Because back then, that was a conceptual description that (if it became real) described an entirely custom system that was built from the ground up. These days, there are multiple types of such systems, most of which are built along specific architectural lines using COTS. Just like once upon a time, "car" was a pretty good descriptor because the next level of detail went WAY into the weeds. Now, there are sports cars, SUVs, minivans, coupes, etc.

Actually, it's probably something more like TIBCO BusinessEvents with an orchestration engine added. But what's really cool is that they did the hard part: codifying the actual rules under which the overall system operates. That's where these kinds of systems either fly or fall. There are tons of rules that organizations use to make decisions, but a lot of those rules are quite informal and don't operate at a central point of authority. It takes a lot of digging to find them all, so that the undocumented process (for example) used by the foreman of the team that does rail maintenance to manage overtime among his crew gets incorporated into the overall chaining logic. Otherwise, the new system will either fail to reflect reality as teams rearrange their own schedules out of sync with their directives, or will wreak havoc among the employees.

By "change jobs," do you mean change employers as well? What about lateral moves within the same company, or between different organizations within the same company?

Ultimately, how often you change roles (either change in job description, responsibilities, or employer, as I'm defining it) depends on the following things:

1, demand in your field. If your field has more demand than supply, these are the salad days...moving from company to company can be beneficial. These days will not last forever, so make sure you take advantage of them, but also be wary of reaching the pinnacle of compensation. At some point, the market will catch up, and you may end up being more expensive than you're worth when that day comes.

2, the company/organization you work for and the opportunity it provides. If you have growth still ahead of you and are continuing to grow in your current place, then moving is probably not a great idea. Money's good, but development is better. A lot of companies don't have a career path that's technical (instead of automatically turning you into a manager who never will touch technology again), so that's a consideration as well. Which way do you want your career to go?

3, your current happiness in the role you occupy. This is for you to define, and the rationale behind it should be obvious.

4, how long you've been there/industry tolerance for job-hopping. If you've been at the last 4 jobs for less than a year each, this may not look so great on a resume. But some industries/career paths are quite tolerant of such things, understanding the current state of the market.

At least, that's how I see it, in broad strokes.

Spend some time in a DMS operations center of a power company. They watch for noise too...noise is variation in that waveform, and a sign that something somewhere (a transformer, for example) is in distress. A power company would notice noise on their lines like the phone company would notice Rick Astley playing instead of a dial tone on their landlines.

HUGE problem with this theory.

The power grid operates on incredibly tight tolerances with regard to frequency. Additionally, within that margin (which is the same, everywhere, within a certain grid...and by grid, I mean, like "The United States" or "Great Britain") there is a small degree of variation that is the same for that grid and all that are built using the same equipment...which is a significantly humongous population.

Imagine a metropolitan area like, say, San Antonio. San Antonio has several power stations that service its region. Each generation turbine produces what's known as "three-phase power," which is kind of like TDMA for AC electricity. Those three phases get broken out and separated into three outputs that then go into a substation and transformers, then out on the grid. The three phases equally and perfectly distribute around the 360-degree rotation of the "exciter," which is basically the generator's key component. If that distribution gets out of whack, power spikes in a really nasty way, and copper vaporizes fast enough that it's actually a detonation.

But I digress. The point is this: AC power is a waveform, oscillating at 60 Hz. It cannot vary much at all...because within the same grid, everything is interconnected. Every generator is in sync, or has a syncrophasor to re-sync the power coming from it before it hits the grid. Otherwise, you get some power from A and some from B, with waveforms that are out of sync...and the frequency changes in both rate and amplitude, and shit blows up. (Including generators themselves...the "Aurora Vulnerability" that DoE is so batshit scared of is essentially a manifestation of this at the generator itself.)

So...I've been trying to think of how there could possibly be enough variation to fingerprint someone based on the hum caused by that 60Hz frequency noise. I've been in transmission control centers where they monitor, regulate and occasionally wet themselves over frequency shifts, and I've seen that the amount of variation needed to cause sheer panic is shockingly low..and it rarely ever happens for even a second. And those tolerances have been the same everywhere I've gone.

So no, it's not at all like TEMPEST. Because if it were, it'd be the equivalent of being able to figure which monitor you were looking at by EM emissions...when all the monitors in the country show the exact same thing.

That you think that just "Teradata" or "Hadoop" is the other thing needed in addition to Python or R to replace an SAS implementation tells volumes about how much you don't know about SAS and what it really does to satisfy customer requirements. You don't replace SAS with nothing more than a bare database and a Python interpreter.

And you can't just say "I want you to throw out your existing infrastructure just so that I can use X programming language...you figure out how to make it happen" to the company you work for. This is an RGE..."Resume Generating Event."

SAS is not a language; it's a full multi-tiered solution for the aggregation, normalization, and analysis of data. There's a language as well, but that's just one part of the whole solution. Python and R, while absolutely fantastic languages, are not a full solution.

So, first step...if you're going to offer an alternative, actually have an alternative. I don't know your SAS buildout nor do I know the data sources it consumes, so I can't really point to what else you need to add or how you need to construct it to produce a more flexible replacement to your existing and current SAS infrastructure.

Second step...a roadmap for migration. It's one thing to sign a lease for a new apartment or to buy a new house, and another to shift your life from the old place to the new. If you don't have a plan, at least in broad strokes, then you're going to be doomed when you look for executive sponsorship. You need to make sure that you get all the stakeholders' input as well, lest you leave something out in your roadmap...and then end up with someone who sees you as a problem. That person will most likely be in a position to scuttle the whole thing, as well.

