"Dr. Campaigne has been informed that the reply has been written and is not interested in further coordination."
This seems a bit harsh!
John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]
11–20 of 49 posts
Re: John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NSA's response said about the same thing, once you get to the end --- not interesting, not reasonable for encryption and decryption. Interesting, I think, the statement that Nash's machine requires "comparatively" too much hardware. This implies the NSA did have auto-keying systems at the time that had higher security, and lower hardware burden. Remember, in '55 we didn't have single-chip CPUs, we barely had prac…
Today's generation is strongly detached from the military, I think that is why. If everyone had a close family member or friend serving they would care more about the security of military operations. Like it or not we have enemies still and need to maintain this secrecy to protect our country.
The closest thing I had to a friend serving, switched from a barely tolerable racist to a fellow who was proud he was protecting our oil interests by shooting hadjis.
Difficult to understand how creating enemies abroad is protecting us here.
Re: John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could be wrong, but I believe that Princeton PhD's go by "mister" instead of "doctor." Princeton considers itself a unique institution in this way. They do not accept transfer students, they do not have any professional degree programs, etc.
> I believe that Princeton PhD's go by "mister" instead of "doctor." Would you have a reference for this? This is really interesting.
From http://www.princeton.edu/communications/services/editorial/r... :
> “Use the title Dr. only when referring to a medical doctor.”
Re: John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NSA's response said about the same thing, once you get to the end --- not interesting, not reasonable for encryption and decryption. Interesting, I think, the statement that Nash's machine requires "comparatively" too much hardware. This implies the NSA did have auto-keying systems at the time that had higher security, and lower hardware burden. Remember, in '55 we didn't have single-chip CPUs, we barely had prac…
Today's generation is strongly detached from the military, I think that is why. If everyone had a close family member or friend serving they would care more about the security of military operations. Like it or not we have enemies still and need to maintain this secrecy to protect our country.
My brother is in the US Army (and so was my cousin). I don't believe that Snowden-like reveals put him in any more specific danger - AFAIK, he's at much higher risk from "insurgent" activity, which the US's actions have created without any help from leaks.
Nor is using the word "serving" instead of "working" beneficial to how people think about it. It's a job, he enjoys it, he's fairly well compensated (good credit, benefits, etc.) The military offers all sorts of bonuses and recruiting tactics to hire people, like other companies. You're not forced into the military, and when he joined, the various divisions were actually quite picky and it took a while to find a properly compensating match, just like other employers. (Though in my cousin's case, after suffering severe damage on base, they had no trouble discharging her to a rather miserable life, hey just like other corporations.)
Re: John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NSA's response said about the same thing, once you get to the end --- not interesting, not reasonable for encryption and decryption. Interesting, I think, the statement that Nash's machine requires "comparatively" too much hardware. This implies the NSA did have auto-keying systems at the time that had higher security, and lower hardware burden. Remember, in '55 we didn't have single-chip CPUs, we barely had prac…
Today's generation is strongly detached from the military, I think that is why. If everyone had a close family member or friend serving they would care more about the security of military operations. Like it or not we have enemies still and need to maintain this secrecy to protect our country.
While I believe you're very much correct in your first statement, I do disagree with your other statements.
Some of us believe that the best way of protecting our service members is by not putting them in harms way in the first place.
This also entails after service privileges. We should be spending infinitely more on our service members, not less (in terms of healthcare, education, housing, everything.) Instead, were spending an incredibly large amount of money on corporate welfare for things that will probably be either useless, or worse than useless (in that they are dangerous to our troops, for just one example, the infamous A-10 vs JSF debacle. One is a proven way of saving US lives on the ground, the other is a giant waste of money.)
Second, we may also feel that the service members (our friends and family) are here to protect the People, not the Government, and thus enforce the ideals behind the Constitution. This entails protecting our (I would go so far as to say everyone's, but I know that's a rather radical interpretation) freedom, from illegal search and seizure that the NSA has very obviously been violating all of our rights, including our soldiers.
Secrecy of communications is one thing, but the NSA (and the military) has shown that they care less about that, than they do in actually spying on everyone. The US military's communications system is such a clusterfuck that you often times have troops that are within a mile (in 3d space, so this very much applies to aircraft), that cannot communicate with one another.
Maybe I took your comment out of context, but I believe that we should take care of and protect our troops. But that doesn't mean we subvert the ideals of the country that our troops are theoretically fighting for.
Re: John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I believe that Princeton PhD's go by "mister" instead of "doctor." Would you have a reference for this? This is really interesting.
From http://www.princeton.edu/communications/services/editorial/r... : > “Use the title Dr. only when referring to a medical doctor.”
Thanks!
Re: John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I believe that Princeton PhD's go by "mister" instead of "doctor." Would you have a reference for this? This is really interesting.
From http://www.princeton.edu/communications/services/editorial/r... : > “Use the title Dr. only when referring to a medical doctor.”
Apropos of nothing, these rules seem mechanical enough to be codified as software. Has anyone done so?
P.S. A more specific link would be the "Titles" subsection, http://www.princeton.edu/communications/services/editorial/r...
Re: John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NSA's response said about the same thing, once you get to the end --- not interesting, not reasonable for encryption and decryption. Interesting, I think, the statement that Nash's machine requires "comparatively" too much hardware. This implies the NSA did have auto-keying systems at the time that had higher security, and lower hardware burden. Remember, in '55 we didn't have single-chip CPUs, we barely had prac…
Today's generation is strongly detached from the military, I think that is why. If everyone had a close family member or friend serving they would care more about the security of military operations. Like it or not we have enemies still and need to maintain this secrecy to protect our country.
[deleted]
Re: John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]
#19A true genius of his time to us public folk, yet still behind NSA standards for security. I'm sure we will be seeing transformer-esque AI with Tesla batteries and gravity guns in the next XX (or X?) years.
Re: John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I believe that Princeton PhD's go by "mister" instead of "doctor." Would you have a reference for this? This is really interesting.
From http://www.princeton.edu/communications/services/editorial/r... : > “Use the title Dr. only when referring to a medical doctor.”
The line before this says "don't use courtesy titles" (e.g. Mr.)