The distinction needs to be made between production and distribution. I would agree with you if lawsuits were being filed against websites because they enabled other producers to better compete, however that is not the case. Internet technologies have become more successful distributing the old media, rather than enabling competing independently produced material. Old media isn't being rendered obsolete, just old media's model of using distribution profits to cover the costs of production.
What's sad is that we are seeing old media becoming more entrenched. Instead of searching for free independent music or movies, people have just switched to downloading the known highly marketed material. While they kick and scream about losing money due to piracy, they are secretly grinning because they are securing their mindshare for other avenues of profitablity like merchandising. The internet was an ideal system for diversity, however we are instead getting cultural homoginization around these old media companies with the big marketing dollars.
I remember earning patches when you got over a certain high score and sent in a picture. I got the Laserblast one, which was pretty easy once you figured out the right pattern given the poor AI.
While I agree with Schneier that ideally security should be a mindset, the fact is the culture of most businesses and government doesn't support it.
Not having a central authority doesn't mean that nobody is in charge, it means everybody is in charge. This model is the best fit for things like safety and security which are effected by the decisions of individuals at all levels. It also requires that all individuals have the knowledge to make the correct decisions. Unfortunately, people have not been educated in cyber security so this model would fail in most organizations. Unless you can trust secretary, janitor, or boss to know how to handle sensitive information, you can't effectively decentralize security.
What Schneier would have us do is expect that accountants, managers, and other bureaucrats handle the security of sensitive systems. We aren't ready for that right now, and I'm not sure we ever will be. Even with a comprehensive education program, you would still need every individual to buy in and think about security when new systems are developed. Without a cyber equivalent of 9/11, most non-technical managers won't consider cyber secuirty as a high priority. Without central oversight, you will likely see security cut to make room for improvements that the management is accountable for.
Until the culture of government at all levels changes, we need an agency responsible for managing security. Sensitive information is too important to trust to uninterested bureaucrats right now.
Schneier seems to instinctively grasp what so many people don't: the hierarchical nature of virtually all human organizations - and derived from that vestigial alpha-male instinct - is prone to corruption, subversion, and ultimately ethical failure. Or to quote the old cliche: the Peter Principle applies here, with a twist: it's often the least ethical scum that rises to the top, not the least capable. Even the supposedly democratic United States government is organized in such a fashion, and the successful treasonous behavior of the Bush administration is a useful demonstration of how it can go wrong very quickly.
What Schneier is very reasonably suggesting is that we lessen that hierarchy, not add to it.
The problem is you can't replace instinct. Even if you put a decentralized structure in place, people will naturally organize themselves in some form of hierachy. The first attempt at government by the founders of the United States was more democratic, but failed. The US civil war further drove home the need for strong central government.
The last 8 years were not the product of one election. The masses kept voting Republicans into the house and senate, and reelected Bush. The government sucked, because it's what we the people wanted. As much as I distrust the government handling of finance, medicine, and security, the alternative with people policing themselves is worse. The Republican reductions in financial oversight directly contributed to the current economic situation.
Too often those involved in IT security forget most people are uninterested. The Slashdot community may be educated on cybersecurity, but the guy next door with the open "linksys" router has no clue. By decentralizing you are entrusting the job to those same individuals. Cybersecurity is too important and complex to trust to accountants, lawyers, and other bureaucrats. A seperate organization headed by an IT security expert is needed.
No this is why people shouldn't just expect their personal freedoms are automatically protected by the Bill of Rights and need to participate in the political process. The government doesn't behave on a whim, it reflects the whims of those who participate. Why are we surprised how a government acts when people are more likely to vote for a politician if they are "tough on crime," regardless of what the law says.
Sure, but when it's just a few dozen hackers out there, can't you just haul their butts to jail the old-fashioned way? Why go through the military courts?
