What can you do to foil the 8.2 per cent rise in people out to steal your iPod? The slow fix is calling for social regeneration to eliminate the state of poverty that motivates people to steal. But, if that all sounds a bit communist to you, then here are some suggestions that require very little outlay but could save your iPod from theft.
Rather than have a serious discussion about the causes of crime, or perhaps use our pulpit to motivate for long-term (long-term = communist) solutions we can just do a tounge in cheek article about hiding things. Because we all know that people would rather invest their time in hiding goods and watching over their shoulders all the time than consider real long-term solutions to crime.
I also find the "semi-automatic weapon" claim a little weak since as he said he chased after them and never positively identified the gun, if there was one.
Let's consider what RFID is for. It is a means of broadcasting information over radio frequencies. For scanning packages in a depot that's all well and good but what about passports. At present the State Department's plan is to replace the existing bar codes on passports with RFID tags. Why?
You will still need to stand in line in order to present your documents, so this will not save time. RFID chips can be faked so false passports can still be made. Indeed seeing as hoe people will (incorrectly) believe the chips it seems that identitiy theves using fake passports may have an easier time.
The only logical uses for this is passive monitoring and funding. Passive monitoring would occur via sensors in Airport Floors, that would enable passport holders to be logged as they move about the terminal. You laugh but the feds have already begun requiring all non-us citizens to carry their passports when they fly within the U.S. and have pushed for national ID databases. Why not a requirement that you keep your rfid passport on you at all times? As is noted in the article these things can be read from 160 feet awayby special equipment. Why not? Keep in mind many of the same people in the STate department once pushed to outlaw crypo in the U.S. unless they held the keys.
Ahh you say but the feds are putting a "read-proof" screen on the passport to prevent this from happening. Perhaps so. And we will leave aside for the moment the amounts of our money they are paying to develop said screen just so they can justify the RFID tags. By the way, did anyone see any actual security benefits of RFID listed in the article or did they just claim that they exist? In any case, how likely is it that said magic screen will actually be tamper proof? If it isn't then it is nothing more than a security blanket. If it is then perhaps the scanning won't happen but only if noone can defeat it. I for one am not betting on the screen.
But suppose the screen does work. In that event there is only one actual benefit of this, large amounts of money is being given to the RFID makers. In that event it is simply a waste of tax dollars.
In either case it is a dangerously stupid idea. Now is the time to contact your Congressional Rep and your Senator to tell them that it is a dangerously stupid idea. If they hear it, it may stop. If not it will roll forward and we'll be left whining on/.
etc so that we can be tracked even when we aren't in the check-out line.
But the use of "The Patriot Act" as a justification is still a bit Sketchy. If he had agreed to it then the interviewer should have said so. If however he had not agreed to it explicitly then what is the Patriot Act doing being used in that way. The stated purposes of the act are to deal with suspected terrorists and for the purposes of national security investigations not job interviews.
If he is the subject of a national security investigation then what are they doing revealing it during an interview? If, however he is not then what the hell are they doing using the Patriot act for that? In theory (yes theory) that should be illegal although it would come as not surprise to me to see them abusing it.
In either case, if the story is true, this raises really troubling issues. Does that mean any applicant to the DMV will have "The Patriot Act" invoked, what about private-sector jobs?
That's a relatively old joke in the Military, and a relatively sick one when you consider the problems of faulty weapons (e.g exploding in your hands). But it points to something pretty basic. When it comes to things the DOD is rewarded for going cheap. This doesn't mean that they won't but they are rewarded for trying. In this gig Microsoft is at a disadvantage as their competitors are a) Free, and b) can be taken under total control by the DOD. Remeber that in-house changes to GPL'd code need not be released. Microsoft on the other hand is likely to worry about in-house changes to their stuff (e.g. document security restrictions for Office).
While I doubt Stallman will be welcome any time soon keep in mind that Theo De Raadt and the other BSD people have been welcomed (and financed) by the DOD before now. Ditto things like SELinux. In many ways this is only surprising because it took so long for them to say openly.
We all know that regulations beget more lobbyists. I'd rather let the market sort these things out.
And we all know that market solutions breed big expensive and oppressive monopolies that are only good for the existing big players. Something of the like that would make Google, Amazon and Verizon happy but will screw all their competitors out of the market.
Most individuals don't have the money to fight their way into the "market" and the market doesn't 'care' about individuals in any case. "Markets" can be perfectly fine with single monopolies and no magic of the market will change that.
At least the people in office need my vote and, on paper at least, serve my interests.
The recent 1up article on this issue makes some interesting points. Two of the key ones with respect to this are:
There are existing court rulings (U.S. Circuit Courts) asserting that violence is not the same as sex and is therefore cannot be used to classigy something as obscene. This runs counter to the "structure" of the law in question.
Forum posts carry little or no weight on this issue. Only real letters to the gov in question will do so. Those *dont'* have to come from local voters. Perhaps companies that won't want to do business in the state will want to as well.
People seem to act as if terrorists didn't exist before 9/11. Lets face it, having freedom in society inherently increases the risk of living in that society. The freedom one enjoys also makes things easier for those who wish to cause them harm.
I disagree vehimently There is absolutely no proof that totalitarian governments are "more safe" for the populace than free ones. Leaving aside the people killed, tortured,... terrorized, by the governments themselves there is no proof that external attackers will be any less able to attack.
