About every ten years a carrier goes in for what we call a SLEP (Service Life Extension Program) yard period. Aide from the usual yard availability, they also look at upgrading the various ships systems to current technology.
No, we don't use off-the-shelf equipment, everything has to be MilSpec, with a few, very rare exceptions and then only in non-critical roles. I'm not revealing anything not publically know here but everthing that I ever worked on was designed for EMP (and a nuclear) environment. I don't imagine that has changed at all. If you want to learn hard-core engineering, study military gear.
The standard Navy joke is that they asked one of the Battleship CO's what he would do if his ship was hit by an Exocet. He replied that he'd call away sweepers. While they are expensive to operate, I still firmly believe that we should have kept all four of the (modified) Iowa-class on active service. Aside from their sheer survivability, they were also equipped with sixteen Harpoon missiles as well as sixteen Tomahawks which adds up to some serious long range striking power. The Navy was also in the testing phase, when I was medicaled out, for an 8" RAP (Rocket Assisted Projectile) discarding sabot round that would be fired from the 16" barrels, laser-guided no less, with a 250+ mile range.
I don't know where you'd put the VLS launcher short of replacing one of the turrets which may not be a good idea, or replacing the amidships Tomahawk and Harpoon launchers which might not be too bad if you can stuff enough missiles in there. The only problem with that, from an Naval Engineering standpoint is that you'd be decreasing survivability of the platform if the ship took a hit to the amidships VLS launcher (which is where most cruise missiles are programmed to pop-up target, btw). Unless you armor plate the heck around and below the launcher. Interesting problem in moment-arms there as it would change the center of balance. Whatever. You'd also have to add the radar systems as well and Aegis ain't cheap although you might be able to get away with something like the SPS-49 (3-D Air Search). Possible. Likely? I think not.
A long time ago ('80's) I had the idea of taking the various LPD's we were decommissioning and turning them into overgrown missile barges with VLS launchers. I did some back of an envelope calculations and you could have stuffed several hundred in each one. With our datalinks, any Aegis equipped ship could have controlled the launcher(s). The US Navy would have never gone for it, given the low top end speed of an LPD, but still an interesting idea and God knows we have a ton of them in mothballs. One Battleship, one Aegis Arleigh Burke destroyer, and one missile barge. Could definitely ruin somebody's whole day and you'd have all the threats covered.
The Navy has always been fixated on new ships, rarely do they ever consider upgrading older ships. The last time that happened was the Spruance-class destroyers which Congress intentionally under-funded. It ended up costing them a lot more in the long run to upgrade them. [They were all supposed to be like the Kidd-class which are now going to Taiwan.] Aside from a few awaiting their turn, and one set aside for Museaum duty, the rest of them are on the bottom of the ocean (including my former ship ).
We'll have to wait and see what they come up with. So far, I'm underwhelmed.
Actually your special ops divers (SEALs) will be locking out of Seawolf-class or NSSNs (New Attack Submarines) which are equipped to operate in litorials and bays and are specifically designed for spec ops. Otherwise the SEALs tend to paradrop into the area of operations (usually HALO). I've never seen them operate from a fleet warship during my entire career, aside from doing simulated terrorist/swimmer attacks on our ships.
Oh, I don't know about that... The new IBM Blade Server-H has swapable blades that can be hot swapped between Xeon and Power PC blades so you can reconfigure on the fly. Later on this year they will be adding Cell blades to the mix for calculation instensive requirements.
Actually I've had my eye on the Sony reader myself and according to their site it will support such common formats as pdf. I have a ton of eBooks here that I've purchased (or came with books) over the years, to the tune of 3.76 GB with much compressed, that I would really like to read portably. The only thing I'm dreading is converting the non-standard stuff to pdf! I do have a pdf robot hiding somewhere that will do coversions in the background but that's still a heck of a drag and drop.
I'm also seeing more than a few publishers rethinking their publishing model. Baen books has a very nice little free library going as an example. So I concur with TFA, eBooks may have a place in the sun. Finally.
AC covered most of my potential reply most saliently, for which I congratulate him/her! Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if our backgrounds were quite similar given the quality of the reply. The one point that was not addressed, quantum computing and the potential state of NSA technology, I can safely address even in a public forum. As AC stated, the NSA has been consistently at least a decade ahead of existing technology in the civilian sector as have been a few select other agencies. It is commonly known in certain circles that defense and intelligence related corporations have whole sections of their firms that are totally isolated from the rest of the facility and provide goods that are not available to the civilian sector. The clearance procedures are rather lengthy and tedious; frequently personnel sleep on premises in order not to go through the process again. I know I certainly would, having gone through similar procedures in the past. I'm not revealing anything here that I haven't seen in print elsewhere, so that's safe. Another safe point is that if your research even touches on a special-access compartment, believe me, it will never see the light of day until they are quite good and ready.
