It goes both ways. There is also a certain level of naivete in the neocon assumption that centuries and millennia old ethnic conflicts can be solved in a few months with the right firepower.
Personally, I prefer concentrated firepower used precisely and used only once in a while. Then if that doesn't work heavy bombardment for several years usually can send a decent message. But then again, I'm not a NEO-anything. I could care less what politics someone is if they actually used our military to get something done instead of crippling them with such things as "political-correctness", and the so-called "US image abroad".
And now we are a nation striving for peace! Won't everyone PLEASE join us?!?!?!?!?!
Come on....PEACE!
Our President even has a Nobel Prize now proving that we are HOPING for peace with all other nations (only at the cost to ourselves, and no cost to any of those other nations).
Get real mate. Hawaii, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Iran, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Central America, Cuba - These are some of the places that the US has either invaded or had military involvement in in the last 150 years or so. Most of them for US interests at the cost of the local populace. Just because some groups are sick of it and fighting back you give some lame sarcastic response.
The US is not the only country to do this but you know what, it doesn't absolve the US for their actions either. And you know what - you should censor yourself because your ignorance of history offends me.
Your ignorance of where responsibility lies makes me laugh. Robustly.
I'll censor nothing, thanks. Instead I'll dial up my sarcasm precisely because it offends you.
Sorry to bust your patriotic bubble but I deal with the Army regularly and yes, unfortunately when dealing with highly technical problems they need to subcontract or it all flies above their little heads.
Sure you do. I totally believe you. Really. And the fact that you routinely post left-wing moonbat commentary would never give me cause to doubt your genuine sincerity.
Neither would your use of such epic backhanded witticisms as "patriotic bubble", or "their little heads."
Seriously, you're a clever one. you should write for Leno. I mean that. Really I do. I'm so impressed.
Word on street is also that the Army's 10's of thousands of recruiters are going to be toting iPhones running citrix receiver and several customized /recruiting-specific apps, too...
I'd hate to be another service like Air Force in a shopping mall trying to compete with an Army guy that is toting a sexy iPhone, while I was sitting there with a clamshell trying to wait for Windows to come out of Sleep mode...
Cool. Why not go ahead and start buying Hummers from GM dealer as well.. they will get cheaper service and lower whole sale prices
I don't think you can put a price on national security. The army is not a business and their job to protect the nation at all cost. I didn't expect people to forget 911 that quickly.
Somebody sure is cranky today...
As I said the first time around, the government will probably get a higher quality product by using one of the commercial OSes. Look for the past 10 years I've written software for a defense contractor. Our program is supposedly one of the better ones around. I've seen what kind of money goes into producing one app, and what sort of quality results from that app being written on contract. Don't give me some 9/11 garbage lecture because you don't understand the system.
Nah... It's them not me. That's where I put the Post It note. I keep the iSight covered with it so the NSA can't see what color underwear I'm using on any particular day. I've been doing that ever since the Patriot Act.
Regarding iSight (external only), the NSA document (pdf) on OSX security, page 32, suggests taking the file /System/Library/Extensions/Apple_iSight.kext and moving it to the Trash.
As I said the first time around, the government will probably get a higher quality product by using one of the commercial OSes. Look for the past 10 years I've written software for a defense contractor. Our program is supposedly one of the better ones around. I've seen what kind of money goes into producing one app, and what sort of quality results from that app being written on contract. Don't give me some 9/11 garbage lecture because you don't understand the system.
Yeah whatever... believe in whatever keep your paychecks coming in
I was surprise that the DOD uses commercial OS. You would think that with their huge budget and resources they would develop their own in house variation of Linux. I've seen in the news that China does use their own OS.
For cost reduction (larger installed user-base, maintenance, legacy requirements), a COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) mandate was administered for the Navy in the mid-90's. You can read more about NAVSEA's policy details here. I've been out of the loop for a few years, so I'm not certain of the current status. But, Admiral Tuttle, in charge of technology, was the standardization advocate and his chief technical advisor lobbied him towards Windows on PCs. The upside was a MS marketshare increase; the downside for MS was that the increase carried the "penalty" to agree to support military requirements for legacy systems (longterm version maintenance).