Because international politics treats hostile state-sponsored action in "armed conflict" different than just breaking the law. A member of a recognized group in armed conflict is given immunity, and would be treated as a prisoner of war. This would mean they would be returned once the conflict is over, and cannot be the target of civil or criminal action. A hacker bringing down a power grid as a prank would be subject to the laws of a country, while one doing the same as part of an armed conflict would be covered under international conventions.
There are situations where you would prefer to be labeled a [legal] enemy combatant, than a criminal.
I thought the whole point of having separate legal rules for war situations was that it was a battlefield with thousands of guys running around shooting people. You can't really apply the normal American legal process on that scale. There aren't enough judges, prosecutors, jurors, and, thankfully, lawyers in the world to do it. It just doesn't seem like this rationale applies to hacking. Still, play it safe, guys. If you must hack military sites, for God's sake, wear a uniform!
The Pentagon does in fact have lawyers in the field and planning rooms to review the legality of missions before they are performed. I always thought that the reason for having rules for war was mutually assured security. There are some horrible prospects in war that countries don't want to face, so they agree to rules which prohibits such activities. Don't torture our soldiers and target our civilians and we respond in kind. Since they come from agreement and not unilateral moral declarations, participants can ignore the rules when dealing with parties not adhering to the accords.
Of course you can, but then you're playing Humpty Dumpty, since the usual interpretations of the symbols are already enough to resolve the meaning of the problem
What is Humpty Dumpty is that It is impossible to pick two integers x and y, each in the range 1-5, such that x + y = 12. is anything but trivial without further interpretation. There are a number of assumptions on the nature and relationship of X, Y, 12, integer, equal, and addition. Some examples of assumptions are the decimal system, X & Y are static, do not interact and equivalency is rigid. It is very important to fully understand such assumptions before applying the proof to a real situation. Although abstraction often can introduce a number of flaws when describing reality with math, it's still a useful tool. In fact, we often describe phenomena using unrealistic abstractions (eg ideal gas law), to give us a quick way to approximate reality. But it is important to remind ourselves, that the math is a model description, not the truth.
What you can do entirely validly is claim "there is no God", when the word God is a label for an entity satisfying the requirements of a flawed (contradictory) definition. This is something that atheists can always do when confronted with the big organized religions.
Importantly, this claim doesn't assert anything about some other entity which may satisfy some other (contradictory or not) requirements which isn't being concurrently discussed. This leaves people unaffected whose personal conception of divinity does not follow the main Christian or Muslim or Jewish tenets, however they tend to be a minority in online discussions
There is a difference between "there is no God" and "God is not..." Religion is a personal thing, so even followers of mainstream religion each have their own interpretation of what "God" is based on their experience. Those personal beliefs may or may not be addressed by any contradictory arguments.
As an Agnostic I can see value in the discussion of religion and God. Though the premise may be incorrect, historically the idea of God has significantly contributed to scientific and social advances.
There is some value for the idea that business meetings can suffer simply because of the mechanics of how they are scheduled. Hour long meetings often are not optimal, workers will find ways to fill the time or not adequately address issues because of the artificial time restriction. Also, Participants tend to be more rigorous about the length of the meeting, and less about the length of subtopic discussions. Perhaps scheduling topics as "micro-meetings" will help maintain discipline. While not really to the level of patenting, there are important inights into how people work.
I knew it was a mistake to give up trying to solve the Halting Problem!
It's not about solving the problem, it's about proving it's true. Hopefully the NSF approves my $50 million dollar proposal to build a machine with no resource limitations.
Essentially given an "impossible" situation (infinite computing resources), you will have an "impossible" problem.
For the proof to work you would first need to show that it's possible to build a machine that is not resource constrained, which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That's not to say the proof isn't true, people (mostly crackpots) are constantly coming up with new perpetual motion machine ideas everyday. So while theory says "absolutely no," reality says "hmmm maybe, well kinda, not totally sure." Same as warp drive, alternate universes, and a bunch of other things we can dream up.
