I think the law has to treat the person who uses a product for illegal means as the "guilty" party. The person who makes it bears no automatic culpability.
This is true to a certain extent. For instance, if I were to write a book about common flaws in networking packages due to programming errors/oversights--for educational purposes only (i.e. I intend this book as a text for programmers to avoid common pitfalls in their code, or sysadmins' who would use this text to their advantage)--and I point out some flaws in a particular networking package, giving examples of how "crackers" might take advantage of those flaws. Given this scenerio, if a person takes that knowledge and uses it for something other than it was intended, then that person should be accountable.
However, lets look at another scenerio. I write a book that is about the same topic, except this one is more geared toward helping "crackers" improve their skills and has a distinct "tone" in the writing that I, the author, sanction and encourage the reader to use this material for illegal purposes. In this example both the reader and myself would be accountable. Myself for encouraging this behavior and assisting others in performing illegal deeds, and the reader for actually committing said deeds.
This only addresses the legalities though. The ethics are a separate issue. In my opinion, in both scenerios the author and/or publisher bears some responcibility. In the first scenerio, if the author/publisher had thought about other uses for this text they could have either come up with a plan to limit distribution to sysadmins, programmers, and students to whom this text would be beneficial, or edited the book more carefully so that no actual "exploit" code was used--perhaps rooting the examples in theory and not code explanation.
You may say, "What if the author/publisher accidentally overlooked the other uses of this text?" Well, in my view, they still shoulder some of the blame. Any business decision should take into account the stakeholders, as well as the foreseeable uses of their product. It is quite logical to theorize that an unscrupulous person might obtain a copy of this text and use it for illegal and unethical purposes. Therefore, this issue should have been addressed prior to distribution.
However, if the author/publisher did restrict distribution or edit the text to reduce the usefulness to a "cracker", and with either of those "checkpoints" in place the knowledge contained in the text was used unethically, I do not believe the author/publisher is responcible--as they had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the text (or the knowledge within) would not be received by a person whose goal was to use this information in an illegal manner.
In my opinion, I believe that to be deemed unethical in any situation of this type you must have either produced and distributed a product that was designed solely for unethical use, or not taken reasonable measures such that your product would not cause harm to others, or both. In the end, however, you ultimately cannot be assured once you have distributed your product that those receiving it will use it for its intended purpose.
Now, on to the comment: "Gun manufacturers are not responsible for murders committed with guns. Now, I'm not a gun nut, but I think this is legally right."
I agree with this partly. Gun manufacturers are not responsible for the initial act of murder. However, they are somewhat responsible for the volume of people that are killed in a single incident. I do not see any good reason that a person, outside of a soldier or law enforcement official, should have access to, or possess, a semi or full automatic assault weapon. Yet gun manufacturers see the need to produce and distribute these weapons to the common citizen (although 8 times out of 10 they are received by the common criminal). Granted, they shouldn't bear all the blame, but they do have the option of restricting distribution to the military and police forces. Unfortunately, that option is overlooked due to greed. This is evident when they send their lobbists to Congress to explain that the Mac-10 and the Tek-9 are essential to the hunting community. This is laughable. It truly emphasizes the length to which someone will go to make a dollar.
The SCUD was not built during WWII. The SCUD is a Soviet weapon designed in the late 40's/early 50's that was based upon the design of the German A-4 ballistic rocket (the V-2).
I was mistaken, and conceded that I was initially incorrect on this fact--as I had written the original post well after my bedtime, and was a little tired. I had meant to say shortly after WWII, but thinking and typing it were two different things at that time of night.
I'd like to see the weapon system that does have an 80+% reliability!
In general, for the most part, the U.S. Navy's AEGIS type ships currently run at an 80+% performance rating with the system on "auto-pilot." It is also the only Naval vessel that has passed the Armeggedon test 100% of the time. So, if you have seen an AEGIS ship, then you have seen a weapon system that does have an 80+% reliability!
I would say the are not effective at all. Why do I say this? Assume that country Y launches a missile strike against country X after an invasion, that kills--as you elude to--country X's soldiers' families. Do you honestly believe that the soldiers of country X would be more likely to be defeated after that? They would most likely, as they are trained in the art of war, to be much more ruthless and effective on the battle front. Think of it from the soldiers' of country X's point of view, "We entered a country to make war, and they didn't fight to defeat our threat, instead like cowardly scum they killed civilians--our wives, parents, and children." Can you even fathom the amount of retribution that would ensue from that?
Also, consider the fact that ballistic missiles are not the only means of delivery of nuclear, chemical, or biological agents. These types of weapons can be deployed in a variety of ways. From a suitcase bomb to an artillery shell. So, what makes you so certain that country Y wouldn't be wiped of the face of the earth as well? I do not recall ever hearing of the anti-suitcase missile.
Keep in mind also, that now that country Y has destroyed everything these soldiers' love, that they will hold much less regard for their own lives and safety--thus, making them much more resolved to exact revenge at any cost.
