"Joe Blow" could have written the same article and it would have been just as pertinent, and would have deserved being listed on the front page.
The point is that people know his name, they use the software he wrote, they read the crap that he spews, and he's more often right than wrong.
Front page because we'll read it, we'll coment on it, and we'll debate whether or not he has sufficient celebrity status (which brings us right back to your point).
It's not that he's profound, and it's not that he's well spoken (he's definately not). It's not that he's a well known blogger, as most probably don't consider his claim to be due to his blog. He's been around since before you could reach the keyboard, and he's written utilities that were once among the most widely installed on unix boxes. Even those of us who may think he's somewhat of an ass still like being notified when he's got something poignant to say.
He might be considered front page material because he's not really known as a blogger, but because even those of us who think he's an ass probably are using or have used software that he wrote or maintained, or because we begrudgingly acknowledge that he often has something worthwhile to say.
They just don't care, nor do they like being told what to do by a bunch of geeks that they wouldn't ask the time of day from.
They are pissing on their voluntary obligation to assert their authority. It is unwise to allow them this voice, and it would be unwise to accept a court decision that allows them to reimplement sitefinder on the DNS level.
Expect to see more crap like this from all of the bigest players in internet service (especially from Comcast after they become a Microsoft property in the near future).
because the Sendmail sender verification proposal (mentioned here) relies only on already existing tech (Domain Keys, mx records, and smtp auth) thaty is already incorporated into the vast majority of MTAs, it does not really make much sense (from a users, or a non-microsoft, point of veiw) to create a seprate and more complicated solution (even if the license is rather innocuous).
I cannot help but think that continuing to allow senders that do not have a mx record for the sending machine to bypass smtp-auth for sending messages will fail to curb the spam problem, as it fails to tie the sent mails to an actual domain, and it allows (encourages) ISPs to restrict mailing through their email services only. With smtp-auth, it is still possible to send using an smtp server connected anywhere on the net, which allows accountability, but also makes it more possible to identify those providers who are allowing their users to send spam.
Every point he mentions is valid, including the fact that many of the current erasures of constitutional right were implemented through administrative actions, and not by representative action.
Just because you do not like having it pointed out does not mean it's a troll.
Wow, he must be only twenty or thirty feet away, in a crowd, no less.
If anyone reads anything into that pic, they're really reaching.
Of course the guy's at a peace rally. Unlike the majority of the people there, Kerry had an actual understanding of war, and actual combat expiriences that led him to protest the war after his return.
A lot of crap is comming out from the right-wing chickenhawks who are beginning to realize that this is a candidate who served in some of the worst combat zones any vet has seen, and earned a Bronze Star, a Silver Star, and Presidential Unit Citation while doing so. The guy has a dislike for the intelligence community and has gone after them before.
Real or not, I'm pretty sure those pictures are not going to make a whole hell of a lot of difference.
Like all the young artsy types drinking PBR (they claim they like it, but the truth is they've simply watched a little too much David Lynch), you're revealing yourself to be a lowbrow snob.
Drink your pisswater as much as you like, I'll stick to my Yeungling at a slightly lower price, but it's actually a lager instead of a pilsner without the hops.
I'll have another glass of Stegmier porter, please. Cost about 25% less than your "King of beers", and whats this, it actually taste good.
Rejecting the mass produced swill does not mean moving into a "higher class", as many of the better beers made at "traditional" (ie: much older) American breweries cost less than the crap that Anheiser-Busch, Coors, and Miller Brewing attempt to sell as "real American beer".
You can go on drinking your "blue collar beer" (honest, they showed working guys in the commercial), but I'll stick to the "black collar brew" from the coal country. If it was good enough for my Great-Gran'Dad, it's good enough for me.
Just 'cause the TV tells you it's the working mans drink doesn't mean shit. There's better, cheaper brews available almost everywhere made by companies who have been around longer than "the big guys" and don't need a marketing study or customer tracking to succeed at the pub.
Hey, I was agreeing with you, just take a look at the link I provided.
