Sort of like a 5th-grade bully pissing on a main battle tank. 'Success' might mean the tank got wet, but it's not like you're going to slow it down.

...when you forget to put the correct cover on your TPS report.

So nice to read a decent post about the original topic and not another who-to-blame-in-the-middle-east piece. Let's discuss.

I can count the number of serious players in large-scale cyberwar on one hand. Anonymous isn't one of them--and Israel is. Defacing websites and conducting DDoS is something you do to make a point--not make a difference in full-scale military conflict or subversive operations.

One of the things I am most amused by is the explicit reference to Israel's threat to cut off Palestinian internet access as the trigger for their actions. The death of multitudes of innocents on both sides isn't enough reason to take action, but if a Palestinian can't check his email, it's war! That, combined with the stance they took and the targets they are choosing, is a pretty clear indicator of their scope and level of maturity.

I would add one more interesting note worthy of a Slashdot post: In the constant P.R. war that is the Israel-vs.-Palestine conflict, Israel has converted their live blog of events into some sort of a web-based achievement game. They're getting a lot of flack, and it's fair to say it lacks taste, but to me it seems more of a P.R. failure and less an indication of eeeevil. Don't think I'll be trying to grind my Level 11 IDF Rifleman any time soon.

Close, but I would add the following:

• * A computer scientist can formally prove that his algorithm will solve your problem effectively. He or she is focused on solving interesting problems. Computer scientists are more likely to be found on a technical track or consulting. Small, extremely difficult, technologically challenging problems and performance demands are commonly attract of computer scientists.
• * A software engineer is an engineer who programs as, or in the course of, his job. He or she is focused on creating a product (in the engineering, not business, sense). Software engineers are more likely to move eventually towards a managerial track, and will be oriented towards formal processes (requirements, etc.--either agile or formal). Software engineers are more likely to be found in enterprise environments and in disciplines where integrated systems (aerospace, etc.) are critical.

This is actually different from the developer-vs.-software-engineer discussion the other week--'developer' is a generic term for anyone who can write code. It can therefore also be a nearly-derogative term to people who write code but are neither computer scientists nor software engineers--for example, a computer scientist or software engineer might call someone a developer if they can write a web page or script a game, but aren't familiar with the underlying architecture of the server or engine they're using.

There are some very interesting studies regarding the links between meat consumption, testosterone levels, and related impacts. Most point to zinc shortages in one's diet, and the corrected testosterone levels incurred when said shortages are addressed by increased meat consumption. Not to say, especially as I happen to be a male, that increased testosterone levels will guarantee lying, cheating, and stealing. There does, however, seem to be a (single-sample-point, empirically-backed, possibly-placebo) link between consumption of multiple medium-cooked 2/3-lb burgers from The Counter and one's libido over subsequent days. (Not to spam a business link, but it's by far the tastiest way to get a testosterone boost I know of.)

I'm surprised a government-funded project would qualify at all. I mean, NASA's landed rovers on Mars--do we really doubt national governments' abilities to put something similar on the moon? I was under the impression that the whole point was to encourage privately-driven efforts. After all, if government-funded rovers were eligible, the USSR would have won with Luna 17 / Lunakhod 1--42 years ago.

TV is, strangely, one of those things that's begging to be reinvented in a way that integrates all of the great potential of internet + TV + consoles + disc players + multi-channel / caching devices, etc. Typically we'd look to Apple to show everyone how a problem like this really should be solved, but I think we all know how well that's gone. Speaking for myself, I will continue to simply plug in my laptop to my flatscreen's HDMI port and not bother with silly things like cable or satellite subscriptions. Until you can give me a way, for example, to watch HBO (and not Lifetime, or MSNBC, or any of the other 500 channels I'd never touch with a 31.5-foot pole) without paying hundreds of dollars a month for the Super Platinum Ultra cable package, the value just isn't there. A handful of networked (and some cable) shows are already doing this on Hulu, but the push for Hulu Plus subscriptions (and accompanying limitations on free Hulu) is really starting to get annoying.

In the long run, I think Google's approach is the one that time will show to be the winner. They're constantly looking for ways to extend search for better monetization (and after all the hammer thinks everything is a nail), but I think that's going to be the sustainable market path that can eventually take us to a day when I can--for example--pay a $10 subscription fee to watch real-time releases of Game of Thrones in the same way I can pay a modest fee for privileged access to my favorite Twitch channels. When the monetization comes full circle, and starts feeding back into investment and production of shows, it will produce a much tighter feedback loop and much better programming, much the same way cable did when it originally had its heyday so many years ago.

Because, if you (as the government) insist on getting your money back for a program you cancel after overruns and delays, you get unending lawsuits and are stuck in litigation for several decades. There's a better way to do things, to be sure, but payment on delivery (or from another perspective, 100% refunds) are out of the question for cases in which much of the cost has been sunk into hundreds of man-months of up-front professional (engineers, developers) labor or even purely scientific research.

Major projects in software and aerospace, especially when boundaries are being pushed (frequently, though not always, the case in aerospace--less so in ERP), can require a lot of up-front investment before a single product roles off the line. The B-2, for example, has a flyaway cost of $555M, but the total program cost $44B. We call it NRE--non-recoverable expenditure--and if there were absolutely no guarantees regardless of outcome, boundaries would never be pushed by interested parties of a certain size (i.e., DoD / enterprise software corporations / aerospace companies) because such entities are, by their, nature, VERY risk-averse.

