Each brigade-level unit has a JAG Corps representative, usually a captain, who is always an actual JD (Juris Doctor). The lawyer supported by a staff of enlisted personel called legal clerks. The clerks essentially act as paralegals, doing research and typing documents for the lawyer, who works closely with both Combat Arms and with Civil Affairs to make sure that the units actions are legal under the Law of Land Warfare and the Geneva Convention.
Almost everything the brigade does needs the lawyer's OK first.
Really, you might be surprised. During the JCF-AWE (Joint Contingency Force - Advanced Warfighting Experiment), I was amazed at the number of Infantrymen who were tooling around in the shells of their FBCB2s and such. Some had even (with a little help from the FBCB2 techs, I'm sure) managed to load FreeCiv! Of course, when the generals and congressmen came around, it was strictly business.
None of those links you provided really had anything to do with "front line troops." The vast majority of Army personel serve in a support capacity. A lot of them use Windoze. When you get some 17 year-old kid, fresh out of high-school, who's signed up to type up reenlistment reports, you give him something with which he is familiar -- Windoze.
But I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The vast majority of computers (from ASAS to CSSCS to FBCB2 to the boxes that control UAVs) in any given combat zone are running on some variety of *nix.
As far as I know, the FBCB2 aplique (which makes up the bulk of the platforms in use by the units to which you referred) still runs on Solaris, not NT. It never has run on NT, and it probably never will.
Is Windoze used by the Army? Sure. It runs on a great deal of desktop PCs used in garrison (legal clerks, personel, record-keeping, etc.) and even on some laptops in the combat zone (again, usually the ones used by the lawyers, etc. and by battle-planners for generating operational graphics and such). But the bulk of forward-deployed machines are running some variety of *nix.
No, the average grunt still has an M-16A2. One out of a four soldiers carries the M203 grenade launcher and one person out of an eight man squad carries a M249 SAW (hench, Squad Automatic Weapon). Four squads roughly make up a platoon sized element and in each platoon there are one or two M60 (7.62 cal crew based machine gun) gunners depending on the mission and expected opposition.
Whoa! A little behind the times, eh? These days, most line units issue the M4 carbine instead of the M16-A2. And I think only the National Guard still uses the M60; the Army started moving to the M240B several years ago.
Er... so by extension, it wouldn't be surprising at all if CENTCOM conducted VTCs with the Pentagon. It's only natural. Being that they did it for the past 18 years using conference calls on those crappy old STU-III phones, most of the brass are probably happy with VTC -- or maybe they aren't. Rumsfeld can't watch you sweat on the telephone.
The bit about Rumsfeld and Franks teleconferencing is probably fluff. If true, they may well have had additional crypto on either end. Or not; it might've been along the lines of "How's it going, Tommy? Fine, sir, fine."
These days, BDE-level TOCs commonly use VTC to deliver their SitReps to higher.
On the FBCB2 project, SOP was to "zero" the harddrive using a built-in switch, then smash the screen if compromise was certain. But even if they were to get hold of one, and if the average Iraqi is anywhere near as smart as the average American GI, it'd take him a while to make sense of the damned thing. In that time, we're busy pushing out new comsec to secure any future transmissions.
Exactly. A large percentage of the traffic on the tactical internet takes place via tcp/ip on encrypted, frequency hopping fm packet radios. And commo is always ready to push out new comsec in case of any compromise. This keeps them pretty secure.
Trying to use any of it outside line-of-sight is a bitch, though.
history will repeat itself, look for something similar to happen with Linux, now that its legality has been brought into question. Which alternative *nix based system will take its place?
Yeah, Lakoff does some very interesting work with metaphor. Here's something recent.
It was his research that contributed a lot to the idea that since we (humans) process metaphor and figurative language at the same rate we do literal, non-figurative language, computers should do the same. Big implications for NLP...