The NSA is the agency that currently intrusively monitors domestic and foreign communications. The only point I disagree with is the possibility that the seLinux modification is trojaned, as it would not be in the interest of the NSA to do that, and the NSA is one of the few agencies that has persons familiar enough with computer security to realize this. In the past, both the CIA and the FBI have been at odds with the NSA over the NSA's reluctance to give access to the monitoring process, instead only feeding information that they beleive is a threat.
The CIA and FBI are intensly ideological agencies that have a tendancy to shoot first and ask questions later. TIA, MATRIX and whatever else they are calling their new information databases are attempts at eliminating the safeguards in place at the NSA and put direct access to our communications in the hands of a bunch of right-wing nuts who like to murder, kidnap, and frame people for thinking the wrong thoughts.
So, yes, the NSA is in the habit of intrusively monitoring our communications, but the security enhancements they've added to the Linux kernel are immensely useful for protecting our privacy. Considering what the CIA, the FBI, and the Justice Department have been up to, I think the NSA is the least of our worries at the moment. Besides, I seriously doubt that there's anyone in the current administration who is actually capable of understanding what the NSA does or how their own policies are harming the the ability of US citizens to be secure and free in their own lives.
Like all geeks, these guys are information addicts. ECHELON is a pretty nasty system (and is pretty much what you describe).
But these guys are pretty smart, much smarter than your average intelligence asshole spook*, and they know computer security well enough to realize that if they have a way into a machine, then probably someone else knows about it as well. The code they release as the SE-Linux enhancement is open, and is being reviewed by people who know security programming far better, and are far more paranoid, than you or I.
I don't beleive for a second that they are backdooring these security enhancements, and I do not beleive it would go unnoticed if they were. AFAICT, the NSA came to the realization that they could test their security designs and improve upon them to the best effect if they were to release them to a relatively knowledgable bunch, and have them tested in the real world. Besides, these guys don't really like the asshole spook* crowd too much, so if your looking to keep the FBI and CIA off of your law-abidin' ass and out of your personal business, who better to help you accomplish that end than the good old NSA?
The vast majority of their work is maintaining secure communications for the military and other intelligence agencies plus analizing (code breaking) intercepted secure transmissions. The movie "the Falcon and the Snowman" depicted their work fairly accurately, compiling lists and transcripts of monitored communications and forwarding them to the apropriate parties.
These are not the guys who start wars and disappear people (that would be the CIA). That's not to say they are completely innocuous, they are the guys who run the ECHELON program.
When I first saw the headline, I was worried that this would affect services like Pulver's end to end Free World Dialup VOIP service, but upon actually reading the article, this regulation is intended for those services that are converting your phone call to VOIP for trasmission and then convertinig it back.
If the service you are using is tied into the telephone network, then the provider should make 911 (and extended 911) service available.
If you are complaining about the cost of 911 service, then I guess that $0.25/month charge is pretty steep, but they'll let you use it anyway on my tab!
If iots about the service knowing where you're calling from, well this is one of the few times where you'll catch me thinking that's a bit of intrusion I might someday be thankful for.
Get off the cowboy/militia/anarchy bit for a second and use your head. This is a service that actually helps people, is reliable enough that when you find a working phone, it's there for you. I know of people who carry a non-subscribed cell phone for 911 service alone. Even though they cannot call their friends on thier phones, they can still use 911 to get emergency services if they need it.
It makes sense. It's cheap and reliable. Quit your whining, it's well worth it.
As I see it, there are many people in government who have sided with the intelligence industries in order to proffit greatly at taxpayer expense through propagating unrest and destabilizing foreign governments to keep the world in a permanant state of near war.
The claim that the CIA is only acting in the interest of the people is hard to swallow not only because of Iran Contra, but also because of the the irregularities involved in the investigations of the Lockerbie Scotland airplane bombing, the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center, the bombing of the World Trade Center, and of the events on September Eleventh. 2001.
To further call into question the objectives of our Intelligence Community, you only need examine the contractors who have proffited to the greatest extent from both these incidents, and from CIA influenced foreign policy: Halliburton, Bechtel, Wackenhut, DynCorp, The Curry Company, and The Bin-Laden Group (among others).
All of these companies are run by former CIA staffers, agents, and contractors or their closest associates. The first five have all been implicated in breaking US laws either here or abroad in various investigations, while the last one mentioned just happens to have close ties to all of the other companies, the families of prominant conservative US politicians, and one of the terroerist that our government at one time supported and now has been implicated in the attacks on September Eleventh.
