If he did, two minutes of reading slashdot would be enough to drive the guy to suicide.
What makes you think that Bill does not read Slashdot? Plenty of Microsoft employees do.
If you want to find out his nym, simply look for the posts that start off 'I don't understand' and then go on to list some issue he has with the way windows or some other computer program works.
Bill is just a geek like you or me with slightly more money.
But most buisnesses and certainly no government would outsource penitration testing and other security jobs. I bet there is tech job security in well...the field of security.
On the contrary, almost no companies hire their own security guards. Even banks outsource guarding and moving money.
In the IT world outsourced management of firewalls is one of the hottest, rapidly growing areas. One reason is to save costs - outsourced management costs a lot less than hiring and training an internal expert. Outsourced also means better security, every change to the firewall configuration has to be signed off internally and by the outsourced management. Anyone who has managed firewalls for a lot of clients can tell stories of going to see $100K firewall installations running open circuit because someone disabled filtering some months earlier for a 'test'.
If you want security you have to have 24x365 coverage, you have to have experts who are right on top of the latest threats to emerge. Sure there are a few companies that can afford to set up that type of infrastructure internally, but most can't.
Security is going to become a commodity the same way every other part of the IT industry becomes a commodity over time.
Thankfully in the case of Worldcom, criminal charges were finally filed recently... I hope they exile them to Afghanistan, the bastards.
Ebbers is not being indicted by the federal govt. it is the state govt. that made the indictments.
Martha Stewart made the mistake of paying off the wrong lot. Herr Ashcroft does not take campaign donations to Democrats into account as a mitigating factor. To count a contribution has to be made to the Bush-Cheney campaign.
I don't think it is very likely we will see an indictment of Kenny Boy Lay while his great friend W is still in the Whitehouse. If there is one constant in W.'s policies it is his determination to give as many favors as possible to rich Texas oilmen.
So much for putting honor and dignity back into the Whitehouse.
As for SCO, they are just another corporate parasite out to use the law to threaten and bully in the hope they can intimidate others into giving them money. I don't think it very likely that IBM can be bullied in that way.
SCO's story is about as believable as Clinton's claim he did not have sexual relations with Monica, or Bush's claim that Iraq had WMD's. It changes about as often.
Except for that one thing on which the US economy floats: oil.
Right now the US uses about 20-25% of the world's oil. All those trees are nice but you can't drive your car on it. The Alaskan field might bring relief to the US market, if environmental problems can be averted and the oil turns out to be as easy to use as the oil from the Gulf area.
How much oil do you think is in ANWAR? Answer is, not very much. the total proven recoverable reserves are only enough to keep the US running for between three and six months at current consumption rates.
Requiring SUVs to meet the same consumption requirements as cars would save three times the total annual production from ANWAR.
It is. However I wonder how much of OSS uptake is due to the poor state a lot of world economies are in because of the World Bank?
In this case a lot, the real issue for Brazil is the balance of payments. Software is a major part of their imports.
I went to the morning presentations in Brazillia last Wednesday, I think folk are reading far more into the situation than is there. This is not about the legislature buying into open source ideology, they are being very pragmatic. At present 100% of their software is Microsoft based. That gives them very little negotiating leverage with Microsoft. This is mainly a way to gain leverage.
The bill requires contracts to be based on features rather than a product. In the past a tender would go out to supply Microsoft Exchange, now it would have to be for a mail server.
In addition to all this most of the SPEWS advocates on the newsgroups we so unceremoniously invaded demonstrated a willingness to add IP ranges to their own blacklists and potentially SPEWS for petty personal reasons. Complain about how SPEWS operates? Get added to the blacklist, often permanently, while they pretend that it somehow makes your situation worse."
There are quite a few anti-spam zealonts who are as bad as the spammers or worse.
This hit the IETF anti-spam research group list. One clown decided to start reporting people he argued with on the list as spammers.
This was a Fox News 'fair and balanced' type strategy, Franken's real complaint about O'Reilly is not the lies, its the bullying. The Fox lawsuit proved O'Reilly and Fox are bullies. It was the same with this clown, anyone who objected that blacklists can be abused as a means of personal censorship got censored.
You know, when you put it that way, SPEWS are terrorists. Hurting innocents in an attempt to force a party only vaguely connected to the victims to accede to their wishes? What's the difference?
They have not killed anyone or attempted to kill anyone (yet).
The basic mindset is very similar, you will comply with our demands or else we will hurt you, you will force others to comply with our demands or else we will hurt you.
