not to aid the local dictators in assassinating them.
And they definitely should open public-funded hospitals to aid people, so that they can't test illegal drugs on them.
So obsessed with the letter of the mission statement, that you forget its spirit. Subjects you were meant to serve become means, and disposable resources in achieving goals that no longer serve their purpose, as the cost outweighs benefits by way too much.
CIA was created to protect safety of USA citizens. It got specific goals and means by which it would serve in that mission, and focused on them so much the mission went entirely out of focus. Collateral damage is no longer considered an issue. No matter how much CIA hurts and weakens the USA, it considers the actions a success if the "enemy" (actual or potential) is weakened in the process.
It's silly to expect a spy agency to obey the law and play always fair. But whatever it does, no matter how nefarious and slimy, it should always put the good of its citizens first. And it's ridiculous to expect whatever they might have gained through holding to these exploits outweighs the losses of the public caused by the non-disclosure. CIA no longer serves USA. CIA just serves goals of CIA, and if means to these goals conflict with the good of USA, so be it, USA be damned.
"Let the USA burn to ashes, as long as we manage to destroy Russia in the process"?
Well, let me use that one argument so often cited by American politicians:
"If you have nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear."
It's equally OK for CIA to be spying using dubiously legal and moral techniques, as is for Russia to spy on CIA and publish what they get. All legal moves in this game of chess, you play dirty you risk your dirt is used against you.
Yes, the revelations are quite unsurprising. CIA is rarely "good guys" and about never "nice guys". They do their job by ways that work, not necessarily by ways that are legal, beneficial to the wide public or morally positive. We know. Situation nominal, all fucked up.
It's just that there's absolutely no point getting outraged that someone (especially Russia!) is showing what CIA is doing. This is also situation nominal.
HOW did CIA break these encryptions? Some vulnerabilities, enormous number-crunching farm, a quantum computer, or did they find N=PN solution? Or did they waterboard the makers of the compromised software until they gave them the private keys?
Usually then, you do without.
Regardless, the new computer will be cheaper than whatever would be needed to run the equivalent code in Javascript.
My gonads are so massive they reached singularity and turned into monad.
You're also a dying species. Most of these, who call themselves liberals nowadays, would call you a murderous conservative nazi shitlord, probably adding something about mysogyny or racism on top of that.
Sure, until the embankments are in place, the dinghies are a good idea. But goddammit, don't protest against the embankments arguing that dinghies are a better solution!
I also wonder how many accidental discharges were in case when a cop was aiming at an unarmed suspect...
I admit, got whooshed.
You say it won't be able to play arbitrary MP3s I sideload to the SD card?