I wish I could look at the pile of coincidence that keeps pointing at the same actors and accept it as simply strange odds, but eventually the coincidence becomes too much to write off. It is possible that one can toss heads a thousand times in a row, but it is damn unlikely, and if it happens, you best take a damn close look at that coin.
I say it's about time to hold another "Church Commission" investigation, lets just hope we get some folks in Washington who have enough balls to actually do it.
I was a little unclear, what I meant is that our administration would like to see the hardships faced by the Iranian people increased in hopes that a revolution will result that might lead to a more US friendly government.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What is left out of many histories of Iran is the fact that as much as we pretended to be at odds with the Iranians under Khomeini, we were really playing both sides of the fence, as is documtnted in the records of the Iran-Contra conspiracy, and other records of the Iran Iraq war, by arming the Iraqis directly and arming Iran through covert funding and arms sales using Israel as a front. As much as we claimed to be at odds with Khomeini, a religeous dictator was much more to the liking of the Reagan Administration than the possibility of communism gaining a foothold in Iran. In return for the double dealing, Khomeini executed several thousand "Communists" during the first few months of his regime.
There are some that think that the US was involved in supporting Khomeini even before the Iran Iraq war, but I haven't yet come to any real conclusion about this as yet. It does seem plausible when you look at the CIA's record.
The point is not that it is illegal to receive the software in Iran, but that it may be illegal to take part in trade with Iran if you are a company or citizen of the US or one of its allies.
On the other hand, if the current administration would recognise the effect these policies have been having (increased support for the Anti-US religeous right in Iranian politics), then perhaps they'll reconsider so as to allow the liberal reformers there to regain the ground they have lost in recent years.
I do understand that our administration would probably like to have a revolution occur there due to the hardships, but revolutions in that part of the world seldom result in anything other than religeous dictatorships.
With no laws against pirating retail software, what would the advantage be to OSS?
Establishing a respect for copyright. Avoiding (further) censure by western nations. Having a wider variety of software available to use on a wider variety of hardware, including older machines that might not be great desktops, but do make great routers. Having complete documentation available for your software. The opportunity to establish a CS education program due to the greater number of programming languages and tools in Open Source that are internet available. Having a full compliment of encryption and security software available so one can ensure privacy of communication and access to "banned" materials via tunneling, and other measures that are included in most Open Source distributions. Basic security and reliability concerns.
I know it wouldn't cost them any more, or less, so why change?
I can afford propietary software and operating systems, even though I live in the US. There are far more advantages to using Open Source than simply the cost factor.
The Republicans have never been about keeping government out of your life. Whether the subject is obscenity, abortion, "family values", or smoking pot, the Republicans have been there to offer legislation to regulate the minutia of your behavior. They do claim to be all about reducing government, and they do talk about reducing taxes, but it has been the Republicans that have obscenely increased government spending since Nixon, and it has been the Republicans who have proposed new powers for federal, state, and local law enforcement that infringe upon our first and fourth amendment rights, and it has been the Republicans who have bypassed US laws (proposed by Republicans) to support foreign terrorists and dictators (Including Osama Bin-Laden, Saddam Hussein, Augusto Pinoche, Francios and Jean-Claude Duvalier, Manuel Noriega, Anastasio Samoza, Alfredo Cristiani, Mobuto Sese Seko, Samuel Doe, P.W. Botha, etc, etc, etc,) and murdered democratically elected leaders of other countries (Patrice Lumumba) incited coups against Democratic governments (Chile in 1973, Congo in 1964, Liberia in 1980, and a failed coup attempt in Venezuela this past April).
Many Americans choose to be ignorant this historical record because of the Republicans talk of lowering taxes, in spite of the obvious connection between increased government spending and a need for increased revenues.
Many Americans are aware of the historical record, are aware of the continuing illegal activities of our intelligence agencies (both abroad and at home), yet they choose to act as if blind to these things, will argue in favor of these actions, and will contrive to make life difficult of anyone who dare speak of them (if you do not produce documentation you are "crazy", if you do produce documentation then you are "dangerous").