Yeah whatever... believe in whatever keep your paychecks coming in
You crack me up
Since you don't get it, let me break it down for you. When the Government needs something like software or video surveillance systems that either buy an existing solution or create a contract with a company to build them one. If an existing solution is already being produced it's almost always in the best interest of the government to just use that solution. Contracts are necessary, but they are extremely prone to running over budget and quality seems to not match that of commercial products. When a commercial company produces a product they have to make it great or they won't get paid and they go out of business. When a company produces a product on contract they get paid ahead of time, and they are supposed to deliver what was required. As a consequence the product usually meets the minimum requirements, but things like good design, ease of use, etc aren't a huge concern. I hate that's the way it is, but it is. Now take something like an OS that has had decades of work put into it, and imagine what the outcome would be if the government tried to contract something like that. There would be massive bureaucracy surrounding it, the cost would be astronomical, and based on my experience it wouldn't hold a candle to the offerings of Microsoft or Apple. As a taxpayer I'd think you'd want the government to get the best product for their money. That's an off the shelf system when a suitable one exists, and a custom when needed.
Since you don't get it, let me break it down for you. When the Government needs something like software or video surveillance systems that either buy an existing solution or create a contract with a company to build them one. If an existing solution is already being produced it's almost always in the best interest of the government to just use that solution. Contracts are necessary, but they are extremely prone to running over budget and quality seems to not match that of commercial products. When a commercial company produces a product they have to make it great or they won't get paid and they go out of business. When a company produces a product on contract they get paid ahead of time, and they are supposed to deliver what was required. As a consequence the product usually meets the minimum requirements, but things like good design, ease of use, etc aren't a huge concern. I hate that's the way it is, but it is. Now take something like an OS that has had decades of work put into it, and imagine what the outcome would be if the government tried to contract something like that. There would be massive bureaucracy surrounding it, the cost would be astronomical, and based on my experience it wouldn't hold a candle to the offerings of Microsoft or Apple. As a taxpayer I'd think you'd want the government to get the best product for their money. That's an off the shelf system when a suitable one exists, and a custom when needed.
For security, ease of use and features, the U.S. Army has reportedly turned to Apple hardware for four new video surveillance installations.
According to Security Systems News, the Army now has four video surveillance installations based on Mac OS X and Apple servers. Pat Mercer, security business leader/sales manager with Siemens, said the IT department was initially reluctant to go Mac, but as they explored the systems, it became clear it was the best and most secure option.
"When you ask them what their requirements are, they say, 'Low bandwidth, and I need to make sure nothing is going to hack into my network via your system,' Mercer said. "That?s where the Mac conversation begins. The viruses, hacking, all of those things are dramatically minimized with Apple and it eliminates a lot of those challenges."
Chris Gettings, CEO and president of VideoNEXT, said the Mac offers security that Windows cannot, and a user interface far superior to Red Hat Linux.
"It just runs," Gettings said. "You?re not going to have some of the memory-leak issues that seem to plague different versions of the Windows systems. And mission-critical customers appreciate that."
He said he particularly appreciates the consistency found in Apple hardware. When ordering identical servers from Dell two weeks apart, Gettings said he discovered that a chip on the motherboard had been changed. But with Apple, he said, he doesn't need to worry about issues like that. The streamlined hardware also allows him to create a more efficient system.
"He can put as many as 60 cameras on one Apple server that, according the specifications, has the same performance abilities as a Dell or HP server that can only serve 50 cameras," the report said.
The news isn't the first report of the U.S. Army embracing the Apple platform. In 2007, the military branch stepped up its Mac orders to thwart hacking attempts. The Army began shifting away from a Windows-only environment in 2005, when General Steve Boutelle warned that a homogenous operating system environment could expose a computer system to large-scale hacking attempts.
The Army has also used Apple hardware in the field, adopting custom iPods to be used as field translators in Iraq. The U.S. Army's 10th Mountain Division reportedly used iPods and iPod nanos modified to run a special application from Vcom 3D known as Vcommunicator Mobile. The system allows soldiers to choose words or phrases to broadcast out of an attached speaker and communicate with locals.