Our ability to understand is limited by our imagination more than anything else. Which is why things we deem "impossible" are achieved.
It is impossible to pick two integers x and y, each in the range 1-5, such that x + y = 12.
is true only based on specific definitions. You can in fact have 4+3=12 in base 5. When applied to a realistic situation you can also have 3H2+3H2 = 12H+
One can also prove that a god doesn't exist by showing that said god's defining characteristics are contradictory. Atheists do it all the time, but theists usually respond with the childish "that may be, but *my* definition of god is now such and such instead".
What's childish is the way theists and atheists hurl insults at each others "answers," when the question itself isn't well defined. If there isn't a clear definition of God, you can't disprove it; all you can say is the current definition is flawed. At the same time without definition a concept isn't useful. So a few people actually work at trying to find out what "God" means, and most people on both sides cover their ears already set in their opinions.
Funny, I always found Futurama explanations more reasonable than Star Trek ones. Star Trek misused cool sounding terminology, Futurama just made up simple semi-plausible answers. The latter is a lot closer to how scientists explain new ideas (they then flesh out the details with complex terms and math)
And by that FMJ concentrates on a non-interesting part of warfare?
As for cop shows... NYPD Blue is far more realistic than CSI:NY.
And in that same vein - FMJ is more realistic than Apocalypse Now and FAR more realistic than The Green Berets.
Just as Saving Private Ryan or Letters from Iwo Jima is more realistic than Battle of the Bulge, Dirty Dozen and again FAR more realistic than Pearl Harbor.
NYPD Blue and Saving Private Ryan are realistic, but not accurate. They are disproportionally focused on conflict since their primary purpose is to entertain - just like a video game. If you become a soldier in the US military you will more likely turn a wrench or file paperwork than actually firing a bullet at the enemy. An accurate movie/show/video game would involve hours of standing, walking down the hall to get a printout, or looking through boxes for the right screw. The average military experience plays out more like a point-and-click adventure, than a first person shooter.
The inaccuracy of games/shows/movies is not that they depict gung-ho patriotism, or somber lament of death. The real propaganda is that wars are fought completely with bullets. It ignores most of the war that gets fought in meeting rooms, metal shops, warehouses, and driving semi-trucks. America's Army isn't about fostering a "USA #1" attitude. For the most part recruitable teens have already bought in or don't care. The real brainwashing is that you join the military and you'll become an action hero.
You can move out of the neighborhood.
Doing the same in the army constitutes being Absent Without (Official) Leave.
I'm sure all the people in violent urban neighborhoods are there by choice. And the punishment for gang members who go AWOL is a lot more harsh than the military.
Correction. PARTS of the cities. And Iraq is a COUNTRY. At war. It is not just Baghdad or just parts of it.
Yes, Iraq is a country, and just like other countries only parts of it are extremely dangerous driven by population denisty like the US.
I am willing to bet that you have far better chances of being shot anywhere in Iraq than standing on a sidewalk in Bel Air eating an ice cream.
Or at the top of the Eiffel Tower.
Or walking down the street in Moscow.
I'd rethink that last one given Moscow has one of the highest murder rates in the world.
FMJ does not "demonize" - it is simply realistic. It doesn't glorify either, though...
It's not realistic, just like a video game it focuses on only the interesting parts of warfare. If you watch a cop show you'd think the average police officer is chasing a serial killer or shooting drug runners daily. The reality is that most of the work in these "dangerous" jobs involves filling out paper work, moving boxes, and fixing equipment. The most difficult part of war has to do with logistics, not killing the enemy. Chances of soldiers dying in Iraq are about 2.5 those of being in the US (age 18-39), and there are much more dangerous neighborhoods in the US than Baghdad. For the Iraqi civilian population, death rates have less to do with a military peacekeeping force, and more about criminal activity. It is very similar to drug related turf battles seen elsewhere in the world - infact there are far riskier cities to live that aren't considered "war zones"
Youtube falls into the "not worth buying" category. I'll simply boycott the site rather than handover a single dollar, and get my entertainment someplace else for free (like over-the-air television)
MOST Youtube falls into the "not worth buying" category. There are a couple good series that I might consider subscribing to. Youtube is a massive distribution system. There's lots of free crap, but there is a market for premium and niche content. It has the potential to be a more open video version of the iTunes app store.