TIA and ARDA are little more than our intelligence agencies and the current Republican administration conspiring to behave a bit more like the dictators they have traditionally backed. The intelligence agencies and the industries that are supported by them would like to see a return to the more lucrative days of the Cold War. They feel they are under threat as more and more people are scrutinizing their history using collections of documents released by the Freedom of Information Act, like those at the National Security Archive, EPIC.org, the Federation of American Scientists, the EFF, and probably more that I am unaware of.
Read this stuff, it is an amazing way to gain insight into the hidden workings of our government. Read about "the Church Commission to learn how the CIA breaks the law, hires the mob, and manipulates the media while harassing and murdering US citizens that they beleive hold "un-American beleifs". Read about the Iran-Contra affair to learn how little respect for the law our current Administration's Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Poindexter (among others) really have, and read about the cocaine importing that they participated in to fund their pet terrorists.
The current mood seems to support giving our Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence agencies increased freedoms to invade our privacy while reducing oversight of their actions in hopes that this will increase national security and make our lives a little safer. The problem is that when you look at the record of their history, it appears that the opposite is much more likely to result, and that allowing the FBI and CIA increased freedom and power, might just end the
Rather than get modded up for the implied opinion that I do not hold, I'd like to clarify my statement a bit.
I have met more MSCEs who know nothing about markup or programming languages, many more than I've met among *nix users.
And I do not consider the training they recieve in thier MSCE class to be "education". But it is training, and it is good training. These guys know more about configuring and maintaining Windows than I ever want to know. They are perfect for the job of installing and maintaining a Microsoft based network that depends on Microsoft-only software (plus BackupExec). Thier training is not intended to be education, it is intended to train them to pass the test, and to prepare them to service the products of a single company (plus BackupExec).
The majority of *nix technicians and users I meet, either have been education in computing, programming, and operating system design, or have given themselves that education through computer use and self directed education. There is a difference in the cultures that are propagated in the different communities. One is focused on loyalty to a certain product, the business end of selling product and services, and obedience to a centralized "official" authority, with all other considerations being secondary. The other is focused on operating system design, choosing from a wide variety of possible solutions, and the "authority" of "best practices" as determined by ad-hoc (self appointed) committee and responsible consensus.
In the United States, the business culture is much more familiar with the former of the two ideals, and is therefore more trusting of those who subscribe to it, even when the solutions it offers are inappropriate for the businesses requirements.
I do get upset when the consultants do not understand why the default filepermissions are inapropriate for a server that has a large number of inexpirienced users accessing the system. I do get upset when they do not understand why we would want to run AdAware on every machine, just as we do the anti-virus software. And I do get upset when they claim to not trust software that does not originate at one of a small group of companies that do not themselves have all that great a record for security or reliability.
But I do want these guys solving all but the most obvious Windows problems that arise.
But I also wish that we weren't using Windows on the network at work, and I do wish my employer would realize that there is nothing that we do there that does require windows and can't be done just as easily, more reliably, and with better security if we were using another OS.
why the hell would a MCSE need ot care what HTML or COBOL is?
I don't, all I want them to do is to maintain the Windows boxes, which is a task for which they are perfectly qualified and I am admittedly not.
There is truth to the impression of many MSCEs see operating systems as little more than product, and being uninterested in computing as anything other than a paycheck, but I can hardly blame them for that (even though this is what my comment was intended to illustrate).
I've been using Linux (and occasionally BSD) for seven years now, but do not work with it for a living (I am working to change that). If a MSCE cert is what gets someone into the field, then they've made the correct choice. However, it would be nice to see people who demonstrate actual interest in the subject landing a job once in a while, instead of the folk who have attended the correct indocternation program.
I would like to know how you have come to the conclusion that the Union of Concerned Scientists is recieving money from the labor unions.
Do you have some evidence to back up this allegation?
Are you assuming this because of the word "union", which means "a joining", as in: these Scientists have joined together (United) because of their Concern, thus forming the "Union of Concerned Scientists".
Moreover, wouldn't a criminal be more willing to do something nefarious if the source was closed rather than if it was open ?
