"I am just saying the money that attracts top talents are with the corporations.
To some people money doesn't matter. Time and time again the military and intelligence communities attract hugely talented individuals because of the work environment. Dave Grossman talked about this in his book On Killing. There is a small minority of people who are talented warlike mischeif makers who given the right environment, ethical and monetary backing can go a long way to louse up the enemies day. Bruce Schneier says the same thing in Secrets and Lies. Examples of this in history are myriad. Google topics like the Tunnel Rats in vietnam. The bad guy mentality in the right environment attracts these guys.
You don't have to have to be a "bad guy" but being/thinking so is what separates the best intelligence and military personnel from the average. Obviously, you still need a 'good' value system but the 'bad guy' psyche still is needed.
It's even written in the vast majority of intelligence literature out there that the best overall intelligence guys are borderline 'bad guys'. Examples are myriad:
The original detective
Eugène François Vidocq was the founding father of criminal investigation. He was a notorious bad guy whose innovations bolstered police intelligence gathering.
Michael Levine who was one of the top undercover agents ever assigned to the Drug Enforcement Agency said in an interview that "The secret to my success was..... A police lieutenant, with whom I worked many years later, looked at me, after I had done, in one day, something like four or five undercover buys from different groups -- from Hispanics, from Blacks, from Whites -- and he was covering me along with my group. He said: "You know what the thing is about you, Levine? You're a guy who should've gone bad. You should have been a gangster. You should have been in jail. But somehow you turned out right. And that's why you're so..." [convincing]. And I thought about it, and I thought about my youth and about the way I grew up, and I realized that there was a lot of truth in what he said. I was FROM the streets. The streets were in me. There was a thin line between me and the guys who I was working against. And that line was so thin that drug dealers couldn't see it. Do you understand? The line that separated them from me as a suspected agent was so thin that drug dealers could NEVER believe that I was an agent. And that's an attitude.... that's something you can't teach."
The CIA Case officer Gust Avrakotos who ran the covert operation arming the Mujahideen by proxy through Pakistan in the 1980's Afgan-Russian war was nicknamed 'Dr Dirty' by his CIA peers because he was such an aggressive rule-breaking intelligence operative who had an inherent 'bad guy' view of intelligence operations which helped him numerous times in executing deals inside and outside the CIA.
Ex US Army intelligence analyst Ralph Peters Essay "The Black Art of Intelligence" speaks that the best intelligence analysts have a specific talent for the job and that talent is an underlying understanding of the dark side of humanity and this talent is born not made.
I could go on and on. Of course, you don't have to be a bad guy or empathise to be good at the job. In fact having an organisation filled with these guys would be counter-productive. But, like I stated, what separates the good from the brilliant is this 'bad guy' mentality.
"The best soldiers have a seasoning of devilry." General A.P. Wavell
This story brings about images of the end prison planet scene of the Jet Li movie 'The One'. With Jet Li's character being Bill Gates and the the marauding mongol prison hordes being/.'ers.
New Zealand doesn't have a mirror cause they are after a different kettle of fush - namely, phushers. Which is kinda like phishers but related to the orcs of mordor.
The ability to land an aircraft automatically onto a ship will enable pilots of JSF to conduct missions by day or night and in weather conditions that would previously have not been possible.
I've worked with the triumvirate of engineers, officers, and soldiers/airmen/sailors during trials of new military technology and I can say it'd be pretty good odds that this automatic ship landing on the STOVL aircraft wasn't tested under extreme conditions such as enemy and weather. I wonder if it was tested on high seas, massive winds or snow?
I know/. likes to think about the "oooh wow gosh!" factor of shiny technology but a lot of the time new military technology gets tested under the easiest of conditions by risk fearing engineers. It then gets pumped up by career minded military officers (who resemble business marketers) and then left for the end users in combat to deal with the bullshit. Try repost the article when this new automatic button has been tested under extreme conditions, seen numerous deployments and used by actual end users not in a sterile environment.
This is similar to the millenium challengemilitary exercise where General Paul Van Riper basically negated the support to military operations intelligence gathering technology like satellites, communications intercept etc. How'd he do this? With using human runners to deliver messages, broadcasting foreign language messages over the muslim call to prayer loudspeakers and generally just negating the adversaries strong points (technology) by refusing to play in their arena.