Very few ISPs take any notice of SPEWS, at this point they are irrelevant because they are completely indiscriminate. Any ISP who uses SPEWS as a blacklist is guilty of negligence in my view. I would not switch ISPs because an ISP was listed in SPEWS but if they filtered my mail using SPEWS I would drop them immediately.
There is no point in responding to SPEWS demands for the simple reason they will not bother to respond to you.
Will yahoo and hotmail be on that whitelist?
Most of the spam I get comes from those domains, or at least it is spoofed to appear its from there.
The vast majority of spam is sent with some form of false address. Developing a way to be able to trust the origin of email is the way to end the spam crisis.
This type of action does not surprise me. SPEWS and the other blacklists are poor solutions to spam because they are in effect private censorship with no accountability. They are also single points of failure for the Internet as today's episode proves.
The backwash caused by this event was huge. It wasn't just spews and spews users who were affected, the load on the backbones was causing severaql nets to brown-out repeatedly.
It is just as well that we did not have as many idiotic 'hack-back' schemes in operation as some have been calling for.
It looks like this order was gotten pretty much immediately on filing the lawsuit -- (I can't remember the name for this kind of injunctions).
That would be ex-parte. That is a really dangerous game to play. If the judge believes that you lied to get the injunction you is in deep doo-doo. I don't see why there would be a need for secrecy in this instance however. If the case was urgent there should be a review this week, not three weeks after the initial order.
The problem at AOL's end is that their spam filter is large and complex and takes a lot to configure it. it is certainly not a case of change one file and everything filters through.
Another problem for CI-host is that if they are sending spam AOL will have excellent proof of the fact.
AOL are a bit zealos with their blocking. Worse there is no apparent (from what we could see) removal process or information on *why* you were blocked.
There are several separable issues here.
The first thing to notice is that our only information on this dispute comes from a press release put out by CI-host. I find it somewhat surprising to see it alleged that AOL is in contempt of court. On the other hand one wonders how a judgement from a Texas court affects AOL off in Loudoun county VA. I suspect the AOL/Time lawyers may have a different opinion.
Another thing missing from the report is any mention of the reply filled by AOL? Was AOL even aware of the hearing? In most cases a court order does not have immediate effect, thus allowing the defendant to file an appeal. It seems unlikely that a court would issue an order with immediate effect given that AOL has had considerable success in preventing spammers gaining orders of this type in the past.
Another suspicious factor is the rapid escalation to littigation. A legitimate ISP would be unlikely to sue until it was clear that AOL was not going to be reasonable - unless of course they knew AOL was being reasonable.
At this point it is reasonably settled law that an ISP cannot be forced to accept email from an address that it does not want to service. The defamation claims might work against a third party such as a blacklist but it is hard to see how a company can be prohibited from acting on its own assesment of CI's behavior.
The other thing that is odd here is that Sudereth is a recent President of the American Judges Association. You would not expect a judge in that situation to be making whacky judgements which suggests strongly that there is something here that we are not being told in the CI PR puff. It is very rare for a court to order an injunction with immediate effect unless the damage done is irreversible. In this case the effect is very obviously only money.
I feel you are either miseducated in the matter, or a very good troll - I'll assume the former.
Lets see, I have worked with eight Turing award winners, I have designed operating systems, databases and security systems. I am the editor of several current standards. I have no need to troll. Sounds like your definition of 'miseducated' is 'holds a different idea to me'.
The issue of whether or not things are 'integrated into the core' is a good example of the key design philosophy difference between UNIX-type OSs, and MS OSs, although I was given the impression that MS OSs were going more towards UNIX in this regard.
I am probably better informed about the state of MS security system design than any other person who does not work for them and is not a contractor. You are wrong in this assertion on two counts, first the extreme modular nature of Unix has historically been considered a security weakness, second Microsoft is not moving towards Unix. Windows NT has always been a micro-kernel design.
The problem with the bolt on approach is that there is no consistency of use in the Unix framework. You can add Kerberos but you have to separately Kerberize every application. Same for integration to a domain server or any other infrastructure.
The problem is that Unix is not really a modular architecture, it is a patchwork quilt. In a true modular architecture there is one interface to the security subsystem and a sysytem installed there will affect every application. Unix simply does not support that type of interaction. The fact that it is composed of separate modules is irrelevant, all O/S are written as independent modules. The issue is whether those modules interact in a coherent manner or an incoherent one.
Unix regretably flunks that test, although propagandists will try to deny it.
Yeah, potential buffer overruns sit in places no one would think about (hence all those bind/sendmail/iss/rpc holes...) Except that a buffer overrun in a well-configured unix system won't allow your normal cracker to do rm -rf/.
