The fact that Carnivore exists, in any form, indicates that the government wants access to all your communications, to know exactly what it is you're saying and hearing.
This modified Carnivore is an attempt to claw a way back up the slippery slope when you've already hit bottom.
You're only real options are either not to say or do or listen to anything the government might find objectionable, or encrypt all your communications.
As I was driving in to work, I heard a PSA from CPAs of America, or somesuch. Part of the announcement talked about deleting un-needed e-mail "to save on disk space."
A French subsidiary of a French multinational is suing a British subsidiary of an (Australian?) (British?) multinational in a U.S. court, over a conspiracy centered in London?
When I was stationed at Langley I was part of a team that implemented the first version of what's now called CTAPS.
One part of the project was to take an existing application, Combat Airspace Deconfliction System (CADS), written in Modula 3 on a PC and re-implement it in C/GKS on a MicroVAX III running Ultrix.
A couple of months after the re-implementation, my team got a call from an Army guy looking to use CADS. We asked him if he wanted to buy a MicroVAX III and learn how to use UNIX. Answer: No. He got the TEMPEST Z-150/Modula 3 version, as did a lot of other people.
The reason Microsoft has gotten around is that it offered a reasonably simple-to-use product on a reasonably cheap hardware platform. Things may have changed since then, but there is a reason Microsoft is everywhere, and it's not all to do with a lack of military intelligence.
I recently read an article in either Inc. or BusinessWeek about the effect Lou Gerstner had on IBM. Among other things, the article praised him for moving IBM agressively to becoming a service-based company.
I don't think Microsoft has anything to compare with this (yet), and fears those who are already in the arena.
The way Microsoft is fighting this war is to attempt to discredit open source as an approach, while (and I'm guessing on this) preparing its own service division.
It's classic. Throw out a load of FUD about the competition, while readying your own competing product. Depend on clueless PHBs to swallow your line, and watch the cash roll in.
which gets a lot of its stuff from REI, is paying much attention to this. Mostly they're discarding what doesn't work, and continuing to go after the bad guys.
God bless Western Civilization (minus the French, Germans, Spanish, Italians, and other former fascists).
I subscribe to Mother Jones *and* the American Spectator, basically to see what the extremists at both ends are saying.
Since I became a subscriber I know, based on my junk mail, that my name has been sold to donor solicitation lists of the left and the right.
So, every month I get mail from Jerry Falwell, etc., about how the Homosexual/Abortion/Socialist lobbies are destroying the U.S. These compete with mail from NARAL, NOW, PFAW, etc., about how the Heterosexual/Anti-Abortion/Capitalist lobbies are destroying the U.S.
(Aside: now that I think about it, I do get a lot more mail from the left than from the right. More religious fervour, I guess.)
My point is that the only way these people can raise money is by scaring the bejesus out of those who can be scared.
The environmental lobby is no different: it scares to raise money.
What's great about this book is how it demonstrates the lies in the propaganda.
Of course, he'll never be forgiven for that. And my guess is, from a survey of my junk mail, that there will be a lot more people out to trash him than to support him. Poor sod.
There's an old saying that there's nothing new under the sun. I think the publishing industry would like to repeal that notion. In fact, if the publishing industry had its way, you'd have to pay to find out that the saying existed.
Consider, if copyright is extended indefinitely, then there could never be the notion of "classic" literature, freely available in many forms. Instead, there would be controlled literature that could be served up time and time again to a paying public.
...
Santos-Dumont continued to work on dirigibles, but finally achieved his dream of flying in a heavier-than-air craft in October of 1906, when his 14 Bis flew a distance of 60 meters at a height of 2 to 3 meters. As far as the world knew, it was the first airplane flight ever and Santos-Dumont became a hero to the world press. The stories about the Wright brothers flights at Kitty Hawk and later near Dayton, Ohio, were not believed even in the US at the time.
Eventually, after much controversy, the Americans and the world - even though it remains a sore spot for Brazilians, to whom Santos-Dumont is known as the Father of Aviation - accepted that they had indeed flown a heavier-than-air craft before Santos-Dumont. Where he beat them, though, was in his idea of adding the first ailerons to the extremities of the wings. Think of it: aileron is the French diminutive for aile, or wing. And, of course, he never used any contraption or catapult or wooden tracks to push the aircraft or to aid in taking off. So, maybe the Brazilians are right...
I just read Sean Rayment's breathless title and note a couple of things.
- Although the article is entitled "America's laser of death cleared for take-off", a quick glance over the article itself reveals that the laser in question will be "capable of carrying out lethal and non-lethal attacks". I guess the chosen title plays better than "America's laser of death (or not) cleared for take-off".
- Mr. Rayment does a good job of noting the weaponry that was available on the AC-130 before the advent of the laser of death (or not) in question. I think we can take it for granted that getting hit by a round from any one of the "twin 20mm Vulcan cannon (capable of firing 2,500 rounds per minute), 40mm Bofor cannon (100 rounds per minute) and a 105mm Howitzer" is at least as unhappy an event as being hit by a pulse from the laser of death (or not). In fact, the laser of death (or not) may be a more humanitarian (as it were) weapon than anything the AC-130 has had to date. Of course, presenting that notion probably won't sell much copy.
