And what level of education have you completed? Usually the ones who say "education != smart" haven't completed either high school or college. Which one is you?
If you are willing to assert that a 17 year old kid knows more about automotive engineering than all engineers at GM combined, you obviously don't know what it takes to design a car, design a factory that makes a car, design the equipment that builds a car, design the processes needed to do it economically, and design how to ship and store the cars. Oh and implement it too. Did you know that was what automotive engineers do? Anyone who puts their mind to it can repair a car, and almost anyone can build one from parts. Get it? The manuals are out there, a car has basic operating principles that are easy to learn. Additionally, all the parts companies have made it STUPID SIMPLE for aspiring mechanics. This is why we can train people to diagnose and repair one, cause engineers have MADE it that simple.
By the same token, the kids at Blackhat are impressive, but are they really intelligent? Do they use easily available libraries, or do they roll their own code at all levels? Library programming is easy, that's why programmers are thinking about unionizing, cause it's so easy an overseas worker can do it. Is their code relatively bug free, or do you have to dodge minefields whenever you run it? Is the code efficient, because many self trained programmers aren't aware of N(log n), or algorithm design, two very large components of what genius programmers are involved in
Let me put it bluntly: Those who are easily impressed by the capabilities of others lack those capabilities themselves, and are ill-equipped and unqualified to make assertions that include those capabilities. You're a bushman who has met a man carrying a lighter: it's MAGIC to you and he's a WIZARD, when to the rest of the world it's a lighter and he's a smoker.
I don't. My point was that this set of questions didn't even touch some really important things Langevin's committee is responsible for.
~Sticky
/ Uh... don't (insert scare word) (insert quantity) that (Insert high Markov correlated word to highly used capitalized word in Post) says, either to you or to (insert highly used capizalized word from original article related to Capitalized word in Parent)... //Are you a bot? Cause if you are, I'm cool with that ///I've always wanted a bot friend...
Not a single question regarding security for the utility sector, specifically the NERC CIP standards. What is congress going to do about the way they are now? Are they going to take them from NERC and the utilies, and force a government standard, or are they going to let the utilities try again?
What about expanding the control system security requirements through the EPA for water facilities?
Rep Langevin's committee is much more than "ZOMG, my right to exchange pirated copies of The Dark Knight is going to be infringed!!".
I'm intrigued by this "carrying away" property you speak of. Does it carry it away using a magic bag, or does it tie it up with a magic lasso and tickle it first? Kinetic energy is based upon the acceleration of the object and the object's mass (Newtonian high school physics, 1/2 * mass * velocity^2). The atmospheric drag causes a reduction in the velocity of the object by producing an acceleration in the direction opposite the velocity. Hence, the reduction in velocity causes it to lose kinetic energy. You do know vectors, right? Cause if you don't know vectors, you're pretty much unqualified to do anything in physics but make fart noises.
The number of atoms in the object is secondary to the object's mass. I can have 1000 atoms of hydrogen and 10 atoms of uranium traveling at the same velocity, and the kinetic energy of the uranium will be greater because it's mass is (10 * 235 AU)=2350 AU while the hydrogen's mass is (1000 AU * 1 ) = 1000 AU. By your logic, the 10 atoms of uranium would slow down faster than the 1000 atoms of hydrogen, which is wrong. Ask your physics teacher sometime.
The marble and the marshmallow differ by MASS, which is the important quantity. That is why the marshmallow will be more affected by a change in acceleration caused by the atmospheric drag. May I recommend some Galileo? Or maybe some Mythbusters? Or perhaps "Bill Nye's Big Popup Book of Physics"? Look for things involving "dropping items of different weight, which hits the ground first".
I hope next time I can have an argument with someone who has taken a little more than remedial physics. I'd like fries with my big mac please.
Density means nothing when calculating forces, velocity, and acceleration. Mass is the important quantity. If the bag were made up of light atoms (such as a carbon mesh) it would be affected slower than a bag made up of heavy atoms (such as uranium), even if they had the exact same density. This is called inertia, and it's a property of mass. Try doing an equation involving motion using an object's density instead of it's mass, it doesn't work out unless you add the mass in (either directly or indirectly).
A compact toolbag packs way more punch than a solar panel of equal cross-section,
so yes, density - more precisely: "area density" perpendicular to the velocity - matters.