This is one of my pet peves when folk start blathering about how insecure Windows is. The buffer overrun is essentially an invention of the C programming language. Before C nobody thought of writing language compilers without bounds checking on arrays.
The answer to buffer overruns is not to try more care. The answer is to switch to programming styles and languages that prevent buffer overruns.
This is not too difficult even in standard C if you do all string handling through macros that are thin wrappers to the bounds checking code that Dennis Richie left out. A much better answer is to switch to C# or Java where the problem is caught by the managed code environment.
True, at this point. But isn't the point that Microsoft IS the biggie out there, and Linux isn't, but we all (well, there is an assumption here) would like to see that reversed? If that's true, then your arguement is effectively null and void.
I can't say that replacing a Microsoft monoploy with a Linux monopoly looks like any advance to me. Linux development is still way behind Windows in terms of features, in particular security features. Security does not only come from lack of bugs, it is also a matter of support for security features and tight integration of those security features.
Microsoft has in the past done baddly on the bugs side of things, but in the area of support for security featurs it has no peer. Windows 2000 has PKI and Kerberos security embedded deep into the core of the O/S. Sure you can get add ons for Linux to provide features like an encrypting file system, but you don't get deep intgration so you end up having to choose between the encrypting file system and the journaling file system. Same goes for Kerberos, you can add a Kerberos package onto Unix but you don't get the same tight integration you get on Windows 2000.
The virus issue is also rather more complex than some make it out see
Phill H-B's security blog. The basic point here is that to propagate a virus needs to infect an average of more than one new host each time it spreads. So it is much harder for viruses to spread on a platform that represents only 9% of the population than 90%.
The problem with all the Linux boosterism on the security issue is that many of the 'facts' being asserted are nothing of the sort. If you ignore toy O/S that do not use protected memory such as the Mac before OS-x and the Windows-95 flavors
Unix has historically been no better than comparabloe platforms. OK so there are few security vulnerabilities reported in the UNIX core, but that is the same for Windows. Most security bugs turn up in server code running at application level. Sendmail has been considerably worse over its life than IIS.
The problem with the complacency in the Linux camp is that Microsoft shows every sign that it has the security religion now. The recent spate of Microsoft patches are mostly for bugs Microsoft themselves discovered during their code reviews. Windows 2003 now loads the way a secure O/S should - in installments starting from a minimal core functionality.
Sure Linux can keep up, but only if developers respond to the challenge rather than sitting arround congratulating themselves on how much better they are. That seems to have been classic behavior of previous would be Microsoft challengers who lost.
You're President Eisenhower. Your advisers are talking to you about highly sensitive stuff. There's a secretary in the room taking notes.
It is possible but highly unlikely. Eisenhower was clearly not the principal supporter of the coup and had been highly skeptical of it.
The coup was kept secret in the US for decades afterwards. There was no reason to start disturbances in Iran in order to sway public opinion at home in favor of the coup because it was a black operation.
I think that the argument that the CIA deliberately misled the president is very stron in that instance.
Fifty years later it is possible to see that the coup affected far more than the situation in the middle east - although the effects there were disastrous. The '53 coup gave the CIA a taste for replacing democratic governments it disliked. The total number of deaths that resulted is likely in the millions if you add up the numbers murdered in Chile, Guatelmala, Argentina, Peru, the Phillipeans etc. etc.
The CIA intervention meant that progress towards democracy in the region was halted. Iraq became a CIA backed dictatorship in similar circumstances.
Meddling in the affairs of other countries has not improved GOP respect for democracy at home either. It is arguable that the impeachment crisis, the stopping of the 2000 election count, and the attempt to meddle with democracy in Texas and California are all part and parcel of the same outlook.
Tempting though it is to place IKE at the center of this, I think it is more likely he was as much a dupe as anyone else.
I think it's more likely that Eisenhower managed to take what he did and did not know to the grave, whereas the CIA's ability to keep secrets broke down over time.
The available minutes show that Eisenhower was very skeptical of the value of the coup, particularly to protect UK oil interests. It was the Dulles brothers who argued the case for the coup and the documents show that Eisenhower was told of the growing disturbances as evidence of growing instability. They do not mention that the disturbances were created by the CIA.
If true, this is very unfortunate. The last thing the Open Source community needs in its fight against SCO (and indeed, in general) is to be associated with virus writers.
Unless SCO is behind the attack in order to create exactly the impression you cite.
Perhaps unlikely for SCO but in the 1950s the CIA organized mobs to riot againt the government then used the disorder to argue their case for a coup. Eisenhower was never told that the CIA rather than Tudeh (the Iranian communist party was behind it).