The larger RIAA/MPAA groups would still be forcing out the smaller producers regardless of the level of piracy, infact if piracy were zero then they would be concentrating on killing the smaller producers as it would be the only way to increase their profits.
How exactly would they kill the smaller producers? Certainly they could try, but unlike piracy they won't have legal leverage.
Copyright is an artificial construct designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many.
Copyright is really just a subtopic of the longstanding conflict between individual rights and those of society.
ALL rights are artificial constructs to benefit the few at the expense of the many. They address the natural divergence between organizations and constituents. Ideally, what is best for the community would be best for every single member, unfortunately that rarely is the case. To prevent the tyranny of the masses, we establish our most important individual principles (rights), then mold the rest of society around them.
Current rules are extremely detrimental to our culture
I would disagree. As you say the more draconian the music cartels become, the more people will fight against it. The backlash along with technology opens up more opportunities for individuals and unique artists. If I don't want to spend $15 for a CD, there's a universe of free legal music to explore. World culture is losing its diversity, and file sharers are a part of the problem. The big label marketing machines encourage the same uninspired clone pop everywhere, and file sharers happily feed it to other countries. I want to hear native Brazilian or Indian music... not Britney or Hanah Montana with different accents. By sticking to legal music downloads, I've been able to experience a greater spectrum of music.
If copyright terms were more sensible, then the people standing up against them would be fewer in number and less credible in their message.
I agree copyright terms should be more sensible, but the hypocrisy of those standing up isn't helping. Instead of protesting by downloading, just don't listen. Don't give the execs the easy excuse. Investors will notice indies making money while the big labels go into the red, and trotting out the piracy boogeyman just won't cut it.
Non techies shouldn't be appointed to positions like this. I know I'll catch flak but who else to champion things like Net Neutrality?
Net Neutrality doesn't need the CTO to champion it, it's already on the agenda Protect the Openness of the Internet: Support the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.
The administration doesn't live in a vacuum, they have experts to advise them.
Correct, but the lawyer would not supervise the DNA expert.
He may not dig into every detail on what the DNA expert is doing on a daily basis; but I would hope he remains informed and manages the experts towards the goals of the case. The goal is not academic proof, it is a legal argument. As such, the lawyer, not the expert, will be the one who makes the final decision on how the case is presented. The goals of the CTO of the United States are social, not technological.
If the CTO is a techie and makes a suggestion on applying technology to health care or finance, would his opinion be worthless because he's not a doctor or accountant?
It well might be.
If that is the case, nobody is qualified. Directing broad level policy does not mean being an expert at everything, it means understanding what experts say and integrating those opinions into a single direction. Likely a network engineer, doctor, health insurer and patient advocate aren't going to agree about everything. For example the doctor wants information as easy as possible, the health insurer wants the lowest cost, a patient wants to maximize security, the network engineer will describe how much it will cost. The CTO needs to take those inputs and decide what the "best" high level direction.
You may be right. We don't really know what the job is. But I thought it was the job of the president to set the direction, and the job of the CTO to implement it. If he's going to implement tech policy he should know technology.
"In this role, Aneesh will promote technological innovation to help achieve our most urgent priorities - from creating jobs and reducing health care costs to keeping our nation secure."
At his level he may decide that investments should be made in enabling better communication between local, state, and federal police agencies, or that health care information should be more easily accessible by doctors. It's his background in the application of technology (specifically in health care and government) that is important, not the nuts & bolts of how it works.