True enough, however, I am making the assumption that the U.S. military did not place the Patriots in a position where they were not needed. Which stands to reason, why would you place a defensive tactical weapons system in a place where there is nothing to protect?
In addition, I did not write the memo. I do not design or approve the testing stage in the design process.
The fact that it exists, does not imply that it has been tested in such a way that usable and reliable figures can be produced. As their schedule points out they have yet to fly or test--let alone mass produce--this aircraft in its entirety. Therefore, it is not something that one can project results upon, nor even see tested, since it does not exist in a complete testable form as of yet.
Perhaps I should rephrase that. The memo stated, upon further recollection, that the Patriot missile did not destroy any inbound SCUD missiles that posed a critical or tactical threat based solely on their trajectory at the time of their destruction.
In short, if they were destroyed by a Patriot, then they were not inbound toward a viable or critical target. So, in essence, they were not effective.
First, your comment Since when did the world request anything? Have you been awake this past 20 years? NATO has requested the U.S. to provide assistance on several occations, and the U.S. is bound by treaty (with certain limitations) to assist NATO wherever possible. I am not saying the U.S. should not be involved in world matters (the opposite is true, as a responcible nation the U.S. must help those in need), however the U.S. cannot overlook the emergence of technologies that could be detrimental to the safety of the U.S. and its allies. This means the U.S., as well as other countries, must actively explore technologies that offer some degree of protection from these threats.
Secondly, no treaties relating to this topic were broken by the United States. The U.S. has kept its word as it relates to this treaty when other countries have not. Should we risk our country, and lives, to stay in accordance with a treaty that is not respected by the rest of the world in its entirety? Apparently so, as the U.S. has and is exploring other options that do not violate the afore mentioned treaty.
Let us not forget, a treaty is nothing more than a contract between nations. This contract can only be valid until is has been broken by one of the involved parties. To illustrate my point, although this hypothetical may not be of the same magnitude, say you entered into a contract for goods with another party. This party agrees to provide you with, say, 200 VCRs on a specified date for which you are to pay them a lump sum of $14,000.00 upon delivery. Now, let us supppose this party delivers 100 VCRs instead of the 200 promised. Following your logic, you should still pay them the $14,000.00 because you made an agreement--even though the state of the agreement has changed. Now, after hearing that scenerio, tell me that I am absurd for believing that any country should honor a treaty that has been broken, not just once but multiple times by other countries. If you still believe that the treaty should be honored no matter what the other countries do to break this treaty, I would like to sell you some VCRs.
Further, any treaty which serves to place an unfair advantage to those that will do us harm, should not and cannot be expected to be honored. Although, this is not the case with the treaty in question. The U.S. played an instrumental role in the structuring and adoption of this treaty, and would like to see that it says in place. Just to further illustrate my point, when France and other sovereign nations began development and testing of nuclear weapons, did you see the U.S. respond by reassembling their nuclear arsenal? No, you did not. You saw instead the U.S., as well as other NATO countries, actively pursuing diplomatic avenues to attempt to deflate this situation. Although it has not currently been resolved, I do not believe that it will result in countries re-arming themselves with nuclear weapons, as this would be a giant step backward in the advancement of the human race.
I was referring to the fact that they are not currently capable to "shoot down" missiles that are inbound toward a random/non-military target (i.e. New York City, Philadephia, etc.). A naval vessel is a horse of a different color. Because they are a likely target in an armed conflict, they have been out fitted with defensive weapons like the Phalanx (which is nothing more than a beefed up machine gun turret that sprays depleted uranium shells at an inbound target with a high success rate). However, these systems must be deployed on the likely target. As of yet, I am not aware of any of these systems being deployed in non-military areas.
This was a faux pas on my part. It was late and I was fuzzy on my history. They were in development during the WWII era, however were not buit until after WWII. So, they were/are nearly 50 years old, not nearly 60 years old.
Yes, of this I am aware. Which is why I chose my words carefully, no country, that I am aware of, currently. The Lockheed Martin Airborne Laser is still under development, and has not yet been constructed or tested. Therefore, it cannot currently be considered.
Your scenerio assumes that these to countries intend to rely heavily on the use of missiles to determine their readiness for combat. I have yet to see a push button war. But using your scenerio, lets say prior to country Y firing missile one, country X invades country Y--how effective are those missiles now? They aren't, not unless you are willing to fire your missiles at your own country.
Let us not forget, the missile is only one weapon of war, and their are many others. To determine your readiness for war based on one weapon is foolish.
Actually, it is not. Not according to the U.S. Department of Defense. We were issued a statement/memo shortly after the Gulf War that claimed the Patriot was not responcible for destroying any SCUDs.
As this document has been declassified, I will look around my filing cabinet at work and see if I can find the document ID and post it for all to see.
Actually, in fact, not one SCUD was shot down by a Patriot missle. The simple fact is the SCUDs were built during World War II and litterally fell apart in the air.
As it stands no country, that I am aware of, currently has the capability to "shoot down" a missle of any type with any viable accuracy. The only defense to missle attack at this point is a missle which detonates in close proximity to the inbound missle showering it with shrapnel, thus disabling the inbound missle. But, this does not have an acceptable destruction ratio--far below the 80% accuracy mark.