So yes this sort of thing does go on. But more generally it is important to police your supporters as vigilantly as your opponents. I was in Brazillia a couple of days ago for the Software Libre event in the parliament. The proceedings were in Protugeese and there was no translation so I did not follow all that was going on. But you could see the room turn against open source when the local loony firebrand started to speak. Instead of making the good case that his facts supported he went beyond the established facts to make claims that most people in the room simply dismissed as propaganda.
Up until that performance the tide was certainly with open source, afterwards there was a lot more opposition.
Basically the guy was speaking to his base, not building support.
Dean even calls Bush Jr. "isolationist" in regard to his foreign policy! If Bush Jr. is an isolationist, I don't want to find out what Dean thinks is going to far in interfering with other countries soverignty. Dean says "we intend to enforce our view of the world", in regard to trade policies.
That is because Bush is isolationist. He is only interested in foreign policy to the extent that other countries are forced to comply with whatever edict is issued in Washington.
The depth of Bush's ignorance on foreign policy is shown by his use of the word 'crusade' in the Afghan war. Even the most basic state dept brief would have told him that in Arab eyes that is tantamount to calling for a holocaust - or rather would have done if he bothered to read it.
Or take another idiotic obsession of the administration, the lack of democracy in the region - as if the US has nothing to do with the situation. Iran had a democratic government in 1953 and democratic institutions much older than those in most European countries of the time. The CIA and the GOP decided that they would rather have a dictatorship that would protect the US and UK oil interest.
If we have a deficit, maybe we should cut government spending. Funny, the deficit-worrying Democrats will never support that.
Funny, the GOP has control of both houses of congress and the Whitehouse. So the massive increases in pork spending would appear to be their responsibility. As DeLay said 'to the winner go the spoils'.
In this case that means plenty of crony capitalism federal projects in GOP districts.
Wait until 2015 when the baby boomers are retired. At that point they will insist public spending be cut to protect their retirement benefits and have the votes to back it. The Pentagon is 50% of the discressionary budget.
If the person behind the story knew a bit more about the net he would know why every legitimate originator of a lot of emails is going to use an outsourcer and that without exception they are all listed as suspicious by anti-spam types.
The fact is that blacklists are not organized half as well as they would have people believe. If you want to send bulk mail you use an outsourcer because unless you do most of your messages will get classified as junk. Getting round spam filters turns out to be the main technical skill the outsourcers provide.
The problem with spam is that it has got to the point where everything becomes a he-said she-said argument. There is actually no way to know if either side is telling the truth. Try putting up a pro-israeli or pro-palestinian web site and you will find you are blacklisted for spamming before you send out a single email.
All 'outsourced maillers' are listed on blacklists, most of them for good reason. There is absolutely no way that an outsourced email provider can know if an email list provided by a client is legit or spam.
The problem here is that the protocols simply don't work as well as they should. We don't have a way to know who is behaving honestly and who is not. That is a protocol bug. It is fixable but only if we face up to the fact that we need to fix it and get the email providers to deploy whatever changes are necessary.
That is not going to happen in time for the 2004 election. But think of this, until the Internet US politics has been game where you take as much money in bribes from corporate America and then you spend your whole time in office paying back favors. Bush and Cheney are paying back $2000 for every $1 they collected from the super-rich. Next election they plan to spend $200 million. That means another $400 billion to be spent on tax cuts for the super rich when the budget deficit is heading for $700 billion. Don't think you are getting any of that unless you are one of the insider investors. Otherwise you are more likely to find that your investment in Bush reaps the same results as your investment in 'Kenny Boy' Lay's Enron.
never said he wasn't. He was chief financier of the organization founded by Abdullah Azzam in the early 80's to help the mujahedeen. He was helping the same people as the CIA, but that's a far cry from the claim that he was "trained by" the CIA.
That is a straw man, Bin Laden was funded by the CIA and provided with weapons.
You misunderstand my comment regarding him taking charge of CIA-abandned muj after the soviets left. I didn't mean to imply that it happened immediately thereafter; my point was more along the lines of "the CIA abandons its tools when they're no longer useful, but there's always someone around to pick them up later".
Again, you clearly don't understand the situation. The Mujahaden did not report to the CIA in the way your claim suggests. The issue that led to the Taleban was not abandoning the Mujahaden who were mainly foreign mercenaries looking to return home in any case. The issue was abandoning the country and the post Soviet government.
In other words just what King George has just done for a second time. In order to invade Iraq Arghanistan has been allowed to return to the pre-Taleban situation. The Taleban are now regrouped and ready to start taking over again.