My thoughts, this hyperventilated Sunday afternoon.
Last night at the Atlanta XML Users Group
on
.NETly News
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There was a presentation by the author of "XML and ASP.NET".
He started by indicating the Microsoft "gets it" as regards unhappiness WRT its philosophy of "embrace and extend". He even showed a page with a list of standards with which Microsoft's new XML technology is compliant.
He then, without blush, went on to describe Microsoft extensions that make the XML technology more "usable".
In his discussion of C#, he pitched the language, not as a Java-killer, but rather as a compromise language easy enough for VB know-nothings (not his phrase, but the import of his language) and with the features beloved by C++ bigots. (Pointers!)
He described how easy it is to put tags in generated HTML (CSS, anyone?) before going on to describe Microsoft's newest idea in XML technology, the iterator. Of course, the methods available from various iterators over various classes are different, so learning how one works does not guarantee understanding of how all works.
I know a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind, but this boggles.
Anyway, a number of things came to me from the talk:
1. There are a lot of VB programmers out there. They're not terribly smart, and Microsoft wants to protect their rice bowl.
2. Microsoft is making it very easy for people to generate really crappy HTML from XML.
3. There are a lot of great ideas in the Java world that Microsoft is glomming onto.
The author is quite a nice guy, and bore well my comments about billg as Satan.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow! You're really brilliant! I'm in awe! I find myself wanting to kiss your feet, or something.
Now, for the benefit of the unwashed masses, could you take the time to expound? I'm sure they'd *really* appreciate it.
Simply take them to their logical end.
The fact that Carnivore exists, in any form, indicates that the government wants access to all your communications, to know exactly what it is you're saying and hearing.
This modified Carnivore is an attempt to claw a way back up the slippery slope when you've already hit bottom.
You're only real options are either not to say or do or listen to anything the government might find objectionable, or encrypt all your communications.
Let me tell you about our electric power...
- The end of the American programmer
- The end of the world in Y2K
Previously retracted...
- The end of the American programmer
- The end of the world in Y2K
The stuff on structured analysis and project managemetn is useful. That's about it.
There was a tech boom.
The boom turned into a bubble.
The bubble burst.
Life is going on.
If brevity truly is the soul of wit, I'm the reincarnation of Oscar Wilde.
You say:
"This top-down approach is, as far as I know, unique to them. No other religious grouping that I am aware of does that."
The Jesuits also operate this way.
Do a google search.
;^)
Yes,
As I was driving in to work, I heard a PSA from CPAs of America, or somesuch. Part of the announcement talked about deleting un-needed e-mail "to save on disk space."
Now there's a ready-made excuse for Enron...
Thanks. I got confused over Murdoch being an Australian and News Corp. being American.
A French subsidiary of a French multinational is suing a British subsidiary of an (Australian?) (British?) multinational in a U.S. court, over a conspiracy centered in London?
Is this some sort of Pythonic joke?
When I was stationed at Langley I was part of a team that implemented the first version of what's now called CTAPS.
One part of the project was to take an existing application, Combat Airspace Deconfliction System (CADS), written in Modula 3 on a PC and re-implement it in C/GKS on a MicroVAX III running Ultrix.
A couple of months after the re-implementation, my team got a call from an Army guy looking to use CADS. We asked him if he wanted to buy a MicroVAX III and learn how to use UNIX. Answer: No. He got the TEMPEST Z-150/Modula 3 version, as did a lot of other people.
The reason Microsoft has gotten around is that it offered a reasonably simple-to-use product on a reasonably cheap hardware platform. Things may have changed since then, but there is a reason Microsoft is everywhere, and it's not all to do with a lack of military intelligence.
When a company switches to Linux (AOL, for example), the Linux bigots in the office broadcast the message to all in a loud voice.
When a Linux company goes out of business (Loki, for example), the Linux bigots remain completely silent.
By "competing product" I meant services, not software.
The rest of your ad hominem is now irrelevant.
I used the words "compare" and "(yet)", not "not competing".
I didn't know that Microsoft has hired someone from IBM GS, but this would seem to add support to my theory.
I recently read an article in either Inc. or BusinessWeek about the effect Lou Gerstner had on IBM. Among other things, the article praised him for moving IBM agressively to becoming a service-based company.
I don't think Microsoft has anything to compare with this (yet), and fears those who are already in the arena.
The way Microsoft is fighting this war is to attempt to discredit open source as an approach, while (and I'm guessing on this) preparing its own service division.
It's classic. Throw out a load of FUD about the competition, while readying your own competing product. Depend on clueless PHBs to swallow your line, and watch the cash roll in.
which gets a lot of its stuff from REI, is paying much attention to this. Mostly they're discarding what doesn't work, and continuing to go after the bad guys.
