Got me on Challenger, but Columbia, no.
The shuttles were all designed with a 10-year lifespan in mind - they have more than outlasted that expectation
Tyrants? Let's talk facts... they were being ridiculous. 17mph? You gotta be kidding me, around here grandmas go 17mph over the speed limit. They clearly went too far. The appropriate step here is to report the problem to the police so they can post an officer on his down time to catch speeders.
Having come from a family of police officers, I know that the officer may well have been acting within police regulation. For many crimes, where stealth is a necessity, such as a burglary, police officers are asked to respond to the scene post-haste, but without lights and siren.
But really, even if he/she wasn't responding to a call - 17mph? Someone needs to tell these people to relax.
I realize at this point that no one will probably read this post. Nevertheless, as the original poster, I feel a bit insulted that people blew my comment into something that is not. I never said nor insinuated that we should go to war or escalate to war with China, my comment was much bigger than that.
As someone who has a degree in security studies and works in this field, I understand the importance of doctrine. I never once said we should do anything, I said the United States should change its doctrine. That is a world of difference.
The international system, ultimately, is an anarchy - power is the only thing that keeps it in check. Often times, these days, power is exercised collectively and through international institutions (UN, NATO, etc). Nevertheless, the ultimate arbiter of whether states "behave" or not, is who has the biggest stick (both hard and soft - hard power is military power, soft power is mostly economic power but has been extended to mean cultural and diplomatic power as well). The UN Security Council holds the weight of law only because it is assumed that the five permanent members - the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China - collectively about 90% of all power in the world - will back the resolutions up with their power. All states want more and must constantly protect their turf. Power is most often exercised as an implication - the U.S. is important and holds weight in the international system because of its power - it does not need to exercise it regularly for everyone to listen to them.
The Department of Defense can often use doctrine as a deterrent. The very act of putting a documented response on the books from a state as enormously powerful as the United States can often dissuade states from even testing them on whether they choose to follow through with it. As an example, during the Cold War, the United States had a doctrine of nuclear retaliation for a conventional Soviet attack against Europe. Given the potential costs, the Soviet Union chose never to test the United States' resolve on that doctrine.
In this case, an established doctrine for responding to organized assaults on military computers could have a similar effect. The Chinese pale in comparison to current U.S. power. If China persists in its assaults, and I can basically guarantee that these are really state-to-state level attacks because it is well known that China conducts these operations globally (and yes, while the U.S. does conduct these operations, it is widely perceived that China does so much more often and much more intrusively/obviously), then having a doctrine may prevent them in the future. Once the doctrine is in place and we leak it to China intentionally, they launch a cyber attack like always - then we respond as per doctrine - say, by a public diplomatic rebuke. They persist, and we follow the next thing the doctrine tells us to do - say, launch a cyber counterattack that disabled some state computers for a day. China will not persist, because the potential costs of escalating further outweigh the gains of launching the attacks in the first place.
The international system is not a big campfire circle of people singing songs and playing nice, it is a constant game of chicken. Ninety-nine times in one hundred, the mere threat of the U.S. looking at a state in an unfavorable way will get them to behave in a friendly and acceptable manner towards it. The United States, like any state, has to protect its turf.
Good companies are agile. Exxon-mobile and its kin have the assets to become a power company tomorrow if it wanted to. They will try to slow the move, yes, but ultimately, they will follow demand or perish.
The United States really needs to change doctrine to prevent these sorts of attacks in the future. An assault on government networks by a foreign country should be responded to like any other attempt to impair, hinder, or steal information from the government by a foreign country - with an escalating response based on severity from diplomatic rebukes, cyber counterattacks, sanctions, and ultimately military strikes.
I hit a gaming wall called World of Warcraft. After months and months of almost-constant play, main-tanking all the way to AQ40, I realized how pointless and obnoxiously repetitive it all was. I haven't played another game for six months. The realization entirely drained my will to Play.
I saw that movie where the kid worked at a Microsoft-like company and his friends were killed for their code by direct order from the Bill Gates-like guy.
Anyway, having seen it, I am going to choose not to say anything about this article. I like my life and code just the way they are.