While it may not have been so easy to rent a U-Haul in soviet Russia try telling the victims of the Russian Mafia that they were "safer". At the end of east gernamny an estimates 1 in 6 members of the population worked for the Stasi and yet the country still fell and crimes still occurred including crimes by "terrorists" in this case people who opposed the state. Consider places in Central America where the populace is, or was, choosing between a violent state, and violent "terrorists".
In reality the perceived "safety" of totalitarian states come soley from their control of information. Citizens of those states may hear less about the threats that they face but (as with parents who don't ask what their kids are up to online) they are no safer.
There is no tension between freedom and safety except in the minds of those who hate freedom.
Whats more amazing though is that while there is talk of trying to stop terrorists, the actions are completely bogus. Since the Oklahoma City bombing, its has become no harder to rent a U-Haul. In many states all you need to purchase dynamite is permission from the fire dept. You can buy fertilizer by the ton even if you don't own a farm. The average Walmart sells everything needed to build a bomb.
In many ways this is always the case. "Terrorism" proceeds by attacking that which is weakest. In any arms race there are actions and reactions and if U-Hauls are banned then vans can be purchased, if not vans then semis. The problem is, as you note, much of what is being done presents the appearence of security more than actual security.
Lets also remember that our military and government officials know that there is no way at all to stop a determined attack. This is the country that invented and perfected guerilla warefare. The Amry Special Forces goes to other countries to teach the locals how to conduct guerilla warfare. We know better than anybody else that you can't really stop it.
Well stop what? Stopping all guerilla warfare is different than stopping specific kinds of attacks. An individual determined attack can be thwarted and, by banning UHauls we could block all UHaul based attacks. However this would not prevent all attacks which is why we need to adapt our defences properly to each new threat. As I stated above however adapting our defences does not mean trashing our freedoms.
Srictly speaking we didn't invent Guerilla warfare. The style of warfare itself is probably as old as man (recent fights between illegal miners and native peoples in Brazil have taken on this form). The term itself comes from spain. Guerra is war Guerrilos (small warrirors) were people who fought a personal, individual war against the French during Napeoleon's occupation of Spain. As much as the British love to hold up Wellington as the savior of Spain it was the Guerrillos who casually slaughtered every french solder who went out in groups smaller than 10, who destroyed their chattel, and slashed throats in the dark that made his victory possible. By the end of the war it was impossible for the French to send supplies anywhere because any such supply train (unless it was guarded by a full column of infantry) wouldn't make it. The behavior of the Spaniards made surrender to the British seem like a holiday.
We ourselves used this style of war very effectively du
Exactly. While I spend a lot of time talking to politicos this is really what gets things done. Atthe end of the day the politicos listen to the companys and the companies must be held accountable. With RedHat it really hits close to home.
The SIIA's board of directors includes Symantec, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Intuit and Red Hat.
There's your answer. Lamar Smith was bought and paid for by these people RedHat Amongst them. It is they who are to blame for this law not him, and their pressure that is to blame for Gonzalez obsessively linking this to terrorism (show me how Bin Laden benefits from pirated Britney Spears).
If we want change we have to stop screaming about Sony and then buying their products. If any company backs legislation we oppose then we have to deny them our cash. Sony is in on this but so are some of the companies above and the ones listed here. We have to do the same to companies like RedHat and Sun.
Call Redhat at 1-888-733-4281 or +1-919-754-3700 (outside the U.S.)
Tell them that this bill is an abomination that you cannot support and that if they support it they wont get your or your company's cash in the future.
Do the same for Sun:
Sun Microsystems, Inc. 4150 Network Circle Santa Clara, CA 95054 Phone: US 1-800-555-9SUN; International 1-650-960-1300
And Oracle:Bullet Corporate Headquarters 500 Oracle Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Bullet Call for Directions 650.506.7000 Bullet International Phone +1.650.506.7000
Bullet Corporate Headquarters 500 Oracle Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Bullet Call for Directions 650.506.7000 Bullet International Phone +1.650.506.7000
And so on
Lamar Smith should also be contacted, but he will just do what his corporate sponsors say so they are tones we have to target and for us as/.'rs The tech companies are our crowd.
You are right actually in that I was conflating Volusia and Leon counties.
But as to your question about sources. Diebold's internal memos disclosed the problem as well as other reporting. You can see a report on the subject here.
Yes they were using scantron ballots, they were Diebold scanners. Crucially for this hack they were using a Diebold-made central tabulator system which is where the problem lay.
In answer to the poster's question Diebold is behaving this way because the machines are not secure nor can they be. Anyone who gets a close look at them can see that. Diebold, like ES&S, and Sequoia is opting to muscle in and abuse people rather than admit that no machine is perfect and try to make them as good as possible.
The companies have done similar things in other states. In Florida All 3 have refused to sell any systems to Volusia County. The county's Election Director Ion Sancho was the one who allowed his systems to be tested for security and discovered the "Hrusti Hack" namely whereby the machines will load arbitrary code stored on their memory cards and execute them. Such a hack makes it trivial to change ballots, erase totals, etc. It has since been shown that systems by Sequoia Inc. are vulnerable to the same hack.
