Actually you're right...FIPS 140-2 part was already answered since I AES 256 was stated as one of the implementing algorithms to choose from; however, I appreciate duffbeer's tutorial...
I don't know if this is relevant, but at 1351 (EST) I was (attempted) port scanned by 216.34.181.45, which "Who Is" says belongs to Source Forge... wow...coincidence, just got hit again time 0738 same IP
When you say people have audited, has it been been tested and assigned an Evaluated Assurance Level (EAL) under the Common Criteria (ISO 15408)? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but I'm asking because I'm wondering whether this might satisfy a certain proposed policy criteria that may rear its ugly head in the future...
Hello Improv, this is INT_QRK. There. We've met. You can no longer say that you haven't met an Evolution user. I like Evolution - it's maybe not as elegant as Intelligent Design, mind you, but it suits me nicely. Seriously though, I used Kontact for a while when I flirted with KDE (dropped back to GNOME, just because I prefer it, no fights please), and it was alright too, as is Thunderbird as far as it goes, but Evolution also works well hot-synching with my Treo. Anyway, Evolution's certainly worth the price.
re ivuica, I agree. I wouldn't recommend taking out Evolution, GNOME Games, etc. from Ubuntu default app load. In addition to being a POP and IMAP email client, Evolution also implements calender functionality, contacts management and notes. It's a good application. I like it and use it. That said, the issue of bundled applications in a GNU/Linux distribution seems to me as somewhat a red herring to the point of "lightening" an OS' footprint. I like having lots of apps available for my use, although I don't necessarily need a great many of them loading as a daemon or service incurring a performance trade that I don't ask for or need. That seems to be the issue, services on demand fine, services that I don't need all the time shouldn't be there all the time, or at all unless or or until needed.
Understand your sentiment (and humor), but what about some federal security regime extended to the local level, a Common Criteria/NIAP-like consortium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIAP) of private testers and labs that maintain a C&A system, with government controlled audits and oversight, for example?
This may seem a little orthogonal. However, the municipal court system is the core instrument of government power to the average citizen. So, how does it ensure that a vendor doesn't place itself in a position to now "own" the court's IT, able to covertly violate confidentiality, integrity and availability of critical court records at will? Thinks of how a well-resourced entity like a drug cartel might have incentives to subvert a court system, becoming, in essence, an "insider" to the system. Certainly at the federal level agencies like the DoD, for example, also use private vendors (albeit highly vetted), but they also conduct extensive in-house testing throughout development and across the life cycle through via certification and accreditation regimes (e.g., DIACAP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIACAP). Municipalities lack such resources and are at the mercy to a "low bidder," esecially one that doesn't need to turn a profit from the primary customer but is able to offset that in spades by secondary and tertiary "silent partner" customers. Should we consider, perhaps extending federal IT resources down to local levels?
"...would be more tolerable on Fox News"...? So, you're criticizing (and I agree) biased advocacy reporting, and then go on to make an unsupported assertion that Fox News is singularly biased, as compared to what, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, and oh, by-the-way-BBC? As long as we're just baselessly asserting our individual biases, I would declare that the networks that I mentioned are far more biased than Fox. There. Don't have to back that up. It's just true. Period.
The problem with unsupported assertions like "missile defense is a waste of money," is that they are more often than not grounded in political emotions than fact or even logical argument. Like any other defense, missile defense needs to be based on cost versus benefit. What is the relative cost of an interceptor pair of missiles and their supporting infrastructure relative to a target city, for example. Potential benefits include some probability that a given attack will either be defeated (intercepted) or prevented (deterred). Test have proven (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15967) that ballistic missiles can be intercepted given the right conditions with some arguable probability of success. Salient open questions include whether current and near-term projected capabilities can defeat a sufficient percentage of attacks such that an attacker with a limited inventory of ballistic missiles will fail to achieve its objectives, AND is willing to absorb retaliation in kind. If a potential attacker has reasonable doubt of success in inflicting sufficient punishment to achieve its aims, then they are likely deterred, notwithstanding retaliation. If that deterrence fails, then the attacker's perceived vulnerability to likely retaliation is a residual deterrence. If all deterrence fails, then missile defense may at least reduce damages, and retaliation is likely to reduce potential for further damage of a future attack. In the case of a country the size of Iran relative to U.S. capability, for example, risk of future engagement can be theoretically obviated for a very long time. No man-made defense is ever flawless, but to therefor not have a defense presents risks that I would recommend against.