I also think you guys way overestimate the capabilities of the NSA. Yes they have the logistical and monetary backing to electronically gather any information they want, but at the base level they are still humans with human problems like bureaucracy, slow decision making etc. The essential dialogue between a target and a team of NSA guys is still human and can be exploited with deception and and the right strategy. I'm not doubting they are a great organisation that could take down people but I'm just saying there is the possibility that one could outwit such policing and intelligence agencies if you were smart and had a paranoid and devilish attitude about it.
How do you fight an enemy that never crumbles under economical pressure, the only kind commercial companies are used to?
That's a pretty insightful comment. I think that's why OSS trumps traditional company's like Microsoft because they don't fight pitched battles and they make the competition irrelevant.
I like how they use the word battle. Lately I've been reading a book called The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300-2050. The book centers around what makes a succesful military revolution. Since they are using the term 'battles' and are in need of a revolution of sorts I'll point out what the book stated.
The basic crux of the book is that concentrating on technology doesn't make a revolution nor does it win battles. All 6 battles in the article revolve around marketing and technology. It's pretty sad state of affairs when people solely concentrate on technology and the marketing thereof over other aspects. What makes a more successful state of revolution in battle is the coalescing of technology, organization, strategy, internal culture and leadership. I would like to see such an analysis done on Microsoft.
How is M$ leadership?
How is M$ internal culture? Does it have low morale or high hopes for the future?
What is the make up of M$ strategic culture? Do they have any other strategy apart from monopolizing?
Such questions would give a much more accurate picture for the future of M$ success.
I remember reading about some guy who said if you want to create some good software just think how people will laid with it. I think that is important to start off the software and get it cranking however the point that fascinates me is other things it could be used for.
You could use this to search for a local off duty cop to help out with a crime that has just happened or even use it to find somebody with some niche knowledge like a scientist to satisfy a question that's buggin' you. Of course this technology probably could be used for nefarious purposes too. But it's potential for good is there for the making.
Yes I've read it. I highly recommend it. Not only a good read about CIA covert operations but also talks about the inner workings of the American government and how a lot of it is based around word play and 'cliques'. The Amazon reviews of the book are pretty in depth so check 'em out if you want.
Good point. It's like what Jiddu Krishnamurti said "The word is not the thing."
In the book Charlie Wilsons War(which is about the CIA covertly arming the Mujahideen to fight the Russians in the 80's) it talks about the CIA lawyers were scared to death of giving what would be perceived as assassination tools such as sniper rifles to the mujahideen because of the backlash of the vietnam phoenix program. Other internal CIA lawyers subverted the ruling by calling the sniper rifles "long range night vision scopes". The wonders of semantic masturbation eh?
"Where's Kos? He's been spewing filibuster stories, but not one major post about the RealID"
Not one of the major bloggers talked about it. Not Powerline, Not Little Green Footballs. Of course, DailyKos and Instapundit reported it after the fact which wasn't good enough. What pisses me off is that bloggers think of themselves as revolutionary's that are somehow on the cutting edge of news gathering. You'll hear bloggers talk for years to come about how the ousted the tiny tactical battles of RatherGate but when it comes to the big wars, like I dunno, freedom, they lack strategic thought. It seems the blogosphere has a long way to go in information gathering and communication.
What really gets me about this bill is that everyone is calling it a rider. That's not a strong enough word. How about out-and-out deception. Cause that's what got the bill through. Hiding the devils details in a pile of necessary material. I'm reminded of the quote by Winston Churchill "In wartime truth is so precious it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies." except in this case it was the other way round.
Cause I have an ol' ball and chain that would be interested.
She'd also be interested if the said elevator can clean stains and grill up a smarmy husband like a rotisserie.
I dunno if anyone of you guys may of read this but there was a blog entry doing the rounds the last few months how to think like a MBA grad by reading about 30-40 books. The link is here.
From the site:
Seth says that you can get most of the value of an MBA education without forking over the big bucks by reading 30-40 books. I agree.