If anything, AC underestimated progress on QC in the last decade. It is indeed quite advanced and is revealing more mind-blowing things (for someone that doesn't understand quantum physics, despite Feynmann's assertion) every day. What I see lately, in the last two years, is something I've been aware of for quite a while but I've been thinking in that sector for longer than I care to think about. The next few years should be interesting.
AC also brought up the point that I hesitated to bring into the discussion at all as it isn't something I'm comfortable discussing in public. Why would the USG lift export restrictions on crypto at all? Frankly, every time the NSA has lifted restrictions on a particular type of crypto, they've broken it totally and in near realtime for decoding. That should tell you something. I know it does me.
As for being worried, I'm not worried at all. I absolutely assume that I'm being monitored 24/7 and no I'm not being paranoid although I'm sure they don't go that far. You do certain types of work and obtain certain types of clearances and it becomes a part of your life ever after. It does have some nice aspects. I never have to notify the government that I've moved. It also helps if you are an übergeek. We don't have lives, do we?;-).
Two problems only one of which was pointed out in the follow on reply. First off, there is that dreaded keylogger and given some of the recent activities and what Congress seems to be willing to sign off on, keyloggers do not necessarily require notifying anyone in advance. They can simply go in, do the dirty, and have to ask permission within the next fourty-five days for a warrant given my reading of the Patriot Act and FISA. [Actually it is even worse if Congress itself is involved as their are other provisions that engage but I can't go into that here.] Then there is simply reading it off your screen across the street, in the alley behind, whatever. That technology is even easier and requires zip, nada, nothing in terms of permission from anyone. The right gear, a bit of synchronization time to lock their system frequencies to your system video frequencies and tada, they are reading what you are reading. Actually it is dead easy unless you keep your system in a Faraday cage and yes, I have built those and maintained more than a few in my time with the government. It was mildly interesting the first two times and after that, I got bored with the whole thing but that has been true with any job I've held.
The last point has to do with the nature of encryption. I'm never quite sure what progess the NSA (or the Russians for that matter who are even better mathematicians than we are!) have made in the field. How much do you want to bet that your encryption scheme is secure or that it doesn't have a secret backdoor put in by some friendly, possibly ex-NSA, employee? Some backdoors have existed in programs for decades that are only coming to light now and we expect our encryption programs to be totally secure? The only way to be totally sure is to use Open Source and get down on your knees and pray that the person reviewing it is a total authority on encryption routines, isn't paid under the table to give a pass, and there are no hidden exploits unknown to the authority. I'm not saying that has happened although I suspect it has (yep, I do wear a tinfoil hat here from time to time) but I wouldn't bet the farm on that encryption. We are finding new exploits to encryption routines all the time, some of them non-obvious even to the initiated. Who would have thought that a shared dual-CPU or HyperThreaded cache would threaten encryption. I would, but I think in these terms (energy loss) day in, night out.
That doesn't even count the possibility that the NSA has a working quantum computing device. IBM supposedly has a working, building-size, model now. Who the frag do you think the first customer is going to be? UCSD Super-computer Center? I don't think so. In which case, you can toss all crypto gear/software right out the window. And yes, I've worked on crypto gear in the past, so I know exactly how it works (worked) and the issues involved. I can admit that much since I can put that on a resume. 'Nuff said.
Thinking more on that last issue before I submit, the quantum computer would be perfect for mass data-tapping/monitoring. Time to do some more digging into what Big Blue is doing/selling. Some clients may need a heads up when it gets fielded. Get honest, real quick!
I trust Windows, or any OS or application for that matter, about as far as I can toss the Sear's Building. In other words, not at all. First you have to understand that I am heavily involved in alpha and beta testing software for most every top company in the business from the desktop to the enterprise level here. Secondly, my 'clients' expect me to exercise due diligence when it comes to software that they have under consideration. I give them simply the best at the cheapest price I can identify. Otherwise, why come back, and they do come back and recommend me a lot.
Therefore, all my machines are quite literally wired up way beyond the pinball machine level, more along the lines of a particle accelerator. Nothing happens here that doesn't require permission, be it file changes (especially system files and the contents of system directories), registry, etc. ad nauseum. Every packet that comes in or leaves here leaves a trail not only in the test/in-use machine, but in the intermediary (*nix) machine and router as well. All logged to a fare-thee-well. I need to know exactly what is going on where, when, and how to determine why otherwise I can't provide the test reports for which I'm valued for.