Concur, and that was doubtless the statement that Iran wanted to make. Regardless, it is what Israel hears, and since U.S. policy on Iran seems to have migrated towards "peaceful engagement," in much the same sense, perhaps, that Neville Chamberlain peacefully engaged "Mr. Hitler," then I'd expect a similar "peace in our time" to ensue. Although history's lessons are seldom learned for more than a generation at most, they are still good for a giggle now and then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
Well, certainly a moderately successful politician, wouldn't you say? How many Gubernatorial elections have you won? I thought so. And "forward thinking" is NEOCOMMIE for what, funding ACORN, the criminal voter fraud cell of the democrat political machine, as "Economic Stimulus"?
Ah, "Funny" when disparaging the Republican and "Troll" when defending her. Of course, this is how I expect NEOCOMMIES react to nonconformist attitude.
I'd say more like Global Cooling. Stratospheric volcanic clouds are more likely to reflect sunlight back into space, thus are more likely to cause cooling than contribute significantly to greenhouse effect. See http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/volcanoes/vclimate.html
How utterly clever. Did you think of it yourself or did you get your political thoughts from the great analytical thinkers of our time, like, Letterman, Rosie O'Donnell, the faculty of The View...
...and regarding that "relative that calls you and asks what happened to their toolbar in word that seems to have disappeared may not really get this book," um...wait...I and many of my technically educated colleges and friends (engineers, scientists, systems analysts, etc.) are frequently baffled by capricious and suboptimal behavior in MS Office products, especially as they morph from sensible to nonsensical and back again across versions. To be fair, that applies to any product, not just MS. Not all HCI schemes are necessarily intuitive, even (maybe especially) to people who live in the system development lifecycle. I've spent, and likely will continue to spend, a fair amount of my time cycling through both tech documentation and MS "Help" menus.:P
I'm really not sure that it's a case of underestimation of man's ability to adapt so much as cynical and opportunistic exploitation of fear to promote control for some "savior" philosophy and group. Clearly many on the left see "global warming" as a venue for promoting collectivist powers as a solution.
Does the fact that the agency responsible for maintaining the do-not-call list sells said list to telemarketers stand out to anyone else? Am I reading this right? That, in and of itself, should be a major political scandal demanding the head of the Agency Head (OK, figuratively! I meant job!). This situation demands an example be made.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably refers to "Red Banner" as in : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Red_Banner
Good comments, and excellent advice.
Actually you're right...FIPS 140-2 part was already answered since I AES 256 was stated as one of the implementing algorithms to choose from; however, I appreciate duffbeer's tutorial...
I don't know if this is relevant, but at 1351 (EST) I was (attempted) port scanned by 216.34.181.45, which "Who Is" says belongs to Source Forge... wow...coincidence, just got hit again time 0738 same IP
When you say people have audited, has it been been tested and assigned an Evaluated Assurance Level (EAL) under the Common Criteria (ISO 15408)? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but I'm asking because I'm wondering whether this might satisfy a certain proposed policy criteria that may rear its ugly head in the future...
As they say in Old Meh-hee-co, "!Jay!"(Imagine if you will, the first "!" rotated 180 degrees).
Concur
Hello Improv, this is INT_QRK. There. We've met. You can no longer say that you haven't met an Evolution user. I like Evolution - it's maybe not as elegant as Intelligent Design, mind you, but it suits me nicely. Seriously though, I used Kontact for a while when I flirted with KDE (dropped back to GNOME, just because I prefer it, no fights please), and it was alright too, as is Thunderbird as far as it goes, but Evolution also works well hot-synching with my Treo. Anyway, Evolution's certainly worth the price.
re ivuica, I agree. I wouldn't recommend taking out Evolution, GNOME Games, etc. from Ubuntu default app load. In addition to being a POP and IMAP email client, Evolution also implements calender functionality, contacts management and notes. It's a good application. I like it and use it. That said, the issue of bundled applications in a GNU/Linux distribution seems to me as somewhat a red herring to the point of "lightening" an OS' footprint. I like having lots of apps available for my use, although I don't necessarily need a great many of them loading as a daemon or service incurring a performance trade that I don't ask for or need. That seems to be the issue, services on demand fine, services that I don't need all the time shouldn't be there all the time, or at all unless or or until needed.
Understand your sentiment (and humor), but what about some federal security regime extended to the local level, a Common Criteria/NIAP-like consortium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIAP) of private testers and labs that maintain a C&A system, with government controlled audits and oversight, for example?
Once you go *nix you never go...back.