OBL was not trained by the CIA. He's the son of a rich oil sheik who came in and took charge of a bunch of CIA trained mujahideen that the CIA abandoned when the Soviets caved in. If only the world were as simple as people like you believe...
It is fairly well established that Bin Laden was operating during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. He was operating from a base in Peshawa and tended to be far from the actual fighting but he certainly did play an important role training mujahadeen recruits and was certainly funded at various times by the US and Saudi sources.
The pretense that Bin Laden only appeared after the Soviets left Afrghanistan may serve a propaganda purpose but only for people who believe blindly what they are told by Bill 'fair and balanced' O'Reilly. It is pretty well established that Bin Laden left Afghanistan and was in Saudi Arabia after the Soviet retreat.
Oh and the Bin Laden familly are not Oil Sheiks by any stretch of the imagination. They made their money in construction, not oil. They certainly are not part of the royal familly.
You would have a much better argument if you pointed out that Bin Laden is only the titular head of Al Qaeda. The real causal nexus is Al Zawahiri, the leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad who is frequently but inaccurately referred to as the number 2 in Al Qaeda. Al Zawahiri has a far longer resume than Bin Laden, early on in his career he was one of the ring leaders in the assasination of Saddat. He was behind the declaration of war on the US. Bin Laden is simply a convenient front for Al Zawahiri providing access to funds and the Pakistani government.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think that Bill does not read Slashdot? Plenty of Microsoft employees do.
If you want to find out his nym, simply look for the posts that start off 'I don't understand' and then go on to list some issue he has with the way windows or some other computer program works.
Bill is just a geek like you or me with slightly more money.
On the contrary, almost no companies hire their own security guards. Even banks outsource guarding and moving money.
In the IT world outsourced management of firewalls is one of the hottest, rapidly growing areas. One reason is to save costs - outsourced management costs a lot less than hiring and training an internal expert. Outsourced also means better security, every change to the firewall configuration has to be signed off internally and by the outsourced management. Anyone who has managed firewalls for a lot of clients can tell stories of going to see $100K firewall installations running open circuit because someone disabled filtering some months earlier for a 'test'.
If you want security you have to have 24x365 coverage, you have to have experts who are right on top of the latest threats to emerge. Sure there are a few companies that can afford to set up that type of infrastructure internally, but most can't.
Security is going to become a commodity the same way every other part of the IT industry becomes a commodity over time.
Ebbers is not being indicted by the federal govt. it is the state govt. that made the indictments.
Martha Stewart made the mistake of paying off the wrong lot. Herr Ashcroft does not take campaign donations to Democrats into account as a mitigating factor. To count a contribution has to be made to the Bush-Cheney campaign.
I don't think it is very likely we will see an indictment of Kenny Boy Lay while his great friend W is still in the Whitehouse. If there is one constant in W.'s policies it is his determination to give as many favors as possible to rich Texas oilmen.
So much for putting honor and dignity back into the Whitehouse.
As for SCO, they are just another corporate parasite out to use the law to threaten and bully in the hope they can intimidate others into giving them money. I don't think it very likely that IBM can be bullied in that way.
SCO's story is about as believable as Clinton's claim he did not have sexual relations with Monica, or Bush's claim that Iraq had WMD's. It changes about as often.
How much oil do you think is in ANWAR? Answer is, not very much. the total proven recoverable reserves are only enough to keep the US running for between three and six months at current consumption rates.
Requiring SUVs to meet the same consumption requirements as cars would save three times the total annual production from ANWAR.
In this case a lot, the real issue for Brazil is the balance of payments. Software is a major part of their imports.
I went to the morning presentations in Brazillia last Wednesday, I think folk are reading far more into the situation than is there. This is not about the legislature buying into open source ideology, they are being very pragmatic. At present 100% of their software is Microsoft based. That gives them very little negotiating leverage with Microsoft. This is mainly a way to gain leverage.
The bill requires contracts to be based on features rather than a product. In the past a tender would go out to supply Microsoft Exchange, now it would have to be for a mail server.
There are quite a few anti-spam zealonts who are as bad as the spammers or worse.
This hit the IETF anti-spam research group list. One clown decided to start reporting people he argued with on the list as spammers.
This was a Fox News 'fair and balanced' type strategy, Franken's real complaint about O'Reilly is not the lies, its the bullying. The Fox lawsuit proved O'Reilly and Fox are bullies. It was the same with this clown, anyone who objected that blacklists can be abused as a means of personal censorship got censored.
They have not killed anyone or attempted to kill anyone (yet).