Not that I'm especially worried about M$ in any case. I've been involved in their work on every program (save accounting and CRM which hold zero interest here and aren't even installed) since the early betas of Windows 2000. In a sense, you could hold me partly to blame for problems for those products but have you ever tried to get their or any company's attention when release crunch occurs. [One exception to that, VMWare, they always listen!] Still, I do monitor like crazy and not just for paranoid reasons. It simply works better that way. Which happens to earn me more testing invites and a lot of free high-grade software to play with.
I've been doing this a hell of a long time, starting back when I worked for the government. I still shudder from that first project, it was written entirely in COBOL and the tools they were using to monitor weren't up to snuff. Heck, I don't even know COBOL although I did learn just enough pretty fast. It wasn't until I hooked up with the mainframe's manufacturer field engineer who graced me with a complete system generation tape (the government version was pretty stripped) that I had the tools I needed to figure out their glitches and golly-gee guess what? All of a sudden their glitches starting getting cured courtesy of my reports. Not only that, I could unstick what their rogue program/routines did so we didn't have to blow away months of work and start over from scratch. That taught me the rule that without proper system monitoring tools, you can't do a proper job of debugging nor of security, period. You did not want to even think of trying to hack my systems after that. I also became the fair-haired boy for the entire Pacific region (and granted access to every system in the fleet, no questions asked, not that I ever abused that.) Lastly, it also gave me the advantage of having a real C compiler for the first time along with all those other neat tools;-).
Anyone, and I do mean anyone, that is serious into systems security or testing should run like crazy over to the SysInternals web site and grab every tool in sight (pun intended) that they can and pay as soon as they can for the suite from their and WinInternals site as well if you have to deal with Windows at all. Knoppix is another good weapon of choice and having an extra machine with some form of *nix installed that can act as a routing firewall with full packet logging turned on. I simply can't believe the lash-ups that I read about in the industry rags that are used without these simple measures. Lord knows many of us/.'ers just have machines laying around doing a whole lot of nothing. Also give serious thought to making extensive use of virtual machine testing rigs as well. I've been using them for years now (since the extremely ear
Actually I'm even more impressed by their Filelocator Pro (the full version). Nice price and capabilities are both exactly in line with what I need here.
Just make dang sure that you control what it is indexing if you are among the paranoid, or have information that should never be indexed. All your system drives are set to index in totality by default when you flip it on which may not be your intent.
Actually you can be fairly sure if you don't turn on the Indexing Service and if you do turn it on, there are only a few default locations that it does search. It's not too bright by default and does require some configuration. But I hope you do know to go verify what exactly it is indexing. Right? (Administrative Tools/Computer Management, expand Services and Applications, click on Indexing Service, then check those directories.) Unfortunately, all of C:\ is one of those default locations. I kill that right quick. I don't mind it doing the Documents folder. I'm not quite that paranoid, but if I were, the service wouldn't be flipped on here in the first place. Again, the default is to be disabled for now.
The NSA has had, and used, this capability to track calls with an overseas origin since President Carter and the Congressional Leadership (Minority and Majority) as well as the leadership (minority and majority) of the Intelligence Committees had been briefed at every point, every year. So to say that this surveillance is anything specific to Bush II is disingenuous at best, sheer political demagoguery at it's finest and worst. What the hell do people think all those supercomputers that you require a black card clearance to even view were doing? Playing "Thermo-nuclear War?" Naw, don't answer that.
There are far too many people that buy into the political hack-speak of the week without bothering to fact check a thing or asking someone that might actually know what was going on, but most of this was out there if you'd have bothered to trace down information and put the pieces together. The data was out there but not many people bother to keep track of whom is buying what from whom. Back during WWII, Robert A. Heinlein put together and published in Analog that the U. S. was working on the A-bomb. How did he figure it out? Purchasing patterns. That's one reason I keep a sharp eye on purchasing patterns myself. There are only a few groups that purchase those super-computers with certain capabilities, particular electronics (I'm a E.E. myself, among other E.'s), and hard drives by the rail-road car lots. The NSA leads the pack.
As for what Google does know about me, well it is exactly what is a matter of public record as is the gmail account for that matter. (It's tied to my i-Name and even on my voter registration card.) Due diligence folks when it comes to business or what public-hacks spout.
Actually this is a circumstance I face all the time due to the type of work that I do, various NDA's, and personal research including one invention that I do hope to patent before I kick the bucket. That's all kept on an encrypted hard drive that I always take care to make sure that is excluded from the indexing service and any other desktop/network search program that I install. All these products require extreme care during the post-installation configuration process but hell, if you aren't going through a post-installation configuration with a fine-tooth comb for any program you install, you are already setting yourself up for a fall. And being a total id10t besides. Never ass-u-me that the default installation is going to do what you expect. Trust, but verify as the man said.