I was on the subway today and this lady was rambling conspiracy theories out loud about how everyone was out to get her. I was apparently out to get her, as well.
I sometimes feel like I'm on the subway when I read Slashdot.
You know.... it is not like a national ID card would abolish our Constitution. We would still have that. I doubt a piece of plastic would create the 1984 that you suggest.
Nearly every other country in existence uses national IDs, and yet many are still quite free.
Under your ideal government, reform would be impossible, since one could only pass things by consensus - and anything that could not pass a few years earlier would be considered bad.
Change happens in a democracy. We vote in new leaders precisely for the reason that we want them to pass the things that the old ones wouldn't.
It sounds to me like a mainframe is still probably the best fit for this organization. Few solutions can match the efficiency, streamlined-goodness of an IBM mainframe.
Where I work, a city government, we run two fairly beefy iSeries (AS/400s), one that runs accounting, utility billing and operation, and income tax operations, and another that runs public safety operations. I love them. No down time - ours are brought down about once a year, and usually that is because the power is out and our generators are about to run out of juice. Hands down the most stress-free aspect of our operation. That alone is worth something. The users also love it for the most part. While IBM's client access can be intimidating for most users at first (text!?!? what is this, the 70's?), once they adjust to it they tend to love how quickly one can skate through repetitive tasks.
Nevertheless, it is not for everyone. If you don't have tons of data that needs to be reliably and efficiently accessed all day everyday, then you're probably better off going elsewhere. If anything, because most users, who can barely log in to windows reliably, find client access to be something of a magic black box that they cannot begin to comprehend (my favorite help desk call: "can you flip the magic switch for me?"). At the same time, I've seen the same users who can still barely operate a mouse, open a AS/400 session and go to town like a computer virtuoso.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, IBM mainframe solutions definitely have their ups and downs, but for the right applications, they are irreplaceable.
As someone who is subjected to these tests, I must say that I sympathize with the man who is organizing this. The polygraph, in particular, is particularly gruesome. Nevertheless, while the test itself is not accurate at determining a lie, it is very important that the government continues to use it for high level clearances.
Drug tests are a no-brainer. A typical clearance background investigation is particularly concerned with drug use and financial trouble. The two are related. A person who uses drugs is far more likely than one who does not to sell or give away secrets (to support their habit, pay off debts, or prevent blackmail - also, they could be compromised simply by a "friend" asking questions while high and vulnerable to such probing). Drug use is a major national security risk.
The polygraph is a little more nuanced. The "test" is a very effective interrogation technique. It is extremely intimidating, especially since one's job is on the line, and I can say from experience that one is prone to tell all rather than risk being failed. An examinee is made to believe that the test is detecting lies, while he/she knows the test is not accurate, the perceived belief that the examiner believes the results leads one to "spill the beans." One will tell them about every little indiscretion and white lie ever committed in hopes that truth will save the day - it does for most people who are not legitimate security concerns. Basically, it helps keep people in line, and could find potential problems before they actually surface and cause damage.
It sounds fascist, I know. Nevertheless, that is the price that is paid for holding a high level clearance. If they do not want to be subjected to such intensive scrutiny, I suggest they find another place to work than in the national security community - no one would blame them.
The primary reason FCS has seen such enormous escalations in costs is that it rather stupidly ignores normal military R&D cycles. The rather poor assumption is that if you envision what you want your military force to look like, and throw enough money and people at it you'll get it. In doing so, planners essentially hope to skip the next generation of military tech and instead deploy the second generation of technologies at the time one would have the first. Not only is this absurdly expensive, it is likely to prove impossible, or at the very least, will not meet the actual needs of the army at the time of deployment. Ironically, aspects of the land warrior program are the most grounded and realistic aspects of the overall FCS project, and there is little doubt the project is most in tune with the future needs of a military that will mostly be engaged in low intensity stability operations.
No intelligent project manager would even attempt FCS. It is far too ambitious to ever see tangible and wanted results from the army's perspective. A better use of resources would be to more rapidly develop the next generation of technologies, particularly improving the safety and intelligence capabilities of ground troops.
