The biggest hole existing right now is the user. Any thought otherwise is simply whistling in the wind.
Not so. There is a lot that can be done as I will explain.
Once a user runs software, if that software is malicious, that computer is compromised. Period.
That is correct. But it is inaccurate as, in most cases, the user is NOT AWARE that s/he is running software or installing software.
Which is one of the reasons that Linux is so resistant to the "viruses" (viruses, worms and trojans) that are out there. The OS protects the OS files from non-root users.
There, the problem is solved for all users except those who will willingly and knowingly install the "virus" themselves.
Think about it for a moment. What is the intent of anti-virus software ("anti" + "virus")? Isn't it to stop apps that you don't want running on your computer? Apps that were written by the "bad guys"?
So, the reason that anti-virus software sucks is because the "bad guys" are writing BETTER "viruses" that can bypass the anti-virus programmers' software.
And the reason for that is that anti-virus software is REACTIVE.
A proactive system would patch the holes that are being exploited.
A reactive system issues patches to remove all the specific threats encountered so far.
That approach will ALWAYS result in the "good guys" being behind the "bad guys". Like DUH!!!
But in this case, so is the "content" of the article. Example:
Traditional search engines are based on information retrieval technologies. They implement operations such as boolean queries, proximity searches, text relevance and link analysis.
So, that defines the current systems. That's a good start. So what makes these other systems "2.0"?
To explain the generations:
I don't care about the generations, explain what makes the new stuff "2.0" instead of "1.0". Instead he's covering what would be "0.1" and "1.0" and when he gets to "2.0", it's...
Third-generation search technologies are designed to combine the scalability of existing internet search engines with new and improved relevancy models;...
We had "relevancy models" in his "1.0" version.
Wouldn't the first generation of search engines (without the "relevancy models") be "1.0"?
Then Google would already be "2.0" because it has the features of 1.0 PLUS the new (at the time) "relevancy model".
So improving the relevancy model would make the "next generation" more "2.1".
...they bring into the equation user preferences, collaboration, collective intelligence, a rich user experience, and many other specialized capabilities that make information more productive.
The most sought-after corporate IT workers in 2010 may be those with no deep-seated technical skills at all.
I don't know about you, but that's a huge warning to me.
Instead, IT departments will be populated with "versatilists" -- those with a technology background who also know the business sector inside and out, can architect and carry out IT plans that will add business value, and can cultivate relationships both inside and outside the company.
So, the "most sought-after" IT worker will be one who can... "cultivate relationships" with "outside" people who do have the "deep-seated technical skills".
Why? Because...
The nuts-and-bolts programming and easy-to-document support jobs will have all gone to third-party providers in the U.S. or abroad.
Translation: 2010 management will demand IT staff who can understand the business and technology sufficiently to manage the out-sourced projects.
Said out-sourced projects will be the actual writing of the software that supports the company and the end-user support of the remaining company employees who use the software that was written by other people outside the company.
Welcome to the "Titanic" business model.
I'm sure you can all imagine the fun that that will be. With the out-sourced support staff blaming the out-sourced programmers and the out-sourced programmers blaming the support staff... while your users struggle to just get their work done.
I think the point being made is that business/sales skills are more important for your career not for the business. As long as the technical skills are available to keep the tech going, sales etc. will put you at a higher level in the business than tech skills.
The flaw in that approach is that it depends upon nothing going wrong that you cannot blame on someone else.
Which is not to say that you won't get lucky and succeed with that approach. Just that it is a flawed approach.
And that is the essence of "tech viewpoint" vs "business viewpoint".
Sure, what's "most important" is being able to sell. Particularly when the corporate network was just cracked and you have to explain to the CEO why all the clients have been looking at "j00 b33n pwN3d" on your website all morning.
Technical skills? Not so important.
That's "sarcasm" for those of you unable to see it.
Being a good salesman can get you in the door and on the project. But nothing will help if you don't have the tech skills to deliver.
Particularly as more and more of the business is being put on the 'web. The best people will have the tech skills and the business knowledge and the salesmanship skills. But the tech skills are the most important.
#3. Keeping unauthorized software off of the clean, updated install(s).
If you don't have all three, you'll be running through the processes again and again and again.
#1. This is the easy part. To save time, take an image of the machine(s) after you've finished.