As for the assumption of this technology being manufactored with the former USSR's status as a threat, this is not true. The reasons that these types of weapons are being produced is quite frankly that other countries, who took no part in the treaty, are producing nuclear weapons--and our nations must be ready to defend against nuclear attack.
Keep in mind, the anti-ballistic missile is being designed for one purpose, defense from an air threat. This is not a weapon of attack, and therefore should not be infringed upon by any treaty.
As for the implication that this type of technology could be used as a type of anti-satelite/anti-spacecraft weapon, this is quite possible. Think of the reasons that this could be a good thing. Assume that the U.S. intervenes, at NATO's insistance, into another country's small war. This country has spy satelites, which can pin-point the U.S. troop movements and positions. The U.S. then would have the option of "blinding" this other country's satelites, insuring less U.S. casualties and allowing for a greater likelihood of a swift success--with less bloodshed. Would this be a bad thing? Considering the fact that the U.S. is sending their troops in at the world's request, I think not.
Also, let's remember, these weapons are meant to be a deterrent. Just because we have them does not mean we will use them, unless of course it is unavoidable. Knowing that your enemy has the means to defeat an attack, makes it far less likely that you will be the aggressor.
Finally, with the break-up of the Soviet Union, many less that politically stable countries and terrorist factions have increasingly been found to have access to cold war weapons of mass destruction. From biological agents to nuclear warheads, both of which can be delivered via ballistic missile. So, it is in every country's best interest to explore means of protection against this threat.
The world, as it stands right now, is not a simple friendly place. It is complex. There are conflicting religions, political structures, and morals. In these turbulent times, with such hatred in existance, each country must prepare to defend their way of life, virtues, and beliefs. As they can no longer depend on another to do so, without political or financial benefit.
First, it almost sounds like they are patenting the cookie being used in conjunction with a cgi, as it was designed to do.
Second, I have a book entitled "The ABCs of JavaScript" by Lee Purcell and Mary Jane Mara, Published by Sybex Copyright 1997 (which I bought before September 12, 1997--the application date on the patent), in which they describe this same system. Since it takes a while to write,then publish a book, it would seem that Amazon stole someone else's idea and patented it.
If you got your degree from a school I never heard of, then I know little about your background and it will be harder for you to pass the resume screen.
Okay the problem here is that we no longer live in an industrial economy, we live in a global economy. It is quite possible that you may apply to a company that isn't headquartered in the country you went to school in. That being said, the hiring officer might not be from the country you went to school in. Therefore, short of the top ten to twenty schools in your country, it is highly likely that the hiring officer will not know anything about that school. If you think I'm not being realistic, try naming the "cream-of-the-crop" schools from a country outside of yours. I'm from the U.S. and I can't even name any school in India, Pakistan, Japan, and some others, so how would I know that it is an "elite" school? The person who reviews your resume isn't going to take the time to find this out, they are going to look at the bottom line--your G.P.A. (at least for your first job or two, after that it becomes slightly less than important).
Let's define what a university is. A university is a college that has special "schools" (i.e. Law School, Medical School, etc) attached to it that teach specialized graduate courses. A university, by definition, does not mean that it is any better than any other school.
I guess I should have prefaced my entire post by saying, "as a rule, in general..."(Also, my original title was too long and it wouldn't let me post it) Because I was talking in generalities, not specific cases (as I haven't attended or taught at every degree bearing school out there). In general most Liberal Arts schools offer a better, more well rounded undergraduate education than a typical research institute/university. Mostly because the primary focus at a Liberal Arts school is teaching, not research.
Please keep in mind that all the comments I made (and am making now) are referring to an undergraduate degree, there are some differences at the graduate level.
Now, on to your comment "The average 4-year school is just that... average." Granted, a program is only as good as its professors. But, you're over-simplifing that fact by stating that, "most [of your professors] were EE and Math PhDs...many were less than motivated teachers". The one statement does not support the other. I have learned from quite a large spectrum of professors throughout my academic career, and most of my professors did not have a CS degree, the reason for this is quite simple--for many of them there was no such thing as a CS degree when they entered their doctoral program (at least for most of the older professors). As for motivation, well that's a completely separate issue.
In my original post I made somethings a little less clear than I should have, for this I apologize. First, just because a school is an "institute" or a "university" does not mean that they are any better than an ordinary 4 year college. Second, undergraduate degrees rely on a breadth of education which many strictly technical schools do not provide as well as they should. Third, I should have made clear the fact that you should interview the teaching staff and find out all you can about the school (what are the qualifications that a professor must have to be eligible to teach there, etc.), also if possible sit in on a class or two at the school to see if the teaching style there suits you, before committing to attend it. Every school has its own personality (I agree with you there). But that is something that you have to you have to take into account. If you choose a school based solely on its academic prowess, and not even consider the community, then you've made a mistake. So, don't blame the school for that. Some people, like myself, would rather learn directly from a textbook and aren't to concerned about the professor's presentation, for others this is a problem. Ultimately it is your decision as to what school you attend (and give your money too), so don't try to place the blame on factors that you had/have total control over.