Even if it were possible, I'm not the least bit convinced that FCS will meet the army's future needs. While the goals of rapid air deployable forces makes perfect sense in stability operations, light armor does not. The greatest information systems will probably never be able to always spot and eliminate a potential shoulder fired anti-tank missile, and when that missile is fired, you'll want the extra armor and heft afforded by today's vehicles. Ultra-high tech solutions are great for traditional warfare, but we're much more likely to be fighting in Africa than in China in the next fifty years.
Taking all this in mind, they'd be much better off scrapping FCS in favor of next-gen technologies and increasing funding for land warrior.
That all depends greatly on where you live.
I live in Washington, DC, and we have pretty good public transportation - the metrorail can get you most places, and the bus is fairly reliable and can get you within half a mile of anywhere in the metropolitan area. I don't own a car, nor do I intend to buy one anytime soon. We also have services like Zipcar, where one can borrow a car at convenient locations around the city for only $8.50/hour or $60/day, which allows one to have access to a car when they absolutely need one every once in awhile. In the U.S., only major cities such as Boston, New York, DC, Chicago, San Francisco and a few others have comparable public transportation systems.
But that becomes a more difficult equation when you consider real estate costs. Many people cannot afford to buy anything in the area unless they move beyond the reach of public transit - necessitating a car. Some people do choose to live as far away as West Virginia and take commuter rail, but a 2 hour commute is not for everyone. So I'd say the question involves two critical components: living cost vis-a-vis transportation costs. It might make a lot of economic sense to buy a house/condo, build equity, and suffer from car payments and lost time driving.
Well, it is right and does make sense. It is true that Iraq was technically restricted from selling oil for profit and only for food/infrastructure/medicine. In reality, the money was syphoned off more than pre-Gulf War and little money was spent on any of those things. The only thing that hurt Iraqi oil production was its lack of proper investment in oil production infrastructure in the twelve years that followed - thus reducing the rate of production growth. Nevertheless, the shock of war proved incredibly destructive to the deteriorated oil infrastructure - combined with insurgency, Iraq is not yet producing as much oil as it did before the 2003 war.
As for how much the United States received at any given time, it seems irrelevant. Most of the US' oil comes from domestic sources, Canada (the largest foreign share), Venezuela, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia. Given transportation costs, it seems unlikely that Iraq will ever be a major supplier for the U.S., and will more likely supply Europe and Asia - particularly India, China, and east Asia. Where oil comes doesn't that matter except for geopolitical reasons, as any producer or buyer anywhere affects the world price.
Let me get this straight... the big oil companies have a technology that will give them full market share on all engines, but choose to lock it up sell something that will run out about the time their patent expires? Makes sense.
I'd watch out if I were you, I hear they patented conspiracy theories too.
Bush & Blair are as much to blame for the deaths of poor innocents in their countries as the idiot terrorists.
I'd say that is an extreme exaggeration.
There will always be these cause-and-effect battles with terrorism, but needless to say, I'd say Al Qaeda definitely threw the first real punches (Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings, USS Cole, 9/11). I think it's misguided to try to blame the quandary in Iraq on terrorist activity, as it existed prior to the invasion of Iraq and has not intensified or noticably altered. In fact, we have seen a decrease in the complexity of the attacks since 9/11 if that event is used as a measuring stick.
It is absurd to try to blame acts of terror against a nation on two leaders of legitimate elected governments. NATO's actions in Afghanistan have severely degraded Al Qaeda's primary base of operations, and substantially limited their ability to train individuals capable of carrying out attacks as complex as those of 9/11. Is that the same as carrying out a terrorist attack in one's own nation? Hardly. Are you suggesting that it is somehow wrong for a world leader to attempt to protect one's people?
I think this comment clearly demonstrated how absurd people can be when cooler heads do not prevail. Clearly, the same problem exists on the other side with the idiots proposing to bomb Mecca (an action that would turn a war against a virtual handful of extremists who happen to be Muslim into one against Muslims).
Slashdot Mirror
Got me on Challenger, but Columbia, no. The shuttles were all designed with a 10-year lifespan in mind - they have more than outlasted that expectation
Tyrants? Let's talk facts... they were being ridiculous. 17mph? You gotta be kidding me, around here grandmas go 17mph over the speed limit. They clearly went too far. The appropriate step here is to report the problem to the police so they can post an officer on his down time to catch speeders.