Why are you using "area density"? That is used mainly to measure absorption of radiation by a thin film (or a set of thin films which approximate a 3-dimensional object. Calculus is fun!) And I won't even comment on the attempt to turn a scalar measurement into a vector. Just ridiculous. Amd furthermore, if the panel weighs more than the bag, YES it does "pack more punch", or as us engineers say it "has more inertia, due to the higher mass".
~Sticky /It's feed the troll tuesday! Come on it's fun!
Surface area gives drag forces allright, but higher density gives higher inertial mass per surface area, at least for objects like lost toolbags. Mathematicians could probably dream up some sort of toolbag where this is not true, however...
Strike that, reverse it. "higher mass gives a higher density". Density is not a physical property, it is a method of describing how many atoms can fit in certain unit of volume. Density means nothing without mass.
And for the record, it's just mass when you are talking about both gravitation and inertia. Inertial mass is not a *real* thing, it is the measurement of mass when both the observer and the object are in the same gravitational field.
Look, all this nice Wall-E style robotics is all nifty and everything, but seriously how about some REAL progress. Making them seem more human isn't an issue until you actually deploy some of them in the wild.
Instead of making it seem more human, why don't you build a robot that can clean a hotel room as fast as a human? Then we'll talk.
~Sticky
~Sticky /And Adam did build all manner of mechanical marvels for himself in the Garden of Eden. //And then God said, "How the hell were you planning to power these things, doofus?" ///And then Adam left, for God would not stop laughing at him.
Hmm. Interesting point. However, when we make judgments about how people write, are we not unfairly judging the person to be lacking of intelligence? The circumstances with which they write may not be known to us, to presuppose their intelligence based upon word choice, or grammar mistakes, or unfortunate command of the English language, is inherently wrong, there is at best a tenuous correlation between intelligence and mastery of grammar. One does not have to have perfect command of the English language to be intelligent, though they do need at least a relative command to be heard. A shining light bulb under a basket sheds no light on it's surroundings, but does that mean it is not bright?
To judge someone based upon an assessment of their grammar and punctuation is Stupid. In fact, I'd go on to say it's indicative of some sort of personal shortcoming, perhaps itself a lack of intelligence. A crutch, if you will, to prop up an ego that cannot expand through creative expression, so the ego limps along using the American Heritage Book of English Grammar to strike at those who the undeserving ego cannot reach by normal means.
Even your logical statement "I could assume that illiterate people are actually very clever" shows that you have at best a binary grasp on the concept of intelligence. You ignore that there are shades between 'clever' and 'stupid', that each term is inherently subjective, and arrogantly lump people in one or the other category.
I cannot pass judgment on your intelligence, for I am a fallible (and angry) human being. But I can pass one judgment with confidence: You are unqualified to judge the intelligence of others, just like everyone else.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Maybe you should go with: "I do not agree with what you say, so I will correct spelling and/or grammar mistakes, even in informal settings, until I do".
This was a mea culpa on my part. What I should have said was:
"The math behind public key cryptography (the difficulty of factoring large integers), was considered pointless in the beginning."
I.E. the underlying technology was relegated to a minor curiousity, something mathematicians did on their spare time rather than an intensive research interest. Which made sense, who wants to figure out exactly how difficult a problem is to solve, we want to actually solve them. However, once an application was found for this math, a 10 Billion Dollar business ensued.
So, while it seems pointless now, someday, someone may find something interesting and novel to use this quantum mumbo jumbo for.
I'm seriously tired of these arguments, if there is an interference between this and 3G phones it should have been proven by now, and MUCH MUCH earlier than this year...
Originally, all process networks were designed like that, completely islanded off and self sufficient. Nothing in, nothing out. And that was fine while the industry was for the most part regulated. There wasn't a need for a large amount of data to be shared, everybody did their own thing according to regulations.
Problem with that method is that there was no incentive to make upgrades to infrastructure and systems under regulation. ZERO. Which has lead to the situation we are in now: We have a first world nation with a third world electric power grid. Costs are rapidly rising, power demands are increasing (thank the internet for that), and the equipment is starting to get so old it can't be replaced anymore.
