This is not a slam against Windows, it is stating the obvious. It was a response to the question of whether the NSA runs completely on Windows and notes that Windows would be inappropriate for the NSA's core mission which, for brevity's sake, we can limit to signal processing and decryption.
How many Crays does Windows run on? How many custom DSP processors? How many routers? How many HPC clusters?
You fan boys need to get a fucking clue and stop being overly sensitive, insecure douche bags.
You can rest assured that of all of the organizations on the planet this is one that will never be using Windows for its core mission. The tool is for the defense department dweebs, contractors, secretaries, suits, etc., where you expect to find Windows.
> Right now with software you need to put it in the market as soon as possible to start generate profit and then fix the problems with support contracts.
Oh, the Microsoft model. Yes, customers love that. Especially when they have to acceptance test the same crap 5 times before meeting minimum functionality.
>I don't know: I'm not a plumber. Sure as hell works well a treat if you offshore the bulk of dev. work and get a local specialist to fix it as required.
If you are satisfied with the construction and quality assurance of that sentence I have no doubt you will find similarly constructed software acceptable.
> There's always going to be something. I worry about how desensitized people will be when something major comes along.
This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper.
There is never going to announcement saying "Privacy/Freedom has been repealed". You will just wake up one day and realize it is so. And then we can all reflect back on the all the warnings ignored.
Correct but they don't need National Security Letters for this. They already buy, access, and store a ton of private sector data. It's not a loophole, it's the St. Louis arch, and its been open for years.
It's a little naive to think that segments of the government haven't their fingers in the development of various private sector companies since the beginning. Between CIA venture money, DARPA grants, large government contract awards, carefully placed personnel, etc., this far from some fortunate development that fell from the sky for them.
I am not averse to conspiracy theories and I wouldn't dismiss this one out of hand. But at this point in time, with the information available to the general public, Occam's razor doesn't favor this interpretation.
Although he has a public profile, Clarke is by no means the early voice on this. Check and you will see that this has been raised publicly for at least 3 years now. (The name of early guy escapes me - he's from the Naval War College.) The defense companies started hiring in earnest for this about 2 years ago.
What you seem to be implying is that some people are going to be advantaged and enriched by this. That's absolutely true and unwarranted hype should be watched carefully. It's also true that it is extremely important to make sure the government doesn't overstep its bounds in terms of intrusion into the domain of the private sector and individual citizens. But neither of things doesn't mean their isn't a threat and that we shouldn't take precautions.
> this book is flinging accusations at specific parties - all of them major world governments - without any evidence
This is very much a mouse and cat game. Given how difficult it is to trace attacks to their source you are rarely going to have absolute technical evidence. What you will have is human asset confirmation of suspicions of each country's programs and capabilities. No country is going to reveal those assets before hand, certainly not for a book issued to the general public.
Honestly I don't know how anyone doubts that China, Russia and the US have large programs in this area. Seriously, all you have to do is read the tech jobs ads in the DC/MD/VA area and you barely have to read between the lines.
As I recall he was one of the few people who was trying to warn about the rise of AQ. Given the outcome, I don't see how this should be construed to be a negative.
> I hope they meet more resistance than just the minority of people who play.
I'm willing to bet they won't. People can't be bothered to resist things like two wars that are costing them hundreds of billions each year, they sure as hell won't get off their asses for the poker player down the block.
> All of these rules are the opposite of how actual demolition derbies work. Smashing a car into the wall causes large amounts of damage. Damage to the front (the radiator, engine etc) is way more effective than damage than the rear.
Complete speculation but maybe it really isn't a demolition derby at all but something approaching what some envision for real driving in the future.
Imagine a driving environment where because there are sensors on the side of road that automatically communicate with all cars and take over control when required, it is difficult/impossible to drive off a road or crash into a wall/side rail. Similarly, almost no one in reality drives in reverse on a highway or surface street so it makes sense to eliminate this from the simulation.
The goal then is to use the derby metaphor to get people to purposely execute the insane things that real people might accidentally do real life - and develop possible ways to counteract them.
> Now we wait to see if the US Government tries to step in...oh what a show this is becoming.
