Saturday, 25 September 2010

"The Washington Post explains why the military prefers to have combat veterans rather than geeks running network security. '"It was supposed to be a war fighter unit, not a geek unit," said task force veteran Jason Healey, who had served as an Air Force signals intelligence officer. A fighter would understand, for instance, if an enemy had penetrated the networks and changed coordinates or target times, said Dusty Rhoads, a retired Air Force colonel and former F-117 pilot who recruited the original task force members. "A techie wouldn't have a clue," he said.'"
Well why would you let people that develop and maintain the software to not have a firm hand in the application of the software? Surely they should be working side by side in case of a system breach.
I will never understand the army. I don't think I want to actually!

1 comment:

  1. It might be useful to understanding thinking such as that. It's funny how Rhoads doesn't even know that "a techie" can fucking code a script that automatically notificates if coordinates and target times are changed, let alone that he doesn't understand "a techie" can probably keep up the needed high security. :D

    Btw., check out my blog at . It's about science and religion and how they clash!