What is probably the most famous case of nefarious code being inserted into an app, the Promis Software / Inslaw case, was exactly that. This successful trojaning of a database system for prosecuting attourneys was possible only because the application was propietary, and the source could not be inspected by those receiving the trojaned app (from DEA, and CIA agents, no less.)
The premise, according to the article, is not that the guy can unlock encryption, but that he has encryption that the NSA cannot crack. Not all that scary. If you think about it, that would be rather ideal.
Hell, if the NSA can break it, then so can sombody else.
I won't bother reading this book, so far what I've read by this author (D'avinci Code" and "Angels and Dermons") has been utter crap.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever get any junk mail via snailmail?
There's more spam than junkmail because spam is so much cheaper to send out, but there will always be spam even if they charge for sending an email.
And, if they start charging for email, the ISPs will make money off of spam and will then have a motivation to encourage spam, not prevent it.
In America, pointing out a flaw will draw claims of an inflated ego, criticizing the rich and powerful will do the same.
Most Americans do not suffer from inflated ego, just misplaced faith in those that do.
"Joe Blow" could have written the same article and it would have been just as pertinent, and would have deserved being listed on the front page.
The point is that people know his name, they use the software he wrote, they read the crap that he spews, and he's more often right than wrong.
Front page because we'll read it, we'll coment on it, and we'll debate whether or not he has sufficient celebrity status (which brings us right back to your point).
It's not that he's profound, and it's not that he's well spoken (he's definately not). It's not that he's a well known blogger, as most probably don't consider his claim to be due to his blog. He's been around since before you could reach the keyboard, and he's written utilities that were once among the most widely installed on unix boxes. Even those of us who may think he's somewhat of an ass still like being notified when he's got something poignant to say.
He might be considered front page material because he's not really known as a blogger, but because even those of us who think he's an ass probably are using or have used software that he wrote or maintained, or because we begrudgingly acknowledge that he often has something worthwhile to say.
Oh, they get it alright.
They just don't care, nor do they like being told what to do by a bunch of geeks that they wouldn't ask the time of day from.
They are pissing on their voluntary obligation to assert their authority. It is unwise to allow them this voice, and it would be unwise to accept a court decision that allows them to reimplement sitefinder on the DNS level.
Expect to see more crap like this from all of the bigest players in internet service (especially from Comcast after they become a Microsoft property in the near future).
because the Sendmail sender verification proposal (mentioned here) relies only on already existing tech (Domain Keys, mx records, and smtp auth) thaty is already incorporated into the vast majority of MTAs, it does not really make much sense (from a users, or a non-microsoft, point of veiw) to create a seprate and more complicated solution (even if the license is rather innocuous).
I cannot help but think that continuing to allow senders that do not have a mx record for the sending machine to bypass smtp-auth for sending messages will fail to curb the spam problem, as it fails to tie the sent mails to an actual domain, and it allows (encourages) ISPs to restrict mailing through their email services only. With smtp-auth, it is still possible to send using an smtp server connected anywhere on the net, which allows accountability, but also makes it more possible to identify those providers who are allowing their users to send spam.
How is that post a troll?
Every point he mentions is valid, including the fact that many of the current erasures of constitutional right were implemented through administrative actions, and not by representative action.
Just because you do not like having it pointed out does not mean it's a troll.
Wow, he must be only twenty or thirty feet away, in a crowd, no less.
If anyone reads anything into that pic, they're really reaching.
Of course the guy's at a peace rally. Unlike the majority of the people there, Kerry had an actual understanding of war, and actual combat expiriences that led him to protest the war after his return.
The realness of the other photo in no way discredits Kerry as a candidate, or as veteran. He was one of many Viet Nam veterans who had the balls to speak out against the war when he returned.
A lot of crap is comming out from the right-wing chickenhawks who are beginning to realize that this is a candidate who served in some of the worst combat zones any vet has seen, and earned a Bronze Star, a Silver Star, and Presidential Unit Citation while doing so. The guy has a dislike for the intelligence community and has gone after them before.
Real or not, I'm pretty sure those pictures are not going to make a whole hell of a lot of difference.
Like all the young artsy types drinking PBR (they claim they like it, but the truth is they've simply watched a little too much David Lynch), you're revealing yourself to be a lowbrow snob.