Browsing through all these comments/suggestions I've noticed people mentioning these prestigious schools. This University, that Institute, etc.
You learn the same theory at 99% of the schools out there. The computer science theory you learn isn't any different whether you pay $21K/year or $8K/year.
Research Institutions may have more "state-of-the-art" technologies on campus, however because they are "research" facilities and the professors tend to be busy doing research--that's why they are their after all. So, many of the classes are taught by teaching assistants (I went to The University of Pennsylvania for my Master's in CS, and I met some people there who told me that it was very rare for professors to teach an undergraduate class).
I would suggest instead of wasting money on one of these "elite" schools, find a local Liberal Arts college that has a strong Computer Science program. At least at a Liberal Arts college the focus is on teaching, not research. Then when you get your bachelor's degree, apply to one of these "elite" schools for your graduate degree. There is a better chance of actually seeing a real-live professor teaching!
There are a couple good reasons for this. First, going to two different schools to get your bachelor's then your master's degree shows a potential employer that you are able to adapt and succeed in different environments. Second, outside of the top ten to twenty schools in the country, it's quite likely that the person who hires you will have never heard of the school in the first place ($21K/year down the tubes). Third, you can easily afford one of those big-name colleges once you get a job in the field (most employers will pay your way), so why payback $60K in student loans? Finally, what if you get into the computer science program and find out you hate it! What other options do you have at this technology school, what if you get into MIT and decide in your sophmore year you would rather be a literature major (I've seen stuff like this happen), would MIT still be a good choice for literature? I would think not, at least not for $21K/year it isn't.
Let's face it, computer science programs are not for everyone--the same can be said for most majors. I've seen quite a few people in my time change majors because they found this out, or they just didn't know exactly what a computer professional does--and when they found out, they didn't like it. You want to pick a college/university/institute that offers a wide range of majors available and that doesn't just teach one thing well. Because you might think this is the right career for you now, but in a couple years from now--after you've had a taste of it--you might not like it...
Actually Eric, it is quite illegal. In the United States no one is allowed to post anyone else's SSN in public view. Further, the use of the SSN is prohibited from being used as a method of identification, such as an employee identification number or anything like that. These two statements prior I was made aware of when a student at my former college sued the school because they were posting the grades--using the SSN as the student's identifier--in public view, outside of the classroom, and were using the SSN on our IDs as the Student Identification Number. The college was subsequently fined and a judgement was awarded.
However, the federal school lunch program must use it due to the facts that you stated.
Actually Joel, NT has been cracked in the real-world environment on more than one occation. In fact, in a story posted on/. about security and the internet (this is the one about the security company scanning a large portion of the to find out just how insecure the internet really is) they noted that thier own network (a security firm nonetheless) had been cracked into because of two NT machines (an employees machine at home and one of their servers at work). Further, they noted that the NT log files were of no help figuring out how the person got in to the first NT box--they still don't know how it happened!
I have one year before I graduate with a degree in Electrical Engineering. I have the opportunity to take a preperation class for the first test in order to get my Professional Engineering Certificate (P.E.).
From my understanding of the certificate system (at least as it relates to other types of engineering, i.e. Civil, Mechanical, Industrial), you are required to receive the E.I.T. (Engineer In Training) test prior to the P.E., however I'm not too sure what's involved on the Electrical Engineering side.
Do I need a P.E. to succeed in today's industry?
That depends almost completely on what kind of job you are looking to get into. For instance, if you were looking to design an underground fiber optical system in which government permits (either local or state) are going to be a factor, then you would definitely need the certificate--as most state and local agencies that require any project, in which liability could be claimed, require the signature/endorsement of a certified engineer. This has become so common place that a person who has a P.E. can make a good living just approving and endorsing projects that other uncertified engineers actually designed(I actually know someone that does this exclusively, and makes quite a good living at this).
On the other hand, if you aren't designing things that could cause liability, the requirement of a certificate may not be part of the job description. It might just be something that is listed as "preferred."
A good idea might be to call some H.R. representatives at a couple companies, that are in the line of that you wish to go into, and ask them what their requirements and preferrances are about certifications. This will give you a better idea of whether it is "worth while" for you to get it.
Will it be a limiting factor?
In the field of engineering, or any field for that matter, certificates are a good thing when it comes to getting a job (keeping that job is a different story).
In what situations would you reccomend taking it?
If you have the means and the opportunity to take the exam, do it. It will afford you a wider range of jobs to choose from.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the law has to treat the person who uses a product for illegal means as the "guilty" party. The person who makes it bears no automatic culpability.
This is true to a certain extent. For instance, if I were to write a book about common flaws in networking packages due to programming errors/oversights--for educational purposes only (i.e. I intend this book as a text for programmers to avoid common pitfalls in their code, or sysadmins' who would use this text to their advantage)--and I point out some flaws in a particular networking package, giving examples of how "crackers" might take advantage of those flaws. Given this scenerio, if a person takes that knowledge and uses it for something other than it was intended, then that person should be accountable.
