They are complaining about "It's crazy, we buy proprietary [and] we don't understand what it is we're buying into", AFTER the NMCI>/a>?
Which was/is a fiasco, one I had direct experience with, and predictably so before it was started. But they wanted it.
Now they complain. And I'm hoping the General isn't focusing on battlefield systems, cause that's a world of a very different design and build philosophy, and needs change to survive in the modern era.
"If you want to open up the operational flight software in an airplane, think something along the lines of five years and at least $300 million just to open it up and close it, independent of what you want to try to do to improve it," Cartwright said. "We've got to find ways to do that better and more efficiently inside the Department of Defense for sure."
Damned right. Operational flight software on a aircraft is so fundamental, it should be thought of as part of the hardware. 'Opening it up' is akin to redesigning the aircraft. You don't do that outside of the design and manufacturing environment. If you missed something in testing and acceptance, then there is a process for that. It takes 20 years sometimes to deploy new aircraft. You want to fiddle with the software over the weekend?
General Cartwright has NFI what he is asking for. And should be kept away from it. Stick to the desk, General, and the troops, and leave the engineering to the engineers.
I didn't carry a backpack. In fact, I don't remember what I used, but I remember long nights over Algebra I, twice. American History and Geometry I loved. World History was taught by a Marxist. It made so little sense to me I clocked out. Drafting was funh, but I sucked at it, and no homework cause we weren't expected to have a machine at home.
Perhaps the problem is the weight of textbooks? WTF? Sorry, but I'm totally lost on that one. No doubt we need eBooks, and another device to do the work.
Having hispeed data for your kids while you drive seems to imply you were on a road. Even the major (and some minor) roads in Vermont get coverage. The problem is serving the small town of 5-600 residents, when it's 12 miles off the main highway. Even in Europe this may not be as common as you seem to be claiming, but I'll look for your assessment of that.
And ski areas have surprisingly good access. Again, look for service 30 miles away, in the woods, in those very small towns.
In Montana, some ranches are more than 60 miles apart. No cell tower reaches that far, and probably not WiMax. There are clever ways to leverage WiFi, but that requires creativity and cooperation amongst the locals.
And true, our government fails to elicit coverage commitments from carriers when they auction off spectrum. We are aware of this shortcoming.
Plenty of spots in Upstate New York, Vermont, Maine, etc that have sufficient geography to kill WiMax on the top of anything manmade. And putting a WiMax tower on top of Mount Washington serves a bunch of deer, and little else.
It's the geography, stupid. Hills kill wireless. WiMax in Montana, maybe for some of it. For Kansas, maybe better, for Minnesota, maybe not so good either.
Just so we know this, if it were affordable, the telcos or cable cos or satellite guys would have already done it.
Beyond PCI compliance, you'll have to certify with processors. They typically certify a specific combination of hardware and software for terminals, and software for POS solutions. If you do this all in an open-source environment, anyone who commits changes will break certification for those who use it, and there you go.
Where I work, you can certify in a day if you know what you are doing. We know what we are doing. YMMV with other processors, and some may exhibit a lot less urgency than you would like, but this is just a matter of certifying changes and letting the community of users wait a bit.
I'm more interested in how the European markets would take this. The EMV spec in particular may limit open-source.
But, having said that, most terminal makers today already use open-source components in their firmware, and ultimately it can't be a security problem, since anything can reverse- engineered if you just yank the terminal off the counter and run with it. No, I don't know of a lot of terminals that do network firmware loads on power-on, so I expect generally you have the fimrware in the stolen terminal.
Well, my point was that our government would take this opportunity to further encroach on our liberties, even the liberty to act dangerously. Without any analysis of other distractions, or substantive research into accident rates without cell phone usage, I'm left asking if our government should be acting on this at all.
And while it is common sense to discourage phone use while driving, especially texting, shall we continue addressing other obvious driving distractions and close drive-thru windows etc.?
US Census Bureau numbers seem to show a steady decline in the rate of accidents since 2000. Where's the beef?
I think this report, like a lot, are BS. More junk science to try and prove the government must step in and regulate even more of our lives. Would someone with more skills in manipulating the statistics care to prove me wrong in my assessment? I just don't see the evidence from this source.
Very expensive, but I spent a lot of time with nixie tubes as displays for a lot of test equipment. Pure nostalgia, though I'm not sure these are steampunk.
For me, a nixi clock is something to build. Not terribly hard, and an Arduino would make it a lot simpler - burn it to ROM and have something interesting.
I'm not looking for the U.S. to adopt EU regulations in this area. How you can ratiionally hold the processor responsible for a product's function is just not clear to me. That concept is intended to give consumers a way to get back their money for a failed product, and so it's risk shifting to the processor. And causes the processor to create the ability to assess their merchants' products and the veracity of their claims. And increases cost, but perhaps for a 'good' cause.
Nontheless, it is also a response to the unique situation of the EU, where national laws fail to protect the public from the myriad of businesses in other nations. In the U.S., we mostly avoid this, but not entirely.