Sorry, but if you believe TOR is going to give you any anonymity protection, you are living in a fantasy world. Sure, intermediate packets may protected but there is no protection at either the source, your ISP, or the destination, the final ISP. Those packets have to know where they've been or where they are going. As for encrypted e-mail, that only works if both parties are using similar encryption schemes and have exchanged public keys via one mechanism or another which is far from the truth looking at the total number of keys posted versus the estimated number of e-mail accounts world-wide. Even then, they can still go after your system using various keylogger schemes, or if you put on your tinfoil hat, simply read it off your screen as you are typing it in or after receiving it. It's not even hard with the right equipment and a bit of patience to synchronize. Truthfully, there is no absolutes in this business especially against a government agency. I know exactly what their resources are.
Yep, computer/network security is most of what I do these days, especially for the seriously paranoid (and these people do have a serious reason to be paranoid). Not any different than when I working for da Man. The only thing you can expect is that so long as you fly under their radar, you'll be left alone and can expect reasonable (??) privacy. Way too late in my case, but I volunteered way back when.
Anyone who is actually familiar with the science of ballistic missle defense knows that there are three phases to the problem. When a missile is launched you have the ballistic boost phase, the true ballistic phase, and the final trajectory. What the Russians have done, and I'm pretty sure we have done as well, only affects the middle true ballistic phase.
Current research targets all three phases of flight. You can wish all you want but if you nail the missile body in the boost phase, all the MIRV's are dead, period. Zig-zag will avail you nothing. In the final trajectory phase, the energy delivery vehicle, based on land or in space, will nail the MIRV body, although not as efficiently as during the boost phase. The only reason that the zig-zag will give you anything is against something like our smart or brilliant pebble system and I'm not even sure that will work very well given that the pebble will have a much smaller body weight and thus will require a much smaller RCS versus that of a RV.
So, the case seems to be that this is more a system against rogue states rather than a technologically superior state such as the US or Israel (which is also developing such technology), or even Japan.
This is bizarre. Following Microsoft instructions, I have more than one shared folder on my network which contain copyrighted Microsoft installation CD content. By their (RIAA's) argument I am violating the law even though Microsoft provides specific instructions for the creation of this configuration. As I said, bizarre.
I couldn't agree more. I watch the march of the security notices on a daily, sometimes even hourly, basis and PHP has real problems as do the applications based on it. It's a real pain keeping both PHP and PHP-apps up to date and you never know when an update to any of them will break something else which means you have to test each patch as it comes down the pike. I have enough on my plate as it is.
Whether it is going well over there really depends on who you believe, the mainstream media or people that are actually over there, both Iraqi and our soldiers. I've got friends and family over there currently serving, no surprise given our long tradition of serving in the various branches of the military, and they say it is improving on a daily basis. I also monitor various web sites and blogs over in Iraq to get a feel for what they are thinking and feeling over there and while not all positive it is far more positive than right after the invasion. I'd much rather rely on people on the ground than some reporter which holes up in a 'secure hotel' which is precisely what most of them do from what I've been told.
BTW, we aren't on our own over in Iraq, haven't been since day one. As always, the Brits went with us and I'd rather have the Brits with me on the ground or at sea than anyone else, especially any force that doesn't want to be there. [I have the same feelings about the draft as does any other military member I've ever talked to.] It's funny actually. I knew Saddam had to go back in 1980 when I was preparing for my first trip to the Gulf and it was the European press that I relied on for my information about the region, especially Iraq and Iran as there was no coverage in the US press to speak of. It only got worse each trip. Then we go to remove him and the Europeans who were whining about how awful he was were nowhere to be found. Oh well. They usually aren't.
I have no idea where you came up with that comment, and yes, I did read your article (typical Washington Times hyperbole). All US soldiers, sailors, and marines serving in a combat zone whether under US or UN perview receive combat pay. Furthermore, if you incur disabling injuries, no matter the source save self-inflicted, during your service you will receive either service related or VA disability benefits wherever you are. Hell, I'm receiving VA benefits (although I don't use them as they are totally useless) as a result of a ship's fog bell hitting me in the neck and resulting in total disability. No combat involved at all. Just a stupid shipyard accident.
About the only difference between serving under our military command and UN command is the stupidity of your commanders and higher echelon officials (UN are a collection of id10ts), and wearing that stupid blue beret. The real problem here is that the US military is not sworn to anything that the UN can get a handle on let alone understand. We swear to the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic, not to some 'potentate' as is the case with almost every other country in the world. Obeying the orders of those appointed above us comes a distant second as they pound into our head pretty much every year when you are serving in the military. So, if some id10t UN official gives an illegal order, or fails to give an order which would prevent what would be considered an attack on the Constitution, well that US soldier, sailor, or marine is more than likely to either disobey an order or go off on their own and do things that will make the UN unhappy. My heart bleeds.