So now, utilities are finally starting to look at way of improving their business. This means more data needs to flow from teh plant into other areas of the business. That data can be used to plan maintenance upgrades, to cost out fuel, to improve efficiency, to add green power to the mix, etc. Connecting these plants and control centers to each other provides a valuable service, it's just that utilities didn't know jack about securing them.
To put it mildly, a generation plant can save $100,000 - $1,000,000 a year simply by sharing data with optimization consultants on a real-time basis. That's what we call "easy money". And in the absence of federal regulations, that's what they did. Now though, utilities are required to secure their network, most under the NERC CIP standards. Situations like TVA's are going to become very very common in the next few years, and then they are going to simply go away as utilities get the message that security means greater electric reliability.
~Sticky /I've spent the past 3 years of my life working in SCADA security, and plan several more.
Wow. I pray you don't work anywhere near me when you graduate. You sound like a lazy, winy, complaining student, one who I would hope will realize engineering isn't for him soon and go do something else. And lazy, winy, complainers typically grow up to be lazy, winy, incompetent employees.
You have smart, dedicated men and women who you have at your disposal for several hours a day, and you complain they are not "teaching" you. It's not the professors job to motivate you, or make you feel special, or try to ramp up enthusiasm for a particular subject. It's the professors job to introduce the material, and provide a ruler (i.e. grades) with which to measure your own progress, and to serve as a repository of accumulated knowledge to help YOU work through the material. YOU have to learn, the professor cannot teach you, especially when you have this undeserved sense of entitlement when it comes to learning.
So let me get this straight, you had to go outside the small bounds of the classroom and the materials given to you in order to understand a subject? I gotta admit, this is the only impressive thing in your post. You should ALWAYS be looking outside the narrow window presented to you in class, you should ALWAYS be sucking in all information you can find. And in the days of the internet, it's RIDICULOUSLY easy to amass volumes of information and analyze it effectively.
"The biggest challenge I have is simply trying to get out of bed for an 8AM lecture." That's just sad. Most engineering institutions have competitions, like formula racers, concrete canoe, the DARPA challenge, microSATELLITE teams. My greatest regret in college is that I didn't join each and every one of them.
Your Engineering Education is your responsibility, and if you don't accept that responsibility then you will either drop out, or become a mediocre engineer.
~Sticky, B.S. CmpEng /Your lack of effort disturbs me.
Engineering should be difficult, in fact, it should be the most difficult thing you do up to that point in your life. And then it gets more difficult. Engineers make decisions every day that influence (or end) the lives of a large number of human beings, and they have to be perfect each and every time. Little Bobby and his half-assed, drank-all-month-and-stayed-up-all-night-to-complete, book report on "Catcher in the Rye" doesn't qualify him to design a hydroelectric dam that holds back a million tons of water. You think Little Bobby could take part in designing an aircraft? Absolutely not, let little Bobby fill spreadsheets and do financial audits while the big kids, the Engineers, take on the big problems.
There's even a difference between computer programmers and engineers who program. Let the programmers worry about the programming language "flavor of the month", and AJAX, and Web 2.0, and Pair Programming, and Agile Development. Me, I'm going to worry about creating an algorithm that restricts fan speed, and does automatic braking in increments of.01 lbs/sqin to keep fan blades from spinning themselves apart. And then proving that it will not fail under ANY circumstances, usually with (god forbid) math. Already the programmers are shaking in their shoes, saying "You can't write bug-free code". You're right, YOU can't, but I can (though I will admit that the money available to bug-proof something that kills people if it goes haywire are significantly higher than your PHB's change tracking and document management system).
Network engineers, you aren't Engineers. Computer programmers, you aren't Engineers. Business people, nope you aren't Engineers either. Systems admins and other IT weenies, you are not Engineers. Get over it, or go back to school.
~Sticky, B.S. CompEng /So getting flamed for this one.
He was a private consultant working for Verizon, and may not hold a security clearance. This would explain why Verizon was getting all squirrelly about him asking about the link, he didn't have the proper clearance and need-to-know. He was given access to Verizon's network, to do work for Verizon, and found a Verizon link that lead "somewhere", which happened to be labeled "Quantico Link". That was a big gaff on Verizon's part.