Volusia county is also the county that caused Al Gore to initially declare defeat in 2000. During election night Al Gore was leading Bush with a comfortable margin. At 10om someone uploaded a card that reported -16,022 votes for Al Gore and 10,000 for some socialist canidate all from a precinct with 600 voters.
This card passed all of Diebold's stringent "safety checks" (whatever the hell they were) and changed the statewide totals putting Gore well behind Bush. Gore declared defeat. After that the county discovered the errors and reset the system claiming that the new totals were correct. Nevertheles the fact remains that the card got in, was loaded, and threw off a U.S. Presidential election.
Now the companys won't sell to Volusia and are telling the state and the feds that it's Sancho's fault because he wants to test the systems for security. Florida's Governor Jeb Bush (brother of shrub) has also personally blamed Sancho for putting the state behind.
Meanwhile the Department of Justice is threatening to sue the state or withold funds because the county has not bought new systems even though noone will sell said systems to them. The idea being, apparently, that he should just sell out the elections.
At the end of the day the collusion and bullying going o by the companies, by the U.S. Government over HAVA (written by Bob Ney former congressmen for Diebold and now a leading figure in the Abramoff corruption investigation) and by frightened state governments is insane. At the end of the day the only losers will be the American People, of all stripes.
Have faith in the "Power of the market" to do what is
desired
THink that Politics is someone else's problem.
This is your reward.
When you supportthose who think that Business is always right, and turn your back on the world to watch TV this is what you get. The people who seek only profit will dive in and claim that which we all share, as theirs and theirs alone. These people are the bandits at the Oasis charging fees for all who come by. They didn't make the oasis, they don't feed it, they simply want to charge for access.
Now would be the time to look at groups like the EFF and/or write your Senators, your House Representative, and yes even The White House. Be sure to emphasize both how wrong this is and how much it will damage business, especially small businesses. The Large companies Amazon, etc. will be fine if companies in your area want to go online this will put unnecessary and illogical hurdles in place. That should get their attention.
The remaining question is what would happen with common carrier status. In brief all telcos, are not legally responsible for the content that they carry (child porn, plans to blow up buildings) so long as they carry all content equally. Such a plan as this would put that in joepardy and, in the long run, would cut their profits by forcing them to play censor.
I'm sure that the Bush Administration is salivating over the idea of making all the telcos surrender it (thus making them responsible for all content that they carry and making them the censors). But I'm not sure if the Telco's shareholders want their money to be spent purging the net of "adult media". In the end the cost of doing business would be higher for them. This is what short-sighted business managers get you.
So there is what needs to be done. Take a half hour today and do it!
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
The winner's bi-partisan support came from a rather small group of business-centric individuals. His promise to "terminate the deficit" as you put it is kind of what I was talking about. It was an unspecified promise to save money. He didn't specify how he was going to do it or who would be facing less revenue, he simply said that it would happen. Then he went and did a lot of other things that noone asked him about.
9/11 and Katrina were similar disasters with respect to what I was talking about. In both cases the pres in question showed his inability to do the tasks his job required. In both cases he was forced to deal with things that noone asked him about during the election because who cares about disasters when he'll cut taxes and ban abortion?
Neither election was well-rounded or involved a thruough discussion of the issues. In both cases it was shallow vague promises and character qualities facing each other and nothing else.
As much as I love the idea of excercising my second amendment rights by shooting politicians in the ass as one poster put it this issue raises a much darker problem. It's all fun and games to slap on "He's not My President" bumper stickers but the fact of the matter is that on one level he is and these jackasses are our elected officials.
American Politicians, for that matter any politicians, don't come from space. they come from our schools our neighborhoods, and our public life. They get elected by promising to spend less, on other people, and spend more, on us. They appeal to our interests and as much as we'd like to pretend that we aren't responsible, we are. We've allowed this two-party one-ass game to go on for far too long. We keep picking these people and, at election time, it's never about "Will you panic like a frightened chicken when the sh*t hits the fan and shred the constitution" its about "what are you going to do for me?" "When will you cut *my* taxes and raise someone else's?", "When will you make those other people stop doing what it is that I don't like and make them live like me?"
Bush didn't get elected on Iraq. Yes he promised to "deal with them" and whined about attempted assasinations of his father" (they never tried to kill Bush Sr.). But that was a drop in the bucket. His big stance was a) making things "better" in some vague conservative christian sense (no abortion no sex ed); and b) cutting taxes. And for most people who backed him b was bigger than a.
Kerry didn't really run on Iraq, he ran on a vague "I'm the better man" philosophy. Gore did the same. Both got somped by Karl Rove in a basic Gutter-fight fashion. And ultimately, as long as Bush promised to do everything Better, Cheaper, and faster for "Us" noone cared. Then once 9/11 rolled around people ralized that he had less bladder control than a scared chicken and that he didn't realize that shredding the constitution was different than defending it.
This problem is even worse when you consider off-season elections where people often don't bother to show up even to vote for Congressmembers. At the State and local levels I'm betting that people know more about Bennifer than their own Governors, Mayors, and City Council members. If you can become Governor of the most populous state simply by being in the movies then that speaks for itself.
And before anyone elsewhere get's self-important I haven't seen any country that, across the board, is any better. In general, in my experience, eveyone's political class sucks. And everyone is to blame.