That's something that a lot of people and I know a hell of a lot of government types both in and out of the United States don't understand. Frankly, I don't expect most people to ever get it.
Actually, all rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the States or the People (Tenth Amendment), but I'm with you on what the Supremes have done to our rights.
Turning down the rhetoric? Frankly the rhetoric is quite mild by historic standards. As part of one economic history research project I went delving into papers from the 1700's and 1800's. By their standards, this stuff is quite mild. I think people are just hypersensitive about any kind of criticism as I well know from experience here and elsewhere. [Where's that asbestos underwear?]
We do need all aspects of the ideological spectrum, not just conservative or liberal-progressive. Even Marx had a useful observation or two as I found when reading his works. A lot wrong, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day:-).
Well at least you got the high functioning autistic part right. It's a little late to worry about weapons grade uranium or plutonium don't you think when there are well over thirty thousand plus (some estimate 50K+) of the damn things, counting tactical and nuclear, out there. The time is now to start burning this stuff for something more useful, power production, than having it sitting around for some id10t to toss at some other id10ts. This genie can't be stuffed back into the bottle despite anyone's best wishes. My point is that we take advantage of technology, with the proper controls as safety and integrity have ever been one of my primary concerns, now.
I still don't know how you managed to drag the republicans from my post as I have very little in common with them. People that are chiefly (solely) concerned about exploiting political power occur across the political spectrum. Indeed, I could make a very good case that they occur far more on the left than the right, but I won't bother as I seriously doubt you'd listen.
Lastly, it's strange that you should say that engineers have no governing skill or ability. There have been successful engineers in government positions in the past and there are more than a few successful ones in China and India today just to give two examples. That most engineers are not the least bit interested in governance would be a far more accurate statement. I've been in political positions before and frankly I won't do it again despite being asked on more than one occasion. When you build something, you have something in front of you as proof of your labors. All too often in the political arena, what you have at the end of the day is a compromise. Engineers simply don't like compromise. They also don't like doing/creating things that simply do not work, something that also occurs in the political arena when laws are passed or institutions are created for ideological reasons rather than practical (working) reasons. Completely different psychological makeup among the two groups and pretty much mutually incompatible in most cases. At least I understand it.
It'll be a long time before the oil runs out if the industry is allowed to utilize all extent and newly discovered reserves. Siberia, to give just one example, is geologically identical to Alaska so I expect there is a lot of oil just waiting there to be discovered if the Russians ever were willing to swallow a bit of their pride and allow the oil companies to do the exploratory work. And that doesn't count the billions of tons of oil shale both in the United States and Canada, let alone anywhere else, to be had at the stroke of a legislative pen after the lawsuits from the eco-freaks clear. Lastly, there is more than a little oil off both coasts that is currently inaccessible. If 'the people' can't drive their SUV's, how long do you think those state laws are going to stand? It's all political. Environmental economics is one of my more fascinating areas of study and what you see in the press bears no resemblence to actuality. Frankly, they should never let an engineer near economics as we don't do ideology, which drove more than one of my professors more than a little nuts.
Personally, pebble reactors are the way to go if we can't use breeders or fusion as they are inherently safe. But try to explain that to someone that couldn't pass a basic physics course.
Slashdot Mirror
About every ten years a carrier goes in for what we call a SLEP (Service Life Extension Program) yard period. Aide from the usual yard availability, they also look at upgrading the various ships systems to current technology.
No, we don't use off-the-shelf equipment, everything has to be MilSpec, with a few, very rare exceptions and then only in non-critical roles. I'm not revealing anything not publically know here but everthing that I ever worked on was designed for EMP (and a nuclear) environment. I don't imagine that has changed at all. If you want to learn hard-core engineering, study military gear.