#2. You can download any patch from Microsoft for "network deployment" so your bandwidth won't really matter. Just start the download process when you're closing up the library.
#3. Group policies or 3rd party software that returns the machine to a pristine state (and every time you make a mistake, you can use that image you created in step #1).
You raise some excellent points. If I may be allowed to expand upon them...
#1. Set a price limit. You can set multiple limits ($1,000 vs $5,000 vs $25,000 vs $100,000 vs $1,000,000+). The key concept here is that you get different characteristics as your budget increases/decreases. What characteristics does each "stack" offer in each price range? Yep, this does give the advantage to Free stacks (Free like speech, free like beer). Deal with it. In the Real World the bottom line is the bottom line. Each team gets to spend the money however they want to.
#2. Get the "experts" to tune each stack. BUT they must document each modification they make, including WHY they made that modification (what testing did they run and how did those test results tell them what mod's to make) AND they are only allowed to make mod's that can be found via public websites (no secret tuning parameters that are only known to the organization writing that software) AND they aren't allowed to touch any source code. They get what everyone else gets.
#3. The fun part. Each team gets to pull apart the work of the other teams. Even if your solution is faster for the specs given, how much wiggle room do you have? Is faster and fragile better than slower and stable? How much "slower" is acceptable for how much more "stable"? Can the other team defeat your security (network access only)?
#4. Freeze those systems. Then, over the next year, patch them and re-test them. Do the patches break the "tuning" that was done?
Now that would be an informative test process (and would result in lots of articles and interviews for the magazine publishing it).
Yeah, you can run Linux / Apache / MySQL / perl on a single drive workstation and get damn good performance for less than $300.
But that will be completely different from Oracle / Java on a cluster of Suns costing $10,000,000. And not just in the number of boxes you'd be running.
#1. NO tuning was done on the LAMP stuff. None at all. They ran the stuff "out of the box".
#2. They didn't write their own app. That means they didn't test the SAME processes on each system.
#3. They didn't bother to find WHERE the differences were. Is it in the IP stack? Is it in the OS? Is it in the scripting language? Is it in the app?
How bad can "research" be and still be published in "eWeek"? There wasn't any research done for that article.
Microsoft has, in the past, taken various short-cuts when IIS was the server and IE was the browser. Is that the case in this "study"? Are the other "stacks" "slower" because they follow the protocols?
You won't know because they'd didn't LOOK for the REASON behind their "results".
They claim to be as accurate as a Bayesian process, but with fewer check items.
But from their paper, it seems that they're "tuning" their check items to the corpus of spam that they're testing against.
So of course they will use fewer check items. There are a finite number of characteristics of that corpus.
I did not see where they were using their system in a Real World environment (I may have missed it, the article was pretty painful to read). Now, if they can do as good as a fully tuned SpamAssassin system (comparable true positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives), in a Real World environment, with fewer check items, then they MAY be on to something.
This is nothing more than another attempt to make some money off of the basic infrastructure of the Internet. DNS is free right now. And to some people, that means that there is a chance to "monetize" that service.
But how to turn a profit from something that's being given away for free right now?
You'd have to offer some additional incentives. Like "phishing blocking" or claiming that a popular website would "load faster".
As far as I know, the DNS resolution has never been the problem for MySpace loading slowly. It's slow because so many other people are hitting their servers and bandwidth. And since Win2K, Microsoft has included a caching DNS app so once you do hit MySpace, you've cached the address on your workstation. You can't get much faster than that.
I said 'what some view' as excesses. I did not say all people view current policy as excessive, nor intimate that people blindly accept or reject the entirety of the Bush administration's policy. A lesson for yourself perhaps in cognitive thinking.
So, some people (but not all people) may (or may not) view some (or none, or all) of the actions of Bush and Co as "excessive" (or maybe not).
I believe that it is you that needs to work on your "cognitive thinking".
If you disagree that czarist Russia spawned the future facist states, take it up with Richard Pipes or any number of other historians.
Well, unless your name is "Richard Pipes" I don't believe that he posted here.
Are you his secretary? Are you scheduling his appointments?
If not, then learn to support the statements that YOU make. Don't try to dump your claims off on someone who is not here and has not posted.