An MBA may be valuable from a networking standpoint, as Bren points out. The classroom environment and case method can also be a plus, as Diego acknowledges. Points well made, gentlemen.
Both Diego and Seth bring up another point: the MBA is a still a stamp of approval for some careers, like consulting and investment banking. I think that's a damn shame, but I don't run those HR departments. Maybe it's my personality, but I have a hard time working my butt off simply for a "stamp of approval." I think that the primary purpose of pursuing an education is learning something valuable, not adding a line to my resume. (For what that's worth.)
In the context of learning useful knowledge that will make you a more productive and valuable employee, I maintain that you can educate yourself effectively for less than a quarter of the time and money spent in most current MBA programs.
which runs counter to the typical geek way of analysing and responding to a situation.
No. No. No.
Smart people especially geeks on this site believe stupid things as well. Just because you guys are geeks doesn't make you any more intellectually better than ANYONE else. Consider the actors that make up this site:
The editors. Our/. overlords who regularly post dupes without utilizing their 'typical geek analysing' to see whether or not an article has been posted.
The posters. Survey this site at -1 some time. It's no wonder the
slashdot subculture article on Wikipedia gives our community such a bad rap. IMO, in any subculture there are only a few smart individuals all the rest are just guys/gals who ride the meme wave mid-coitus because they like being part of a group. It gives them an identity or the groupthink that many people espouse of here.
The mods. Well, like the GP stated you can't piss these guys off. Considering the mods have modded up in this thread a post that reeks of conspiracy and tin foil hat FUD I have my doubts about these actors as well considering they are the posters who also make up the rabble here.
So why are there so many stupid people here that seem smart? Because geeks believe stupid things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-intelligent reasons. How many people here still hold beliefs they received before they got the magical geek skill of analysis and intellectual brilliance?
I'll leave you guys to found out yourself. Heres a start though there are some biases found in psychology that might be of use. They are called intellectual attribution bias and
confirmation bias.
"When men wish to construct or support a theory, how they torture facts into their service." John Mackay, Extraordinary Popular delusions and the Madness of Crowds.
Wikipedia could be so much better if it had a better way to deal with this.
As with computer security issues the biggest threat with instability in wikipedia comes from the inside trusted users. A random troll who wants to deface articles is a niggling problem that can be fixed with blocking proxies and random sweeps to fix articles. But someone who obviously put a lot of time and effort into articles is going to have a psychological investment in the articles and a change of article in their eyes is a personal affront to their own personal worldview.
IMO, Wikipedia would make a fascinating case study in human behaviour and attachments to ideologies. Some of these guys just cannot let go. It also astounds me that they put time and effort into a project which is about open knowledge yet these crazed loons demand conformity to their worldviews. Pretty hypocritical.
Nominations are now open for the TR35, Technology Review's selection of 35 top young innovators whose contributions to emerging technologies will shape the world. Nominees can work in any area of technology, including computing, biotechnology, nanotechnology, energy, medicine, telecommunications, and transportation. Nominees must be under 35 as of October 1, 2005. Technology Review will showcase all 35 in a special October 2005 issue and recognize them at a gala awards ceremony at the Emerging Technologies Conference at MIT on September 28-29.
The legal issue of "failing to supervise the employee and of falsely advertising that its online service was safe for children" is a given. However the other issue of "It also charges the monitor with inflicting emotional distress" is IMO bullshit. Hence why I stated it takes two to tango. The article paints a story of this evil man seducing this young girl however it is quite clear she willingly participated which is evident in the time (2 years) and emotional energy (divulging personal information) SHE put into it. Luckily he wasn't charged.
Everything in this article reeks of personal greed and manipulation from all actors involved in this case. The Male wants sex. The lawyer wants fame and $$. Finally, the Female wants emotional companionship and/or sex. Her motives weren't exactly clear but females are not some remote innocent fairytale beings which is what popular culture makes people believe. Females consciously choose their mates and should be held responsible for their actions.
Why is every business goal imagined as a ten-ton hairy mammoth?
Much of business strategy, especially the vernacular, is based on warfare. Chief executive officers. War rooms. Strategy itself. And so on.