Sad as I am to admit it sometimes George Carlin seems right: "Selfish short-sighted people produce selfish short-sighted politicians."
One point I would stress very strongly is not to overcommit or overexpect. While I think that all kids should be exposed to tech at an early age I think they should all see mountains, the ocean, music, art, poetry, theatre, the surise, etc. My point is many parents that I have seen have overemphasized something like tech on the assumption that a) it is most important and b) the kids are guaranteed to love it. Neither one is guaranteed to be the case. She may find that she has more affinity to literature than circuits in which case, take her to the library. I often think that parenting is also a lot about finding good interests and maximizing them rather than instilling them a-priori.
Starlight has already helped foil some terror plots, says Jim Thomas, one of its developers and director of the government's new National Visualization Analytics Center in Richland, Wash. He can't elaborate because the cases are classified, he adds. But "there's no question that the technology we've invented here at the lab has been used to protect our freedoms - and that's pretty cool."
So you see it has been successful they just can't tell us how. Great, I feel much better. Seriously on one level yes some, if not most "plot" (if they are real) will be foiled in the dark. Back right after 9/11 before the Spying on Vegans before Total Information Awareness, Before the Illegal Phone taps, and before Mussoui (remember him the man who was attempting to "level Chicago with a dirty bomb") had his charges downgraded from "Real-Live Terrorist" to "Guy who tried to send money to AlQuaeda but didn't succeed".
Back then we might have bought some of this "Just trust us it helps protect your freedoms" business. Now, now that they are talking about helping not just State Federal and Local but "private-sector security entities" I want it stopped and stopped now. The local rent-a-cop has no right to government data about me.
What about the premium I pay to verizon everyday to access their lines? Doesn't that go to these high fees along with all the taxes they take on my phone costs?
Speaking of phones, why does Google, or by extension my own online business, have to pay for "riding the lines" when Sears Roebuck, or indeed any business doesn't have to pay extra for phone line access? Or is that step 2?
In that event Business woruld break down. If each call, each hit cost a fee then almost all online businesses (save those run by Verizon) would shut down. It would be much like charging roads on a per-use basis. Kiss any small businesses goodbye.
One of the reasons that Credit Card Companies have not made great inroads with many small businesses is the fee. For companies of a sufficient size the store is billed for weach charge. For a small Mom n. Pop that is often all of their profit margin, that's why cash is so much better. The only companies that really love the cards are chain stores who make enough POS purchases to get into the free rate.
Football (American, Austrailian, etc.) Soccer (Yes the game is minimal contact but the fans aren't). Hockey (goes without saying). NASCAR (For those in the U.S. Just how often do they replay the crash scenes). Boxing Karate...
In my experience most of the people clamouring for games legislation a) ignore these things and the very real links between them and aggressive behavior, or b) even promote these very violent endeavors as "healthy excercise". IMHO much of the Game legislation, like calls for tv censorship in the early days and warning labels on CD's has to do with new tech. Whatever the new things kids do (D&D, Dancing, Heavy Metal, Video Games) is always blamed for all social ills because, at a basic level, it is't what we did.
That having been said I do think that some games (GTA) are in a special category by themselves and should be considered carefully. Banning them won't really work we ban kids from having alcohol, cigratettes, and porn in the U.S. but despite all that they still got them even before the internet. Ultimately its all about educating parents so that they realize that a game called Grand Theft Auto isn't exactly Sesame Street.
I place a higher value on the interesting work and the lifestyle I live now over money. The question really is not Money v. Interest it's The Old Job v. The New Job. The answer to that lies in what you value most. The very fact that you are asking the question indicates that you do place a value on interesting work. What you need to ask now is, what value do you place on money. Also, what prospects for advancement are there at The New Job versus The Old Job. If your current job is well-paying but dead-end while the other is low-paying but high growth then the growth may in time win out.
IMHO don't ask us, ask yourself: "What is important to me?" and "Which job fits better?" And when doing this consider all the variables lifestyle, stress, benefits, drinking companions, whatever. If you care about it consider it. List them, rank them, rate the jobs and make your choice.
I can tell you what I might do but I'm not you so I really wouldn't want you to just do what I say.
Firstly he ignores the important distinction between file corruption and system corruption. Let us assume that personal files are equally insecure on both systems, they aren't but will deal with that below. In that event the likelyhood of a personal-file-loss is equally likely. Okay but, as the author noted the likelyhood of a system loss is less likely on Unix. While I do place a higher value on the retention of my personal files I find that:
The cost of repairing a totally-destroyed system is nonnegligeable.
It is easier to securely backup and recover said files on a working system.
Secondly, as someone who has seen trojaned PC's I can tell you that being used to spam viagra ads to the western world does have a practical cost for non-techs. While some trojans may leave the files alone the fact that a) all security is compromised, and b) your hardware is being used by others without your consent or knowledge; is meaningful to everyone. In this arena *NIX systems do have a significant leg up over windows. It is much harder for an errant e-mail to lead to a full system compromise on *NIX than on Windows. That having been said I can see how a user-specific trojan may do as much damage.
Thirdly, the author seems to be ignoring the truest source of vulnerabilities: applications. While the base OS is an issue the primary source of holes are applications (Outlook) or application-components (WMF). A *NIX system can be as insecure as Windows with respect to these. However a) There is a greater offering of secure forms, and b) *NIX's more modular form and coding traditions (sacrifice features for security) make it (in general) less suceptible to these kinds of problems.