This may seem a little orthogonal. However, the municipal court system is the core instrument of government power to the average citizen. So, how does it ensure that a vendor doesn't place itself in a position to now "own" the court's IT, able to covertly violate confidentiality, integrity and availability of critical court records at will? Thinks of how a well-resourced entity like a drug cartel might have incentives to subvert a court system, becoming, in essence, an "insider" to the system. Certainly at the federal level agencies like the DoD, for example, also use private vendors (albeit highly vetted), but they also conduct extensive in-house testing throughout development and across the life cycle through via certification and accreditation regimes (e.g., DIACAP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIACAP). Municipalities lack such resources and are at the mercy to a "low bidder," esecially one that doesn't need to turn a profit from the primary customer but is able to offset that in spades by secondary and tertiary "silent partner" customers. Should we consider, perhaps extending federal IT resources down to local levels?
We agree completely.
"...would be more tolerable on Fox News"...? So, you're criticizing (and I agree) biased advocacy reporting, and then go on to make an unsupported assertion that Fox News is singularly biased, as compared to what, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, and oh, by-the-way-BBC? As long as we're just baselessly asserting our individual biases, I would declare that the networks that I mentioned are far more biased than Fox. There. Don't have to back that up. It's just true. Period.
The problem with unsupported assertions like "missile defense is a waste of money," is that they are more often than not grounded in political emotions than fact or even logical argument. Like any other defense, missile defense needs to be based on cost versus benefit. What is the relative cost of an interceptor pair of missiles and their supporting infrastructure relative to a target city, for example. Potential benefits include some probability that a given attack will either be defeated (intercepted) or prevented (deterred). Test have proven (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15967) that ballistic missiles can be intercepted given the right conditions with some arguable probability of success. Salient open questions include whether current and near-term projected capabilities can defeat a sufficient percentage of attacks such that an attacker with a limited inventory of ballistic missiles will fail to achieve its objectives, AND is willing to absorb retaliation in kind. If a potential attacker has reasonable doubt of success in inflicting sufficient punishment to achieve its aims, then they are likely deterred, notwithstanding retaliation. If that deterrence fails, then the attacker's perceived vulnerability to likely retaliation is a residual deterrence. If all deterrence fails, then missile defense may at least reduce damages, and retaliation is likely to reduce potential for further damage of a future attack. In the case of a country the size of Iran relative to U.S. capability, for example, risk of future engagement can be theoretically obviated for a very long time. No man-made defense is ever flawless, but to therefor not have a defense presents risks that I would recommend against.
Anything you can put into orbit, you can drop out of orbit anywhere along its track...
Concur, and that was doubtless the statement that Iran wanted to make. Regardless, it is what Israel hears, and since U.S. policy on Iran seems to have migrated towards "peaceful engagement," in much the same sense, perhaps, that Neville Chamberlain peacefully engaged "Mr. Hitler," then I'd expect a similar "peace in our time" to ensue. Although history's lessons are seldom learned for more than a generation at most, they are still good for a giggle now and then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
Dear coward, obviously it is. That's how you NEOCOMMIES operate.
Well, certainly a moderately successful politician, wouldn't you say? How many Gubernatorial elections have you won? I thought so. And "forward thinking" is NEOCOMMIE for what, funding ACORN, the criminal voter fraud cell of the democrat political machine, as "Economic Stimulus"?
Ah, "Funny" when disparaging the Republican and "Troll" when defending her. Of course, this is how I expect NEOCOMMIES react to nonconformist attitude.
I'd say more like Global Cooling. Stratospheric volcanic clouds are more likely to reflect sunlight back into space, thus are more likely to cause cooling than contribute significantly to greenhouse effect. See http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/volcanoes/vclimate.html
How utterly clever. Did you think of it yourself or did you get your political thoughts from the great analytical thinkers of our time, like, Letterman, Rosie O'Donnell, the faculty of The View...
...and regarding that "relative that calls you and asks what happened to their toolbar in word that seems to have disappeared may not really get this book," um...wait...I and many of my technically educated colleges and friends (engineers, scientists, systems analysts, etc.) are frequently baffled by capricious and suboptimal behavior in MS Office products, especially as they morph from sensible to nonsensical and back again across versions. To be fair, that applies to any product, not just MS. Not all HCI schemes are necessarily intuitive, even (maybe especially) to people who live in the system development lifecycle. I've spent, and likely will continue to spend, a fair amount of my time cycling through both tech documentation and MS "Help" menus. :P
I'm really not sure that it's a case of underestimation of man's ability to adapt so much as cynical and opportunistic exploitation of fear to promote control for some "savior" philosophy and group. Clearly many on the left see "global warming" as a venue for promoting collectivist powers as a solution.
Does the fact that the agency responsible for maintaining the do-not-call list sells said list to telemarketers stand out to anyone else? Am I reading this right? That, in and of itself, should be a major political scandal demanding the head of the Agency Head (OK, figuratively! I meant job!). This situation demands an example be made.