"IBM Watson To Replace Salespeople and Cold-Callers"
I'm dyin to see how Watson will walk into the lobby and chat up the receptionist.
There is no replacement for a cold-caller. Sometimes you have to physically walk in and make the effort. What BS this headline is. I suspect IBM expect Watson to respond. Not initiate. At least, not yet. That's for the unholy Google/IBM/Microsoft alliance that will end life as we know it, if SAP doesn't do it first.
So you want to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong?
Pardon me if I distrust you. How about asking the FTC etc to investigate the donotcall violations, and not being so clever, eh?
And your point that using this against Best Buy would have unintended consequences (for you, I presume) makes the point. Frankly, I just hang up on them. I'm no longer invested in causing these thieves any discomfort, I just want to waste as little time as possible with them.
And what do you think the processors have done illegally, or even wrong?
These businesses are 'legitimate', in that they exist and are not otherwise prohibited by law from doing what they are doing, unless someone would care to initiate a fraud prosecution and force them out of business. Until that happens, charge processors are both unwilling and powerless to refuse the business.
But trying to make the processors liable for a merchant's alleged fraudulent behavior would require that the processor be aware of that fraud. As it is, whule you and I know these products are either worthless or marginally useful, that hasn't resulted in fraud prosecutions, and so they are still legal.
You do not want credit card processors deciding if merchants are legitimate. Trust me.
"As for the above list, they have proved countless times that they're not very good at it, and most of their patents are on obvious solutions to problems they created in the first place."
Um, so the inventors of parachutes can be blamed for crreating the problem of safe egress from a failing aircraft/etc?
Sad logic. It really doesn't matter much where the problem comes from, it's to be solved. If you created the problem only to sell the solution, well, you have achieved nirvana, in the business sense. If people buy your solution because they accepted your problem, you are in the perfect state of bliss.
Of course, if you think business is generally evil, quit your job and get by as best you can.
Slashdot Mirror
I was quoting TFA. He should hold Navy rank.
They are complaining about "It's crazy, we buy proprietary [and] we don't understand what it is we're buying into", AFTER the NMCI>/a>?
Which was/is a fiasco, one I had direct experience with, and predictably so before it was started. But they wanted it.
Now they complain. And I'm hoping the General isn't focusing on battlefield systems, cause that's a world of a very different design and build philosophy, and needs change to survive in the modern era.
FTFA:
"If you want to open up the operational flight software in an airplane, think something along the lines of five years and at least $300 million just to open it up and close it, independent of what you want to try to do to improve it," Cartwright said. "We've got to find ways to do that better and more efficiently inside the Department of Defense for sure."
Damned right. Operational flight software on a aircraft is so fundamental, it should be thought of as part of the hardware. 'Opening it up' is akin to redesigning the aircraft. You don't do that outside of the design and manufacturing environment. If you missed something in testing and acceptance, then there is a process for that. It takes 20 years sometimes to deploy new aircraft. You want to fiddle with the software over the weekend?
General Cartwright has NFI what he is asking for. And should be kept away from it. Stick to the desk, General, and the troops, and leave the engineering to the engineers.
Sheesh. A fair argument for not giving them more.
I wouldn't know. IU assume all such posts are goatse and don't bother to go there.
That well is poisoned, and I don't trust it ever.
Looks like a big lizard head to me...
I didn't carry a backpack. In fact, I don't remember what I used, but I remember long nights over Algebra I, twice. American History and Geometry I loved. World History was taught by a Marxist. It made so little sense to me I clocked out. Drafting was funh, but I sucked at it, and no homework cause we weren't expected to have a machine at home.
Perhaps the problem is the weight of textbooks? WTF? Sorry, but I'm totally lost on that one. No doubt we need eBooks, and another device to do the work.
It wasn't for me, but high school was 39 years ago, and I was expected to work and meet certain standards for graduation.
Is it your point that homework is too much for students today?
China will not limit themselves to economic weapons.
Having hispeed data for your kids while you drive seems to imply you were on a road. Even the major (and some minor) roads in Vermont get coverage. The problem is serving the small town of 5-600 residents, when it's 12 miles off the main highway. Even in Europe this may not be as common as you seem to be claiming, but I'll look for your assessment of that.
And ski areas have surprisingly good access. Again, look for service 30 miles away, in the woods, in those very small towns.
In Montana, some ranches are more than 60 miles apart. No cell tower reaches that far, and probably not WiMax. There are clever ways to leverage WiFi, but that requires creativity and cooperation amongst the locals.
And true, our government fails to elicit coverage commitments from carriers when they auction off spectrum. We are aware of this shortcoming.
Plenty of spots in Upstate New York, Vermont, Maine, etc that have sufficient geography to kill WiMax on the top of anything manmade. And putting a WiMax tower on top of Mount Washington serves a bunch of deer, and little else.
It's the geography, stupid. Hills kill wireless. WiMax in Montana, maybe for some of it. For Kansas, maybe better, for Minnesota, maybe not so good either.