That means he never had a deal with the US Government not to disclose any details of his work at Verizon, though he did have a confidentiality agreement with Verizon that he likely broke. However, confidentiality agreements are standard contracts, and cannot be used to protect a company when they are doing something illegal, like allowing the FBI a backdoor into their network. He's taking a big risk, but he's betting that what they are doing is illegal. And it's not like he could have gone to the Feds about this, so leaking was the only real option.
If I was Verizon, I wouldn't have put the direct link in. I would have 'created' a corporation to do off-site backups of critical data from all the systems in question, and that corporation would have then had the direct link to Quantico. All nice and invisible.
~Sticky /You have made facts of your assumptions, now you must be thrown into the Pit of Eternal Stench. //Say hi to Jennifer Connelly for me.
General, during current war operations it is common procedure to target areas of enemy infrastructure (electricity, water, gas, transportation, communications) with the intent to disable or destroy. As the systems being used to control this infrastructure are becoming more and more interconnected, and increasingly use standard computers and interconnections (i.e. TCP/IP and Internet), this could potentially become another method of attacking enemy infrastructure.
Will there be a doctrine for cyber attacks on enemy critical infrastructure systems for the Air Force Cyber Command? If so, what efforts are currently in place/planned to support war fighter knowledge in the arena of SCADA and control system security, and the methods for causing damage to enemy infrastructure? What importance, if any, do you and Cyber Command place on the having the capability to destroy or disable the SCADA systems that control enemy infrastructure via CyberWarfare?
Not quite. On KDE.org, the name of the project is the "K Desktop Environment Project", which produces the "K Desktop Environment" which consists of the "K" apps (KOffice, KDevelop, etc) and allows other apps to run inside it. Proper use of KDE would be "KDE has been ported to" or "The K Desktop Environment (KDE) has been ported to".
It's not perfectly alright to say "DOS operating system", "OS/2 operating system", and "BeOS operating system". Do you say the "CIA agency"? Or the "FBI bureau"? Or maybe the "Office of Secretary Defense office"?
And yes, I do say "Does it have AGP?", but that's mainly because AGP is now put on motherboards w/o the slots now.
It's not offensive to me, it's suggestive of a basic misunderstanding of the idea the acronym represents. If I went around saying things like "USNORTHCOM command feels that the threat to CAGE entities from the PLO organization is trivial and likely unfounded", I'd be a moron. I figure that if KDE.org went to such trouble to purge instances of "the KDE desktop environment" from their site, we should too.
Also: Perl isn't an acronym.
~Sticky /Still Withholding Karma, cause Grammar Nazis like me have none.:)
Slashdot Mirror
And what level of education have you completed? Usually the ones who say "education != smart" haven't completed either high school or college. Which one is you?
If you are willing to assert that a 17 year old kid knows more about automotive engineering than all engineers at GM combined, you obviously don't know what it takes to design a car, design a factory that makes a car, design the equipment that builds a car, design the processes needed to do it economically, and design how to ship and store the cars. Oh and implement it too. Did you know that was what automotive engineers do? Anyone who puts their mind to it can repair a car, and almost anyone can build one from parts. Get it? The manuals are out there, a car has basic operating principles that are easy to learn. Additionally, all the parts companies have made it STUPID SIMPLE for aspiring mechanics. This is why we can train people to diagnose and repair one, cause engineers have MADE it that simple.
By the same token, the kids at Blackhat are impressive, but are they really intelligent? Do they use easily available libraries, or do they roll their own code at all levels? Library programming is easy, that's why programmers are thinking about unionizing, cause it's so easy an overseas worker can do it. Is their code relatively bug free, or do you have to dodge minefields whenever you run it? Is the code efficient, because many self trained programmers aren't aware of N(log n), or algorithm design, two very large components of what genius programmers are involved in
Let me put it bluntly: Those who are easily impressed by the capabilities of others lack those capabilities themselves, and are ill-equipped and unqualified to make assertions that include those capabilities. You're a bushman who has met a man carrying a lighter: it's MAGIC to you and he's a WIZARD, when to the rest of the world it's a lighter and he's a smoker.
~Sticky
I don't. My point was that this set of questions didn't even touch some really important things Langevin's committee is responsible for.
~Sticky
//Are you a bot? Cause if you are, I'm cool with that
///I've always wanted a bot friend...