However, lets look at another scenerio. I write a book that is about the same topic, except this one is more geared toward helping "crackers" improve their skills and has a distinct "tone" in the writing that I, the author, sanction and encourage the reader to use this material for illegal purposes. In this example both the reader and myself would be accountable. Myself for encouraging this behavior and assisting others in performing illegal deeds, and the reader for actually committing said deeds.
This only addresses the legalities though. The ethics are a separate issue. In my opinion, in both scenerios the author and/or publisher bears some responcibility. In the first scenerio, if the author/publisher had thought about other uses for this text they could have either come up with a plan to limit distribution to sysadmins, programmers, and students to whom this text would be beneficial, or edited the book more carefully so that no actual "exploit" code was used--perhaps rooting the examples in theory and not code explanation.
You may say, "What if the author/publisher accidentally overlooked the other uses of this text?" Well, in my view, they still shoulder some of the blame. Any business decision should take into account the stakeholders, as well as the foreseeable uses of their product. It is quite logical to theorize that an unscrupulous person might obtain a copy of this text and use it for illegal and unethical purposes. Therefore, this issue should have been addressed prior to distribution.
However, if the author/publisher did restrict distribution or edit the text to reduce the usefulness to a "cracker", and with either of those "checkpoints" in place the knowledge contained in the text was used unethically, I do not believe the author/publisher is responcible--as they had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the text (or the knowledge within) would not be received by a person whose goal was to use this information in an illegal manner.
In my opinion, I believe that to be deemed unethical in any situation of this type you must have either produced and distributed a product that was designed solely for unethical use, or not taken reasonable measures such that your product would not cause harm to others, or both. In the end, however, you ultimately cannot be assured once you have distributed your product that those receiving it will use it for its intended purpose.
Now, on to the comment: "Gun manufacturers are not responsible for murders committed with guns. Now, I'm not a gun nut, but I think this is legally right."
I agree with this partly. Gun manufacturers are not responsible for the initial act of murder. However, they are somewhat responsible for the volume of people that are killed in a single incident. I do not see any good reason that a person, outside of a soldier or law enforcement official, should have access to, or possess, a semi or full automatic assault weapon. Yet gun manufacturers see the need to produce and distribute these weapons to the common citizen (although 8 times out of 10 they are received by the common criminal). Granted, they shouldn't bear all the blame, but they do have the option of restricting distribution to the military and police forces. Unfortunately, that option is overlooked due to greed. This is evident when they send their lobbists to Congress to explain that the Mac-10 and the Tek-9 are essential to the hunting community. This is laughable. It truly emphasizes the length to which someone will go to make a dollar.
The SCUD was not built during WWII. The SCUD is a Soviet weapon designed in the late 40's/early 50's that was based upon the design of the German A-4 ballistic rocket (the V-2).
I was mistaken, and conceded that I was initially incorrect on this fact--as I had written the original post well after my bedtime, and was a little tired. I had meant to say shortly after WWII, but thinking and typing it were two different things at that time of night.
I'd like to see the weapon system that does have an 80+% reliability!
In general, for the most part, the U.S. Navy's AEGIS type ships currently run at an 80+% performance rating with the system on "auto-pilot." It is also the only Naval vessel that has passed the Armeggedon test 100% of the time. So, if you have seen an AEGIS ship, then you have seen a weapon system that does have an 80+% reliability!
Granted that AEGIS combat system is not designed for anti-missile defense (however, it does have the Phalanx anti-missile system for self-preservation purposes). But as for its intended use as "ships [that] are multi-mission (AAW, ASW, ASUW) surface combatants capable of supporting carrier battle groups, amphibious forces, or of operating independently and as flagships of surface action groups." they have a battle proven record of excellence.
I would say the are not effective at all. Why do I say this? Assume that country Y launches a missile strike against country X after an invasion, that kills--as you elude to--country X's soldiers' families. Do you honestly believe that the soldiers of country X would be more likely to be defeated after that? They would most likely, as they are trained in the art of war, to be much more ruthless and effective on the battle front. Think of it from the soldiers' of country X's point of view, "We entered a country to make war, and they didn't fight to defeat our threat, instead like cowardly scum they killed civilians--our wives, parents, and children." Can you even fathom the amount of retribution that would ensue from that?
Also, consider the fact that ballistic missiles are not the only means of delivery of nuclear, chemical, or biological agents. These types of weapons can be deployed in a variety of ways. From a suitcase bomb to an artillery shell. So, what makes you so certain that country Y wouldn't be wiped of the face of the earth as well? I do not recall ever hearing of the anti-suitcase missile.
Keep in mind also, that now that country Y has destroyed everything these soldiers' love, that they will hold much less regard for their own lives and safety--thus, making them much more resolved to exact revenge at any cost.
True enough, however, I am making the assumption that the U.S. military did not place the Patriots in a position where they were not needed. Which stands to reason, why would you place a defensive tactical weapons system in a place where there is nothing to protect?