The standard Navy joke is that they asked one of the Battleship CO's what he would do if his ship was hit by an Exocet. He replied that he'd call away sweepers. While they are expensive to operate, I still firmly believe that we should have kept all four of the (modified) Iowa-class on active service. Aside from their sheer survivability, they were also equipped with sixteen Harpoon missiles as well as sixteen Tomahawks which adds up to some serious long range striking power. The Navy was also in the testing phase, when I was medicaled out, for an 8" RAP (Rocket Assisted Projectile) discarding sabot round that would be fired from the 16" barrels, laser-guided no less, with a 250+ mile range. I don't know where you'd put the VLS launcher short of replacing one of the turrets which may not be a good idea, or replacing the amidships Tomahawk and Harpoon launchers which might not be too bad if you can stuff enough missiles in there. The only problem with that, from an Naval Engineering standpoint is that you'd be decreasing survivability of the platform if the ship took a hit to the amidships VLS launcher (which is where most cruise missiles are programmed to pop-up target, btw). Unless you armor plate the heck around and below the launcher. Interesting problem in moment-arms there as it would change the center of balance. Whatever. You'd also have to add the radar systems as well and Aegis ain't cheap although you might be able to get away with something like the SPS-49 (3-D Air Search). Possible. Likely? I think not. A long time ago ('80's) I had the idea of taking the various LPD's we were decommissioning and turning them into overgrown missile barges with VLS launchers. I did some back of an envelope calculations and you could have stuffed several hundred in each one. With our datalinks, any Aegis equipped ship could have controlled the launcher(s). The US Navy would have never gone for it, given the low top end speed of an LPD, but still an interesting idea and God knows we have a ton of them in mothballs. One Battleship, one Aegis Arleigh Burke destroyer, and one missile barge. Could definitely ruin somebody's whole day and you'd have all the threats covered. The Navy has always been fixated on new ships, rarely do they ever consider upgrading older ships. The last time that happened was the Spruance-class destroyers which Congress intentionally under-funded. It ended up costing them a lot more in the long run to upgrade them. [They were all supposed to be like the Kidd-class which are now going to Taiwan.] Aside from a few awaiting their turn, and one set aside for Museaum duty, the rest of them are on the bottom of the ocean (including my former ship ). We'll have to wait and see what they come up with. So far, I'm underwhelmed.
Actually your special ops divers (SEALs) will be locking out of Seawolf-class or NSSNs (New Attack Submarines) which are equipped to operate in litorials and bays and are specifically designed for spec ops. Otherwise the SEALs tend to paradrop into the area of operations (usually HALO). I've never seen them operate from a fleet warship during my entire career, aside from doing simulated terrorist/swimmer attacks on our ships.
Oh, I don't know about that... The new IBM Blade Server-H has swapable blades that can be hot swapped between Xeon and Power PC blades so you can reconfigure on the fly. Later on this year they will be adding Cell blades to the mix for calculation instensive requirements.
I'm also seeing more than a few publishers rethinking their publishing model. Baen books has a very nice little free library going as an example. So I concur with TFA, eBooks may have a place in the sun. Finally.
If anything, AC underestimated progress on QC in the last decade. It is indeed quite advanced and is revealing more mind-blowing things (for someone that doesn't understand quantum physics, despite Feynmann's assertion) every day. What I see lately, in the last two years, is something I've been aware of for quite a while but I've been thinking in that sector for longer than I care to think about. The next few years should be interesting.
AC also brought up the point that I hesitated to bring into the discussion at all as it isn't something I'm comfortable discussing in public. Why would the USG lift export restrictions on crypto at all? Frankly, every time the NSA has lifted restrictions on a particular type of crypto, they've broken it totally and in near realtime for decoding. That should tell you something. I know it does me.
As for being worried, I'm not worried at all. I absolutely assume that I'm being monitored 24/7 and no I'm not being paranoid although I'm sure they don't go that far. You do certain types of work and obtain certain types of clearances and it becomes a part of your life ever after. It does have some nice aspects. I never have to notify the government that I've moved. It also helps if you are an übergeek. We don't have lives, do we? ;-).
The last point has to do with the nature of encryption. I'm never quite sure what progess the NSA (or the Russians for that matter who are even better mathematicians than we are!) have made in the field. How much do you want to bet that your encryption scheme is secure or that it doesn't have a secret backdoor put in by some friendly, possibly ex-NSA, employee? Some backdoors have existed in programs for decades that are only coming to light now and we expect our encryption programs to be totally secure? The only way to be totally sure is to use Open Source and get down on your knees and pray that the person reviewing it is a total authority on encryption routines, isn't paid under the table to give a pass, and there are no hidden exploits unknown to the authority. I'm not saying that has happened although I suspect it has (yep, I do wear a tinfoil hat here from time to time) but I wouldn't bet the farm on that encryption. We are finding new exploits to encryption routines all the time, some of them non-obvious even to the initiated. Who would have thought that a shared dual-CPU or HyperThreaded cache would threaten encryption. I would, but I think in these terms (energy loss) day in, night out.
That doesn't even count the possibility that the NSA has a working quantum computing device. IBM supposedly has a working, building-size, model now. Who the frag do you think the first customer is going to be? UCSD Super-computer Center? I don't think so. In which case, you can toss all crypto gear/software right out the window. And yes, I've worked on crypto gear in the past, so I know exactly how it works (worked) and the issues involved. I can admit that much since I can put that on a resume. 'Nuff said.