/ Uh... don't (insert scare word) (insert quantity) that (Insert high Markov correlated word to highly used capitalized word in Post) says, either to you or to (insert highly used capizalized word from original article related to Capitalized word in Parent)...
What about expanding the control system security requirements through the EPA for water facilities?
Rep Langevin's committee is much more than "ZOMG, my right to exchange pirated copies of The Dark Knight is going to be infringed!!".
~Sticky
~Sticky
//TAG IT 65536+1
I'm intrigued by this "carrying away" property you speak of. Does it carry it away using a magic bag, or does it tie it up with a magic lasso and tickle it first? Kinetic energy is based upon the acceleration of the object and the object's mass (Newtonian high school physics, 1/2 * mass * velocity^2). The atmospheric drag causes a reduction in the velocity of the object by producing an acceleration in the direction opposite the velocity. Hence, the reduction in velocity causes it to lose kinetic energy. You do know vectors, right? Cause if you don't know vectors, you're pretty much unqualified to do anything in physics but make fart noises.
The number of atoms in the object is secondary to the object's mass. I can have 1000 atoms of hydrogen and 10 atoms of uranium traveling at the same velocity, and the kinetic energy of the uranium will be greater because it's mass is (10 * 235 AU)=2350 AU while the hydrogen's mass is (1000 AU * 1 ) = 1000 AU. By your logic, the 10 atoms of uranium would slow down faster than the 1000 atoms of hydrogen, which is wrong. Ask your physics teacher sometime.
The marble and the marshmallow differ by MASS, which is the important quantity. That is why the marshmallow will be more affected by a change in acceleration caused by the atmospheric drag. May I recommend some Galileo? Or maybe some Mythbusters? Or perhaps "Bill Nye's Big Popup Book of Physics"? Look for things involving "dropping items of different weight, which hits the ground first".
I hope next time I can have an argument with someone who has taken a little more than remedial physics. I'd like fries with my big mac please.
~Sticky
I did.
Density means nothing when calculating forces, velocity, and acceleration. Mass is the important quantity. If the bag were made up of light atoms (such as a carbon mesh) it would be affected slower than a bag made up of heavy atoms (such as uranium), even if they had the exact same density. This is called inertia, and it's a property of mass. Try doing an equation involving motion using an object's density instead of it's mass, it doesn't work out unless you add the mass in (either directly or indirectly).
A compact toolbag packs way more punch than a solar panel of equal cross-section, so yes, density - more precisely: "area density" perpendicular to the velocity - matters.
Why are you using "area density"? That is used mainly to measure absorption of radiation by a thin film (or a set of thin films which approximate a 3-dimensional object. Calculus is fun!) And I won't even comment on the attempt to turn a scalar measurement into a vector. Just ridiculous. Amd furthermore, if the panel weighs more than the bag, YES it does "pack more punch", or as us engineers say it "has more inertia, due to the higher mass".
~Sticky
/It's feed the troll tuesday! Come on it's fun!
Surface area gives drag forces allright, but higher density gives higher inertial mass per surface area, at least for objects like lost toolbags. Mathematicians could probably dream up some sort of toolbag where this is not true, however...
Strike that, reverse it. "higher mass gives a higher density". Density is not a physical property, it is a method of describing how many atoms can fit in certain unit of volume. Density means nothing without mass.
And for the record, it's just mass when you are talking about both gravitation and inertia. Inertial mass is not a *real* thing, it is the measurement of mass when both the observer and the object are in the same gravitational field.
~Sticky
I'm sorry, did you really mean to say "density"? Atmospheric drag affects surface area of an object, not the number of atoms per unit of volume.
~Sticky
//I do not think that word means what you think it means...
Look, all this nice Wall-E style robotics is all nifty and everything, but seriously how about some REAL progress. Making them seem more human isn't an issue until you actually deploy some of them in the wild. Instead of making it seem more human, why don't you build a robot that can clean a hotel room as fast as a human? Then we'll talk. ~Sticky
~Sticky
/And Adam did build all manner of mechanical marvels for himself in the Garden of Eden.
//And then God said, "How the hell were you planning to power these things, doofus?"
///And then Adam left, for God would not stop laughing at him.