Your rant about Phil Hartman and car accidents does not address the very simple point I made - terrorist attacks have far greater and far reaching consequences than the mundane tragedies of life that you bring up. Even if, oh my gosh, a celebrity is murdered.
Actually, I did address them.
The "consequences" you speak of are nothing more than emotional reactions by people who do not understand statistics. And those "consequences" are what the "terrorists" are attempting to achieve.
So, if you are afraid because a terrorist killed someone, then the terrorist has "won" that round.
The fact that Joe McCarthy was a nut does not mean the United States has no enemies.
Nice attempt at a strawman. I did not say that the United States has no enemies. North Korea and Iran and two obvious examples.
But you won't stop North Korea or Iran by spying upon what US citizens say in chatrooms.
Just as McCarthy's witch hunts to find "Communists" in "Hollywood" did not in any way, shape or form hinder Soviet Russia's activities.
Did you understand it that time?
Wipe froth from mouth, take a deep breath, let your mind approach the problem from all angles. As your right to spew babble has clearly not been trampled on, post again when you have a coherent argument.
It was you who brought up "cognitive thinking".
It was you who tried to deflect arguments to "Richard Pipes".
It was you who could not understand that McCarthy did nothing to hinder Soviet Russia.
It is you who is resorting to personal attacks. That would seem to indicate that you're cache of "logic" has been expended.
Statistically, you are more likely to die from suicide than from a terrorist attack.
The only reason that terrorism still exists is because people do not understand statistics and allow their emotions to be manipulated. You've chose the emotional side of this issue and I have chosen the rational, statistical side.
The only differences are: a. You are far more likely to die from aspirin than from terrorism.
b. People who do not understand statistics succumb to the "terror" in "terrorism".
Thankfully, outside of Slashdot, the nation is not populated by chicken littles and people are willing to take a slight reduction in privacy/anonymity in return for an increased liklihood that the government will be able to prevent more attacks.
And, over time, those "slight reductions" result in... a police state.
Now, to demonstrate your understanding of statistics, why don't you name 5 countries which have fewer Rights than the US and fewer terrorist attacks.
If you cannot, then your point is invalid.
People also have enough common sense to realize that this is not a dictatorship, GW and friends will be out of power in a few more years, and our system of government will - as it always has - correct what some see as the excesses of current policy.
What "excesses of current policy"?
Either the reduction of Rights is necessary, or it is not. You cannot have it both ways.
By the way, facism starts when the populace has its involvement in political life curtailed.
Really? Perhaps you can provide an example of such? All of the Fascist states that I'm familiar with (Italy, German, etc) did not prevent the citizens from participating in politics. In fact, the citizens were encouraged to support the Fascists by identifying the "threats" in their communities.
The first shadow of the future police states was cast by the policies of Czarist Russia. It was not the czars overreaction to domestic terrorism that spawned it, it was the systematic denial of political involvement to the Russian citizenry for centuries.
"first shadow" and "centuries" don't match. Something cannot be the "first shadow" that happens over "centuries".
You may also want to read about various monarchs throughout the ages.
There have and always will be enemies of the state, and it is foolish to think that they are falsehoods perpetuated by those in power.
Look up "McCarthy witch hunt".
The key to preventing facism is an engaged citizenry with the political ability to curtail the overreaction of the g
No. And I find it very telling that it is brought up so often by people who want to take away our Rights.
Facism was born of Germany's humiliation in WWI, weak democractic institutions, and a widespread, simmering hatred of Jews, not of government "inefficiency".
Fascism has nothing to do with Jews.
Fascism depends upon identifying an "enemy of the state". This "enemy" has to be so terrible that the Rights of the rest of the citizens must be "temporarily" restricted to prevent the atrocities that these enemies will surely bring.
The Nazi party identified Jews, Communists and Blacks as "enemies of the State". Pay attention to history.
And I never said that it was "inefficiency" that lead to Fascism. What I said was: "Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people."
Prior to 9/11 the cockroaches to plotted to attack the US did so in the kind of open environment you seem to want to restore.
Freedom is not safe nor is it free.
Our Forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence knowing that their signatures would be used to condemn them to death if the British won the war.
They believed in Freedom enough to PUBLICLY identify themselves and their beliefs.