Third step...figure out how to define the benefits in terms of the stakeholders' needs. You're going to replace a system they use; why should they want you to do so? And you have to define it from their perspective, with regard to things they care about. Beware of getting geeky on this...it's very likely that at least one of the people whose support you will need will not be a geek and will be concerned with the output more than the technical means used to produce it. Don't hard-sell, either...pushing too hard will get the door slammed in your face, and even potentially polarize people against you. (See above, under "in a position to scuttle the whole thing.")

There will be steps after that, but those will be largely determined by how the first three steps go. It may involve bringing in outside vendors, doing requirements analysis...a lot of it depends on details of your company as well and how they normally do things. But above all else, remember this: don't buck the system too hard, and don't knock the company you work for. Trying to get a lot of people to support and cooperate with you while telling them that their way of doing things sucks is suicide.

Everyone's freaking out over things like phone calls on planes over this. People, this isn't a change to the ruling that smartphones and tablets have to be in "airplane mode" during the flight...they still do. This is just a rule allowing you to use the phones in that mode during takeoff and landing.

I travel a lot for business, and I can say from personal experience that the ruling has made an enormous difference; I don't know from where the FAA is getting their numbers. I might see one person with a smartphone every fourth flight I was on in the past, whereas now I can see several in use on every flight during takeoff and landing. And people seem happier for it.

Especially since he's co-founder of "Intellectual Ventures," which is a HUGE holder of patents.

Yeah, I don't know that a $5,000 oven that cooks a bit faster than the one I already have and has all of these points of calibration that can go wrong is going to be better than a straightforward metal box with a heat source and a thermostat.

"Just because it's their job doesn't mean it's okay."

Um...WHAT?

"And the data taken is used in ways it as not intended on citizen from all over the world."

Citation? I don't know of any reference to this, even in abstract. Can you please define the intended uses of COMINT and SIGINT, and the ways that are forbidden in the context of espionage please?

"Can only hope you are one of the first when they come and take people away."

You don't sound any better than the demonized version of the NSA you speak of.

When most of these corporations first formed, the form of contraception being discussed in this case didn't exist. So...you're saying that if anyone incorporates, they should be willing to accept the consequences of anything that technology may come up with in the future? Um...no. That's not how rights work, and starting a business does not deprive someone of their rights.

I actually interpreted it a slightly different way, but the difference is important.

They specifically stated that "closely held" corporations could hold this exemption. To point, these are corporations that have a very small number of owners indeed. The way I see it, the intent is this: the people who own the corporation do not wish to have the resources of that corporation...which they themselves own and govern...used for purposes that conflict with their moral views. We're not talking IBM or Google here, with tens or even hundreds of thousands of stakeholders. We're talking corporations that are held by a handful of people whose views of such things align closely with one another.

As it stands today, 85% of corporations proactively supported paying for contraception ahead of Obamacare or any other mandate from state or federal government. But the stalwarts were those that fit the above description. Me, I'm not at all aligned with the pro-life crowd...but I can at least see the logic here. Just because I own a corporation doesn't mean that I can't care about what the money produced by it helps support, even indirectly. It's one of those fine lines that makes America challenging, because of the incredible demands that freedom and the citizenship that goes with it place on us all.

And I think it's cool as shit that we are debating it. The fact that we all care, one way or another, is absolutely, utterly, and incredibly beautiful.

Having just spent 4 days driving a new Cadillac, I beg to disagree. To GM, I have this to say: faggots, faggots, FAGGOTS. Let's see, where to start. Touchscreen controls that hide themselves until your finger gets near the touchscreen. Touchscreen controls that have the volume control set up in the exact same region as the play/pause/rewind/fast-forward controls so that if your finger moves at all while touching the controls, you end up with a volume bar across the bottom instead of what you wanted. Below the screen, all of the controls (for climate control) are both touch-sensitive (no tactile or audio feedback) and close enough that your fingers brush against them without you realizing...and since there's no information for climate control displayed whatsoever except when you're in the process of changing the settings (and that information auto-hides shortly thereafter) you won't realize that you just cranked the temperature on one side of the car to 78 degrees until you wonder why the air conditioning seems to be fighting itself. The touchscreen was enormous...but very little of that real estate was actually put to use. No audio settings control on the steering wheel at all, save for volume. All in all, an abysmally bad user interface on what GM considers one of their nicest cars. I had to spend way more time looking at the display than I was comfortable doing just to change tracks on my iPhone, or just check to see if the temperature was still what it was supposed to be.

Detroit needs to have a Coke and a smile...and then shut the fuck up so that they can listen to Google.

"Orange is the New Black"

Point #1 is a generalization, and incorrect. When you get into a lot of the higher-level work in cyber, you have to deal with background checks anyways, even outside of a government clearance. While the highest of the high clearances (like a TS/SCI for the NSA) will be like walking across hot coals, the overwhelming majority of clearances are not that hard a process to endure. And the report functionally states, "lower the amount of clearance bullshit and more people will be hireable." So yeah, Point #1 is just plain wrong.

Point #2 is kind of right. Jessup isn't a great place, but you don't have to live there...just work there. You can easily work at Jessup but live in, say, Takoma Park or Columbia or any of the other really nice neighborhoods that are within 30 minutes. Where you work != where you live.

Point #3 is dead-on right. Cyber people who are excellent are all autodidacts, in my experience...and the rapid and violent nature of change in the industry demands such.