Fourthly, Windows is developed on a different model from *NIX. Microsoft has always put new features first and foremost. This has led to the situation specified above.
That being the case, much of this is tradition. The traditions of Unix Development (Security over Features) versus Windows (Features over Everything) is what has led to the current state of affairs. Microsoft is in the process of learning the long hard lessons of their history and has been attempting to ape the *NIX model more closely. Meanwhile some in the Linux community have begun arguing that they should move to more "Feature Laden" distros like windows. If Microsoft succeeds in its painful changes and Linux distros begin chasing the "I want features now" crowd then the equations may reverse themselves.
That whatever is done, whatever we find,however nobly we make a thing dedicated to communication and human advancement the same pattern will follow. Armies of self-serving cretuins will immediately follow, try to plant their flag on it, claim it as if they had made it and then get around to dividing the corpse and eating it all the while whining whenever we try to use it that we are "Violating their rights".
It's like the drug companies who take taxpayer-developed drugs (AZT, Viagra, etc) that were produced at the NIH, sell them for a profit and then whine that the U.S. government has to spend our tax dollars to protect "their rights" from being infringed both in the U.S. and in places like africa. Apparently the right of parasite to make money far outweighs the right of an HIV infected patient to live.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather than have a serious discussion about the causes of crime, or perhaps use our pulpit to motivate for long-term (long-term = communist) solutions we can just do a tounge in cheek article about hiding things. Because we all know that people would rather invest their time in hiding goods and watching over their shoulders all the time than consider real long-term solutions to crime.
I also find the "semi-automatic weapon" claim a little weak since as he said he chased after them and never positively identified the gun, if there was one.
Let's consider what RFID is for. It is a means of broadcasting information over radio frequencies. For scanning packages in a depot that's all well and good but what about passports. At present the State Department's plan is to replace the existing bar codes on passports with RFID tags. Why?
/.
You will still need to stand in line in order to present your documents, so this will not save time. RFID chips can be faked so false passports can still be made. Indeed seeing as hoe people will (incorrectly) believe the chips it seems that identitiy theves using fake passports may have an easier time.
The only logical uses for this is passive monitoring and funding. Passive monitoring would occur via sensors in Airport Floors, that would enable passport holders to be logged as they move about the terminal. You laugh but the feds have already begun requiring all non-us citizens to carry their passports when they fly within the U.S. and have pushed for national ID databases. Why not a requirement that you keep your rfid passport on you at all times? As is noted in the article these things can be read from 160 feet awayby special equipment. Why not? Keep in mind many of the same people in the STate department once pushed to outlaw crypo in the U.S. unless they held the keys.
Ahh you say but the feds are putting a "read-proof" screen on the passport to prevent this from happening. Perhaps so. And we will leave aside for the moment the amounts of our money they are paying to develop said screen just so they can justify the RFID tags. By the way, did anyone see any actual security benefits of RFID listed in the article or did they just claim that they exist? In any case, how likely is it that said magic screen will actually be tamper proof? If it isn't then it is nothing more than a security blanket. If it is then perhaps the scanning won't happen but only if noone can defeat it. I for one am not betting on the screen.
But suppose the screen does work. In that event there is only one actual benefit of this, large amounts of money is being given to the RFID makers. In that event it is simply a waste of tax dollars.
In either case it is a dangerously stupid idea. Now is the time to contact your Congressional Rep and your Senator to tell them that it is a dangerously stupid idea. If they hear it, it may stop. If not it will roll forward and we'll be left whining on
etc so that we can be tracked even when we aren't in the check-out line.
But the use of "The Patriot Act" as a justification is still a bit Sketchy. If he had agreed to it then the interviewer should have said so. If however he had not agreed to it explicitly then what is the Patriot Act doing being used in that way. The stated purposes of the act are to deal with suspected terrorists and for the purposes of national security investigations not job interviews.
If he is the subject of a national security investigation then what are they doing revealing it during an interview? If, however he is not then what the hell are they doing using the Patriot act for that? In theory (yes theory) that should be illegal although it would come as not surprise to me to see them abusing it.
In either case, if the story is true, this raises really troubling issues. Does that mean any applicant to the DMV will have "The Patriot Act" invoked, what about private-sector jobs?
...your rifle was made by the lowest bidder."
That's a relatively old joke in the Military, and a relatively sick one when you consider the problems of faulty weapons (e.g exploding in your hands). But it points to something pretty basic. When it comes to things the DOD is rewarded for going cheap. This doesn't mean that they won't but they are rewarded for trying. In this gig Microsoft is at a disadvantage as their competitors are a) Free, and b) can be taken under total control by the DOD. Remeber that in-house changes to GPL'd code need not be released. Microsoft on the other hand is likely to worry about in-house changes to their stuff (e.g. document security restrictions for Office).
While I doubt Stallman will be welcome any time soon keep in mind that Theo De Raadt and the other BSD people have been welcomed (and financed) by the DOD before now. Ditto things like SELinux. In many ways this is only surprising because it took so long for them to say openly.
And we all know that market solutions breed big expensive and oppressive monopolies that are only good for the existing big players. Something of the like that would make Google, Amazon and Verizon happy but will screw all their competitors out of the market.
