Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
If he's hinting at what I think...no one on slashdot.
Troll? Really moron?
This is not a slam against Windows, it is stating the obvious. It was a response to the question of whether the NSA runs completely on Windows and notes that Windows would be inappropriate for the NSA's core mission which, for brevity's sake, we can limit to signal processing and decryption.
How many Crays does Windows run on? How many custom DSP processors? How many routers? How many HPC clusters?
You fan boys need to get a fucking clue and stop being overly sensitive, insecure douche bags.
does the NSA run completely on -gulp- windows?
You can rest assured that of all of the organizations on the planet this is one that will never be using Windows for its core mission. The tool is for the defense department dweebs, contractors, secretaries, suits, etc., where you expect to find Windows.
> Right now with software you need to put it in the market as soon as possible to start generate profit and then fix the problems with support contracts.
Oh, the Microsoft model. Yes, customers love that. Especially when they have to acceptance test the same crap 5 times before meeting minimum functionality.
>I don't know: I'm not a plumber. Sure as hell works well a treat if you offshore the bulk of dev. work and get a local specialist to fix it as required.
If you are satisfied with the construction and quality assurance of that sentence I have no doubt you will find similarly constructed software acceptable.
> So, is it cheaper to hire idiots to write most of the code and then hire someone smart later to fix it?
Doesn't the question answer itself? What's cheaper in the long run - install plumbing and wiring *while* the house is being built or afterwards?
> There's always going to be something. I worry about how desensitized people will be when something major comes along.
This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper.
There is never going to announcement saying "Privacy/Freedom has been repealed". You will just wake up one day and realize it is so. And then we can all reflect back on the all the warnings ignored.
Correct but they don't need National Security Letters for this. They already buy, access, and store a ton of private sector data. It's not a loophole, it's the St. Louis arch, and its been open for years.
It's a little naive to think that segments of the government haven't their fingers in the development of various private sector companies since the beginning. Between CIA venture money, DARPA grants, large government contract awards, carefully placed personnel, etc., this far from some fortunate development that fell from the sky for them.
I am not averse to conspiracy theories and I wouldn't dismiss this one out of hand. But at this point in time, with the information available to the general public, Occam's razor doesn't favor this interpretation.
Although he has a public profile, Clarke is by no means the early voice on this. Check and you will see that this has been raised publicly for at least 3 years now. (The name of early guy escapes me - he's from the Naval War College.) The defense companies started hiring in earnest for this about 2 years ago.
What you seem to be implying is that some people are going to be advantaged and enriched by this. That's absolutely true and unwarranted hype should be watched carefully. It's also true that it is extremely important to make sure the government doesn't overstep its bounds in terms of intrusion into the domain of the private sector and individual citizens. But neither of things doesn't mean their isn't a threat and that we shouldn't take precautions.
> this book is flinging accusations at specific parties - all of them major world governments - without any evidence
This is very much a mouse and cat game. Given how difficult it is to trace attacks to their source you are rarely going to have absolute technical evidence. What you will have is human asset confirmation of suspicions of each country's programs and capabilities. No country is going to reveal those assets before hand, certainly not for a book issued to the general public.
Honestly I don't know how anyone doubts that China, Russia and the US have large programs in this area. Seriously, all you have to do is read the tech jobs ads in the DC/MD/VA area and you barely have to read between the lines.
> I used to see him speak in the Clinton years
As I recall he was one of the few people who was trying to warn about the rise of AQ. Given the outcome, I don't see how this should be construed to be a negative.
> I hope they meet more resistance than just the minority of people who play.
I'm willing to bet they won't. People can't be bothered to resist things like two wars that are costing them hundreds of billions each year, they sure as hell won't get off their asses for the poker player down the block.
Not that much is legislated federally
Say what? Congress may not pass all that many bills but the ones they do are multiple warheads filled with scatter bombs.
> All of these rules are the opposite of how actual demolition derbies work. Smashing a car into the wall causes large amounts of damage. Damage to the front (the radiator, engine etc) is way more effective than damage than the rear.
Complete speculation but maybe it really isn't a demolition derby at all but something approaching what some envision for real driving in the future.
Imagine a driving environment where because there are sensors on the side of road that automatically communicate with all cars and take over control when required, it is difficult/impossible to drive off a road or crash into a wall/side rail. Similarly, almost no one in reality drives in reverse on a highway or surface street so it makes sense to eliminate this from the simulation.
The goal then is to use the derby metaphor to get people to purposely execute the insane things that real people might accidentally do real life - and develop possible ways to counteract them.