Having come from a family of police officers, I know that the officer may well have been acting within police regulation. For many crimes, where stealth is a necessity, such as a burglary, police officers are asked to respond to the scene post-haste, but without lights and siren.
But really, even if he/she wasn't responding to a call - 17mph? Someone needs to tell these people to relax.
I realize at this point that no one will probably read this post. Nevertheless, as the original poster, I feel a bit insulted that people blew my comment into something that is not. I never said nor insinuated that we should go to war or escalate to war with China, my comment was much bigger than that.
As someone who has a degree in security studies and works in this field, I understand the importance of doctrine. I never once said we should do anything, I said the United States should change its doctrine. That is a world of difference.
The international system, ultimately, is an anarchy - power is the only thing that keeps it in check. Often times, these days, power is exercised collectively and through international institutions (UN, NATO, etc). Nevertheless, the ultimate arbiter of whether states "behave" or not, is who has the biggest stick (both hard and soft - hard power is military power, soft power is mostly economic power but has been extended to mean cultural and diplomatic power as well). The UN Security Council holds the weight of law only because it is assumed that the five permanent members - the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China - collectively about 90% of all power in the world - will back the resolutions up with their power. All states want more and must constantly protect their turf. Power is most often exercised as an implication - the U.S. is important and holds weight in the international system because of its power - it does not need to exercise it regularly for everyone to listen to them.
The Department of Defense can often use doctrine as a deterrent. The very act of putting a documented response on the books from a state as enormously powerful as the United States can often dissuade states from even testing them on whether they choose to follow through with it. As an example, during the Cold War, the United States had a doctrine of nuclear retaliation for a conventional Soviet attack against Europe. Given the potential costs, the Soviet Union chose never to test the United States' resolve on that doctrine.
In this case, an established doctrine for responding to organized assaults on military computers could have a similar effect. The Chinese pale in comparison to current U.S. power. If China persists in its assaults, and I can basically guarantee that these are really state-to-state level attacks because it is well known that China conducts these operations globally (and yes, while the U.S. does conduct these operations, it is widely perceived that China does so much more often and much more intrusively/obviously), then having a doctrine may prevent them in the future. Once the doctrine is in place and we leak it to China intentionally, they launch a cyber attack like always - then we respond as per doctrine - say, by a public diplomatic rebuke. They persist, and we follow the next thing the doctrine tells us to do - say, launch a cyber counterattack that disabled some state computers for a day. China will not persist, because the potential costs of escalating further outweigh the gains of launching the attacks in the first place.
The international system is not a big campfire circle of people singing songs and playing nice, it is a constant game of chicken. Ninety-nine times in one hundred, the mere threat of the U.S. looking at a state in an unfavorable way will get them to behave in a friendly and acceptable manner towards it. The United States, like any state, has to protect its turf.
Don't worry, if it comes, by then our protective shield of space debris will destroy it before it can enter the atmosphere.
Good companies are agile. Exxon-mobile and its kin have the assets to become a power company tomorrow if it wanted to. They will try to slow the move, yes, but ultimately, they will follow demand or perish.
The United States really needs to change doctrine to prevent these sorts of attacks in the future. An assault on government networks by a foreign country should be responded to like any other attempt to impair, hinder, or steal information from the government by a foreign country - with an escalating response based on severity from diplomatic rebukes, cyber counterattacks, sanctions, and ultimately military strikes.
Too newtonian. IANAS, but as far as I know, those laws do not even begin to apply to what happens on the scale in question here.
I hit a gaming wall called World of Warcraft. After months and months of almost-constant play, main-tanking all the way to AQ40, I realized how pointless and obnoxiously repetitive it all was. I haven't played another game for six months. The realization entirely drained my will to Play.
I saw that movie where the kid worked at a Microsoft-like company and his friends were killed for their code by direct order from the Bill Gates-like guy.
Anyway, having seen it, I am going to choose not to say anything about this article. I like my life and code just the way they are.
I was on the subway today and this lady was rambling conspiracy theories out loud about how everyone was out to get her. I was apparently out to get her, as well.
