Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Just great (Score 2) 210 210

I prefer intellectual honesty.

You comment only addresses one of the two comments that you quoted.
I get it that plans change. Conditions change so it is reasonable that plans offered change as well. That is NOT what POTUS promised. It was a foolish promise and never should have been made.

Comment: Re:Memory Safe Languages As Countermeasure (Score 1) 165 165

I do wish for a resurgence in Ada's use.

As do I.

Security depends on the programmer mainly (regardless of language), but there are better tools to do it right in Ada than most other languages. This doesn't mean it is a one size fits all language... but for code that is critical to security, it might be wise to use a language designed with security from the ground up. Spark Ada has provable security, for example (as per "SPARK - A Safety Related Ada Subset")

Hear, hear. I have no doubt that such a world would be trading one set of problems for another, however, I do believe that the second set of problems would be much smaller than the first.

Comment: Re:FFS just keep the Warthog (Score 5, Informative) 279 279

Yes, that is very true. The USMC is the closest we have ever had to what you are proposing.

I think that merely changing the organization for service-oriented (i.e. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard) to one service with "specialty branches" (or whatever you want to call them) would not change anything. Sure, it may offer some small amount of consolidation, but that is what DoD was created to do. (Yeah, I know... obvious jokes will follow). Seriously, though, as long as the combined size is about the same and the respective size of the service branches (or "specialty branches") stays the same, all you will have done is to (slightly) rearrange the deck chairs.

On a positive note, having been in the Army National Guard for over 25 years (including overseas deployments), I have worked with both the Navy and the Air Force. I cannot speak specifically to the "historical antagonism" the gf mentioned, but I can say that overall, everybody I worked with generally wanted to do a good job without deference to service branch. That especially includes a USAF NCO who I knew for a short period of time and was killed by the enemy.

Comment: Re:Why not train? (Score 1) 308 308

You post has some good points and I thank you for posting it.

then if physical fitness needs to be fixed the taxpayers can fund it -- call it a perk of the job from a personal health perspective.

I think that I disagree with this part of your point. If they were capable of being fit to the level required for entry into the military service, they would probably have done it already. Really, the physical fitness level required for entry is NOT that high. Obviously, the original story says this is a problem.

My alternative is to take that money and invest it into a sharp junior NCO to make them into a warrent officer. I see a lot of the key cyber positions being intel and signal warrent officers. You get the benefit of a know quantity of a junior NCO, you are giving them a career track to grow into, and you get deployability inherent as a prior servicemember. The military also gets the inherent benefit of the warrent officer as a career professional who stays within their specialty as opposed to commissioned officers whose assignments go between one associated with their basic branch and "broadening" ones.

It is also important to understand why those physical any physical fitness standards exist. Yes, it is in large part to ensure the service member is capable of performing their job. Another reason is the ability to deploy world-wide. At any given time, a certain percentage of the armed forces is non-deployable for any number of reasons. The higher the percentage of non-deployable service members, the larger the required size of the standing force.

Deployable means being sent to places within a wide range of conditions, from the higher-echelon HQs and units (mostly above Division-level) that are within well-established fixed locations with permanent facilities at one end of the spectrum to the most austere environments at the other end and everything in between.

A counter argument then follows of "do they really need to be deployable?" Maybe, maybe not. If we want to deviate from a standard that applies to the bulk of the force, so be it. I am not necessarily opposed to that, I am pointing out that such a deviation should only be done after careful consideration for the second / third order effects.

To some extend, I do believe that there is some differences with how medical professionals are handled. I am referring to specialized medical professionals. They also have a whole separate accession process and perhaps that would be the appropriate model for the cyber field. As far as I know, the same physical and physical fitness requirements still apply to those medical specialties.

I hope this has been relatively coherent. Time for me to go to work... :)

Comment: Re:What a great idea! (Score 1) 308 308

Unfortunately, it's sometimes the people who most enthusiastically live up to the organization's standards that you have to watch out for.

I don't understand that how that could be an issue unless the organization's standards are themselves immoral or illegal.

Please explain.

Comment: Re:Good luck with that (Score 1) 308 308

A lot of interesting people now have jobs for life, hidden faiths, hidden loyalties but the US gov has no real idea who they are, why their private sector boss cleared them or if any or some digital database work was really done on them. That is interesting over the productive life, many result and academic advancements.

I don't really believe what you say. Clearances are handled by independent investigators, not rubber stamped by the people who need code written.

Non US citizens don't get clearances.

Exactly. The GP seems to have little understanding of how contracting works. I've worked in it from both the government's and the contractor's perspective. I also found the GP's comment to be a series of incoherent, rambling thoughts independent of their errors.

Comment: Re:What a great idea! (Score 5, Interesting) 308 308

How long ago was that?

Replying with "no" is an option.

My understanding when I enlisted (over 20 years ago) and through now has been, that an admission of usage was itself not an issue, if there was no longer any current usage and drug test results were negative. One of the primary issues (maybe the only?) of concern was the ability of someone to blackmail the service member for (classified) information by threatening to make drug usage known to the chain of command. If the service member admits to usage prior to enlistment / contracting, there is no ability to blackmail.

It is possibly that has changed over the years. I can also see that if there is no arrest record or nobody to dime you out, answering "no" is the simplest answer.

Comment: Re:Why not train? (Score 2) 308 308

As a taxpayer, is that really how you want tax dollars spent?

Do you really want them to hire someone who does not meet the physical requirements to then pay them to get into the required level of physical fitness over enlisting / contracting (an enlistment is a contract) someone who does meet all the requirements?

Comment: Re:Uncertainty/fear? (Score 1) 550 550

I had the PRK as well. I don't remember the "band-aid" contact, but that was almost 20 years ago. I do remember the different eye drops and how I would set my watch to multiple alarms through the day so that I would remember to use them. I was warned that the most common cause of post-op complications was failure to use the drops, so I took that seriously. I had no serious complications, other than halo effect at night, but that diminished over time.

I do remember two things when they did the procedure. The first was the strong hands on either side of my head that prevented from moving and the smell. It took me a moment to realize that was my eyeball tissue being vaporized.

Comment: Re:Astronomy, and general poor night-time results. (Score 1) 550 550

I had my eye surgery done around 1996. Initially, I did have significant halo / diffraction spikes at night, but those diminished over time. I would guess that within 6 months to a year, they were pretty much gone. It may have been shorter than that, though. My memory is kind of fuzzy. (Yes, that was a pun.)

Seriously, I have no regrets about having it done.

Also the fact that it won't prevent future changes to vision.

I was warned of the same thing. Now, almost 20 years later, I am noticing a little deterioration in my distance sight. I first started noticing that I was unable to read street signs at a distance that others in the car could read.

I am thinking about looking into having it done again. I am now in my late 40s and if I can get similar results would consider it money well spent.

Beware the new TTY code!