Granted Slashdot is tech oriented but you can't look at the Google episode in isolation and expect to understand the entirety of it. Grievances with China have been building for a decade now. Things changed drastically when the Chinese insulted Obama during his trip to Beijing last November and they followed it up by publicly embarrassing him when they sunk the Copenhagen accords a month later. Eyes were opened and whatever goodwill between the Obama administration and China evaporated. The two countries may make token efforts to get along where they can but things have fundamentally changed and it has to do with much bigger economic issues than just Google.
Put the Google stuff (which first emerged shortly thereafter) in this context. People can argue endlessly about whether Google is being hypocritical on flip-flopping on censorship. It is besides the point. The real issue here is corporate espionage, fair play in Chinese market, trade issues, etc.
The next big thing is due out on April 15th. No, not your taexs. The Treasury department is due to release its biannual report on cheating trade nations. Even though China should have been on that list semi-permanently for a decade or more the US has always allowed them to slide. The big question is whether they allow it again this time. If China goes on the list it the first step to trade sanctions and possibly tariffs on Chinese goods. If you read the new lately China is screaming bloody murder and throwing every smoke bomb in their arsenal out to the press.
So yeah, this show is becoming interesting but it going to be much bigger than Google.
> you might want to reread your statement with "me" instead of "them".
Most people do. Here is what they see about financial holdings in the US:
Top 1% owns 43%
Next 19% owns 50%
Bottom 80% owns 7%
Most people see no "me" in those statements.
> However if a company doesn't do this things, then the stockholders sue saying that the CEO's were not doing their best to maximize profits.
A situation which could be remedied by changes to some laws. More importantly would be getting Wall Street off companies backs so they can plan more than 3 months out. The latter has less to do maximizing corporate profits than the Street's own interests, profits, and bonuses.
Bah. As if in the US's case the "country" has anything to say about it.
China has some notion of "country" and keeps its companies aware of it. The US is owned lock, stock and barrel by corporations who throw around terms like country and patriotism when it is convenient for them - usually when they need some cannon fodder and tax payer funding to defend or acquire what is in their corporate interest.
If you weren't so anxious to make a straw man out of me you could have surmised that we probably in general agree.
Voting isn't enough. Working strictly from within a system that is already compromised won't work on its own. It may keep some lunatics out of office but it won't change things.
Mass protests, 3rd parties, jury nullification, mass boycotts, organized labor, civil disobedience, etc., are required. Sorry, I just don't know how obvious that needs to be before people accept it. A wholly corporate two-party system is never going to undercut its interests until it is forced to do so.
If you don't like it, VOTE FOR SMARTER CONGRESSPEOPLE.
I can't be only one who is tired of this advice.
At what point do people admit that they can push the button on the machine all they want but it won't make it actually DO anything? The mechanism is broken. At this point its only function is to pacify us and make us think we have some vestige of control when we know in our hearts that we have none. Voting has become the great national corporate Suggestion Box where people ask to be treated with respect, get raises, and find a better health care provider but 3 months later get a breathlessly excited memo about how all the great suggestions led to 5 beautiful new picnic tables in the quad.
Power and money never concede anything until they are forced to do so. When the game is as rigged as the election process it not only allows them to do nothing but they laugh at how utterly gullible we are.
Now maybe it appeals to you and maybe it doesn't, but certainly it has its uses
For some people and some companies there may be use cases.
For me, and many others, cloud computing is nothing more than exploitation of the reality of slow consumer connections. Give the world 25 Mbs (up & down) connections in addition to sub $100/terabyte storage and the need for cloud computing approximates zero.
This has a lot of complicated requirements. If you scan through the pdf "DARPA's Military Networking Protocol" link in the article I don't see how this doesn't extend well beyond 3 years and $42 million. E.G. "As deliverables, performers must provide protocol implementations that replace or modify both the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) for the user level devices and the Network Controllers."
Throw in the pace of defense companies move and it would be a miracle.
Slashdot Mirror
...just think of it as the America's Cup of software. It's about the competition and the pride...
If he's hinting at what I think...no one on slashdot.
Troll? Really moron?
This is not a slam against Windows, it is stating the obvious. It was a response to the question of whether the NSA runs completely on Windows and notes that Windows would be inappropriate for the NSA's core mission which, for brevity's sake, we can limit to signal processing and decryption.