I sometimes feel like I'm on the subway when I read Slashdot.
You know.... it is not like a national ID card would abolish our Constitution. We would still have that. I doubt a piece of plastic would create the 1984 that you suggest.
Nearly every other country in existence uses national IDs, and yet many are still quite free.
Or are you just happy to prove my network?
Let's see... the study shows that people who are fired generally are considered by their employers to have performed poorly...
This is groundbreaking!
In Cairo, they won't stop for anything. It's a giant game of frogger.
How is this eroding democracy? That is democracy.
Under your ideal government, reform would be impossible, since one could only pass things by consensus - and anything that could not pass a few years earlier would be considered bad.
Change happens in a democracy. We vote in new leaders precisely for the reason that we want them to pass the things that the old ones wouldn't.
It sounds to me like a mainframe is still probably the best fit for this organization. Few solutions can match the efficiency, streamlined-goodness of an IBM mainframe. Where I work, a city government, we run two fairly beefy iSeries (AS/400s), one that runs accounting, utility billing and operation, and income tax operations, and another that runs public safety operations. I love them. No down time - ours are brought down about once a year, and usually that is because the power is out and our generators are about to run out of juice. Hands down the most stress-free aspect of our operation. That alone is worth something. The users also love it for the most part. While IBM's client access can be intimidating for most users at first (text!?!? what is this, the 70's?), once they adjust to it they tend to love how quickly one can skate through repetitive tasks. Nevertheless, it is not for everyone. If you don't have tons of data that needs to be reliably and efficiently accessed all day everyday, then you're probably better off going elsewhere. If anything, because most users, who can barely log in to windows reliably, find client access to be something of a magic black box that they cannot begin to comprehend (my favorite help desk call: "can you flip the magic switch for me?"). At the same time, I've seen the same users who can still barely operate a mouse, open a AS/400 session and go to town like a computer virtuoso. I guess what I'm trying to say is, IBM mainframe solutions definitely have their ups and downs, but for the right applications, they are irreplaceable.
As someone who is subjected to these tests, I must say that I sympathize with the man who is organizing this. The polygraph, in particular, is particularly gruesome. Nevertheless, while the test itself is not accurate at determining a lie, it is very important that the government continues to use it for high level clearances. Drug tests are a no-brainer. A typical clearance background investigation is particularly concerned with drug use and financial trouble. The two are related. A person who uses drugs is far more likely than one who does not to sell or give away secrets (to support their habit, pay off debts, or prevent blackmail - also, they could be compromised simply by a "friend" asking questions while high and vulnerable to such probing). Drug use is a major national security risk. The polygraph is a little more nuanced. The "test" is a very effective interrogation technique. It is extremely intimidating, especially since one's job is on the line, and I can say from experience that one is prone to tell all rather than risk being failed. An examinee is made to believe that the test is detecting lies, while he/she knows the test is not accurate, the perceived belief that the examiner believes the results leads one to "spill the beans." One will tell them about every little indiscretion and white lie ever committed in hopes that truth will save the day - it does for most people who are not legitimate security concerns. Basically, it helps keep people in line, and could find potential problems before they actually surface and cause damage. It sounds fascist, I know. Nevertheless, that is the price that is paid for holding a high level clearance. If they do not want to be subjected to such intensive scrutiny, I suggest they find another place to work than in the national security community - no one would blame them.
Actually, it's spelled with an entirely different alphabet.
The primary reason FCS has seen such enormous escalations in costs is that it rather stupidly ignores normal military R&D cycles. The rather poor assumption is that if you envision what you want your military force to look like, and throw enough money and people at it you'll get it. In doing so, planners essentially hope to skip the next generation of military tech and instead deploy the second generation of technologies at the time one would have the first. Not only is this absurdly expensive, it is likely to prove impossible, or at the very least, will not meet the actual needs of the army at the time of deployment. Ironically, aspects of the land warrior program are the most grounded and realistic aspects of the overall FCS project, and there is little doubt the project is most in tune with the future needs of a military that will mostly be engaged in low intensity stability operations.