The basic mindset is very similar, you will comply with our demands or else we will hurt you, you will force others to comply with our demands or else we will hurt you.
Very few ISPs take any notice of SPEWS, at this point they are irrelevant because they are completely indiscriminate. Any ISP who uses SPEWS as a blacklist is guilty of negligence in my view. I would not switch ISPs because an ISP was listed in SPEWS but if they filtered my mail using SPEWS I would drop them immediately.
There is no point in responding to SPEWS demands for the simple reason they will not bother to respond to you.
The vast majority of spam is sent with some form of false address. Developing a way to be able to trust the origin of email is the way to end the spam crisis.
This type of action does not surprise me. SPEWS and the other blacklists are poor solutions to spam because they are in effect private censorship with no accountability. They are also single points of failure for the Internet as today's episode proves.
The backwash caused by this event was huge. It wasn't just spews and spews users who were affected, the load on the backbones was causing severaql nets to brown-out repeatedly.
It is just as well that we did not have as many idiotic 'hack-back' schemes in operation as some have been calling for.
Like a specific detail that would tell you exactly who I am so you can pester me in person?
Err no thanks.
That would be ex-parte. That is a really dangerous game to play. If the judge believes that you lied to get the injunction you is in deep doo-doo. I don't see why there would be a need for secrecy in this instance however. If the case was urgent there should be a review this week, not three weeks after the initial order.
The problem at AOL's end is that their spam filter is large and complex and takes a lot to configure it. it is certainly not a case of change one file and everything filters through.
Another problem for CI-host is that if they are sending spam AOL will have excellent proof of the fact.
There are several separable issues here.
The first thing to notice is that our only information on this dispute comes from a press release put out by CI-host. I find it somewhat surprising to see it alleged that AOL is in contempt of court. On the other hand one wonders how a judgement from a Texas court affects AOL off in Loudoun county VA. I suspect the AOL/Time lawyers may have a different opinion.
Another thing missing from the report is any mention of the reply filled by AOL? Was AOL even aware of the hearing? In most cases a court order does not have immediate effect, thus allowing the defendant to file an appeal. It seems unlikely that a court would issue an order with immediate effect given that AOL has had considerable success in preventing spammers gaining orders of this type in the past.
Another suspicious factor is the rapid escalation to littigation. A legitimate ISP would be unlikely to sue until it was clear that AOL was not going to be reasonable - unless of course they knew AOL was being reasonable.
At this point it is reasonably settled law that an ISP cannot be forced to accept email from an address that it does not want to service. The defamation claims might work against a third party such as a blacklist but it is hard to see how a company can be prohibited from acting on its own assesment of CI's behavior.
The other thing that is odd here is that Sudereth is a recent President of the American Judges Association. You would not expect a judge in that situation to be making whacky judgements which suggests strongly that there is something here that we are not being told in the CI PR puff. It is very rare for a court to order an injunction with immediate effect unless the damage done is irreversible. In this case the effect is very obviously only money.
Lets see, I have worked with eight Turing award winners, I have designed operating systems, databases and security systems. I am the editor of several current standards. I have no need to troll. Sounds like your definition of 'miseducated' is 'holds a different idea to me'.
The issue of whether or not things are 'integrated into the core' is a good example of the key design philosophy difference between UNIX-type OSs, and MS OSs, although I was given the impression that MS OSs were going more towards UNIX in this regard.
I am probably better informed about the state of MS security system design than any other person who does not work for them and is not a contractor. You are wrong in this assertion on two counts, first the extreme modular nature of Unix has historically been considered a security weakness, second Microsoft is not moving towards Unix. Windows NT has always been a micro-kernel design.
The problem with the bolt on approach is that there is no consistency of use in the Unix framework. You can add Kerberos but you have to separately Kerberize every application. Same for integration to a domain server or any other infrastructure.
The problem is that Unix is not really a modular architecture, it is a patchwork quilt. In a true modular architecture there is one interface to the security subsystem and a sysytem installed there will affect every application. Unix simply does not support that type of interaction. The fact that it is composed of separate modules is irrelevant, all O/S are written as independent modules. The issue is whether those modules interact in a coherent manner or an incoherent one.
Unix regretably flunks that test, although propagandists will try to deny it.
This is one of my pet peves when folk start blathering about how insecure Windows is. The buffer overrun is essentially an invention of the C programming language. Before C nobody thought of writing language compilers without bounds checking on arrays.
The answer to buffer overruns is not to try more care. The answer is to switch to programming styles and languages that prevent buffer overruns.
This is not too difficult even in standard C if you do all string handling through macros that are thin wrappers to the bounds checking code that Dennis Richie left out. A much better answer is to switch to C# or Java where the problem is caught by the managed code environment.