As I said the first time around, the government will probably get a higher quality product by using one of the commercial OSes. Look for the past 10 years I've written software for a defense contractor. Our program is supposedly one of the better ones around. I've seen what kind of money goes into producing one app, and what sort of quality results from that app being written on contract. Don't give me some 9/11 garbage lecture because you don't understand the system.
They do and they don't. Yes, the OSs are commercial however they tend to be more secure versions of those OS's with higher EAL certs and deployed with tighter security requirements than most commercial installations. Typically these OS's cost a bit more either in price (Secure Solaris) or in deployment costs (hardening Linux with MAC and RBAC).
As far as quality of apps goes, like most things it varies by how mission critical something is. Flight software tends to be pretty robust whether civilian or military. Fart apps not so much.
I think we (US) should act much more like 'biology societies' and simply defend our country at our borders. As it is now, the government has no control of our borders. This is substantially due to student visas that were encouraged for years so that our universities could profit from foreign student tuition. Now there are so many loopholes in the student visa and work visa system that we will never fix it. One person gets in and immediately summons all their relatives to come live here too. This is entirely separate from the other immigration policies and issues regarding VietNam, China and Mexico, and so called British colonies, etc. Anyone who claims persecution or hardship in their own country can just come live with us and the taxpayer will foot the bill.
If it were possible I would like to see them all go back home, but now that they have their US born children and families we can't break them up and deport half of an illegal family, now can we?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mstone;1498128]If the US were to leave foreign countries, those people would be much less likely to venture here to the US and attack us than they would be in just continue fighting amongst themselves.
How's this for an idea?
Instead of worrying about something we have no control over, (the climate), and saving the spotted snail darter, and focus our attention on the real problems in the world, I mean the ones we can do something about. What we should do is rid the world of despots and petty dictators, all of them, and leave this planet safe for our children and grandchildren. Then, when the next generations put their knowledge together, without fear or intimidation, they can utilize science to solve the problems that conflict cannot, like the climate, and cancer, and ways to feed the whole world, sickness, and raise everyone's standard of living. I can't for the life of me understand why this president, or any president, would rather lower America's standard of living, to meet the rest of the world, rather than find ways to raise the rest of the world's to match ours. Just so you don't think I'm too pessimistic, I think we are utilizing the very instrument that will mark the beginning of the end of world conflict, this thing we call the internet.
What's the problem if you can develop your own OS and customize to protect your network from being hacked by a foreign country trying to steal classified military documents and blueprints?! This article will give you more information about what China did.
My point was that "DoD" is an extremely broad term when used in the context you did.
Quote:
I was surprise that the DOD uses commercial OS. You would think that with their huge budget and resources they would develop their own in house variation of Linux.
They do develop and have dozens of their own in-house OSs but likely +95% of "DoD" users have standard, off the shelf computers and software, as most likely does China.
Only certain systems would have any "special" stuff.
... focus our attention on the real problems in the world, I mean the ones we can do something about. What we should do is rid the world of despots and petty dictators, all of them, and leave this planet safe for our children and grandchildren. Then, when the next generations put their knowledge together, without fear or intimidation, ...
Please fix the code in your post.
You must be from some other planet because you don't have a clue what's going on, on planet Earth.
You must be from some other planet because you don't have a clue what's going on, on planet Earth.
I've been around a long time sonny and I do know one thing, there are a lot of great people around this world who's talent will be stifled because of tyrants and petty dictators.
I've been around a long time sonny and I do know one thing, there are a lot of great people around this world who's talent will be stifled because of tyrants and petty dictators.
Oh please, you might overheat the two remaining brain cells you have just trying to figure out where the [ ] go in the reply code let alone trying to solve any world peace issues.
... I can't for the life of me understand why this president, or any president, would rather lower America's standard of living, to meet the rest of the world, rather than find ways to raise the rest of the world's to match ours...