No intelligent project manager would even attempt FCS. It is far too ambitious to ever see tangible and wanted results from the army's perspective. A better use of resources would be to more rapidly develop the next generation of technologies, particularly improving the safety and intelligence capabilities of ground troops.
Even if it were possible, I'm not the least bit convinced that FCS will meet the army's future needs. While the goals of rapid air deployable forces makes perfect sense in stability operations, light armor does not. The greatest information systems will probably never be able to always spot and eliminate a potential shoulder fired anti-tank missile, and when that missile is fired, you'll want the extra armor and heft afforded by today's vehicles. Ultra-high tech solutions are great for traditional warfare, but we're much more likely to be fighting in Africa than in China in the next fifty years.
Taking all this in mind, they'd be much better off scrapping FCS in favor of next-gen technologies and increasing funding for land warrior.
That all depends greatly on where you live. I live in Washington, DC, and we have pretty good public transportation - the metrorail can get you most places, and the bus is fairly reliable and can get you within half a mile of anywhere in the metropolitan area. I don't own a car, nor do I intend to buy one anytime soon. We also have services like Zipcar, where one can borrow a car at convenient locations around the city for only $8.50/hour or $60/day, which allows one to have access to a car when they absolutely need one every once in awhile. In the U.S., only major cities such as Boston, New York, DC, Chicago, San Francisco and a few others have comparable public transportation systems. But that becomes a more difficult equation when you consider real estate costs. Many people cannot afford to buy anything in the area unless they move beyond the reach of public transit - necessitating a car. Some people do choose to live as far away as West Virginia and take commuter rail, but a 2 hour commute is not for everyone. So I'd say the question involves two critical components: living cost vis-a-vis transportation costs. It might make a lot of economic sense to buy a house/condo, build equity, and suffer from car payments and lost time driving.
Well, it is right and does make sense. It is true that Iraq was technically restricted from selling oil for profit and only for food/infrastructure/medicine. In reality, the money was syphoned off more than pre-Gulf War and little money was spent on any of those things. The only thing that hurt Iraqi oil production was its lack of proper investment in oil production infrastructure in the twelve years that followed - thus reducing the rate of production growth. Nevertheless, the shock of war proved incredibly destructive to the deteriorated oil infrastructure - combined with insurgency, Iraq is not yet producing as much oil as it did before the 2003 war. As for how much the United States received at any given time, it seems irrelevant. Most of the US' oil comes from domestic sources, Canada (the largest foreign share), Venezuela, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia. Given transportation costs, it seems unlikely that Iraq will ever be a major supplier for the U.S., and will more likely supply Europe and Asia - particularly India, China, and east Asia. Where oil comes doesn't that matter except for geopolitical reasons, as any producer or buyer anywhere affects the world price.
Let me get this straight... the big oil companies have a technology that will give them full market share on all engines, but choose to lock it up sell something that will run out about the time their patent expires? Makes sense. I'd watch out if I were you, I hear they patented conspiracy theories too.
Bush & Blair are as much to blame for the deaths of poor innocents in their countries as the idiot terrorists. I'd say that is an extreme exaggeration. There will always be these cause-and-effect battles with terrorism, but needless to say, I'd say Al Qaeda definitely threw the first real punches (Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings, USS Cole, 9/11). I think it's misguided to try to blame the quandary in Iraq on terrorist activity, as it existed prior to the invasion of Iraq and has not intensified or noticably altered. In fact, we have seen a decrease in the complexity of the attacks since 9/11 if that event is used as a measuring stick. It is absurd to try to blame acts of terror against a nation on two leaders of legitimate elected governments. NATO's actions in Afghanistan have severely degraded Al Qaeda's primary base of operations, and substantially limited their ability to train individuals capable of carrying out attacks as complex as those of 9/11. Is that the same as carrying out a terrorist attack in one's own nation? Hardly. Are you suggesting that it is somehow wrong for a world leader to attempt to protect one's people? I think this comment clearly demonstrated how absurd people can be when cooler heads do not prevail. Clearly, the same problem exists on the other side with the idiots proposing to bomb Mecca (an action that would turn a war against a virtual handful of extremists who happen to be Muslim into one against Muslims).