In addition, I did not write the memo. I do not design or approve the testing stage in the design process.
The fact that it exists, does not imply that it has been tested in such a way that usable and reliable figures can be produced. As their schedule points out they have yet to fly or test--let alone mass produce--this aircraft in its entirety. Therefore, it is not something that one can project results upon, nor even see tested, since it does not exist in a complete testable form as of yet.
Perhaps I should rephrase that. The memo stated, upon further recollection, that the Patriot missile did not destroy any inbound SCUD missiles that posed a critical or tactical threat based solely on their trajectory at the time of their destruction.
In short, if they were destroyed by a Patriot, then they were not inbound toward a viable or critical target. So, in essence, they were not effective.
First, your comment Since when did the world request anything? Have you been awake this past 20 years? NATO has requested the U.S. to provide assistance on several occations, and the U.S. is bound by treaty (with certain limitations) to assist NATO wherever possible. I am not saying the U.S. should not be involved in world matters (the opposite is true, as a responcible nation the U.S. must help those in need), however the U.S. cannot overlook the emergence of technologies that could be detrimental to the safety of the U.S. and its allies. This means the U.S., as well as other countries, must actively explore technologies that offer some degree of protection from these threats.
Secondly, no treaties relating to this topic were broken by the United States. The U.S. has kept its word as it relates to this treaty when other countries have not. Should we risk our country, and lives, to stay in accordance with a treaty that is not respected by the rest of the world in its entirety? Apparently so, as the U.S. has and is exploring other options that do not violate the afore mentioned treaty.
Let us not forget, a treaty is nothing more than a contract between nations. This contract can only be valid until is has been broken by one of the involved parties. To illustrate my point, although this hypothetical may not be of the same magnitude, say you entered into a contract for goods with another party. This party agrees to provide you with, say, 200 VCRs on a specified date for which you are to pay them a lump sum of $14,000.00 upon delivery. Now, let us supppose this party delivers 100 VCRs instead of the 200 promised. Following your logic, you should still pay them the $14,000.00 because you made an agreement--even though the state of the agreement has changed. Now, after hearing that scenerio, tell me that I am absurd for believing that any country should honor a treaty that has been broken, not just once but multiple times by other countries. If you still believe that the treaty should be honored no matter what the other countries do to break this treaty, I would like to sell you some VCRs.
Further, any treaty which serves to place an unfair advantage to those that will do us harm, should not and cannot be expected to be honored. Although, this is not the case with the treaty in question. The U.S. played an instrumental role in the structuring and adoption of this treaty, and would like to see that it says in place. Just to further illustrate my point, when France and other sovereign nations began development and testing of nuclear weapons, did you see the U.S. respond by reassembling their nuclear arsenal? No, you did not. You saw instead the U.S., as well as other NATO countries, actively pursuing diplomatic avenues to attempt to deflate this situation. Although it has not currently been resolved, I do not believe that it will result in countries re-arming themselves with nuclear weapons, as this would be a giant step backward in the advancement of the human race.
I was referring to the fact that they are not currently capable to "shoot down" missiles that are inbound toward a random/non-military target (i.e. New York City, Philadephia, etc.). A naval vessel is a horse of a different color. Because they are a likely target in an armed conflict, they have been out fitted with defensive weapons like the Phalanx (which is nothing more than a beefed up machine gun turret that sprays depleted uranium shells at an inbound target with a high success rate). However, these systems must be deployed on the likely target. As of yet, I am not aware of any of these systems being deployed in non-military areas.
This was a faux pas on my part. It was late and I was fuzzy on my history. They were in development during the WWII era, however were not buit until after WWII. So, they were/are nearly 50 years old, not nearly 60 years old.
Our current nuclear force? You mean the ones we (the U.S.) have and are currently dismantling?
Yes, of this I am aware. Which is why I chose my words carefully, no country, that I am aware of, currently . The Lockheed Martin Airborne Laser is still under development, and has not yet been constructed or tested. Therefore, it cannot currently be considered.
Although, it does sound pretty neat!
Your scenerio assumes that these to countries intend to rely heavily on the use of missiles to determine their readiness for combat. I have yet to see a push button war. But using your scenerio, lets say prior to country Y firing missile one, country X invades country Y--how effective are those missiles now? They aren't, not unless you are willing to fire your missiles at your own country.
Let us not forget, the missile is only one weapon of war, and their are many others. To determine your readiness for war based on one weapon is foolish.
This is, in fact, incorrect.
Actually, it is not. Not according to the U.S. Department of Defense. We were issued a statement/memo shortly after the Gulf War that claimed the Patriot was not responcible for destroying any SCUDs.
As this document has been declassified, I will look around my filing cabinet at work and see if I can find the document ID and post it for all to see.
Actually, in fact, not one SCUD was shot down by a Patriot missle. The simple fact is the SCUDs were built during World War II and litterally fell apart in the air.
As it stands no country, that I am aware of, currently has the capability to "shoot down" a missle of any type with any viable accuracy. The only defense to missle attack at this point is a missle which detonates in close proximity to the inbound missle showering it with shrapnel, thus disabling the inbound missle. But, this does not have an acceptable destruction ratio--far below the 80% accuracy mark.