How many Crays does Windows run on? How many custom DSP processors? How many routers? How many HPC clusters?
You fan boys need to get a fucking clue and stop being overly sensitive, insecure douche bags.
does the NSA run completely on -gulp- windows?
You can rest assured that of all of the organizations on the planet this is one that will never be using Windows for its core mission. The tool is for the defense department dweebs, contractors, secretaries, suits, etc., where you expect to find Windows.
> Right now with software you need to put it in the market as soon as possible to start generate profit and then fix the problems with support contracts.
Oh, the Microsoft model. Yes, customers love that. Especially when they have to acceptance test the same crap 5 times before meeting minimum functionality.
>I don't know: I'm not a plumber. Sure as hell works well a treat if you offshore the bulk of dev. work and get a local specialist to fix it as required.
If you are satisfied with the construction and quality assurance of that sentence I have no doubt you will find similarly constructed software acceptable.
> So, is it cheaper to hire idiots to write most of the code and then hire someone smart later to fix it?
Doesn't the question answer itself? What's cheaper in the long run - install plumbing and wiring *while* the house is being built or afterwards?
> There's always going to be something. I worry about how desensitized people will be when something major comes along.
This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper.
There is never going to announcement saying "Privacy/Freedom has been repealed". You will just wake up one day and realize it is so. And then we can all reflect back on the all the warnings ignored.
Correct but they don't need National Security Letters for this. They already buy, access, and store a ton of private sector data. It's not a loophole, it's the St. Louis arch, and its been open for years.
It's a little naive to think that segments of the government haven't their fingers in the development of various private sector companies since the beginning. Between CIA venture money, DARPA grants, large government contract awards, carefully placed personnel, etc., this far from some fortunate development that fell from the sky for them.
I am not averse to conspiracy theories and I wouldn't dismiss this one out of hand. But at this point in time, with the information available to the general public, Occam's razor doesn't favor this interpretation.
Although he has a public profile, Clarke is by no means the early voice on this. Check and you will see that this has been raised publicly for at least 3 years now. (The name of early guy escapes me - he's from the Naval War College.) The defense companies started hiring in earnest for this about 2 years ago.
What you seem to be implying is that some people are going to be advantaged and enriched by this. That's absolutely true and unwarranted hype should be watched carefully. It's also true that it is extremely important to make sure the government doesn't overstep its bounds in terms of intrusion into the domain of the private sector and individual citizens. But neither of things doesn't mean their isn't a threat and that we shouldn't take precautions.
> this book is flinging accusations at specific parties - all of them major world governments - without any evidence
This is very much a mouse and cat game. Given how difficult it is to trace attacks to their source you are rarely going to have absolute technical evidence. What you will have is human asset confirmation of suspicions of each country's programs and capabilities. No country is going to reveal those assets before hand, certainly not for a book issued to the general public.
Honestly I don't know how anyone doubts that China, Russia and the US have large programs in this area. Seriously, all you have to do is read the tech jobs ads in the DC/MD/VA area and you barely have to read between the lines.
> I used to see him speak in the Clinton years
As I recall he was one of the few people who was trying to warn about the rise of AQ. Given the outcome, I don't see how this should be construed to be a negative.
> I hope they meet more resistance than just the minority of people who play.
I'm willing to bet they won't. People can't be bothered to resist things like two wars that are costing them hundreds of billions each year, they sure as hell won't get off their asses for the poker player down the block.
Not that much is legislated federally
Say what? Congress may not pass all that many bills but the ones they do are multiple warheads filled with scatter bombs.
> All of these rules are the opposite of how actual demolition derbies work. Smashing a car into the wall causes large amounts of damage. Damage to the front (the radiator, engine etc) is way more effective than damage than the rear.
Complete speculation but maybe it really isn't a demolition derby at all but something approaching what some envision for real driving in the future.
Imagine a driving environment where because there are sensors on the side of road that automatically communicate with all cars and take over control when required, it is difficult/impossible to drive off a road or crash into a wall/side rail. Similarly, almost no one in reality drives in reverse on a highway or surface street so it makes sense to eliminate this from the simulation.
The goal then is to use the derby metaphor to get people to purposely execute the insane things that real people might accidentally do real life - and develop possible ways to counteract them.