Perfect application of Hanlon's Razor: Not so much a conspiracy to waste money as the worst combination of both world (defense acquisition and enterprise software development). Both fields are very prone to overruns, scope creep, and repeated waste of funds as manager after manager--or contractor after contractor--throws away work to start over again. Another great example is the FAA's version of enterprise software, which is currently at $63.4 BILLION and counting (though, to be fair, it's quite possible the most complicated software project in the world).

Still, there are worse examples--specifically, when these kinds of overruns, violations, and program restarts are done deliberately to ensure continued funding to entrenched players in a limited field and / or to pursue minor permutations on someone's pet dream of a project. This can occur at the cost of throwing away many years and billions of dollars of decent work while never really getting closer to a functioning system. Space Launch System, anyone? (Not a software example, but the line between software and aerospace engineering is a lot thinner than most people realize.)

Permit me to interject a perspective into my favorite bastion of anarchical Democrats. Read or ignore at your own prerogative.

First and foremost (that is, most relevant to the OP) is the following observation: If any state has a chance of seceding, and doing so successfully in a way that leads to a growing and stable nation-state, it is Texas. The reasons are too many to list here--suffice it to say, there is precedence, will, and ability. (If you doubt it, consider the following: You are POTUS, and Texas secedes. You lose the Marine Corps. Immediately. In a closely-related event, 12 hours later you will also lose the capitol, Norfolk, and New York.)

Second, schisms embodied by secession movements highlighted here do not strictly adhere to red-vs-blue state correlations. (Note, for example, that Oregon, New York, and New Jersey are also on the list.) Instead, movements like these are built around a perception that the governing body does not represent the best interests of a subset of their constituents--sometimes even a perception that they are actively working to their detriment. In many red states, this is realized in the perception that the federal government ignores, if not mocks and holds in contempt, those states, their residents, and their values. In the three aforementioned blue states, there is a sizeable portion (as measured by population or geography) that is soundly overruled by a larger subset (or a subset with stronger influence over state policy).

I can speak from experience that non-Willamette Oregonians feel like they are ruled by those who live in the 'Valley'--Portland, Salem, Eugene, and surrounding burbs. Tax money flows from industries outside of the regions into one or two metropolitcan areas to build local light-rail projects, subsidize regional interests, and fund other policies exclusive to those areas. This is a major driver behind the movement to create a state of Jefferson, consisting of southern Oregon and northern California (residents of the latter face similar problems with their state government in Sacramento and the population centers of the Bay Area & southern California). I suspect there are similar sentiments in upstate New York and mid/southern New Jersey (i.e., urban and commuting populations effectively nullifying the idealogies of their rural and local counterparts).

Lastly, it's worth pointing out the nature of the ongoing discussions (some would say civil war) within the Republican party. One major driving factor that is often downplayed (if noticed at all) is the degree to which ideology drives conservative politics--much more so than counterpart mechanisms on the left, which are typically more issue- and demographically-oriented. Here's an example, in which I attempt to list some of the major factions in the ongoing discussions:

• * Republican Intelligensia (pundits, think tanks, and beltway thinkers) are primarily focused on the demographic issues--how do we best adjust our message (if not change it outright) to best appeal to voting block Z? Most truely wealthy Republicans fall into this group.
• * "Value Voters" (i.e., those vote for Republicans primariliy on religious--as opposed to universally moral--issues) will be convinced of whatever their leaders tell them. That's the thing about religious movements--they're very finicky, and can change abruptly when they perceive slights or when their leaders start playing power games. Officials spend a lot of time running after their vote, particularly after the elections between 2000 and 2004, but (as can be seen in the recent election, where turnout was surprisingly low) to very little effect. Since this is Slashdot, I should point out that, to the degree that anti-science and fundamentalist viewpoints have grown into the Republican party platform, it is exclusively a result of efforts to capture this block.
• * Dittoheads (middle class working voters) are the base of the party (numbers of the previous two are insufficient to successfully elect a national platform, though they are very successful at influencing the Republican platform at the margins), named for the instantiation of their views in the form of Rush Limbaugh (who is less of a leader and more of a spokesperson). They are ideologically driven, similar to liberty Republicans but with a greater affinity for the Republican party. They view the election loss, regardless of the actual cause, as a validation of an unacceptable ideology (government as a means of support and security, as opposed to a protector of freedoms and rights).
• * Liberty Republicans, by and large, see the Republican party as a lost cause after this election (temporarily or permanently). They may or may not remain registered as Republicans, but they will not take a vocal part in the ongoing discussions and are far more likely to jump ship to become Libertarians or independents. Since liberty Republicans tend to be very tight-fisted with political contributions, few elected officials will notice they are gone until it comes time to count votes again.

So what does that mean for secession? The third block listed above is the largest, most likely and capable of secession, and stands to gain the most. Despite what may be perceived from viewers standing outside the Republican party, these are not single-issue voters (one of the reasons they are difficult to capture and enlist consistently). They believe in their country in a way that borders on religious fervor, and if they perceive that the current instantiation of the country's government has irreconcilably betrayed these ideals, they will be more than happy to create their own.

This, by the way, is the same block that was so closely affiliated with the tea party movement. Popular perceptions to the contrary, this is not a race-driven block; rather, they are motivated by financial stability at all levels of government, the guarantee of freedoms and rights (of states and individuals), and big-stick foreign policy. The big question now is, how far this block and those in power will push each other away, and what sort of breaking points will be reached.