They fought and died for provide those Freedoms to you. And now you want to sell those Freedoms because there is a slight chance that you will be injured or killed.
The chance of a "terrorist" killing you is LESS than the chance of someone in your own family killing you.
It is LESS likely than you being killed on the highways.
Because lunatics like you who disagree with my well-thought out and cogent arguments would take out your frustration by signing me up for penis-enlargement spam. Duh, again.
You might want to take a look at my posting history before you start throwing around claims of "lunacy" to anyone who disagrees with your "well-thought out and cogent arguments".
Or maybe that will just convince you that I am a "lunatic".
At this point, the problem seems to exist in your perception and beliefs. You claim that you don't believe in privacy on the Internet, yet you attempt to preserve your privacy from the "lunatics" on the Internet.
Those statements are contradictory. Your stated beliefs are contradictory. And you claim that those that disagree with you are "lunatics".
Well that's all the time I'm going to spend on this, with you. Thanks, buh bye.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
You're absolutely correct about this law enabling individuals to bypass the protections we've built up since our country was founded.
And that's not the worst of it. Individuals can harass other individuals.
But the same tactics can apply to groups within the law enforcement agencies. And that makes it too easy to implement a police state without ever passing another law. They can monitor anyone / anywhere / anytime without any oversight or paperwork.
I've never expected privacy on the Internet, either from the peering eyes of the government or my neighbors.
So, you run your own business, eh? Do you expect that your business will never be robbed?
If you expect to be robbed, then why do we need any laws protecting your property rights?
Frankly, I really don't want any new laws "protecting my privacy," at least so far as this interwebs thing goes; I can protect myself just fine, thanks for asking...
Of course you can. Provided that you never need a credit history. But most businesses operate on net 30 or similar. So you'd need some protection and "privacy". You might want to look up "fraud" and "identity theft".
Maybe because I was in business long before e-mail and instant messaging and the Web became "standard" and still view them as something about which to be wary.
Maybe. You may be right. Or...
RobotRunAmok (email not shown publicly)
Well, it does seem that you DO value this "privacy" thing to some degree. You're using a 'nym and you've chosen to not reveal you email address. Why is that?
You're posting... anonymously... regarding pending legislation. Yeah, we need to make sure that that never happens. People should never be able to anonymously state their opposition / support for legislation.
Who paid for the warehouse? They had the means to buy boots. They simply wanted something for free. Or the guy mentioned what cool boots they had. You are ascribing motive to an event that simply suits the needs of your argument.
What was that?
"Or the guy mentioned what cool boots they had."
Great. So now you have to invent conversations to "support" your position? I guess you don't know the facts of the case. And there's no reason for me to continue to discuss this with someone who won't put in the minimum effort to educate himself.
Which reminds me of those dip-shits who could not even formulate a plan to get themselves boots. Yeah, I can see why you'd want to believe that they were "threats". Both of you are in the same league.
They were not on the street. They were living in a warehouse, which means they had some money... more like a cult really.
They were living in a warehouse and asking their "al Queda" contact to buy them boots.
To put that in simpler terms for you... they couldn't even come up with a plan they could handle to get boots for themselves.
They failed to acquire footgear.
As for the "Wal-Mart" guns, sure you can get a few guns but those are little good if you're looking to take out a building or a large number of people.
I agree with that. If I were running a demolition company, I would not be shopping at Wal-Mart.
Meanwhile, two guys with a rifle did terrorize the D.C. area. So your statement is irrelevent when the discussion is about terrorists.
It's substiantally harder to get real explosives, and that is what they were asking after.
Again, their dreams exceeded their abilities. So who cares about them?
Their abilities did not even result in them getting guns. So who cares about them?
Now I don't know about you but at the point where a cult starts asking after high explosives I'd say that's a good time to reel them in.
I'm sure you would. That's because you don't understand the concept of "evaluating" a threat.
A "threat" would be an organization that could acquire explosives on their own and had started to do so.
These guys could acquire explosives on their own. Nor guns, which are available at Wal-Mart. Nor boots, which are available just about everywhere.
A "cult" (as you claim) with 7 people could cause a significant amount of terror and political disruption in this country. And they could do that with nothing more than equipment that can be purchased at any Wal-Mart.
Remember that the real al Queda terrorists took over planes using innocuous "weapons".