You know I started reading this interesting book called Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant which talks about this a little bit. The book basically makes a metaphor between Red Ocean which is traditional competitive markets aggressively competing against each other that turns the ocean into a pool of red. Then you have blue ocean markets which is about finding a new market space and making the competition back in the red ocean irrelevant. Really interesting stuff. Check out the amazon reviews sometime.
Slashdot Mirror
To some people money doesn't matter. Time and time again the military and intelligence communities attract hugely talented individuals because of the work environment. Dave Grossman talked about this in his book On Killing. There is a small minority of people who are talented warlike mischeif makers who given the right environment, ethical and monetary backing can go a long way to louse up the enemies day. Bruce Schneier says the same thing in Secrets and Lies. Examples of this in history are myriad. Google topics like the Tunnel Rats in vietnam. The bad guy mentality in the right environment attracts these guys.
You don't have to have to be a "bad guy" but being/thinking so is what separates the best intelligence and military personnel from the average. Obviously, you still need a 'good' value system but the 'bad guy' psyche still is needed.
It's even written in the vast majority of intelligence literature out there that the best overall intelligence guys are borderline 'bad guys'. Examples are myriad:
The original detective Eugène François Vidocq was the founding father of criminal investigation. He was a notorious bad guy whose innovations bolstered police intelligence gathering.
Michael Levine who was one of the top undercover agents ever assigned to the Drug Enforcement Agency said in an interview that "The secret to my success was ..... A police lieutenant, with whom I worked many years later, looked at me, after I had done, in one day, something like four or five undercover buys from different groups -- from Hispanics, from Blacks, from Whites -- and he was covering me along with my group. He said: "You know what the thing is about you, Levine? You're a guy who should've gone bad. You should have been a gangster. You should have been in jail. But somehow you turned out right. And that's why you're so ..." [convincing]. And I thought about it, and I thought about my youth and about the way I grew up, and I realized that there was a lot of truth in what he said. I was FROM the streets. The streets were in me. There was a thin line between me and the guys who I was working against. And that line was so thin that drug dealers couldn't see it. Do you understand? The line that separated them from me as a suspected agent was so thin that drug dealers could NEVER believe that I was an agent. And that's an attitude .... that's something you can't teach."
The CIA Case officer Gust Avrakotos who ran the covert operation arming the Mujahideen by proxy through Pakistan in the 1980's Afgan-Russian war was nicknamed 'Dr Dirty' by his CIA peers because he was such an aggressive rule-breaking intelligence operative who had an inherent 'bad guy' view of intelligence operations which helped him numerous times in executing deals inside and outside the CIA.
Ex US Army intelligence analyst Ralph Peters Essay "The Black Art of Intelligence" speaks that the best intelligence analysts have a specific talent for the job and that talent is an underlying understanding of the dark side of humanity and this talent is born not made.
I could go on and on. Of course, you don't have to be a bad guy or empathise to be good at the job. In fact having an organisation filled with these guys would be counter-productive. But, like I stated, what separates the good from the brilliant is this 'bad guy' mentality.
"The best soldiers have a seasoning of devilry." General A.P. Wavell
This story brings about images of the end prison planet scene of the Jet Li movie 'The One'. With Jet Li's character being Bill Gates and the the marauding mongol prison hordes being /.'ers.
New Zealand doesn't have a mirror cause they are after a different kettle of fush - namely, phushers. Which is kinda like phishers but related to the orcs of mordor.
I've worked with the triumvirate of engineers, officers, and soldiers/airmen/sailors during trials of new military technology and I can say it'd be pretty good odds that this automatic ship landing on the STOVL aircraft wasn't tested under extreme conditions such as enemy and weather. I wonder if it was tested on high seas, massive winds or snow?
I know /. likes to think about the "oooh wow gosh!" factor of shiny technology but a lot of the time new military technology gets tested under the easiest of conditions by risk fearing engineers. It then gets pumped up by career minded military officers (who resemble business marketers) and then left for the end users in combat to deal with the bullshit. Try repost the article when this new automatic button has been tested under extreme conditions, seen numerous deployments and used by actual end users not in a sterile environment.