As a member of "the rest of the world" (or should that be "the other 95.5% of the world") I kindly ask that you get a better idea of where the USA's standard of living actually is in comparison to "the rest of the world" before asking for your president to interfere where he has no jurisdiction and is not needed. Most of the world does not share the USA's idea of what constitutes "standard of living"; we would include health, for instance.
Comments
It goes both ways. There is also a certain level of naivete in the neocon assumption that centuries and millennia old ethnic conflicts can be solved in a few months with the right firepower.
Personally, I prefer concentrated firepower used precisely and used only once in a while. Then if that doesn't work heavy bombardment for several years usually can send a decent message. But then again, I'm not a NEO-anything. I could care less what politics someone is if they actually used our military to get something done instead of crippling them with such things as "political-correctness", and the so-called "US image abroad".
.....I guess the US can't help but meddle.....
And now we are a nation striving for peace! Won't everyone PLEASE join us?!?!?!?!?!
Come on....PEACE!
Our President even has a Nobel Prize now proving that we are HOPING for peace with all other nations (only at the cost to ourselves, and no cost to any of those other nations).
Get real mate. Hawaii, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Iran, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Central America, Cuba - These are some of the places that the US has either invaded or had military involvement in in the last 150 years or so. Most of them for US interests at the cost of the local populace. Just because some groups are sick of it and fighting back you give some lame sarcastic response.
The US is not the only country to do this but you know what, it doesn't absolve the US for their actions either. And you know what - you should censor yourself because your ignorance of history offends me.
Your ignorance of where responsibility lies makes me laugh. Robustly.
I'll censor nothing, thanks. Instead I'll dial up my sarcasm precisely because it offends you.
Sorry to bust your patriotic bubble but I deal with the Army regularly and yes, unfortunately when dealing with highly technical problems they need to subcontract or it all flies above their little heads.
Sure you do. I totally believe you. Really. And the fact that you routinely post left-wing moonbat commentary would never give me cause to doubt your genuine sincerity.
Neither would your use of such epic backhanded witticisms as "patriotic bubble", or "their little heads."
Seriously, you're a clever one. you should write for Leno. I mean that. Really I do. I'm so impressed.
I'd hate to be another service like Air Force in a shopping mall trying to compete with an Army guy that is toting a sexy iPhone, while I was sitting there with a clamshell trying to wait for Windows to come out of Sleep mode...
Cool. Why not go ahead and start buying Hummers from GM dealer as well.. they will get cheaper service and lower whole sale prices
I don't think you can put a price on national security. The army is not a business and their job to protect the nation at all cost. I didn't expect people to forget 911 that quickly.
Somebody sure is cranky today...
As I said the first time around, the government will probably get a higher quality product by using one of the commercial OSes. Look for the past 10 years I've written software for a defense contractor. Our program is supposedly one of the better ones around. I've seen what kind of money goes into producing one app, and what sort of quality results from that app being written on contract. Don't give me some 9/11 garbage lecture because you don't understand the system.
Nah... It's them not me. That's where I put the Post It note. I keep the iSight covered with it so the NSA can't see what color underwear I'm using on any particular day. I've been doing that ever since the Patriot Act.
Regarding iSight (external only), the NSA document (pdf) on OSX security, page 32, suggests taking the file /System/Library/Extensions/Apple_iSight.kext and moving it to the Trash.
Somebody sure is cranky today...
As I said the first time around, the government will probably get a higher quality product by using one of the commercial OSes. Look for the past 10 years I've written software for a defense contractor. Our program is supposedly one of the better ones around. I've seen what kind of money goes into producing one app, and what sort of quality results from that app being written on contract. Don't give me some 9/11 garbage lecture because you don't understand the system.
Yeah whatever... believe in whatever keep your paychecks coming in
I was surprise that the DOD uses commercial OS. You would think that with their huge budget and resources they would develop their own in house variation of Linux. I've seen in the news that China does use their own OS.
For cost reduction (larger installed user-base, maintenance, legacy requirements), a COTS (commercial-off-the-shelf) mandate was administered for the Navy in the mid-90's. You can read more about NAVSEA's policy details here. I've been out of the loop for a few years, so I'm not certain of the current status. But, Admiral Tuttle, in charge of technology, was the standardization advocate and his chief technical advisor lobbied him towards Windows on PCs. The upside was a MS marketshare increase; the downside for MS was that the increase carried the "penalty" to agree to support military requirements for legacy systems (longterm version maintenance).