Drink your pisswater as much as you like, I'll stick to my Yeungling at a slightly lower price, but it's actually a lager instead of a pilsner without the hops.
I'll have another glass of Stegmier porter, please. Cost about 25% less than your "King of beers", and whats this, it actually taste good.
Rejecting the mass produced swill does not mean moving into a "higher class", as many of the better beers made at "traditional" (ie: much older) American breweries cost less than the crap that Anheiser-Busch, Coors, and Miller Brewing attempt to sell as "real American beer".
You can go on drinking your "blue collar beer" (honest, they showed working guys in the commercial), but I'll stick to the "black collar brew" from the coal country. If it was good enough for my Great-Gran'Dad, it's good enough for me.
Just 'cause the TV tells you it's the working mans drink doesn't mean shit. There's better, cheaper brews available almost everywhere made by companies who have been around longer than "the big guys" and don't need a marketing study or customer tracking to succeed at the pub.
Hey, I was agreeing with you, just take a look at the link I provided.
The NSA is the agency that currently intrusively monitors domestic and foreign communications. The only point I disagree with is the possibility that the seLinux modification is trojaned, as it would not be in the interest of the NSA to do that, and the NSA is one of the few agencies that has persons familiar enough with computer security to realize this. In the past, both the CIA and the FBI have been at odds with the NSA over the NSA's reluctance to give access to the monitoring process, instead only feeding information that they beleive is a threat.
The CIA and FBI are intensly ideological agencies that have a tendancy to shoot first and ask questions later. TIA, MATRIX and whatever else they are calling their new information databases are attempts at eliminating the safeguards in place at the NSA and put direct access to our communications in the hands of a bunch of right-wing nuts who like to murder, kidnap, and frame people for thinking the wrong thoughts.
So, yes, the NSA is in the habit of intrusively monitoring our communications, but the security enhancements they've added to the Linux kernel are immensely useful for protecting our privacy. Considering what the CIA, the FBI, and the Justice Department have been up to, I think the NSA is the least of our worries at the moment. Besides, I seriously doubt that there's anyone in the current administration who is actually capable of understanding what the NSA does or how their own policies are harming the the ability of US citizens to be secure and free in their own lives.
Like all geeks, these guys are information addicts. ECHELON is a pretty nasty system (and is pretty much what you describe).
But these guys are pretty smart, much smarter than your average intelligence asshole spook*, and they know computer security well enough to realize that if they have a way into a machine, then probably someone else knows about it as well. The code they release as the SE-Linux enhancement is open, and is being reviewed by people who know security programming far better, and are far more paranoid, than you or I.
I don't beleive for a second that they are backdooring these security enhancements, and I do not beleive it would go unnoticed if they were. AFAICT, the NSA came to the realization that they could test their security designs and improve upon them to the best effect if they were to release them to a relatively knowledgable bunch, and have them tested in the real world. Besides, these guys don't really like the asshole spook* crowd too much, so if your looking to keep the FBI and CIA off of your law-abidin' ass and out of your personal business, who better to help you accomplish that end than the good old NSA?
(* spook == CIA personel)
The NSA is mostly a bunch of geeks.
The vast majority of their work is maintaining secure communications for the military and other intelligence agencies plus analizing (code breaking) intercepted secure transmissions. The movie "the Falcon and the Snowman" depicted their work fairly accurately, compiling lists and transcripts of monitored communications and forwarding them to the apropriate parties.
These are not the guys who start wars and disappear people (that would be the CIA). That's not to say they are completely innocuous, they are the guys who run the ECHELON program.
When I first saw the headline, I was worried that this would affect services like Pulver's end to end Free World Dialup VOIP service, but upon actually reading the article, this regulation is intended for those services that are converting your phone call to VOIP for trasmission and then convertinig it back.
If the service you are using is tied into the telephone network, then the provider should make 911 (and extended 911) service available.
If you are complaining about the cost of 911 service, then I guess that $0.25/month charge is pretty steep, but they'll let you use it anyway on my tab!
If iots about the service knowing where you're calling from, well this is one of the few times where you'll catch me thinking that's a bit of intrusion I might someday be thankful for.