I can't send out death threats with impunity and neither should they be able to.
Well then, maybe you should post where any of them did send out a "death threat".
Oh, you can't? I guess that your fantasy has leaked into their fantasy.
Converters and plug-ins are not solutions to the problem as governments across the globe want access to their vital records and data and are looking to separate the document from the application, which plug-in technologies do not do, and which would open the market up to greater innovation and more product and price competition, he said.
I don't understand the problem. If it's a plug-in, and it reads and writes to the ODF standard, where is the problem?
The only thing I can think of is if people worry about a Microsoft "upgrade" breaking this plug-in. And then having to wait for the patch to the plug-in.
The translators would also not be perfect, Jean Paoli, general manager for interoperability and XML architecture at Microsoft, told eWEEK, as "OpenXML and ODF are very different formats and some hard decisions are going to have to be made when translating from one format to another, like where we have OpenXML features that are not supported in ODF."
Excuse me, but, fuck "translating". This isn't about "translating". This is about being able to read ODF files and save your work to the ODF format.
"Translating" only comes into play when you're talking about: a. Converting all your previous work to a new format.
b. When some people you are communicating with are restricted to the.docX format and you use the ODF format. But that's not a problem if the ODF format is the standard format.
c. And Microsoft's "Open" XML format will only be available in their NEXT release so it won't affect anyone who is still using their current or a previous release.
Am I missing something, somewhere?
Microsoft's claims seem to center around an organization upgrading to the next release of MS Office and then migrating to the ODF format.
While I see most situations as an organization migrating to the ODF format from an existing installation of MS Office 2000 or previous.
Slashdot Mirror
Not so. There is a lot that can be done as I will explain.
That is correct. But it is inaccurate as, in most cases, the user is NOT AWARE that s/he is running software or installing software.
Which is one of the reasons that Linux is so resistant to the "viruses" (viruses, worms and trojans) that are out there. The OS protects the OS files from non-root users.
There, the problem is solved for all users except those who will willingly and knowingly install the "virus" themselves.
Think about it for a moment. What is the intent of anti-virus software ("anti" + "virus")? Isn't it to stop apps that you don't want running on your computer? Apps that were written by the "bad guys"?
So, the reason that anti-virus software sucks is because the "bad guys" are writing BETTER "viruses" that can bypass the anti-virus programmers' software.
And the reason for that is that anti-virus software is REACTIVE.
A proactive system would patch the holes that are being exploited.
A reactive system issues patches to remove all the specific threats encountered so far.
That approach will ALWAYS result in the "good guys" being behind the "bad guys". Like DUH!!!
Have any of the posters expressed approval of the government or CIA in a non-work related fashion and not been fired?
If they fire contractors who "waste" time, that's okay.
If they only fire contractors who "waste" time criticizing the government, that's not okay.
But in this case, so is the "content" of the article. Example:
So, that defines the current systems. That's a good start. So what makes these other systems "2.0"?
I don't care about the generations, explain what makes the new stuff "2.0" instead of "1.0". Instead he's covering what would be "0.1" and "1.0" and when he gets to "2.0", it's
We had "relevancy models" in his "1.0" version.
Wouldn't the first generation of search engines (without the "relevancy models") be "1.0"?
Then Google would already be "2.0" because it has the features of 1.0 PLUS the new (at the time) "relevancy model".
So improving the relevancy model would make the "next generation" more "2.1".
Information is not "productive".
Google already has "user preferences".
The article is crap.
I don't know about you, but that's a huge warning to me.
So, the "most sought-after" IT worker will be one who can
Why? Because
Translation:
2010 management will demand IT staff who can understand the business and technology sufficiently to manage the out-sourced projects.
Said out-sourced projects will be the actual writing of the software that supports the company and the end-user support of the remaining company employees who use the software that was written by other people outside the company.
Welcome to the "Titanic" business model.
I'm sure you can all imagine the fun that that will be. With the out-sourced support staff blaming the out-sourced programmers and the out-sourced programmers blaming the support staff
Just ask the people working for Google. In fact, just look for any of the companies that the tech people are trying to get into.
The flaw in that approach is that it depends upon nothing going wrong that you cannot blame on someone else.
Which is not to say that you won't get lucky and succeed with that approach. Just that it is a flawed approach.