Yeah whatever... believe in whatever keep your paychecks coming in
You crack me up
Since you don't get it, let me break it down for you. When the Government needs something like software or video surveillance systems that either buy an existing solution or create a contract with a company to build them one. If an existing solution is already being produced it's almost always in the best interest of the government to just use that solution. Contracts are necessary, but they are extremely prone to running over budget and quality seems to not match that of commercial products. When a commercial company produces a product they have to make it great or they won't get paid and they go out of business. When a company produces a product on contract they get paid ahead of time, and they are supposed to deliver what was required. As a consequence the product usually meets the minimum requirements, but things like good design, ease of use, etc aren't a huge concern. I hate that's the way it is, but it is. Now take something like an OS that has had decades of work put into it, and imagine what the outcome would be if the government tried to contract something like that. There would be massive bureaucracy surrounding it, the cost would be astronomical, and based on my experience it wouldn't hold a candle to the offerings of Microsoft or Apple. As a taxpayer I'd think you'd want the government to get the best product for their money. That's an off the shelf system when a suitable one exists, and a custom when needed.
You crack me up
Since you don't get it, let me break it down for you. When the Government needs something like software or video surveillance systems that either buy an existing solution or create a contract with a company to build them one. If an existing solution is already being produced it's almost always in the best interest of the government to just use that solution. Contracts are necessary, but they are extremely prone to running over budget and quality seems to not match that of commercial products. When a commercial company produces a product they have to make it great or they won't get paid and they go out of business. When a company produces a product on contract they get paid ahead of time, and they are supposed to deliver what was required. As a consequence the product usually meets the minimum requirements, but things like good design, ease of use, etc aren't a huge concern. I hate that's the way it is, but it is. Now take something like an OS that has had decades of work put into it, and imagine what the outcome would be if the government tried to contract something like that. There would be massive bureaucracy surrounding it, the cost would be astronomical, and based on my experience it wouldn't hold a candle to the offerings of Microsoft or Apple. As a taxpayer I'd think you'd want the government to get the best product for their money. That's an off the shelf system when a suitable one exists, and a custom when needed.
Yes, that's it in a nutshell.
For security, ease of use and features, the U.S. Army has reportedly turned to Apple hardware for four new video surveillance installations.
According to Security Systems News, the Army now has four video surveillance installations based on Mac OS X and Apple servers. Pat Mercer, security business leader/sales manager with Siemens, said the IT department was initially reluctant to go Mac, but as they explored the systems, it became clear it was the best and most secure option.
"When you ask them what their requirements are, they say, 'Low bandwidth, and I need to make sure nothing is going to hack into my network via your system,' Mercer said. "That?s where the Mac conversation begins. The viruses, hacking, all of those things are dramatically minimized with Apple and it eliminates a lot of those challenges."
Chris Gettings, CEO and president of VideoNEXT, said the Mac offers security that Windows cannot, and a user interface far superior to Red Hat Linux.
"It just runs," Gettings said. "You?re not going to have some of the memory-leak issues that seem to plague different versions of the Windows systems. And mission-critical customers appreciate that."
He said he particularly appreciates the consistency found in Apple hardware. When ordering identical servers from Dell two weeks apart, Gettings said he discovered that a chip on the motherboard had been changed. But with Apple, he said, he doesn't need to worry about issues like that. The streamlined hardware also allows him to create a more efficient system.
"He can put as many as 60 cameras on one Apple server that, according the specifications, has the same performance abilities as a Dell or HP server that can only serve 50 cameras," the report said.
The news isn't the first report of the U.S. Army embracing the Apple platform. In 2007, the military branch stepped up its Mac orders to thwart hacking attempts. The Army began shifting away from a Windows-only environment in 2005, when General Steve Boutelle warned that a homogenous operating system environment could expose a computer system to large-scale hacking attempts.