Get off the cowboy/militia/anarchy bit for a second and use your head. This is a service that actually helps people, is reliable enough that when you find a working phone, it's there for you. I know of people who carry a non-subscribed cell phone for 911 service alone. Even though they cannot call their friends on thier phones, they can still use 911 to get emergency services if they need it.
It makes sense. It's cheap and reliable. Quit your whining, it's well worth it.
As I see it, there are many people in government who have sided with the intelligence industries in order to proffit greatly at taxpayer expense through propagating unrest and destabilizing foreign governments to keep the world in a permanant state of near war.
The claim that the CIA is only acting in the interest of the people is hard to swallow not only because of Iran Contra, but also because of the the irregularities involved in the investigations of the Lockerbie Scotland airplane bombing, the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center, the bombing of the World Trade Center, and of the events on September Eleventh. 2001.
To further call into question the objectives of our Intelligence Community, you only need examine the contractors who have proffited to the greatest extent from both these incidents, and from CIA influenced foreign policy: Halliburton, Bechtel, Wackenhut, DynCorp, The Curry Company, and The Bin-Laden Group (among others).
All of these companies are run by former CIA staffers, agents, and contractors or their closest associates. The first five have all been implicated in breaking US laws either here or abroad in various investigations, while the last one mentioned just happens to have close ties to all of the other companies, the families of prominant conservative US politicians, and one of the terroerist that our government at one time supported and now has been implicated in the attacks on September Eleventh.
I wish I could look at the pile of coincidence that keeps pointing at the same actors and accept it as simply strange odds, but eventually the coincidence becomes too much to write off. It is possible that one can toss heads a thousand times in a row, but it is damn unlikely, and if it happens, you best take a damn close look at that coin.
I say it's about time to hold another "Church Commission" investigation, lets just hope we get some folks in Washington who have enough balls to actually do it.
Nice links.
I was a little unclear, what I meant is that our administration would like to see the hardships faced by the Iranian people increased in hopes that a revolution will result that might lead to a more US friendly government.
Thanks for pointing that out.
What is left out of many histories of Iran is the fact that as much as we pretended to be at odds with the Iranians under Khomeini, we were really playing both sides of the fence, as is documtnted in the records of the Iran-Contra conspiracy, and other records of the Iran Iraq war, by arming the Iraqis directly and arming Iran through covert funding and arms sales using Israel as a front. As much as we claimed to be at odds with Khomeini, a religeous dictator was much more to the liking of the Reagan Administration than the possibility of communism gaining a foothold in Iran. In return for the double dealing, Khomeini executed several thousand "Communists" during the first few months of his regime.
There are some that think that the US was involved in supporting Khomeini even before the Iran Iraq war, but I haven't yet come to any real conclusion about this as yet. It does seem plausible when you look at the CIA's record.
The point is not that it is illegal to receive the software in Iran, but that it may be illegal to take part in trade with Iran if you are a company or citizen of the US or one of its allies.
On the other hand, if the current administration would recognise the effect these policies have been having (increased support for the Anti-US religeous right in Iranian politics), then perhaps they'll reconsider so as to allow the liberal reformers there to regain the ground they have lost in recent years.
I do understand that our administration would probably like to have a revolution occur there due to the hardships, but revolutions in that part of the world seldom result in anything other than religeous dictatorships.
With no laws against pirating retail software, what would the advantage be to OSS?
Establishing a respect for copyright. Avoiding (further) censure by western nations. Having a wider variety of software available to use on a wider variety of hardware, including older machines that might not be great desktops, but do make great routers. Having complete documentation available for your software. The opportunity to establish a CS education program due to the greater number of programming languages and tools in Open Source that are internet available. Having a full compliment of encryption and security software available so one can ensure privacy of communication and access to "banned" materials via tunneling, and other measures that are included in most Open Source distributions. Basic security and reliability concerns.
I know it wouldn't cost them any more, or less, so why change?
I can afford propietary software and operating systems, even though I live in the US. There are far more advantages to using Open Source than simply the cost factor.