Hmm. Interesting point. However, when we make judgments about how people write, are we not unfairly judging the person to be lacking of intelligence? The circumstances with which they write may not be known to us, to presuppose their intelligence based upon word choice, or grammar mistakes, or unfortunate command of the English language, is inherently wrong, there is at best a tenuous correlation between intelligence and mastery of grammar. One does not have to have perfect command of the English language to be intelligent, though they do need at least a relative command to be heard. A shining light bulb under a basket sheds no light on it's surroundings, but does that mean it is not bright?
To judge someone based upon an assessment of their grammar and punctuation is Stupid. In fact, I'd go on to say it's indicative of some sort of personal shortcoming, perhaps itself a lack of intelligence. A crutch, if you will, to prop up an ego that cannot expand through creative expression, so the ego limps along using the American Heritage Book of English Grammar to strike at those who the undeserving ego cannot reach by normal means.
Even your logical statement "I could assume that illiterate people are actually very clever" shows that you have at best a binary grasp on the concept of intelligence. You ignore that there are shades between 'clever' and 'stupid', that each term is inherently subjective, and arrogantly lump people in one or the other category.
I cannot pass judgment on your intelligence, for I am a fallible (and angry) human being. But I can pass one judgment with confidence: You are unqualified to judge the intelligence of others, just like everyone else.
~Sticky
/It's feed the troll Thursday! Huzzah
Traditionally, the phrase is "once in a while".
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Maybe you should go with: "I do not agree with what you say, so I will correct spelling and/or grammar mistakes, even in informal settings, until I do".
~Sticky
"The math behind public key cryptography (the difficulty of factoring large integers), was considered pointless in the beginning."
I.E. the underlying technology was relegated to a minor curiousity, something mathematicians did on their spare time rather than an intensive research interest. Which made sense, who wants to figure out exactly how difficult a problem is to solve, we want to actually solve them. However, once an application was found for this math, a 10 Billion Dollar business ensued.
So, while it seems pointless now, someday, someone may find something interesting and novel to use this quantum mumbo jumbo for.
~Sticky
That's what they said about public key cryptography in the beginning too. And it defined an entire industry. ~Sticky
I'm seriously tired of these arguments, if there is an interference between this and 3G phones it should have been proven by now, and MUCH MUCH earlier than this year...
~Sticky
Problem with that method is that there was no incentive to make upgrades to infrastructure and systems under regulation. ZERO. Which has lead to the situation we are in now: We have a first world nation with a third world electric power grid. Costs are rapidly rising, power demands are increasing (thank the internet for that), and the equipment is starting to get so old it can't be replaced anymore.
So now, utilities are finally starting to look at way of improving their business. This means more data needs to flow from teh plant into other areas of the business. That data can be used to plan maintenance upgrades, to cost out fuel, to improve efficiency, to add green power to the mix, etc. Connecting these plants and control centers to each other provides a valuable service, it's just that utilities didn't know jack about securing them.
To put it mildly, a generation plant can save $100,000 - $1,000,000 a year simply by sharing data with optimization consultants on a real-time basis. That's what we call "easy money". And in the absence of federal regulations, that's what they did. Now though, utilities are required to secure their network, most under the NERC CIP standards. Situations like TVA's are going to become very very common in the next few years, and then they are going to simply go away as utilities get the message that security means greater electric reliability.
~Sticky
/I've spent the past 3 years of my life working in SCADA security, and plan several more.
You have smart, dedicated men and women who you have at your disposal for several hours a day, and you complain they are not "teaching" you. It's not the professors job to motivate you, or make you feel special, or try to ramp up enthusiasm for a particular subject. It's the professors job to introduce the material, and provide a ruler (i.e. grades) with which to measure your own progress, and to serve as a repository of accumulated knowledge to help YOU work through the material. YOU have to learn, the professor cannot teach you, especially when you have this undeserved sense of entitlement when it comes to learning.
So let me get this straight, you had to go outside the small bounds of the classroom and the materials given to you in order to understand a subject? I gotta admit, this is the only impressive thing in your post. You should ALWAYS be looking outside the narrow window presented to you in class, you should ALWAYS be sucking in all information you can find. And in the days of the internet, it's RIDICULOUSLY easy to amass volumes of information and analyze it effectively.
"The biggest challenge I have is simply trying to get out of bed for an 8AM lecture." That's just sad. Most engineering institutions have competitions, like formula racers, concrete canoe, the DARPA challenge, microSATELLITE teams. My greatest regret in college is that I didn't join each and every one of them.