The Army has also used Apple hardware in the field, adopting custom iPods to be used as field translators in Iraq. The U.S. Army's 10th Mountain Division reportedly used iPods and iPod nanos modified to run a special application from Vcom 3D known as Vcommunicator Mobile. The system allows soldiers to choose words or phrases to broadcast out of an attached speaker and communicate with locals.
I guess that's why the war's going so poorly.
Somebody sure is cranky today...
As I said the first time around, the government will probably get a higher quality product by using one of the commercial OSes. Look for the past 10 years I've written software for a defense contractor. Our program is supposedly one of the better ones around. I've seen what kind of money goes into producing one app, and what sort of quality results from that app being written on contract. Don't give me some 9/11 garbage lecture because you don't understand the system.
They do and they don't. Yes, the OSs are commercial however they tend to be more secure versions of those OS's with higher EAL certs and deployed with tighter security requirements than most commercial installations. Typically these OS's cost a bit more either in price (Secure Solaris) or in deployment costs (hardening Linux with MAC and RBAC).
As far as quality of apps goes, like most things it varies by how mission critical something is. Flight software tends to be pretty robust whether civilian or military. Fart apps not so much.
If it were possible I would like to see them all go back home, but now that they have their US born children and families we can't break them up and deport half of an illegal family, now can we?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mstone;1498128]If the US were to leave foreign countries, those people would be much less likely to venture here to the US and attack us than they would be in just continue fighting amongst themselves.
How's this for an idea?
Instead of worrying about something we have no control over, (the climate), and saving the spotted snail darter, and focus our attention on the real problems in the world, I mean the ones we can do something about. What we should do is rid the world of despots and petty dictators, all of them, and leave this planet safe for our children and grandchildren. Then, when the next generations put their knowledge together, without fear or intimidation, they can utilize science to solve the problems that conflict cannot, like the climate, and cancer, and ways to feed the whole world, sickness, and raise everyone's standard of living. I can't for the life of me understand why this president, or any president, would rather lower America's standard of living, to meet the rest of the world, rather than find ways to raise the rest of the world's to match ours. Just so you don't think I'm too pessimistic, I think we are utilizing the very instrument that will mark the beginning of the end of world conflict, this thing we call the internet.
What's the problem if you can develop your own OS and customize to protect your network from being hacked by a foreign country trying to steal classified military documents and blueprints?! This article will give you more information about what China did.
My point was that "DoD" is an extremely broad term when used in the context you did.
I was surprise that the DOD uses commercial OS. You would think that with their huge budget and resources they would develop their own in house variation of Linux.
They do develop and have dozens of their own in-house OSs but likely +95% of "DoD" users have standard, off the shelf computers and software, as most likely does China.
Only certain systems would have any "special" stuff.
How's this for an idea?
... focus our attention on the real problems in the world, I mean the ones we can do something about. What we should do is rid the world of despots and petty dictators, all of them, and leave this planet safe for our children and grandchildren. Then, when the next generations put their knowledge together, without fear or intimidation, ...
Please fix the code in your post.
You must be from some other planet because you don't have a clue what's going on, on planet Earth.
Please fix the code in your post.
You must be from some other planet because you don't have a clue what's going on, on planet Earth.
I've been around a long time sonny and I do know one thing, there are a lot of great people around this world who's talent will be stifled because of tyrants and petty dictators.
I've been around a long time sonny and I do know one thing, there are a lot of great people around this world who's talent will be stifled because of tyrants and petty dictators.
Oh please, you might overheat the two remaining brain cells you have just trying to figure out where the [ ] go in the reply code let alone trying to solve any world peace issues.
... I can't for the life of me understand why this president, or any president, would rather lower America's standard of living, to meet the rest of the world, rather than find ways to raise the rest of the world's to match ours...
As a member of "the rest of the world" (or should that be "the other 95.5% of the world") I kindly ask that you get a better idea of where the USA's standard of living actually is in comparison to "the rest of the world" before asking for your president to interfere where he has no jurisdiction and is not needed. Most of the world does not share the USA's idea of what constitutes "standard of living"; we would include health, for instance.