Someone who's been in the field, and done some hardcore programming, network design, or a combination of tech skills and project management/people management combined with a tech background. Ultimately, the CTO/CIO is a manager that comes FROM a tech background, not moves TO one.
If you pigeonhole people that way, you'll never find anybody qualified for the job
"As Chief Technology Officer, Chopra will promote technological innovation to help the country meet its goals from job creation, to reducing health care costs, to protecting the homeland." So does the person need an extensive background in business (job creation), medicine (lower health care costs), law enforcement (protecting the homeland), and a number of other specialties to meet the administration's technology goals?
The CTO is a manager that comes from a background of applying technology to address social issues. At that level it's more important to know who to hire, than how it works.
If I have a trial which hinges on DNA evidence I don't hire a DNA expert, I hire a lawyer who in turn hires and manages all the experts needed for the legal case. If the CTO is a techie and makes a suggestion on applying technology to health care or finance, would his opinion be worthless because he's not a doctor or accountant? The CTO is not a tech job, it is a director's job. Setting direction for the broad application of technology does not necessarily require an intimate knowledge of how the technology works.
There are LOTS of fundamentalist Christians in the US and how much terrorism are they responsible for? Compare that to the number of fundamentalist Muslims also in the US who were arrested for terrorism plots. It's nice and PC to add "oh and also Christianity" but it's not very realistic.
terrorism from 2002 through 2005. In keeping with a longstand-
ing trend, domestic extremists carried out the majority of terrorist incidents during this period. Twenty
three of the 24 recorded terrorist incidents were perpetrated by domestic terrorists. With the exception
of white supremacist Sean Michael Gillespieâ(TM)s firebombing of a synagogue in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
all of the domestic terrorist incidents were committed by special interest extremists active in the animal
rights and environmental movements... The terrorist preventions for 2002 through 2005 paint a more diverse threat picture. Eight of the
14 recorded terrorist preventions stemmed from right-wing extremism
Christian fundamentalism hasn't backed down - Anti-abortionists, KKK, Waco, Jonestown, Christian identity, etc.
While religion is a threat, clearly Animal & Environmentalism have caused far more terrorist destruction in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
The distinction needs to be made between production and distribution. I would agree with you if lawsuits were being filed against websites because they enabled other producers to better compete, however that is not the case. Internet technologies have become more successful distributing the old media, rather than enabling competing independently produced material. Old media isn't being rendered obsolete, just old media's model of using distribution profits to cover the costs of production.
What's sad is that we are seeing old media becoming more entrenched. Instead of searching for free independent music or movies, people have just switched to downloading the known highly marketed material. While they kick and scream about losing money due to piracy, they are secretly grinning because they are securing their mindshare for other avenues of profitablity like merchandising. The internet was an ideal system for diversity, however we are instead getting cultural homoginization around these old media companies with the big marketing dollars.
I remember earning patches when you got over a certain high score and sent in a picture. I got the Laserblast one, which was pretty easy once you figured out the right pattern given the poor AI.
While I agree with Schneier that ideally security should be a mindset, the fact is the culture of most businesses and government doesn't support it.
Not having a central authority doesn't mean that nobody is in charge, it means everybody is in charge. This model is the best fit for things like safety and security which are effected by the decisions of individuals at all levels. It also requires that all individuals have the knowledge to make the correct decisions. Unfortunately, people have not been educated in cyber security so this model would fail in most organizations. Unless you can trust secretary, janitor, or boss to know how to handle sensitive information, you can't effectively decentralize security.
What Schneier would have us do is expect that accountants, managers, and other bureaucrats handle the security of sensitive systems. We aren't ready for that right now, and I'm not sure we ever will be. Even with a comprehensive education program, you would still need every individual to buy in and think about security when new systems are developed. Without a cyber equivalent of 9/11, most non-technical managers won't consider cyber secuirty as a high priority. Without central oversight, you will likely see security cut to make room for improvements that the management is accountable for.
Until the culture of government at all levels changes, we need an agency responsible for managing security. Sensitive information is too important to trust to uninterested bureaucrats right now.