This is similar to the millenium challenge military exercise where General Paul Van Riper basically negated the support to military operations intelligence gathering technology like satellites, communications intercept etc. How'd he do this? With using human runners to deliver messages, broadcasting foreign language messages over the muslim call to prayer loudspeakers and generally just negating the adversaries strong points (technology) by refusing to play in their arena.
I also think you guys way overestimate the capabilities of the NSA. Yes they have the logistical and monetary backing to electronically gather any information they want, but at the base level they are still humans with human problems like bureaucracy, slow decision making etc. The essential dialogue between a target and a team of NSA guys is still human and can be exploited with deception and and the right strategy. I'm not doubting they are a great organisation that could take down people but I'm just saying there is the possibility that one could outwit such policing and intelligence agencies if you were smart and had a paranoid and devilish attitude about it.
That's a pretty insightful comment. I think that's why OSS trumps traditional company's like Microsoft because they don't fight pitched battles and they make the competition irrelevant.
Thanks mate! Pretty informative post.
I like how they use the word battle. Lately I've been reading a book called The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300-2050. The book centers around what makes a succesful military revolution. Since they are using the term 'battles' and are in need of a revolution of sorts I'll point out what the book stated.
The basic crux of the book is that concentrating on technology doesn't make a revolution nor does it win battles. All 6 battles in the article revolve around marketing and technology. It's pretty sad state of affairs when people solely concentrate on technology and the marketing thereof over other aspects. What makes a more successful state of revolution in battle is the coalescing of technology, organization, strategy, internal culture and leadership. I would like to see such an analysis done on Microsoft.
How is M$ leadership?
How is M$ internal culture? Does it have low morale or high hopes for the future?
What is the make up of M$ strategic culture? Do they have any other strategy apart from monopolizing?
Such questions would give a much more accurate picture for the future of M$ success.
I remember reading about some guy who said if you want to create some good software just think how people will laid with it. I think that is important to start off the software and get it cranking however the point that fascinates me is other things it could be used for.
You could use this to search for a local off duty cop to help out with a crime that has just happened or even use it to find somebody with some niche knowledge like a scientist to satisfy a question that's buggin' you. Of course this technology probably could be used for nefarious purposes too. But it's potential for good is there for the making.
I believe it was stated on John Battelle's weblog that search is the center of gravity for the computer industry .
Yes I've read it. I highly recommend it. Not only a good read about CIA covert operations but also talks about the inner workings of the American government and how a lot of it is based around word play and 'cliques'. The Amazon reviews of the book are pretty in depth so check 'em out if you want.
Good point. It's like what Jiddu Krishnamurti said "The word is not the thing."
In the book Charlie Wilsons War(which is about the CIA covertly arming the Mujahideen to fight the Russians in the 80's) it talks about the CIA lawyers were scared to death of giving what would be perceived as assassination tools such as sniper rifles to the mujahideen because of the backlash of the vietnam phoenix program. Other internal CIA lawyers subverted the ruling by calling the sniper rifles "long range night vision scopes". The wonders of semantic masturbation eh?
Not one of the major bloggers talked about it. Not Powerline, Not Little Green Footballs. Of course, DailyKos and Instapundit reported it after the fact which wasn't good enough. What pisses me off is that bloggers think of themselves as revolutionary's that are somehow on the cutting edge of news gathering. You'll hear bloggers talk for years to come about how the ousted the tiny tactical battles of RatherGate but when it comes to the big wars, like I dunno, freedom, they lack strategic thought. It seems the blogosphere has a long way to go in information gathering and communication.
What really gets me about this bill is that everyone is calling it a rider. That's not a strong enough word. How about out-and-out deception. Cause that's what got the bill through. Hiding the devils details in a pile of necessary material. I'm reminded of the quote by Winston Churchill "In wartime truth is so precious it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies." except in this case it was the other way round.
Gather around everyone, P. Diddy's on /.!
Cause I have an ol' ball and chain that would be interested. She'd also be interested if the said elevator can clean stains and grill up a smarmy husband like a rotisserie.
I dunno if anyone of you guys may of read this but there was a blog entry doing the rounds the last few months how to think like a MBA grad by reading about 30-40 books. The link is here.