Just so we know this, if it were affordable, the telcos or cable cos or satellite guys would have already done it.
Beyond PCI compliance, you'll have to certify with processors. They typically certify a specific combination of hardware and software for terminals, and software for POS solutions. If you do this all in an open-source environment, anyone who commits changes will break certification for those who use it, and there you go.
Where I work, you can certify in a day if you know what you are doing. We know what we are doing. YMMV with other processors, and some may exhibit a lot less urgency than you would like, but this is just a matter of certifying changes and letting the community of users wait a bit.
I'm more interested in how the European markets would take this. The EMV spec in particular may limit open-source.
But, having said that, most terminal makers today already use open-source components in their firmware, and ultimately it can't be a security problem, since anything can reverse- engineered if you just yank the terminal off the counter and run with it. No, I don't know of a lot of terminals that do network firmware loads on power-on, so I expect generally you have the fimrware in the stolen terminal.
Well, my point was that our government would take this opportunity to further encroach on our liberties, even the liberty to act dangerously. Without any analysis of other distractions, or substantive research into accident rates without cell phone usage, I'm left asking if our government should be acting on this at all.
And while it is common sense to discourage phone use while driving, especially texting, shall we continue addressing other obvious driving distractions and close drive-thru windows etc.?
I get nostalgic playing Avatar. NOT to be confused with the current movie-based crap.
Nostalgic for my 920+ Ninja lost in the old NovaNET system.
Nostalgic for the Wyvern Skin left behind.
Nostalgic for the first forays into the 'new' Avatar, back then.
So I play the Cyber1 version. And it is sweet.
And you can, too. See you in the dungeon, probably dead (you).
I open a terminal window on my Android phone most every day also, and that doesn't smack of nostalgia to me. I SSH into a server and solve problems.
Sounds like functionality.
Look up, my friend.
Everybody is unattractive to Alice. Your point?
I don't just agree, I have a challenge;
US Census Bureau numbers seem to show a steady decline in the rate of accidents since 2000. Where's the beef?
I think this report, like a lot, are BS. More junk science to try and prove the government must step in and regulate even more of our lives. Would someone with more skills in manipulating the statistics care to prove me wrong in my assessment? I just don't see the evidence from this source.
Bricks?
That's been done.
And no, the seek time doesn't suck. It's infinite.
Very expensive, but I spent a lot of time with nixie tubes as displays for a lot of test equipment. Pure nostalgia, though I'm not sure these are steampunk.
For me, a nixi clock is something to build. Not terribly hard, and an Arduino would make it a lot simpler - burn it to ROM and have something interesting.
I'm not looking for the U.S. to adopt EU regulations in this area. How you can ratiionally hold the processor responsible for a product's function is just not clear to me. That concept is intended to give consumers a way to get back their money for a failed product, and so it's risk shifting to the processor. And causes the processor to create the ability to assess their merchants' products and the veracity of their claims. And increases cost, but perhaps for a 'good' cause.
Nontheless, it is also a response to the unique situation of the EU, where national laws fail to protect the public from the myriad of businesses in other nations. In the U.S., we mostly avoid this, but not entirely.
That's the processor's risk modeling. A different issue.
"IBM Watson To Replace Salespeople and Cold-Callers"
I'm dyin to see how Watson will walk into the lobby and chat up the receptionist.
There is no replacement for a cold-caller. Sometimes you have to physically walk in and make the effort. What BS this headline is. I suspect IBM expect Watson to respond. Not initiate. At least, not yet. That's for the unholy Google/IBM/Microsoft alliance that will end life as we know it, if SAP doesn't do it first.
So you want to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong?
Pardon me if I distrust you. How about asking the FTC etc to investigate the donotcall violations, and not being so clever, eh?
And your point that using this against Best Buy would have unintended consequences (for you, I presume) makes the point. Frankly, I just hang up on them. I'm no longer invested in causing these thieves any discomfort, I just want to waste as little time as possible with them.
And what do you think the processors have done illegally, or even wrong?
These businesses are 'legitimate', in that they exist and are not otherwise prohibited by law from doing what they are doing, unless someone would care to initiate a fraud prosecution and force them out of business. Until that happens, charge processors are both unwilling and powerless to refuse the business.
But trying to make the processors liable for a merchant's alleged fraudulent behavior would require that the processor be aware of that fraud. As it is, whule you and I know these products are either worthless or marginally useful, that hasn't resulted in fraud prosecutions, and so they are still legal.
You do not want credit card processors deciding if merchants are legitimate. Trust me.
"As for the above list, they have proved countless times that they're not very good at it, and most of their patents are on obvious solutions to problems they created in the first place."
Um, so the inventors of parachutes can be blamed for crreating the problem of safe egress from a failing aircraft/etc?
Sad logic. It really doesn't matter much where the problem comes from, it's to be solved. If you created the problem only to sell the solution, well, you have achieved nirvana, in the business sense. If people buy your solution because they accepted your problem, you are in the perfect state of bliss.
Of course, if you think business is generally evil, quit your job and get by as best you can.