As for the assumption of this technology being manufactored with the former USSR's status as a threat, this is not true. The reasons that these types of weapons are being produced is quite frankly that other countries, who took no part in the treaty, are producing nuclear weapons--and our nations must be ready to defend against nuclear attack.
Keep in mind, the anti-ballistic missile is being designed for one purpose, defense from an air threat. This is not a weapon of attack, and therefore should not be infringed upon by any treaty.
As for the implication that this type of technology could be used as a type of anti-satelite/anti-spacecraft weapon, this is quite possible. Think of the reasons that this could be a good thing. Assume that the U.S. intervenes, at NATO's insistance, into another country's small war. This country has spy satelites, which can pin-point the U.S. troop movements and positions. The U.S. then would have the option of "blinding" this other country's satelites, insuring less U.S. casualties and allowing for a greater likelihood of a swift success--with less bloodshed. Would this be a bad thing? Considering the fact that the U.S. is sending their troops in at the world's request, I think not.
Also, let's remember, these weapons are meant to be a deterrent. Just because we have them does not mean we will use them, unless of course it is unavoidable. Knowing that your enemy has the means to defeat an attack, makes it far less likely that you will be the aggressor.
Finally, with the break-up of the Soviet Union, many less that politically stable countries and terrorist factions have increasingly been found to have access to cold war weapons of mass destruction. From biological agents to nuclear warheads, both of which can be delivered via ballistic missile. So, it is in every country's best interest to explore means of protection against this threat.
The world, as it stands right now, is not a simple friendly place. It is complex. There are conflicting religions, political structures, and morals. In these turbulent times, with such hatred in existance, each country must prepare to defend their way of life, virtues, and beliefs. As they can no longer depend on another to do so, without political or financial benefit.
Two things...
First, it almost sounds like they are patenting the cookie being used in conjunction with a cgi, as it was designed to do.
Second, I have a book entitled "The ABCs of JavaScript" by Lee Purcell and Mary Jane Mara, Published by Sybex Copyright 1997 (which I bought before September 12, 1997--the application date on the patent), in which they describe this same system. Since it takes a while to write,then publish a book, it would seem that Amazon stole someone else's idea and patented it.
Only in America...
If you got your degree from a school I never heard of, then I know little about your background and it will be harder for you to pass the resume screen.
Okay the problem here is that we no longer live in an industrial economy, we live in a global economy. It is quite possible that you may apply to a company that isn't headquartered in the country you went to school in. That being said, the hiring officer might not be from the country you went to school in. Therefore, short of the top ten to twenty schools in your country, it is highly likely that the hiring officer will not know anything about that school. If you think I'm not being realistic, try naming the "cream-of-the-crop" schools from a country outside of yours. I'm from the U.S. and I can't even name any school in India, Pakistan, Japan, and some others, so how would I know that it is an "elite" school? The person who reviews your resume isn't going to take the time to find this out, they are going to look at the bottom line--your G.P.A. (at least for your first job or two, after that it becomes slightly less than important).
Also the benefit of a research school is the oppurtunity to work on research.
Typically working on research, at least critical research, does not occur at the undergraduate level.
Let's define what a university is. A university is a college that has special "schools" (i.e. Law School, Medical School, etc) attached to it that teach specialized graduate courses. A university, by definition, does not mean that it is any better than any other school.
I guess I should have prefaced my entire post by saying, "as a rule, in general..."(Also, my original title was too long and it wouldn't let me post it) Because I was talking in generalities, not specific cases (as I haven't attended or taught at every degree bearing school out there). In general most Liberal Arts schools offer a better, more well rounded undergraduate education than a typical research institute/university. Mostly because the primary focus at a Liberal Arts school is teaching, not research.
Please keep in mind that all the comments I made (and am making now) are referring to an undergraduate degree, there are some differences at the graduate level.
Now, on to your comment "The average 4-year school is just that... average." Granted, a program is only as good as its professors. But, you're over-simplifing that fact by stating that, "most [of your professors] were EE and Math PhDs...many were less than motivated teachers". The one statement does not support the other. I have learned from quite a large spectrum of professors throughout my academic career, and most of my professors did not have a CS degree, the reason for this is quite simple--for many of them there was no such thing as a CS degree when they entered their doctoral program (at least for most of the older professors). As for motivation, well that's a completely separate issue.
In my original post I made somethings a little less clear than I should have, for this I apologize. First, just because a school is an "institute" or a "university" does not mean that they are any better than an ordinary 4 year college. Second, undergraduate degrees rely on a breadth of education which many strictly technical schools do not provide as well as they should. Third, I should have made clear the fact that you should interview the teaching staff and find out all you can about the school (what are the qualifications that a professor must have to be eligible to teach there, etc.), also if possible sit in on a class or two at the school to see if the teaching style there suits you, before committing to attend it. Every school has its own personality (I agree with you there). But that is something that you have to you have to take into account. If you choose a school based solely on its academic prowess, and not even consider the community, then you've made a mistake. So, don't blame the school for that. Some people, like myself, would rather learn directly from a textbook and aren't to concerned about the professor's presentation, for others this is a problem. Ultimately it is your decision as to what school you attend (and give your money too), so don't try to place the blame on factors that you had/have total control over.