From the site:
Seth says that you can get most of the value of an MBA education without forking over the big bucks by reading 30-40 books. I agree.
An MBA may be valuable from a networking standpoint, as Bren points out. The classroom environment and case method can also be a plus, as Diego acknowledges. Points well made, gentlemen.
Both Diego and Seth bring up another point: the MBA is a still a stamp of approval for some careers, like consulting and investment banking. I think that's a damn shame, but I don't run those HR departments. Maybe it's my personality, but I have a hard time working my butt off simply for a "stamp of approval." I think that the primary purpose of pursuing an education is learning something valuable, not adding a line to my resume. (For what that's worth.)
In the context of learning useful knowledge that will make you a more productive and valuable employee, I maintain that you can educate yourself effectively for less than a quarter of the time and money spent in most current MBA programs.
No. No. No.
Smart people especially geeks on this site believe stupid things as well. Just because you guys are geeks doesn't make you any more intellectually better than ANYONE else. Consider the actors that make up this site:
The editors. Our /. overlords who regularly post dupes without utilizing their 'typical geek analysing' to see whether or not an article has been posted.
The posters. Survey this site at -1 some time. It's no wonder the slashdot subculture article on Wikipedia gives our community such a bad rap. IMO, in any subculture there are only a few smart individuals all the rest are just guys/gals who ride the meme wave mid-coitus because they like being part of a group. It gives them an identity or the groupthink that many people espouse of here.
The mods. Well, like the GP stated you can't piss these guys off. Considering the mods have modded up in this thread a post that reeks of conspiracy and tin foil hat FUD I have my doubts about these actors as well considering they are the posters who also make up the rabble here.
So why are there so many stupid people here that seem smart? Because geeks believe stupid things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-intelligent reasons. How many people here still hold beliefs they received before they got the magical geek skill of analysis and intellectual brilliance?
I'll leave you guys to found out yourself. Heres a start though there are some biases found in psychology that might be of use. They are called intellectual attribution bias and confirmation bias.
"When men wish to construct or support a theory, how they torture facts into their service." John Mackay, Extraordinary Popular delusions and the Madness of Crowds.
As with computer security issues the biggest threat with instability in wikipedia comes from the inside trusted users. A random troll who wants to deface articles is a niggling problem that can be fixed with blocking proxies and random sweeps to fix articles. But someone who obviously put a lot of time and effort into articles is going to have a psychological investment in the articles and a change of article in their eyes is a personal affront to their own personal worldview.
IMO, Wikipedia would make a fascinating case study in human behaviour and attachments to ideologies. Some of these guys just cannot let go. It also astounds me that they put time and effort into a project which is about open knowledge yet these crazed loons demand conformity to their worldviews. Pretty hypocritical.
Thank you. It's very hard being a gaseous cloud and being able to type.
By Golly you're right! I should RTFP (read the fucking post) before hitting submit!
If you /.'ers post your opinions without reading the ENTIRE online book I'll be very, very disappointed.
The legal issue of "failing to supervise the employee and of falsely advertising that its online service was safe for children" is a given. However the other issue of "It also charges the monitor with inflicting emotional distress" is IMO bullshit. Hence why I stated it takes two to tango. The article paints a story of this evil man seducing this young girl however it is quite clear she willingly participated which is evident in the time (2 years) and emotional energy (divulging personal information) SHE put into it. Luckily he wasn't charged.
Everything in this article reeks of personal greed and manipulation from all actors involved in this case. The Male wants sex. The lawyer wants fame and $$. Finally, the Female wants emotional companionship and/or sex. Her motives weren't exactly clear but females are not some remote innocent fairytale beings which is what popular culture makes people believe. Females consciously choose their mates and should be held responsible for their actions.
It takes two to tango.
Much of business strategy, especially the vernacular, is based on warfare. Chief executive officers. War rooms. Strategy itself. And so on.
You know I started reading this interesting book called Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant which talks about this a little bit. The book basically makes a metaphor between Red Ocean which is traditional competitive markets aggressively competing against each other that turns the ocean into a pool of red. Then you have blue ocean markets which is about finding a new market space and making the competition back in the red ocean irrelevant. Really interesting stuff. Check out the amazon reviews sometime.