Thinking more on that last issue before I submit, the quantum computer would be perfect for mass data-tapping/monitoring. Time to do some more digging into what Big Blue is doing/selling. Some clients may need a heads up when it gets fielded. Get honest, real quick!
Therefore, all my machines are quite literally wired up way beyond the pinball machine level, more along the lines of a particle accelerator. Nothing happens here that doesn't require permission, be it file changes (especially system files and the contents of system directories), registry, etc. ad nauseum. Every packet that comes in or leaves here leaves a trail not only in the test/in-use machine, but in the intermediary (*nix) machine and router as well. All logged to a fare-thee-well. I need to know exactly what is going on where, when, and how to determine why otherwise I can't provide the test reports for which I'm valued for.
Not that I'm especially worried about M$ in any case. I've been involved in their work on every program (save accounting and CRM which hold zero interest here and aren't even installed) since the early betas of Windows 2000. In a sense, you could hold me partly to blame for problems for those products but have you ever tried to get their or any company's attention when release crunch occurs. [One exception to that, VMWare, they always listen!] Still, I do monitor like crazy and not just for paranoid reasons. It simply works better that way. Which happens to earn me more testing invites and a lot of free high-grade software to play with.
I've been doing this a hell of a long time, starting back when I worked for the government. I still shudder from that first project, it was written entirely in COBOL and the tools they were using to monitor weren't up to snuff. Heck, I don't even know COBOL although I did learn just enough pretty fast. It wasn't until I hooked up with the mainframe's manufacturer field engineer who graced me with a complete system generation tape (the government version was pretty stripped) that I had the tools I needed to figure out their glitches and golly-gee guess what? All of a sudden their glitches starting getting cured courtesy of my reports. Not only that, I could unstick what their rogue program/routines did so we didn't have to blow away months of work and start over from scratch. That taught me the rule that without proper system monitoring tools, you can't do a proper job of debugging nor of security, period. You did not want to even think of trying to hack my systems after that. I also became the fair-haired boy for the entire Pacific region (and granted access to every system in the fleet, no questions asked, not that I ever abused that.) Lastly, it also gave me the advantage of having a real C compiler for the first time along with all those other neat tools ;-).
Anyone, and I do mean anyone, that is serious into systems security or testing should run like crazy over to the SysInternals web site and grab every tool in sight (pun intended) that they can and pay as soon as they can for the suite from their and WinInternals site as well if you have to deal with Windows at all. Knoppix is another good weapon of choice and having an extra machine with some form of *nix installed that can act as a routing firewall with full packet logging turned on. I simply can't believe the lash-ups that I read about in the industry rags that are used without these simple measures. Lord knows many of us /.'ers just have machines laying around doing a whole lot of nothing. Also give serious thought to making extensive use of virtual machine testing rigs as well. I've been using them for years now (since the extremely ear
Actually I'm even more impressed by their Filelocator Pro (the full version). Nice price and capabilities are both exactly in line with what I need here.
Just make dang sure that you control what it is indexing if you are among the paranoid, or have information that should never be indexed. All your system drives are set to index in totality by default when you flip it on which may not be your intent.
Actually you can be fairly sure if you don't turn on the Indexing Service and if you do turn it on, there are only a few default locations that it does search. It's not too bright by default and does require some configuration. But I hope you do know to go verify what exactly it is indexing. Right? (Administrative Tools/Computer Management, expand Services and Applications, click on Indexing Service, then check those directories.) Unfortunately, all of C:\ is one of those default locations. I kill that right quick. I don't mind it doing the Documents folder. I'm not quite that paranoid, but if I were, the service wouldn't be flipped on here in the first place. Again, the default is to be disabled for now.
There are far too many people that buy into the political hack-speak of the week without bothering to fact check a thing or asking someone that might actually know what was going on, but most of this was out there if you'd have bothered to trace down information and put the pieces together. The data was out there but not many people bother to keep track of whom is buying what from whom. Back during WWII, Robert A. Heinlein put together and published in Analog that the U. S. was working on the A-bomb. How did he figure it out? Purchasing patterns. That's one reason I keep a sharp eye on purchasing patterns myself. There are only a few groups that purchase those super-computers with certain capabilities, particular electronics (I'm a E.E. myself, among other E.'s), and hard drives by the rail-road car lots. The NSA leads the pack.
As for what Google does know about me, well it is exactly what is a matter of public record as is the gmail account for that matter. (It's tied to my i-Name and even on my voter registration card.) Due diligence folks when it comes to business or what public-hacks spout.