Your Engineering Education is your responsibility, and if you don't accept that responsibility then you will either drop out, or become a mediocre engineer.
~Sticky, B.S. CmpEng
/Your lack of effort disturbs me.
Engineering should be difficult, in fact, it should be the most difficult thing you do up to that point in your life. And then it gets more difficult. Engineers make decisions every day that influence (or end) the lives of a large number of human beings, and they have to be perfect each and every time. Little Bobby and his half-assed, drank-all-month-and-stayed-up-all-night-to-complete, book report on "Catcher in the Rye" doesn't qualify him to design a hydroelectric dam that holds back a million tons of water. You think Little Bobby could take part in designing an aircraft? Absolutely not, let little Bobby fill spreadsheets and do financial audits while the big kids, the Engineers, take on the big problems.
There's even a difference between computer programmers and engineers who program. Let the programmers worry about the programming language "flavor of the month", and AJAX, and Web 2.0, and Pair Programming, and Agile Development. Me, I'm going to worry about creating an algorithm that restricts fan speed, and does automatic braking in increments of .01 lbs/sqin to keep fan blades from spinning themselves apart. And then proving that it will not fail under ANY circumstances, usually with (god forbid) math. Already the programmers are shaking in their shoes, saying "You can't write bug-free code". You're right, YOU can't, but I can (though I will admit that the money available to bug-proof something that kills people if it goes haywire are significantly higher than your PHB's change tracking and document management system).
Network engineers, you aren't Engineers. Computer programmers, you aren't Engineers. Business people, nope you aren't Engineers either. Systems admins and other IT weenies, you are not Engineers. Get over it, or go back to school.
~Sticky, B.S. CompEng
/So getting flamed for this one.
That means he never had a deal with the US Government not to disclose any details of his work at Verizon, though he did have a confidentiality agreement with Verizon that he likely broke. However, confidentiality agreements are standard contracts, and cannot be used to protect a company when they are doing something illegal, like allowing the FBI a backdoor into their network. He's taking a big risk, but he's betting that what they are doing is illegal. And it's not like he could have gone to the Feds about this, so leaking was the only real option.
If I was Verizon, I wouldn't have put the direct link in. I would have 'created' a corporation to do off-site backups of critical data from all the systems in question, and that corporation would have then had the direct link to Quantico. All nice and invisible.
~Sticky
/You have made facts of your assumptions, now you must be thrown into the Pit of Eternal Stench.
//Say hi to Jennifer Connelly for me.
~Sticky
//No Karma Bonus
Will there be a doctrine for cyber attacks on enemy critical infrastructure systems for the Air Force Cyber Command? If so, what efforts are currently in place/planned to support war fighter knowledge in the arena of SCADA and control system security, and the methods for causing damage to enemy infrastructure? What importance, if any, do you and Cyber Command place on the having the capability to destroy or disable the SCADA systems that control enemy infrastructure via CyberWarfare?
~Sticky
Now, how many of those clicks came from Tor Exit nodes, or China? ~Sticky
It's not perfectly alright to say "DOS operating system", "OS/2 operating system", and "BeOS operating system". Do you say the "CIA agency"? Or the "FBI bureau"? Or maybe the "Office of Secretary Defense office"?
And yes, I do say "Does it have AGP?", but that's mainly because AGP is now put on motherboards w/o the slots now.
It's not offensive to me, it's suggestive of a basic misunderstanding of the idea the acronym represents. If I went around saying things like "USNORTHCOM command feels that the threat to CAGE entities from the PLO organization is trivial and likely unfounded", I'd be a moron. I figure that if KDE.org went to such trouble to purge instances of "the KDE desktop environment" from their site, we should too.
Also: Perl isn't an acronym. ~Sticky
/Still Withholding Karma, cause Grammar Nazis like me have none. :)
KDE = K Desktop Environment. When you say "KDE Desktop Environment", you are actually saying "I don't really know what I'm talking about". Rant Over.
Otherwise, I don't see the big deal, it's still KDE.
~Sticky
/GNOME!! //No Karma Bonus
Or porn. Or Liberal Propaganda. I'm just not sure these days.
~Sticky