The problem is you can't replace instinct. Even if you put a decentralized structure in place, people will naturally organize themselves in some form of hierachy. The first attempt at government by the founders of the United States was more democratic, but failed. The US civil war further drove home the need for strong central government.
The last 8 years were not the product of one election. The masses kept voting Republicans into the house and senate, and reelected Bush. The government sucked, because it's what we the people wanted.
As much as I distrust the government handling of finance, medicine, and security, the alternative with people policing themselves is worse. The Republican reductions in financial oversight directly contributed to the current economic situation.
Too often those involved in IT security forget most people are uninterested. The Slashdot community may be educated on cybersecurity, but the guy next door with the open "linksys" router has no clue. By decentralizing you are entrusting the job to those same individuals.
Cybersecurity is too important and complex to trust to accountants, lawyers, and other bureaucrats. A seperate organization headed by an IT security expert is needed.
No this is why people shouldn't just expect their personal freedoms are automatically protected by the Bill of Rights and need to participate in the political process.
The government doesn't behave on a whim, it reflects the whims of those who participate. Why are we surprised how a government acts when people are more likely to vote for a politician if they are "tough on crime," regardless of what the law says.
Because international politics treats hostile state-sponsored action in "armed conflict" different than just breaking the law.
A member of a recognized group in armed conflict is given immunity, and would be treated as a prisoner of war. This would mean they would be returned once the conflict is over, and cannot be the target of civil or criminal action.
A hacker bringing down a power grid as a prank would be subject to the laws of a country, while one doing the same as part of an armed conflict would be covered under international conventions.
There are situations where you would prefer to be labeled a [legal] enemy combatant, than a criminal.
The Pentagon does in fact have lawyers in the field and planning rooms to review the legality of missions before they are performed.
I always thought that the reason for having rules for war was mutually assured security. There are some horrible prospects in war that countries don't want to face, so they agree to rules which prohibits such activities. Don't torture our soldiers and target our civilians and we respond in kind.
Since they come from agreement and not unilateral moral declarations, participants can ignore the rules when dealing with parties not adhering to the accords.
What is Humpty Dumpty is that
It is impossible to pick two integers x and y, each in the range 1-5, such that x + y = 12.
is anything but trivial without further interpretation. There are a number of assumptions on the nature and relationship of X, Y, 12, integer, equal, and addition. Some examples of assumptions are the decimal system, X & Y are static, do not interact and equivalency is rigid.
It is very important to fully understand such assumptions before applying the proof to a real situation. Although abstraction often can introduce a number of flaws when describing reality with math, it's still a useful tool. In fact, we often describe phenomena using unrealistic abstractions (eg ideal gas law), to give us a quick way to approximate reality. But it is important to remind ourselves, that the math is a model description, not the truth.
There is a difference between "there is no God" and "God is not..."
Religion is a personal thing, so even followers of mainstream religion each have their own interpretation of what "God" is based on their experience. Those personal beliefs may or may not be addressed by any contradictory arguments.
As an Agnostic I can see value in the discussion of religion and God. Though the premise may be incorrect, historically the idea of God has significantly contributed to scientific and social advances.
There is some value for the idea that business meetings can suffer simply because of the mechanics of how they are scheduled. Hour long meetings often are not optimal, workers will find ways to fill the time or not adequately address issues because of the artificial time restriction.
Also, Participants tend to be more rigorous about the length of the meeting, and less about the length of subtopic discussions. Perhaps scheduling topics as "micro-meetings" will help maintain discipline.
While not really to the level of patenting, there are important inights into how people work.
It's not about solving the problem, it's about proving it's true.
Hopefully the NSF approves my $50 million dollar proposal to build a machine with no resource limitations.
Essentially given an "impossible" situation (infinite computing resources), you will have an "impossible" problem.