Most individuals don't have the money to fight their way into the "market" and the market doesn't 'care' about individuals in any case. "Markets" can be perfectly fine with single monopolies and no magic of the market will change that.
At least the people in office need my vote and, on paper at least, serve my interests.
I disagree vehimently There is absolutely no proof that totalitarian governments are "more safe" for the populace than free ones. Leaving aside the people killed, tortured, ... terrorized, by the governments themselves there is no proof that external attackers will be any less able to attack.
While it may not have been so easy to rent a U-Haul in soviet Russia try telling the victims of the Russian Mafia that they were "safer". At the end of east gernamny an estimates 1 in 6 members of the population worked for the Stasi and yet the country still fell and crimes still occurred including crimes by "terrorists" in this case people who opposed the state. Consider places in Central America where the populace is, or was, choosing between a violent state, and violent "terrorists".
In reality the perceived "safety" of totalitarian states come soley from their control of information. Citizens of those states may hear less about the threats that they face but (as with parents who don't ask what their kids are up to online) they are no safer.
There is no tension between freedom and safety except in the minds of those who hate freedom.
In many ways this is always the case. "Terrorism" proceeds by attacking that which is weakest. In any arms race there are actions and reactions and if U-Hauls are banned then vans can be purchased, if not vans then semis. The problem is, as you note, much of what is being done presents the appearence of security more than actual security.
Well stop what? Stopping all guerilla warfare is different than stopping specific kinds of attacks. An individual determined attack can be thwarted and, by banning UHauls we could block all UHaul based attacks. However this would not prevent all attacks which is why we need to adapt our defences properly to each new threat. As I stated above however adapting our defences does not mean trashing our freedoms.
Srictly speaking we didn't invent Guerilla warfare. The style of warfare itself is probably as old as man (recent fights between illegal miners and native peoples in Brazil have taken on this form). The term itself comes from spain. Guerra is war Guerrilos (small warrirors) were people who fought a personal, individual war against the French during Napeoleon's occupation of Spain. As much as the British love to hold up Wellington as the savior of Spain it was the Guerrillos who casually slaughtered every french solder who went out in groups smaller than 10, who destroyed their chattel, and slashed throats in the dark that made his victory possible. By the end of the war it was impossible for the French to send supplies anywhere because any such supply train (unless it was guarded by a full column of infantry) wouldn't make it. The behavior of the Spaniards made surrender to the British seem like a holiday.
We ourselves used this style of war very effectively du
Exactly. While I spend a lot of time talking to politicos this is really what gets things done. Atthe end of the day the politicos listen to the companys and the companies must be held accountable. With RedHat it really hits close to home.
There's your answer. Lamar Smith was bought and paid for by these people RedHat Amongst them. It is they who are to blame for this law not him, and their pressure that is to blame for Gonzalez obsessively linking this to terrorism (show me how Bin Laden benefits from pirated Britney Spears).
If we want change we have to stop screaming about Sony and then buying their products. If any company backs legislation we oppose then we have to deny them our cash. Sony is in on this but so are some of the companies above and the ones listed here. We have to do the same to companies like RedHat and Sun.
500 Oracle Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Bullet Call for Directions
650.506.7000
Bullet International Phone
+1.650.506.7000
Lamar Smith should also be contacted, but he will just do what his corporate sponsors say so they are tones we have to target and for us as
You are right actually in that I was conflating Volusia and Leon counties.
But as to your question about sources. Diebold's internal memos disclosed the problem as well as other reporting. You can see a report on the subject here.
Yes they were using scantron ballots, they were Diebold scanners. Crucially for this hack they were using a Diebold-made central tabulator system which is where the problem lay.
Their internal e-mails (now leaked) confirm what I said:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm
In answer to the poster's question Diebold is behaving this way because the machines are not secure nor can they be. Anyone who gets a close look at them can see that. Diebold, like ES&S, and Sequoia is opting to muscle in and abuse people rather than admit that no machine is perfect and try to make them as good as possible.
The companies have done similar things in other states. In Florida All 3 have refused to sell any systems to Volusia County. The county's Election Director Ion Sancho was the one who allowed his systems to be tested for security and discovered the "Hrusti Hack" namely whereby the machines will load arbitrary code stored on their memory cards and execute them. Such a hack makes it trivial to change ballots, erase totals, etc. It has since been shown that systems by Sequoia Inc. are vulnerable to the same hack.
Volusia county is also the county that caused Al Gore to initially declare defeat in 2000. During election night Al Gore was leading Bush with a comfortable margin. At 10om someone uploaded a card that reported -16,022 votes for Al Gore and 10,000 for some socialist canidate all from a precinct with 600 voters.
This card passed all of Diebold's stringent "safety checks" (whatever the hell they were) and changed the statewide totals putting Gore well behind Bush. Gore declared defeat. After that the county discovered the errors and reset the system claiming that the new totals were correct. Nevertheles the fact remains that the card got in, was loaded, and threw off a U.S. Presidential election.
Now the companys won't sell to Volusia and are telling the state and the feds that it's Sancho's fault because he wants to test the systems for security. Florida's Governor Jeb Bush (brother of shrub) has also personally blamed Sancho for putting the state behind.