I can't say that replacing a Microsoft monoploy with a Linux monopoly looks like any advance to me. Linux development is still way behind Windows in terms of features, in particular security features. Security does not only come from lack of bugs, it is also a matter of support for security features and tight integration of those security features.
Microsoft has in the past done baddly on the bugs side of things, but in the area of support for security featurs it has no peer. Windows 2000 has PKI and Kerberos security embedded deep into the core of the O/S. Sure you can get add ons for Linux to provide features like an encrypting file system, but you don't get deep intgration so you end up having to choose between the encrypting file system and the journaling file system. Same goes for Kerberos, you can add a Kerberos package onto Unix but you don't get the same tight integration you get on Windows 2000.
The virus issue is also rather more complex than some make it out see Phill H-B's security blog. The basic point here is that to propagate a virus needs to infect an average of more than one new host each time it spreads. So it is much harder for viruses to spread on a platform that represents only 9% of the population than 90%.
The problem with all the Linux boosterism on the security issue is that many of the 'facts' being asserted are nothing of the sort. If you ignore toy O/S that do not use protected memory such as the Mac before OS-x and the Windows-95 flavors Unix has historically been no better than comparabloe platforms. OK so there are few security vulnerabilities reported in the UNIX core, but that is the same for Windows. Most security bugs turn up in server code running at application level. Sendmail has been considerably worse over its life than IIS.
The problem with the complacency in the Linux camp is that Microsoft shows every sign that it has the security religion now. The recent spate of Microsoft patches are mostly for bugs Microsoft themselves discovered during their code reviews. Windows 2003 now loads the way a secure O/S should - in installments starting from a minimal core functionality.
Sure Linux can keep up, but only if developers respond to the challenge rather than sitting arround congratulating themselves on how much better they are. That seems to have been classic behavior of previous would be Microsoft challengers who lost.
It is possible but highly unlikely. Eisenhower was clearly not the principal supporter of the coup and had been highly skeptical of it.
The coup was kept secret in the US for decades afterwards. There was no reason to start disturbances in Iran in order to sway public opinion at home in favor of the coup because it was a black operation. I think that the argument that the CIA deliberately misled the president is very stron in that instance.
Fifty years later it is possible to see that the coup affected far more than the situation in the middle east - although the effects there were disastrous. The '53 coup gave the CIA a taste for replacing democratic governments it disliked. The total number of deaths that resulted is likely in the millions if you add up the numbers murdered in Chile, Guatelmala, Argentina, Peru, the Phillipeans etc. etc.
The CIA intervention meant that progress towards democracy in the region was halted. Iraq became a CIA backed dictatorship in similar circumstances.
Meddling in the affairs of other countries has not improved GOP respect for democracy at home either. It is arguable that the impeachment crisis, the stopping of the 2000 election count, and the attempt to meddle with democracy in Texas and California are all part and parcel of the same outlook.
Tempting though it is to place IKE at the center of this, I think it is more likely he was as much a dupe as anyone else.
The available minutes show that Eisenhower was very skeptical of the value of the coup, particularly to protect UK oil interests. It was the Dulles brothers who argued the case for the coup and the documents show that Eisenhower was told of the growing disturbances as evidence of growing instability. They do not mention that the disturbances were created by the CIA.
I was simply pointing out that you should not assume that when criminal methods are used to apparently advance a cause that all is as it seems.
SCO almost certainly did not attack themselves but they may have engaged in Nixonian tactics of exagerating the damage.
Madelene Albright admitted that the CIA led the 1953 coup in Iran. You can find a detailed history in All The Shah's Men.
Unless SCO is behind the attack in order to create exactly the impression you cite.
Perhaps unlikely for SCO but in the 1950s the CIA organized mobs to riot againt the government then used the disorder to argue their case for a coup. Eisenhower was never told that the CIA rather than Tudeh (the Iranian communist party was behind it).
So yes this sort of thing does go on. But more generally it is important to police your supporters as vigilantly as your opponents. I was in Brazillia a couple of days ago for the Software Libre event in the parliament. The proceedings were in Protugeese and there was no translation so I did not follow all that was going on. But you could see the room turn against open source when the local loony firebrand started to speak. Instead of making the good case that his facts supported he went beyond the established facts to make claims that most people in the room simply dismissed as propaganda.
Up until that performance the tide was certainly with open source, afterwards there was a lot more opposition.
Basically the guy was speaking to his base, not building support.
That is because Bush is isolationist. He is only interested in foreign policy to the extent that other countries are forced to comply with whatever edict is issued in Washington.