And that is the essence of "tech viewpoint" vs "business viewpoint".
Sure, what's "most important" is being able to sell. Particularly when the corporate network was just cracked and you have to explain to the CEO why all the clients have been looking at "j00 b33n pwN3d" on your website all morning.
Technical skills? Not so important.
That's "sarcasm" for those of you unable to see it.
Being a good salesman can get you in the door and on the project. But nothing will help if you don't have the tech skills to deliver.
Particularly as more and more of the business is being put on the 'web. The best people will have the tech skills and the business knowledge and the salesmanship skills. But the tech skills are the most important.
#1. Getting a clean install onto the machine(s).
#2. Keeping the clean install updated.
#3. Keeping unauthorized software off of the clean, updated install(s).
If you don't have all three, you'll be running through the processes again and again and again.
#1. This is the easy part. To save time, take an image of the machine(s) after you've finished.
#2. You can download any patch from Microsoft for "network deployment" so your bandwidth won't really matter. Just start the download process when you're closing up the library.
#3. Group policies or 3rd party software that returns the machine to a pristine state (and every time you make a mistake, you can use that image you created in step #1).
There's no reason that the bad guys cannot find the same flaws he is finding and exploit them.
Unless the bad guys do something massively stupid, how would the researcher know that the bad guys were exploiting it?
Instead, I'd prefer a 90 day countdown. This provides the incentive for the companies to patch their products.
Otherwise, an exploit can exist for years without anyone but the bad guys knowing it.
http://www.heysoft.de/nt/ntfs-ads.htm
There's a lot that can be done with it.
You raise some excellent points. If I may be allowed to expand upon them ...
#1. Set a price limit. You can set multiple limits ($1,000 vs $5,000 vs $25,000 vs $100,000 vs $1,000,000+). The key concept here is that you get different characteristics as your budget increases/decreases. What characteristics does each "stack" offer in each price range? Yep, this does give the advantage to Free stacks (Free like speech, free like beer). Deal with it. In the Real World the bottom line is the bottom line. Each team gets to spend the money however they want to.
#2. Get the "experts" to tune each stack. BUT they must document each modification they make, including WHY they made that modification (what testing did they run and how did those test results tell them what mod's to make) AND they are only allowed to make mod's that can be found via public websites (no secret tuning parameters that are only known to the organization writing that software) AND they aren't allowed to touch any source code. They get what everyone else gets.
#3. The fun part. Each team gets to pull apart the work of the other teams. Even if your solution is faster for the specs given, how much wiggle room do you have? Is faster and fragile better than slower and stable? How much "slower" is acceptable for how much more "stable"? Can the other team defeat your security (network access only)?
#4. Freeze those systems. Then, over the next year, patch them and re-test them. Do the patches break the "tuning" that was done?
Now that would be an informative test process (and would result in lots of articles and interviews for the magazine publishing it).
Yeah, you can run Linux / Apache / MySQL / perl on a single drive workstation and get damn good performance for less than $300.
But that will be completely different from Oracle / Java on a cluster of Suns costing $10,000,000. And not just in the number of boxes you'd be running.
But this is a very close second place.
#1. NO tuning was done on the LAMP stuff. None at all. They ran the stuff "out of the box".
#2. They didn't write their own app. That means they didn't test the SAME processes on each system.
#3. They didn't bother to find WHERE the differences were. Is it in the IP stack? Is it in the OS? Is it in the scripting language? Is it in the app?
How bad can "research" be and still be published in "eWeek"? There wasn't any research done for that article.
Microsoft has, in the past, taken various short-cuts when IIS was the server and IE was the browser. Is that the case in this "study"? Are the other "stacks" "slower" because they follow the protocols?
You won't know because they'd didn't LOOK for the REASON behind their "results".
At least MindCraft was paid to do poor research.
Look up "bayes_expiry_max_db_size". If your database gets larger than the limit you set then the lesser used tokens are deleted.
They claim to be as accurate as a Bayesian process, but with fewer check items.
But from their paper, it seems that they're "tuning" their check items to the corpus of spam that they're testing against.
So of course they will use fewer check items. There are a finite number of characteristics of that corpus.
