That's literally Valve's strategy. Counterstrike, Team Fortress, Dota, Portal...
Also even graphic novels are generally two person teams. I think trying to make an indie game with a small team (2-4 people) is way more realistic than doing it solo.
You can exit from MTGO pretty easily? There are automated bots that will buy your cards for tickets, and those same companies will give you cash for those tickets (95 cents per ticket right now, not a terrible rate).
These are people who have never (will never?) write any actual working code. Through a combination of lying on their resume/bullshitting interviews/hiding away during the actual job they've managed to get by. They are a small percentage of all "Programmers", but a large percentage of people looking for jobs (because they are more likely to be unemployed, more likely to fail an interview, and their best way to get a job is to try as many interviews as they can get).
I'd never be insulted by Fizzbuzz questions, it takes maybe a minute to solve and you can move from there to more interesting questions very easily. If Fizzbuzz is the closest thing to a time waste during the interview process, you're in pretty good shape.
While that's true, it's not as big a deal as you'd think if these cars are dramatically safer. Auto insurance is a 180 billion dollar industry in the US (that's a billion with a B). If the cars are actually safer, they will have dramatically lower insurance premiums, which will allow the manufacturer to charge more money for the car upfront and still come out ahead even if they assume lots of liability. People will find a way to make it work because there's just too much money to be made.
There are actually animals that sleep half a brain at once: all the marine mammals. A dolphin can't just fall asleep underwater (it will drown), so it sleeps half at a time.
There are creatures that sleep very little (Giraffes, etc.) But there's large benefits to sleep, and for most animals it's worth the cost, especially since you don't want to burn piles of calories during non-peak hunting/foraging hours anyway.
This isn't about censorship or trying to shut the barn door after the horse or anything about trying to prevent the spread of documents to the public (or even realistically the people who work at the DoD). The key words are right in the article itself: "integrity of unclassified government information systems.”
Note that it's not the classified systems they are worried about, but the boring unclassified ones. There are separate systems for classified and unclassified information, and there are rules to make sure that stuff doesn't move from the classified systems to the unclassified ones by accident. One of those rules, very sensibly, is that classified information shouldn't be on the unclassified systems.
Again, this has nothing to do with stopping public spread of the documents, and everything to do with trying to keep "clean" systems clean, as they explain in the article.
You are absolutely correct about the compartmentalization and physical separation of classified and unclassified systems.
I disagree that this is about keeping "clean" systems clean. That is the justification for the block. The implied task, which typically carries tremendous latitude, is in this clause:
> Leadership must establish a vigilant command climate that underscores the critical importance of safeguarding classified material against compromise.
Officers will discuss this in an email, maybe during a routine brief, and issue intent (maybe guidance) to the NCOs. That clause about the vigilant command climate being underscored is where the NCOs will be interpreting the implied task(s). Somewhere, for some units, this will be similar to the way alcohol and pornography is handled. There will be an amnesty and then there will be barracks inspections. Platoon and team leaders will treat any device used to access an unclassified system as though it were a thumb drive. Most of the lower enlisted depend heavily upon their Defense Knowledge Online (DKO) portal and webmail. Many use personal computers to access from their barracks. Medical records, address books, professional development, college coursework, all are accessed through the portal. If you have been keeping up on the Snowden leaks on your personal laptop and you are caught with that material on your personal laptop, which you use to access DKO, you will be charged with a security violation. Your clearance will be revoked. You will lose your job and there will be a criminal investigation. If you sync your phone with your laptop, that will be inspected, as well. Your phone might as well be a thumb drive. If you have an email with Snowden material attached to it in your GMail Inbox, and that is pushed to your phone but you fail to report and scrub it, you will be charged.
These are marching orders. Soldiers will feel the squeeze from this.
> if ... you are caught with that material on your personal laptop, which you use to access DKO, you will be charged with a security violation
Yes, as is the same with all other classified information. How else should the government deal with it? De-classify the information? If you have a security clearance you should know that you should never have classified information on a un-classified computer system. There's nothing new about this.
Prior to Wikileaks and an Executive Order addressing the matter of classified information in public domain, the presence of classified information on an unclassified system almost certainly required a deliberate effort to remove the classified information. A soldier would have had to gain access to the classified system and deliberately violate regulation to extract the information. Finding the classified information on an unclassified system would otherwise have exposed gross negligence or criminal intent. This is shifting the focus from the violation that took place to transfer classified information to an unclassified system; it shifts the focus to exposure to classified information on an unclassified system.
Not every soldier is familiar with handling classified information. Their ignorance is bliss. They do not have access to classified systems. Now, though they have no access, they are to be treated as though they mishandled classified information because they visited a public domain website on their personal computer. They had to be told the information was classified because they otherwise could not be certain.
This is new enough. I do understand your position about data at rest. But I believe there is a difference based upon where the classified information was encountered and how it got there. If it is on an unclassified system, and it got there via communication with an unclassified system, I fail to see the soldier's violation. When the soldier's mother expressed outrage over the leak or details of the leak is the soldier supposed to report her and cease contact?
The block is one thing. The bit about leadership and climate is another.
And that´s why the system fails to protect the informations routinely. It makes sense from the rules point of view, but lacks perspective and is not practical.
It´s just trying to grab a pint of water with your hand, no matter how hard you try and how many rules you set, it´s not going to work.
What would happen if, say, a common Linux distribution integrated classified material into its base documentation (not unreasonable; encryption algorithms can be classified, for example) and then pushed that change out as a bugfix-level auto-update? Would tens of thousands of people suddenly be breaking the law?
Certainly, there must be a state for "leaked" classified documents, for which this rule simply wouldn't apply (these leaked documents could literally appear anywhere on the web in theory).
"Classified" remains classified even if leaked to remove ambiguity and possible sloppiness.
It is to avoid situations like: "this document says it needs to be handled as if it is classified but I am pretty sure it leaked last week so I will treat it as unclassified which is easier..."
Just so you know, those achievements are like tracking cookies: the video game companies can't just send home whatever data they want, but they can see achievement data. So that achievement was just to see how many of the people who bought the game actually started to play, to provide a baseline for how many (go halfway/beat the game/play the multiplayer/anything else they can jam in an achievement).
Because it doesn't affect you or any other person or organization that doesn't have legitimate access to classified information.
The key words here are "unclassified government systems". There are rules and procedures to make sure that the classified stuff stays on the classified systems, and one of those, very sensibly, is that classified stuff shouldn't be on the unclassified systems.
It's more neutral because it takes out a bunch of useful information and leaves practically nothing left, like a news story that's unbiased because it doesn't bother actually saying any facts. The original title doesn't even explain that Google is changing their policy. I understand wanting to remove editorializing, but there's a difference between that and adding some detail from the article itself to a rather contentless title.
Also even graphic novels are generally two person teams. I think trying to make an indie game with a small team (2-4 people) is way more realistic than doing it solo.