Actually this is a circumstance I face all the time due to the type of work that I do, various NDA's, and personal research including one invention that I do hope to patent before I kick the bucket. That's all kept on an encrypted hard drive that I always take care to make sure that is excluded from the indexing service and any other desktop/network search program that I install. All these products require extreme care during the post-installation configuration process but hell, if you aren't going through a post-installation configuration with a fine-tooth comb for any program you install, you are already setting yourself up for a fall. And being a total id10t besides. Never ass-u-me that the default installation is going to do what you expect. Trust, but verify as the man said.
Yep, computer/network security is most of what I do these days, especially for the seriously paranoid (and these people do have a serious reason to be paranoid). Not any different than when I working for da Man. The only thing you can expect is that so long as you fly under their radar, you'll be left alone and can expect reasonable (??) privacy. Way too late in my case, but I volunteered way back when.
Current research targets all three phases of flight. You can wish all you want but if you nail the missile body in the boost phase, all the MIRV's are dead, period. Zig-zag will avail you nothing. In the final trajectory phase, the energy delivery vehicle, based on land or in space, will nail the MIRV body, although not as efficiently as during the boost phase. The only reason that the zig-zag will give you anything is against something like our smart or brilliant pebble system and I'm not even sure that will work very well given that the pebble will have a much smaller body weight and thus will require a much smaller RCS versus that of a RV.
So, the case seems to be that this is more a system against rogue states rather than a technologically superior state such as the US or Israel (which is also developing such technology), or even Japan.
This is bizarre. Following Microsoft instructions, I have more than one shared folder on my network which contain copyrighted Microsoft installation CD content. By their (RIAA's) argument I am violating the law even though Microsoft provides specific instructions for the creation of this configuration. As I said, bizarre.
I couldn't agree more. I watch the march of the security notices on a daily, sometimes even hourly, basis and PHP has real problems as do the applications based on it. It's a real pain keeping both PHP and PHP-apps up to date and you never know when an update to any of them will break something else which means you have to test each patch as it comes down the pike. I have enough on my plate as it is.
BTW, we aren't on our own over in Iraq, haven't been since day one. As always, the Brits went with us and I'd rather have the Brits with me on the ground or at sea than anyone else, especially any force that doesn't want to be there. [I have the same feelings about the draft as does any other military member I've ever talked to.] It's funny actually. I knew Saddam had to go back in 1980 when I was preparing for my first trip to the Gulf and it was the European press that I relied on for my information about the region, especially Iraq and Iran as there was no coverage in the US press to speak of. It only got worse each trip. Then we go to remove him and the Europeans who were whining about how awful he was were nowhere to be found. Oh well. They usually aren't.
Jefferson and Madison realized they made some mistakes in the original.
About the only difference between serving under our military command and UN command is the stupidity of your commanders and higher echelon officials (UN are a collection of id10ts), and wearing that stupid blue beret. The real problem here is that the US military is not sworn to anything that the UN can get a handle on let alone understand. We swear to the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic, not to some 'potentate' as is the case with almost every other country in the world. Obeying the orders of those appointed above us comes a distant second as they pound into our head pretty much every year when you are serving in the military. So, if some id10t UN official gives an illegal order, or fails to give an order which would prevent what would be considered an attack on the Constitution, well that US soldier, sailor, or marine is more than likely to either disobey an order or go off on their own and do things that will make the UN unhappy. My heart bleeds.
That's something that a lot of people and I know a hell of a lot of government types both in and out of the United States don't understand. Frankly, I don't expect most people to ever get it.
Actually, all rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the States or the People (Tenth Amendment), but I'm with you on what the Supremes have done to our rights.
We do need all aspects of the ideological spectrum, not just conservative or liberal-progressive. Even Marx had a useful observation or two as I found when reading his works. A lot wrong, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day :-).
I still don't know how you managed to drag the republicans from my post as I have very little in common with them. People that are chiefly (solely) concerned about exploiting political power occur across the political spectrum. Indeed, I could make a very good case that they occur far more on the left than the right, but I won't bother as I seriously doubt you'd listen.
Lastly, it's strange that you should say that engineers have no governing skill or ability. There have been successful engineers in government positions in the past and there are more than a few successful ones in China and India today just to give two examples. That most engineers are not the least bit interested in governance would be a far more accurate statement. I've been in political positions before and frankly I won't do it again despite being asked on more than one occasion. When you build something, you have something in front of you as proof of your labors. All too often in the political arena, what you have at the end of the day is a compromise. Engineers simply don't like compromise. They also don't like doing/creating things that simply do not work, something that also occurs in the political arena when laws are passed or institutions are created for ideological reasons rather than practical (working) reasons. Completely different psychological makeup among the two groups and pretty much mutually incompatible in most cases. At least I understand it.
Personally, pebble reactors are the way to go if we can't use breeders or fusion as they are inherently safe. But try to explain that to someone that couldn't pass a basic physics course.