I did not see where they were using their system in a Real World environment (I may have missed it, the article was pretty painful to read). Now, if they can do as good as a fully tuned SpamAssassin system (comparable true positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives), in a Real World environment, with fewer check items, then they MAY be on to something.
This is nothing more than another attempt to make some money off of the basic infrastructure of the Internet. DNS is free right now. And to some people, that means that there is a chance to "monetize" that service.
But how to turn a profit from something that's being given away for free right now?
You'd have to offer some additional incentives. Like "phishing blocking" or claiming that a popular website would "load faster".
As far as I know, the DNS resolution has never been the problem for MySpace loading slowly. It's slow because so many other people are hitting their servers and bandwidth. And since Win2K, Microsoft has included a caching DNS app so once you do hit MySpace, you've cached the address on your workstation. You can't get much faster than that.
I believe that it is you that needs to work on your "cognitive thinking".
Well, unless your name is "Richard Pipes" I don't believe that he posted here.
Are you his secretary? Are you scheduling his appointments?
If not, then learn to support the statements that YOU make. Don't try to dump your claims off on someone who is not here and has not posted.
Actually, I did address them.
The "consequences" you speak of are nothing more than emotional reactions by people who do not understand statistics. And those "consequences" are what the "terrorists" are attempting to achieve.
So, if you are afraid because a terrorist killed someone, then the terrorist has "won" that round.
Nice attempt at a strawman. I did not say that the United States has no enemies. North Korea and Iran and two obvious examples.
But you won't stop North Korea or Iran by spying upon what US citizens say in chatrooms.
Just as McCarthy's witch hunts to find "Communists" in "Hollywood" did not in any way, shape or form hinder Soviet Russia's activities.
Did you understand it that time?
It was you who brought up "cognitive thinking".
It was you who tried to deflect arguments to "Richard Pipes".
It was you who could not understand that McCarthy did nothing to hinder Soviet Russia.
It is you who is resorting to personal attacks. That would seem to indicate that you're cache of "logic" has been expended.
Statistically, you are more likely to die from suicide than from a terrorist attack.
The only reason that terrorism still exists is because people do not understand statistics and allow their emotions to be manipulated. You've chose the emotional side of this issue and I have chosen the rational, statistical side.
Look up "Phil Hartman". You can find other examples on your own.
It was only "witnessed by people around the globe" because it was repeatedly broadcast.
If they repeatedly broadcast car wrecks around the globe, then the same could be said of them.
"Terrorism" is about scaring other people. Again, there is more of a threat to those people from other cars on the highway than from terrorists.
"Terrorism" is about scaring other people. The country was in no more danger that day than a year prior.
"Terrorism" is about scaring other people. Their businesses were in no more danger that day than than a year prior.
No, they are the same in that in each scenario, people die.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm
The only differences are:
a. You are far more likely to die from aspirin than from terrorism.
b. People who do not understand statistics succumb to the "terror" in "terrorism".
And, over time, those "slight reductions" result in ... a police state.
Now, to demonstrate your understanding of statistics, why don't you name 5 countries which have fewer Rights than the US and fewer terrorist attacks.
If you cannot, then your point is invalid.
What "excesses of current policy"?
Either the reduction of Rights is necessary, or it is not. You cannot have it both ways.
Really? Perhaps you can provide an example of such? All of the Fascist states that I'm familiar with (Italy, German, etc) did not prevent the citizens from participating in politics. In fact, the citizens were encouraged to support the Fascists by identifying the "threats" in their communities.
"first shadow" and "centuries" don't match. Something cannot be the "first shadow" that happens over "centuries".
You may also want to read about various monarchs throughout the ages.
Look up "McCarthy witch hunt".
No. And I find it very telling that it is brought up so often by people who want to take away our Rights.
Fascism has nothing to do with Jews.
Fascism depends upon identifying an "enemy of the state". This "enemy" has to be so terrible that the Rights of the rest of the citizens must be "temporarily" restricted to prevent the atrocities that these enemies will surely bring.
The Nazi party identified Jews, Communists and Blacks as "enemies of the State". Pay attention to history.
And I never said that it was "inefficiency" that lead to Fascism. What I said was:
"Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people."
Freedom is not safe nor is it free.
Our Forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence knowing that their signatures would be used to condemn them to death if the British won the war.