God bless Western Civilization (minus the French, Germans, Spanish, Italians, and other former fascists).
Hey! I never said I wanted a winner. Just that the observed were interesting.
You know, like this.
I subscribe to Mother Jones *and* the American Spectator, basically to see what the extremists at both ends are saying.
Since I became a subscriber I know, based on my junk mail, that my name has been sold to donor solicitation lists of the left and the right.
So, every month I get mail from Jerry Falwell, etc., about how the Homosexual/Abortion/Socialist lobbies are destroying the U.S. These compete with mail from NARAL, NOW, PFAW, etc., about how the Heterosexual/Anti-Abortion/Capitalist lobbies are destroying the U.S.
(Aside: now that I think about it, I do get a lot more mail from the left than from the right. More religious fervour, I guess.)
My point is that the only way these people can raise money is by scaring the bejesus out of those who can be scared.
The environmental lobby is no different: it scares to raise money.
What's great about this book is how it demonstrates the lies in the propaganda.
Of course, he'll never be forgiven for that. And my guess is, from a survey of my junk mail, that there will be a lot more people out to trash him than to support him. Poor sod.
The presenter talked about Struts and Tiles.
Among his throwaway statements was "If you work on an open source project that becomes popular, you might get a job at Sun."
Enough said.
There's an old saying that there's nothing new under the sun. I think the publishing industry would like to repeal that notion. In fact, if the publishing industry had its way, you'd have to pay to find out that the saying existed.
Consider, if copyright is extended indefinitely, then there could never be the notion of "classic" literature, freely available in many forms. Instead, there would be controlled literature that could be served up time and time again to a paying public.
Indefinite residuals. An attractive notion.
From http://www.maria-brazil.org/sdumont.htm:
...
Santos-Dumont continued to work on dirigibles, but finally achieved his dream of flying in a heavier-than-air craft in October of 1906, when his 14 Bis flew a distance of 60 meters at a height of 2 to 3 meters. As far as the world knew, it was the first airplane flight ever and Santos-Dumont became a hero to the world press. The stories about the Wright brothers flights at Kitty Hawk and later near Dayton, Ohio, were not believed even in the US at the time.
Eventually, after much controversy, the Americans and the world - even though it remains a sore spot for Brazilians, to whom Santos-Dumont is known as the Father of Aviation - accepted that they had indeed flown a heavier-than-air craft before Santos-Dumont. Where he beat them, though, was in his idea of adding the first ailerons to the extremities of the wings. Think of it: aileron is the French diminutive for aile, or wing. And, of course, he never used any contraption or catapult or wooden tracks to push the aircraft or to aid in taking off. So, maybe the Brazilians are right...
I just read Sean Rayment's breathless title and note a couple of things.
- Although the article is entitled "America's laser of death cleared for take-off", a quick glance over the article itself reveals that the laser in question will be "capable of carrying out lethal and non-lethal attacks". I guess the chosen title plays better than "America's laser of death (or not) cleared for take-off".
- Mr. Rayment does a good job of noting the weaponry that was available on the AC-130 before the advent of the laser of death (or not) in question. I think we can take it for granted that getting hit by a round from any one of the "twin 20mm Vulcan cannon (capable of firing 2,500 rounds per minute), 40mm Bofor cannon (100 rounds per minute) and a 105mm Howitzer" is at least as unhappy an event as being hit by a pulse from the laser of death (or not). In fact, the laser of death (or not) may be a more humanitarian (as it were) weapon than anything the AC-130 has had to date. Of course, presenting that notion probably won't sell much copy.
My thoughts, this hyperventilated Sunday afternoon.
There was a presentation by the author of "XML and ASP.NET".
He started by indicating the Microsoft "gets it" as regards unhappiness WRT its philosophy of "embrace and extend". He even showed a page with a list of standards with which Microsoft's new XML technology is compliant.
He then, without blush, went on to describe Microsoft extensions that make the XML technology more "usable".
In his discussion of C#, he pitched the language, not as a Java-killer, but rather as a compromise language easy enough for VB know-nothings (not his phrase, but the import of his language) and with the features beloved by C++ bigots. (Pointers!)
He described how easy it is to put tags in generated HTML (CSS, anyone?) before going on to describe Microsoft's newest idea in XML technology, the iterator. Of course, the methods available from various iterators over various classes are different, so learning how one works does not guarantee understanding of how all works.
I know a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind, but this boggles.
Anyway, a number of things came to me from the talk:
1. There are a lot of VB programmers out there. They're not terribly smart, and Microsoft wants to protect their rice bowl.
2. Microsoft is making it very easy for people to generate really crappy HTML from XML.
3. There are a lot of great ideas in the Java world that Microsoft is glomming onto.
The author is quite a nice guy, and bore well my comments about billg as Satan.
So, in an earlier post I remark that M$ can buy any outcome it wants and get modded down.
Then this comes out.
I want my money back, or something.