> Now we wait to see if the US Government tries to step in...oh what a show this is becoming.
Granted Slashdot is tech oriented but you can't look at the Google episode in isolation and expect to understand the entirety of it. Grievances with China have been building for a decade now. Things changed drastically when the Chinese insulted Obama during his trip to Beijing last November and they followed it up by publicly embarrassing him when they sunk the Copenhagen accords a month later. Eyes were opened and whatever goodwill between the Obama administration and China evaporated. The two countries may make token efforts to get along where they can but things have fundamentally changed and it has to do with much bigger economic issues than just Google.
Put the Google stuff (which first emerged shortly thereafter) in this context. People can argue endlessly about whether Google is being hypocritical on flip-flopping on censorship. It is besides the point. The real issue here is corporate espionage, fair play in Chinese market, trade issues, etc.
The next big thing is due out on April 15th. No, not your taexs. The Treasury department is due to release its biannual report on cheating trade nations. Even though China should have been on that list semi-permanently for a decade or more the US has always allowed them to slide. The big question is whether they allow it again this time. If China goes on the list it the first step to trade sanctions and possibly tariffs on Chinese goods. If you read the new lately China is screaming bloody murder and throwing every smoke bomb in their arsenal out to the press.
So yeah, this show is becoming interesting but it going to be much bigger than Google.
Most people do. Here is what they see about financial holdings in the US:
Top 1% owns 43%
Next 19% owns 50%
Bottom 80% owns 7%
Most people see no "me" in those statements.
> However if a company doesn't do this things, then the stockholders sue saying that the CEO's were not doing their best to maximize profits.
A situation which could be remedied by changes to some laws. More importantly would be getting Wall Street off companies backs so they can plan more than 3 months out. The latter has less to do maximizing corporate profits than the Street's own interests, profits, and bonuses.
Yet again proving that, alone, a broadband connection in the basement is insufficient to connect people with reality.
Bah. As if in the US's case the "country" has anything to say about it. China has some notion of "country" and keeps its companies aware of it. The US is owned lock, stock and barrel by corporations who throw around terms like country and patriotism when it is convenient for them - usually when they need some cannon fodder and tax payer funding to defend or acquire what is in their corporate interest.
Those beneficent corporate titans, always thinking of the little guys. How could I have forgotten their altruistic intentions?
We can credit the corporations, the banks, and bonehead economists for this one.
If you weren't so anxious to make a straw man out of me you could have surmised that we probably in general agree.
Voting isn't enough. Working strictly from within a system that is already compromised won't work on its own. It may keep some lunatics out of office but it won't change things.
Mass protests, 3rd parties, jury nullification, mass boycotts, organized labor, civil disobedience, etc., are required. Sorry, I just don't know how obvious that needs to be before people accept it. A wholly corporate two-party system is never going to undercut its interests until it is forced to do so.
If you don't like it, VOTE FOR SMARTER CONGRESSPEOPLE.
I can't be only one who is tired of this advice.
At what point do people admit that they can push the button on the machine all they want but it won't make it actually DO anything? The mechanism is broken. At this point its only function is to pacify us and make us think we have some vestige of control when we know in our hearts that we have none. Voting has become the great national corporate Suggestion Box where people ask to be treated with respect, get raises, and find a better health care provider but 3 months later get a breathlessly excited memo about how all the great suggestions led to 5 beautiful new picnic tables in the quad.
Power and money never concede anything until they are forced to do so. When the game is as rigged as the election process it not only allows them to do nothing but they laugh at how utterly gullible we are.
Now maybe it appeals to you and maybe it doesn't, but certainly it has its uses
For some people and some companies there may be use cases.
For me, and many others, cloud computing is nothing more than exploitation of the reality of slow consumer connections. Give the world 25 Mbs (up & down) connections in addition to sub $100/terabyte storage and the need for cloud computing approximates zero.
This has a lot of complicated requirements. If you scan through the pdf "DARPA's Military Networking Protocol" link in the article I don't see how this doesn't extend well beyond 3 years and $42 million. E.G. "As deliverables, performers must provide protocol implementations that replace or modify both the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) for the user level devices and the Network Controllers."
Throw in the pace of defense companies move and it would be a miracle.