Meanwhile the Department of Justice is threatening to sue the state or withold funds because the county has not bought new systems even though noone will sell said systems to them. The idea being, apparently, that he should just sell out the elections.
At the end of the day the collusion and bullying going o by the companies, by the U.S. Government over HAVA (written by Bob Ney former congressmen for Diebold and now a leading figure in the Abramoff corruption investigation) and by frightened state governments is insane. At the end of the day the only losers will be the American People, of all stripes.
desired
This is your reward.
When you supportthose who think that Business is always right, and turn your back on the world to watch TV this is what you get. The people who seek only profit will dive in and claim that which we all share, as theirs and theirs alone. These people are the bandits at the Oasis charging fees for all who come by. They didn't make the oasis, they don't feed it, they simply want to charge for access.
Now would be the time to look at groups like the EFF and/or write your Senators, your House Representative, and yes even The White House. Be sure to emphasize both how wrong this is and how much it will damage business, especially small businesses. The Large companies Amazon, etc. will be fine if companies in your area want to go online this will put unnecessary and illogical hurdles in place. That should get their attention.
The remaining question is what would happen with common carrier status. In brief all telcos, are not legally responsible for the content that they carry (child porn, plans to blow up buildings) so long as they carry all content equally. Such a plan as this would put that in joepardy and, in the long run, would cut their profits by forcing them to play censor.
I'm sure that the Bush Administration is salivating over the idea of making all the telcos surrender it (thus making them responsible for all content that they carry and making them the censors). But I'm not sure if the Telco's shareholders want their money to be spent purging the net of "adult media". In the end the cost of doing business would be higher for them. This is what short-sighted business managers get you.
So there is what needs to be done. Take a half hour today and do it!
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
The winner's bi-partisan support came from a rather small group of business-centric individuals. His promise to "terminate the deficit" as you put it is kind of what I was talking about. It was an unspecified promise to save money. He didn't specify how he was going to do it or who would be facing less revenue, he simply said that it would happen. Then he went and did a lot of other things that noone asked him about.
9/11 and Katrina were similar disasters with respect to what I was talking about. In both cases the pres in question showed his inability to do the tasks his job required. In both cases he was forced to deal with things that noone asked him about during the election because who cares about disasters when he'll cut taxes and ban abortion?
Neither election was well-rounded or involved a thruough discussion of the issues. In both cases it was shallow vague promises and character qualities facing each other and nothing else.
As much as I love the idea of excercising my second amendment rights by shooting politicians in the ass as one poster put it this issue raises a much darker problem. It's all fun and games to slap on "He's not My President" bumper stickers but the fact of the matter is that on one level he is and these jackasses are our elected officials.
American Politicians, for that matter any politicians, don't come from space. they come from our schools our neighborhoods, and our public life. They get elected by promising to spend less, on other people, and spend more, on us. They appeal to our interests and as much as we'd like to pretend that we aren't responsible, we are. We've allowed this two-party one-ass game to go on for far too long. We keep picking these people and, at election time, it's never about "Will you panic like a frightened chicken when the sh*t hits the fan and shred the constitution" its about "what are you going to do for me?" "When will you cut *my* taxes and raise someone else's?", "When will you make those other people stop doing what it is that I don't like and make them live like me?"
Bush didn't get elected on Iraq. Yes he promised to "deal with them" and whined about attempted assasinations of his father" (they never tried to kill Bush Sr.). But that was a drop in the bucket. His big stance was a) making things "better" in some vague conservative christian sense (no abortion no sex ed); and b) cutting taxes. And for most people who backed him b was bigger than a.
Kerry didn't really run on Iraq, he ran on a vague "I'm the better man" philosophy. Gore did the same. Both got somped by Karl Rove in a basic Gutter-fight fashion. And ultimately, as long as Bush promised to do everything Better, Cheaper, and faster for "Us" noone cared. Then once 9/11 rolled around people ralized that he had less bladder control than a scared chicken and that he didn't realize that shredding the constitution was different than defending it.
This problem is even worse when you consider off-season elections where people often don't bother to show up even to vote for Congressmembers. At the State and local levels I'm betting that people know more about Bennifer than their own Governors, Mayors, and City Council members. If you can become Governor of the most populous state simply by being in the movies then that speaks for itself.
And before anyone elsewhere get's self-important I haven't seen any country that, across the board, is any better. In general, in my experience, eveyone's political class sucks. And everyone is to blame.
Sad as I am to admit it sometimes George Carlin seems right: "Selfish short-sighted people produce selfish short-sighted politicians."
One point I would stress very strongly is not to overcommit or overexpect. While I think that all kids should be exposed to tech at an early age I think they should all see mountains, the ocean, music, art, poetry, theatre, the surise, etc. My point is many parents that I have seen have overemphasized something like tech on the assumption that a) it is most important and b) the kids are guaranteed to love it. Neither one is guaranteed to be the case. She may find that she has more affinity to literature than circuits in which case, take her to the library. I often think that parenting is also a lot about finding good interests and maximizing them rather than instilling them a-priori.
Good luck with your lifelong project.
Is this an article, an announcement of something new, or just a breathless Press Release from the creator being quoted?
Dalek "little green blobs in bonded polycarbide armour". And it's even a british research team!