For the proof to work you would first need to show that it's possible to build a machine that is not resource constrained, which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
That's not to say the proof isn't true, people (mostly crackpots) are constantly coming up with new perpetual motion machine ideas everyday.
So while theory says "absolutely no," reality says "hmmm maybe, well kinda, not totally sure." Same as warp drive, alternate universes, and a bunch of other things we can dream up.
is true only based on specific definitions.
You can in fact have 4+3=12 in base 5. When applied to a realistic situation you can also have 3H2+3H2 = 12H+
What's childish is the way theists and atheists hurl insults at each others "answers," when the question itself isn't well defined. If there isn't a clear definition of God, you can't disprove it; all you can say is the current definition is flawed. At the same time without definition a concept isn't useful.
:)
So a few people actually work at trying to find out what "God" means, and most people on both sides cover their ears already set in their opinions.
It's important to always keep an open mind
Funny, I always found Futurama explanations more reasonable than Star Trek ones. Star Trek misused cool sounding terminology, Futurama just made up simple semi-plausible answers.
The latter is a lot closer to how scientists explain new ideas (they then flesh out the details with complex terms and math)
NYPD Blue and Saving Private Ryan are realistic, but not accurate. They are disproportionally focused on conflict since their primary purpose is to entertain - just like a video game.
If you become a soldier in the US military you will more likely turn a wrench or file paperwork than actually firing a bullet at the enemy. An accurate movie/show/video game would involve hours of standing, walking down the hall to get a printout, or looking through boxes for the right screw. The average military experience plays out more like a point-and-click adventure, than a first person shooter.
The inaccuracy of games/shows/movies is not that they depict gung-ho patriotism, or somber lament of death. The real propaganda is that wars are fought completely with bullets. It ignores most of the war that gets fought in meeting rooms, metal shops, warehouses, and driving semi-trucks. America's Army isn't about fostering a "USA #1" attitude. For the most part recruitable teens have already bought in or don't care. The real brainwashing is that you join the military and you'll become an action hero.
I'm sure all the people in violent urban neighborhoods are there by choice. And the punishment for gang members who go AWOL is a lot more harsh than the military.
Yes, Iraq is a country, and just like other countries only parts of it are extremely dangerous driven by population denisty like the US.
I'd rethink that last one given Moscow has one of the highest murder rates in the world.
It's not realistic, just like a video game it focuses on only the interesting parts of warfare.
If you watch a cop show you'd think the average police officer is chasing a serial killer or shooting drug runners daily.
The reality is that most of the work in these "dangerous" jobs involves filling out paper work, moving boxes, and fixing equipment. The most difficult part of war has to do with logistics, not killing the enemy.
Chances of soldiers dying in Iraq are about 2.5 those of being in the US (age 18-39), and there are much more dangerous neighborhoods in the US than Baghdad.
For the Iraqi civilian population, death rates have less to do with a military peacekeeping force, and more about criminal activity. It is very similar to drug related turf battles seen elsewhere in the world - infact there are far riskier cities to live that aren't considered "war zones"
They don't function well as a peacekeeping force alone, but they are an essential piece in establishing and maintaining a peaceful society.
It went by the name of Sim City... and most kids used their godly powers at some point to cause mass destruction.
MOST Youtube falls into the "not worth buying" category. There are a couple good series that I might consider subscribing to.
Youtube is a massive distribution system. There's lots of free crap, but there is a market for premium and niche content. It has the potential to be a more open video version of the iTunes app store.
Maybe to foster new independent media companies to compete with the existing corporate interests.
How exactly would they kill the smaller producers? Certainly they could try, but unlike piracy they won't have legal leverage.
Copyright is really just a subtopic of the longstanding conflict between individual rights and those of society.
ALL rights are artificial constructs to benefit the few at the expense of the many.
They address the natural divergence between organizations and constituents. Ideally, what is best for the community would be best for every single member, unfortunately that rarely is the case. To prevent the tyranny of the masses, we establish our most important individual principles (rights), then mold the rest of society around them.