They believed in Freedom enough to PUBLICLY identify themselves and their beliefs.
They fought and died for provide those Freedoms to you. And now you want to sell those Freedoms because there is a slight chance that you will be injured or killed.
The chance of a "terrorist" killing you is LESS than the chance of someone in your own family killing you.
It is LESS likely than you being killed on the highways.
Yeah, these people were all wrong about Freedom when they signed their death warrants back then:
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/signers/
It's so good of people like you who are willing to sell our Freedoms and Rights for a false sense of "security".
You might want to take a look at my posting history before you start throwing around claims of "lunacy" to anyone who disagrees with your "well-thought out and cogent arguments".
Or maybe that will just convince you that I am a "lunatic".
At this point, the problem seems to exist in your perception and beliefs. You claim that you don't believe in privacy on the Internet, yet you attempt to preserve your privacy from the "lunatics" on the Internet.
Those statements are contradictory. Your stated beliefs are contradictory. And you claim that those that disagree with you are "lunatics".
Well that's all the time I'm going to spend on this, with you. Thanks, buh bye.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
You're absolutely correct about this law enabling individuals to bypass the protections we've built up since our country was founded.
And that's not the worst of it. Individuals can harass other individuals.
But the same tactics can apply to groups within the law enforcement agencies. And that makes it too easy to implement a police state without ever passing another law. They can monitor anyone / anywhere / anytime without any oversight or paperwork.
Goodbye Democracy.
So, you run your own business, eh? Do you expect that your business will never be robbed?
If you expect to be robbed, then why do we need any laws protecting your property rights?
Of course you can. Provided that you never need a credit history. But most businesses operate on net 30 or similar. So you'd need some protection and "privacy". You might want to look up "fraud" and "identity theft".
Maybe. You may be right. Or
RobotRunAmok
(email not shown publicly)
Well, it does seem that you DO value this "privacy" thing to some degree. You're using a 'nym and you've chosen to not reveal you email address. Why is that?
You're posting
What was that?
"Or the guy mentioned what cool boots they had."
Great. So now you have to invent conversations to "support" your position? I guess you don't know the facts of the case. And there's no reason for me to continue to discuss this with someone who won't put in the minimum effort to educate himself.
Which reminds me of those dip-shits who could not even formulate a plan to get themselves boots. Yeah, I can see why you'd want to believe that they were "threats". Both of you are in the same league.
To put that in simpler terms for you
They failed to acquire footgear.
I agree with that. If I were running a demolition company, I would not be shopping at Wal-Mart.
Meanwhile, two guys with a rifle did terrorize the D.C. area. So your statement is irrelevent when the discussion is about terrorists.
Again, their dreams exceeded their abilities. So who cares about them?
Their abilities did not even result in them getting guns. So who cares about them?
I'm sure you would. That's because you don't understand the concept of "evaluating" a threat.
A "threat" would be an organization that could acquire explosives on their own and had started to do so.
These guys could acquire explosives on their own.
Nor guns, which are available at Wal-Mart.
Nor boots, which are available just about everywhere.
A "cult" (as you claim) with 7 people could cause a significant amount of terror and political disruption in this country. And they could do that with nothing more than equipment that can be purchased at any Wal-Mart.
Remember that the real al Queda terrorists took over planes using innocuous "weapons".
Well then, maybe you should post where any of them did send out a "death threat".
Oh, you can't? I guess that your fantasy has leaked into their fantasy.
I don't understand the problem. If it's a plug-in, and it reads and writes to the ODF standard, where is the problem?
The only thing I can think of is if people worry about a Microsoft "upgrade" breaking this plug-in. And then having to wait for the patch to the plug-in.
Excuse me, but, fuck "translating". This isn't about "translating". This is about being able to read ODF files and save your work to the ODF format.
"Translating" only comes into play when you're talking about:
a. Converting all your previous work to a new format.
b. When some people you are communicating with are restricted to the
c. And Microsoft's "Open" XML format will only be available in their NEXT release so it won't affect anyone who is still using their current or a previous release.
Am I missing something, somewhere?
Microsoft's claims seem to center around an organization upgrading to the next release of MS Office and then migrating to the ODF format.
While I see most situations as an organization migrating to the ODF format from an existing installation of MS Office 2000 or previous.