Cognitive metaphor at Berkeley? With Jim Martin? I need to talk to this guy. My master's thesis is drawing heavily on his work. Guess I should get off my lazy ass and send him an email, eh?
Anyway, I'd say the goals of most cognitive scientists are focused on machine models of human intelligence -- not to build a smarter machine per se, though that is often a serendipitous byproduct, but rather to further our understanding of the computational powers of the mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Great post. Thanks.
Each brigade-level unit has a JAG Corps representative, usually a captain, who is always an actual JD (Juris Doctor). The lawyer supported by a staff of enlisted personel called legal clerks. The clerks essentially act as paralegals, doing research and typing documents for the lawyer, who works closely with both Combat Arms and with Civil Affairs to make sure that the units actions are legal under the Law of Land Warfare and the Geneva Convention. Almost everything the brigade does needs the lawyer's OK first.
The only thing I would like to read after something like that is, "And they all lived happily ever after." Know what I mean?
Really, you might be surprised. During the JCF-AWE (Joint Contingency Force - Advanced Warfighting Experiment), I was amazed at the number of Infantrymen who were tooling around in the shells of their FBCB2s and such. Some had even (with a little help from the FBCB2 techs, I'm sure) managed to load FreeCiv! Of course, when the generals and congressmen came around, it was strictly business.
To the best of my knowledge (which, admittedly, is a few months out of date), nothing like this has actually been fielded yet.
But I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The vast majority of computers (from ASAS to CSSCS to FBCB2 to the boxes that control UAVs) in any given combat zone are running on some variety of *nix.
As far as I know, the FBCB2 aplique (which makes up the bulk of the platforms in use by the units to which you referred) still runs on Solaris, not NT. It never has run on NT, and it probably never will. Is Windoze used by the Army? Sure. It runs on a great deal of desktop PCs used in garrison (legal clerks, personel, record-keeping, etc.) and even on some laptops in the combat zone (again, usually the ones used by the lawyers, etc. and by battle-planners for generating operational graphics and such). But the bulk of forward-deployed machines are running some variety of *nix.
Whoa! A little behind the times, eh? These days, most line units issue the M4 carbine instead of the M16-A2. And I think only the National Guard still uses the M60; the Army started moving to the M240B several years ago.
Er... so by extension, it wouldn't be surprising at all if CENTCOM conducted VTCs with the Pentagon. It's only natural. Being that they did it for the past 18 years using conference calls on those crappy old STU-III phones, most of the brass are probably happy with VTC -- or maybe they aren't. Rumsfeld can't watch you sweat on the telephone.
These days, BDE-level TOCs commonly use VTC to deliver their SitReps to higher.
On the FBCB2 project, SOP was to "zero" the harddrive using a built-in switch, then smash the screen if compromise was certain. But even if they were to get hold of one, and if the average Iraqi is anywhere near as smart as the average American GI, it'd take him a while to make sense of the damned thing. In that time, we're busy pushing out new comsec to secure any future transmissions.
Most of the important stuff in the theater of operations runs on Solaris, usually.
Exactly. A large percentage of the traffic on the tactical internet takes place via tcp/ip on encrypted, frequency hopping fm packet radios. And commo is always ready to push out new comsec in case of any compromise. This keeps them pretty secure. Trying to use any of it outside line-of-sight is a bitch, though.
Ahem... OS X?
Yeah, Lakoff does some very interesting work with metaphor. Here's something recent.
It was his research that contributed a lot to the idea that since we (humans) process metaphor and figurative language at the same rate we do literal, non-figurative language, computers should do the same. Big implications for NLP...
Cognitive metaphor at Berkeley? With Jim Martin? I need to talk to this guy. My master's thesis is drawing heavily on his work. Guess I should get off my lazy ass and send him an email, eh? Anyway, I'd say the goals of most cognitive scientists are focused on machine models of human intelligence -- not to build a smarter machine per se, though that is often a serendipitous byproduct, but rather to further our understanding of the computational powers of the mind.