So you see it has been successful they just can't tell us how. Great, I feel much better. Seriously on one level yes some, if not most "plot" (if they are real) will be foiled in the dark. Back right after 9/11 before the Spying on Vegans before Total Information Awareness, Before the Illegal Phone taps, and before Mussoui (remember him the man who was attempting to "level Chicago with a dirty bomb") had his charges downgraded from "Real-Live Terrorist" to "Guy who tried to send money to AlQuaeda but didn't succeed".
Back then we might have bought some of this "Just trust us it helps protect your freedoms" business. Now, now that they are talking about helping not just State Federal and Local but "private-sector security entities" I want it stopped and stopped now. The local rent-a-cop has no right to government data about me.
Oh I agree.
What about the premium I pay to verizon everyday to access their lines? Doesn't that go to these high fees along with all the taxes they take on my phone costs?
Speaking of phones, why does Google, or by extension my own online business, have to pay for "riding the lines" when Sears Roebuck, or indeed any business doesn't have to pay extra for phone line access? Or is that step 2?
In that event Business woruld break down. If each call, each hit cost a fee then almost all online businesses (save those run by Verizon) would shut down. It would be much like charging roads on a per-use basis. Kiss any small businesses goodbye.
One of the reasons that Credit Card Companies have not made great inroads with many small businesses is the fee. For companies of a sufficient size the store is billed for weach charge. For a small Mom n. Pop that is often all of their profit margin, that's why cash is so much better. The only companies that really love the cards are chain stores who make enough POS purchases to get into the free rate.
Football (American, Austrailian, etc.) ...
Soccer (Yes the game is minimal contact but the fans aren't).
Hockey (goes without saying).
NASCAR (For those in the U.S. Just how often do they replay the crash scenes).
Boxing
Karate
In my experience most of the people clamouring for games legislation a) ignore these things and the very real links between them and aggressive behavior, or b) even promote these very violent endeavors as "healthy excercise". IMHO much of the Game legislation, like calls for tv censorship in the early days and warning labels on CD's has to do with new tech. Whatever the new things kids do (D&D, Dancing, Heavy Metal, Video Games) is always blamed for all social ills because, at a basic level, it is't what we did.
That having been said I do think that some games (GTA) are in a special category by themselves and should be considered carefully. Banning them won't really work we ban kids from having alcohol, cigratettes, and porn in the U.S. but despite all that they still got them even before the internet. Ultimately its all about educating parents so that they realize that a game called Grand Theft Auto isn't exactly Sesame Street.
I place a higher value on the interesting work and the lifestyle I live now over money. The question really is not Money v. Interest it's The Old Job v. The New Job. The answer to that lies in what you value most. The very fact that you are asking the question indicates that you do place a value on interesting work. What you need to ask now is, what value do you place on money. Also, what prospects for advancement are there at The New Job versus The Old Job. If your current job is well-paying but dead-end while the other is low-paying but high growth then the growth may in time win out.
IMHO don't ask us, ask yourself: "What is important to me?" and "Which job fits better?" And when doing this consider all the variables lifestyle, stress, benefits, drinking companions, whatever. If you care about it consider it. List them, rank them, rate the jobs and make your choice.
I can tell you what I might do but I'm not you so I really wouldn't want you to just do what I say.
Secondly, as someone who has seen trojaned PC's I can tell you that being used to spam viagra ads to the western world does have a practical cost for non-techs. While some trojans may leave the files alone the fact that a) all security is compromised, and b) your hardware is being used by others without your consent or knowledge; is meaningful to everyone. In this arena *NIX systems do have a significant leg up over windows. It is much harder for an errant e-mail to lead to a full system compromise on *NIX than on Windows. That having been said I can see how a user-specific trojan may do as much damage.
Thirdly, the author seems to be ignoring the truest source of vulnerabilities: applications. While the base OS is an issue the primary source of holes are applications (Outlook) or application-components (WMF). A *NIX system can be as insecure as Windows with respect to these. However a) There is a greater offering of secure forms, and b) *NIX's more modular form and coding traditions (sacrifice features for security) make it (in general) less suceptible to these kinds of problems.
Fourthly, Windows is developed on a different model from *NIX. Microsoft has always put new features first and foremost. This has led to the situation specified above.
That being the case, much of this is tradition. The traditions of Unix Development (Security over Features) versus Windows (Features over Everything) is what has led to the current state of affairs. Microsoft is in the process of learning the long hard lessons of their history and has been attempting to ape the *NIX model more closely. Meanwhile some in the Linux community have begun arguing that they should move to more "Feature Laden" distros like windows. If Microsoft succeeds in its painful changes and Linux distros begin chasing the "I want features now" crowd then the equations may reverse themselves.
That whatever is done, whatever we find,however nobly we make a thing dedicated to communication and human advancement the same pattern will follow. Armies of self-serving cretuins will immediately follow, try to plant their flag on it, claim it as if they had made it and then get around to dividing the corpse and eating it all the while whining whenever we try to use it that we are "Violating their rights".
It's like the drug companies who take taxpayer-developed drugs (AZT, Viagra, etc) that were produced at the NIH, sell them for a profit and then whine that the U.S. government has to spend our tax dollars to protect "their rights" from being infringed both in the U.S. and in places like africa. Apparently the right of parasite to make money far outweighs the right of an HIV infected patient to live.