Browsing through all these comments/suggestions I've noticed people mentioning these prestigious schools. This University, that Institute, etc.
You learn the same theory at 99% of the schools out there. The computer science theory you learn isn't any different whether you pay $21K/year or $8K/year.
Research Institutions may have more "state-of-the-art" technologies on campus, however because they are "research" facilities and the professors tend to be busy doing research--that's why they are their after all. So, many of the classes are taught by teaching assistants (I went to The University of Pennsylvania for my Master's in CS, and I met some people there who told me that it was very rare for professors to teach an undergraduate class).
I would suggest instead of wasting money on one of these "elite" schools, find a local Liberal Arts college that has a strong Computer Science program. At least at a Liberal Arts college the focus is on teaching, not research. Then when you get your bachelor's degree, apply to one of these "elite" schools for your graduate degree. There is a better chance of actually seeing a real-live professor teaching!
There are a couple good reasons for this. First, going to two different schools to get your bachelor's then your master's degree shows a potential employer that you are able to adapt and succeed in different environments. Second, outside of the top ten to twenty schools in the country, it's quite likely that the person who hires you will have never heard of the school in the first place ($21K/year down the tubes). Third, you can easily afford one of those big-name colleges once you get a job in the field (most employers will pay your way), so why payback $60K in student loans? Finally, what if you get into the computer science program and find out you hate it! What other options do you have at this technology school, what if you get into MIT and decide in your sophmore year you would rather be a literature major (I've seen stuff like this happen), would MIT still be a good choice for literature? I would think not, at least not for $21K/year it isn't.
Let's face it, computer science programs are not for everyone--the same can be said for most majors. I've seen quite a few people in my time change majors because they found this out, or they just didn't know exactly what a computer professional does--and when they found out, they didn't like it. You want to pick a college/university/institute that offers a wide range of majors available and that doesn't just teach one thing well. Because you might think this is the right career for you now, but in a couple years from now--after you've had a taste of it--you might not like it...
Actually Eric, it is quite illegal. In the United States no one is allowed to post anyone else's SSN in public view. Further, the use of the SSN is prohibited from being used as a method of identification, such as an employee identification number or anything like that. These two statements prior I was made aware of when a student at my former college sued the school because they were posting the grades--using the SSN as the student's identifier--in public view, outside of the classroom, and were using the SSN on our IDs as the Student Identification Number. The college was subsequently fined and a judgement was awarded.
However, the federal school lunch program must use it due to the facts that you stated.
Send a polite letter explaining why you think having the SSN as part of a student ID is wrong...
It's not just wrong, it's illegal!
Actually Joel, NT has been cracked in the real-world environment on more than one occation. In fact, in a story posted on /. about security and the internet (this is the one about the security company scanning a large portion of the to find out just how insecure the internet really is) they noted that thier own network (a security firm nonetheless) had been cracked into because of two NT machines (an employees machine at home and one of their servers at work). Further, they noted that the NT log files were of no help figuring out how the person got in to the first NT box--they still don't know how it happened!
To see what I'm talking about go here htt p://www.securityfocus.com/templates/forum_message. html?forum=2&head=32&id=32 and scroll down to the section with the header of "Third week" and read it for yourself.
I have one year before I graduate with a degree in Electrical Engineering. I have the opportunity to take a preperation class for the first test in order to get my Professional Engineering Certificate (P.E.).
From my understanding of the certificate system (at least as it relates to other types of engineering, i.e. Civil, Mechanical, Industrial), you are required to receive the E.I.T. (Engineer In Training) test prior to the P.E., however I'm not too sure what's involved on the Electrical Engineering side.
Do I need a P.E. to succeed in today's industry?
That depends almost completely on what kind of job you are looking to get into. For instance, if you were looking to design an underground fiber optical system in which government permits (either local or state) are going to be a factor, then you would definitely need the certificate--as most state and local agencies that require any project, in which liability could be claimed, require the signature/endorsement of a certified engineer. This has become so common place that a person who has a P.E. can make a good living just approving and endorsing projects that other uncertified engineers actually designed(I actually know someone that does this exclusively, and makes quite a good living at this).
On the other hand, if you aren't designing things that could cause liability, the requirement of a certificate may not be part of the job description. It might just be something that is listed as "preferred."
A good idea might be to call some H.R. representatives at a couple companies, that are in the line of that you wish to go into, and ask them what their requirements and preferrances are about certifications. This will give you a better idea of whether it is "worth while" for you to get it.
Will it be a limiting factor?
In the field of engineering, or any field for that matter, certificates are a good thing when it comes to getting a job (keeping that job is a different story).
In what situations would you reccomend taking it?
If you have the means and the opportunity to take the exam, do it. It will afford you a wider range of jobs to choose from.
....
...