The depth of Bush's ignorance on foreign policy is shown by his use of the word 'crusade' in the Afghan war. Even the most basic state dept brief would have told him that in Arab eyes that is tantamount to calling for a holocaust - or rather would have done if he bothered to read it.
Or take another idiotic obsession of the administration, the lack of democracy in the region - as if the US has nothing to do with the situation. Iran had a democratic government in 1953 and democratic institutions much older than those in most European countries of the time. The CIA and the GOP decided that they would rather have a dictatorship that would protect the US and UK oil interest.
Funny, the GOP has control of both houses of congress and the Whitehouse. So the massive increases in pork spending would appear to be their responsibility. As DeLay said 'to the winner go the spoils'.
In this case that means plenty of crony capitalism federal projects in GOP districts.
Wait until 2015 when the baby boomers are retired. At that point they will insist public spending be cut to protect their retirement benefits and have the votes to back it. The Pentagon is 50% of the discressionary budget.
The fact is that blacklists are not organized half as well as they would have people believe. If you want to send bulk mail you use an outsourcer because unless you do most of your messages will get classified as junk. Getting round spam filters turns out to be the main technical skill the outsourcers provide.
The problem with spam is that it has got to the point where everything becomes a he-said she-said argument. There is actually no way to know if either side is telling the truth. Try putting up a pro-israeli or pro-palestinian web site and you will find you are blacklisted for spamming before you send out a single email.
All 'outsourced maillers' are listed on blacklists, most of them for good reason. There is absolutely no way that an outsourced email provider can know if an email list provided by a client is legit or spam.
The problem here is that the protocols simply don't work as well as they should. We don't have a way to know who is behaving honestly and who is not. That is a protocol bug. It is fixable but only if we face up to the fact that we need to fix it and get the email providers to deploy whatever changes are necessary.
That is not going to happen in time for the 2004 election. But think of this, until the Internet US politics has been game where you take as much money in bribes from corporate America and then you spend your whole time in office paying back favors. Bush and Cheney are paying back $2000 for every $1 they collected from the super-rich. Next election they plan to spend $200 million. That means another $400 billion to be spent on tax cuts for the super rich when the budget deficit is heading for $700 billion. Don't think you are getting any of that unless you are one of the insider investors. Otherwise you are more likely to find that your investment in Bush reaps the same results as your investment in 'Kenny Boy' Lay's Enron.
That is a straw man, Bin Laden was funded by the CIA and provided with weapons.
You misunderstand my comment regarding him taking charge of CIA-abandned muj after the soviets left. I didn't mean to imply that it happened immediately thereafter; my point was more along the lines of "the CIA abandons its tools when they're no longer useful, but there's always someone around to pick them up later".
Again, you clearly don't understand the situation. The Mujahaden did not report to the CIA in the way your claim suggests. The issue that led to the Taleban was not abandoning the Mujahaden who were mainly foreign mercenaries looking to return home in any case. The issue was abandoning the country and the post Soviet government.
In other words just what King George has just done for a second time. In order to invade Iraq Arghanistan has been allowed to return to the pre-Taleban situation. The Taleban are now regrouped and ready to start taking over again.
This type of story is exactly the sort of thing that fuels geek sterotypes as people with no social life who can't get laid.
Perhaps because it is the type of project that can only be tried by people with no social life who can't get laid.
Of course not, but the gas streetlights don't throw off as much light as the electric systems .
It is fairly well established that Bin Laden was operating during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. He was operating from a base in Peshawa and tended to be far from the actual fighting but he certainly did play an important role training mujahadeen recruits and was certainly funded at various times by the US and Saudi sources.
The pretense that Bin Laden only appeared after the Soviets left Afrghanistan may serve a propaganda purpose but only for people who believe blindly what they are told by Bill 'fair and balanced' O'Reilly. It is pretty well established that Bin Laden left Afghanistan and was in Saudi Arabia after the Soviet retreat.
Oh and the Bin Laden familly are not Oil Sheiks by any stretch of the imagination. They made their money in construction, not oil. They certainly are not part of the royal familly.
You would have a much better argument if you pointed out that Bin Laden is only the titular head of Al Qaeda. The real causal nexus is Al Zawahiri, the leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad who is frequently but inaccurately referred to as the number 2 in Al Qaeda. Al Zawahiri has a far longer resume than Bin Laden, early on in his career he was one of the ring leaders in the assasination of Saddat. He was behind the declaration of war on the US. Bin Laden is simply a convenient front for Al Zawahiri providing access to funds and the Pakistani government.