I would disagree. As you say the more draconian the music cartels become, the more people will fight against it. The backlash along with technology opens up more opportunities for individuals and unique artists. If I don't want to spend $15 for a CD, there's a universe of free legal music to explore.
World culture is losing its diversity, and file sharers are a part of the problem. The big label marketing machines encourage the same uninspired clone pop everywhere, and file sharers happily feed it to other countries. I want to hear native Brazilian or Indian music... not Britney or Hanah Montana with different accents.
By sticking to legal music downloads, I've been able to experience a greater spectrum of music.
I agree copyright terms should be more sensible, but the hypocrisy of those standing up isn't helping. Instead of protesting by downloading, just don't listen. Don't give the execs the easy excuse. Investors will notice indies making money while the big labels go into the red, and trotting out the piracy boogeyman just won't cut it.
Net Neutrality doesn't need the CTO to champion it, it's already on the agenda
Protect the Openness of the Internet: Support the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.
The administration doesn't live in a vacuum, they have experts to advise them.
He may not dig into every detail on what the DNA expert is doing on a daily basis; but I would hope he remains informed and manages the experts towards the goals of the case. The goal is not academic proof, it is a legal argument. As such, the lawyer, not the expert, will be the one who makes the final decision on how the case is presented.
The goals of the CTO of the United States are social, not technological.
If that is the case, nobody is qualified. Directing broad level policy does not mean being an expert at everything, it means understanding what experts say and integrating those opinions into a single direction. Likely a network engineer, doctor, health insurer and patient advocate aren't going to agree about everything. For example the doctor wants information as easy as possible, the health insurer wants the lowest cost, a patient wants to maximize security, the network engineer will describe how much it will cost. The CTO needs to take those inputs and decide what the "best" high level direction.
"In this role, Aneesh will promote technological innovation to help achieve our most urgent priorities - from creating jobs and reducing health care costs to keeping our nation secure."
At his level he may decide that investments should be made in enabling better communication between local, state, and federal police agencies, or that health care information should be more easily accessible by doctors. It's his background in the application of technology (specifically in health care and government) that is important, not the nuts & bolts of how it works.
If you pigeonhole people that way, you'll never find anybody qualified for the job
"As Chief Technology Officer, Chopra will promote technological innovation to help the country meet its goals from job creation, to reducing health care costs, to protecting the homeland."
So does the person need an extensive background in business (job creation), medicine (lower health care costs), law enforcement (protecting the homeland), and a number of other specialties to meet the administration's technology goals?
The CTO is a manager that comes from a background of applying technology to address social issues. At that level it's more important to know who to hire, than how it works.
If I have a trial which hinges on DNA evidence I don't hire a DNA expert, I hire a lawyer who in turn hires and manages all the experts needed for the legal case.
If the CTO is a techie and makes a suggestion on applying technology to health care or finance, would his opinion be worthless because he's not a doctor or accountant?
The CTO is not a tech job, it is a director's job. Setting direction for the broad application of technology does not necessarily require an intimate knowledge of how the technology works.
Maybe you should look at the statistics.
terrorism from 2002 through 2005. In keeping with a longstand- ing trend, domestic extremists carried out the majority of terrorist incidents during this period. Twenty three of the 24 recorded terrorist incidents were perpetrated by domestic terrorists. With the exception of white supremacist Sean Michael Gillespieâ(TM)s firebombing of a synagogue in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, all of the domestic terrorist incidents were committed by special interest extremists active in the animal rights and environmental movements...
The terrorist preventions for 2002 through 2005 paint a more diverse threat picture. Eight of the 14 recorded terrorist preventions stemmed from right-wing extremism
Christian fundamentalism hasn't backed down - Anti-abortionists, KKK, Waco, Jonestown, Christian identity, etc.
While religion is a threat, clearly Animal & Environmentalism have caused far more terrorist destruction in the US.