The Republicans have never been about keeping government out of your life. Whether the subject is obscenity, abortion, "family values", or smoking pot, the Republicans have been there to offer legislation to regulate the minutia of your behavior. They do claim to be all about reducing government, and they do talk about reducing taxes, but it has been the Republicans that have obscenely increased government spending since Nixon, and it has been the Republicans who have proposed new powers for federal, state, and local law enforcement that infringe upon our first and fourth amendment rights, and it has been the Republicans who have bypassed US laws (proposed by Republicans) to support foreign terrorists and dictators (Including Osama Bin-Laden, Saddam Hussein, Augusto Pinoche, Francios and Jean-Claude Duvalier, Manuel Noriega, Anastasio Samoza, Alfredo Cristiani, Mobuto Sese Seko, Samuel Doe, P.W. Botha, etc, etc, etc,) and murdered democratically elected leaders of other countries (Patrice Lumumba) incited coups against Democratic governments (Chile in 1973, Congo in 1964, Liberia in 1980, and a failed coup attempt in Venezuela this past April).
Many Americans choose to be ignorant this historical record because of the Republicans talk of lowering taxes, in spite of the obvious connection between increased government spending and a need for increased revenues.
Many Americans are aware of the historical record, are aware of the continuing illegal activities of our intelligence agencies (both abroad and at home), yet they choose to act as if blind to these things, will argue in favor of these actions, and will contrive to make life difficult of anyone who dare speak of them (if you do not produce documentation you are "crazy", if you do produce documentation then you are "dangerous").
TIA and ARDA are little more than our intelligence agencies and the current Republican administration conspiring to behave a bit more like the dictators they have traditionally backed. The intelligence agencies and the industries that are supported by them would like to see a return to the more lucrative days of the Cold War. They feel they are under threat as more and more people are scrutinizing their history using collections of documents released by the Freedom of Information Act, like those at the National Security Archive, EPIC.org, the Federation of American Scientists, the EFF, and probably more that I am unaware of.
Read this stuff, it is an amazing way to gain insight into the hidden workings of our government. Read about "the Church Commission to learn how the CIA breaks the law, hires the mob, and manipulates the media while harassing and murdering US citizens that they beleive hold "un-American beleifs". Read about the Iran-Contra affair to learn how little respect for the law our current Administration's Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Poindexter (among others) really have, and read about the cocaine importing that they participated in to fund their pet terrorists.
The current mood seems to support giving our Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence agencies increased freedoms to invade our privacy while reducing oversight of their actions in hopes that this will increase national security and make our lives a little safer. The problem is that when you look at the record of their history, it appears that the opposite is much more likely to result, and that allowing the FBI and CIA increased freedom and power, might just end the
Rather than get modded up for the implied opinion that I do not hold, I'd like to clarify my statement a bit.
I have met more MSCEs who know nothing about markup or programming languages, many more than I've met among *nix users.
And I do not consider the training they recieve in thier MSCE class to be "education". But it is training, and it is good training. These guys know more about configuring and maintaining Windows than I ever want to know. They are perfect for the job of installing and maintaining a Microsoft based network that depends on Microsoft-only software (plus BackupExec). Thier training is not intended to be education, it is intended to train them to pass the test, and to prepare them to service the products of a single company (plus BackupExec).
The majority of *nix technicians and users I meet, either have been education in computing, programming, and operating system design, or have given themselves that education through computer use and self directed education. There is a difference in the cultures that are propagated in the different communities. One is focused on loyalty to a certain product, the business end of selling product and services, and obedience to a centralized "official" authority, with all other considerations being secondary. The other is focused on operating system design, choosing from a wide variety of possible solutions, and the "authority" of "best practices" as determined by ad-hoc (self appointed) committee and responsible consensus.
In the United States, the business culture is much more familiar with the former of the two ideals, and is therefore more trusting of those who subscribe to it, even when the solutions it offers are inappropriate for the businesses requirements.
I do get upset when the consultants do not understand why the default filepermissions are inapropriate for a server that has a large number of inexpirienced users accessing the system. I do get upset when they do not understand why we would want to run AdAware on every machine, just as we do the anti-virus software. And I do get upset when they claim to not trust software that does not originate at one of a small group of companies that do not themselves have all that great a record for security or reliability.
But I do want these guys solving all but the most obvious Windows problems that arise.
But I also wish that we weren't using Windows on the network at work, and I do wish my employer would realize that there is nothing that we do there that does require windows and can't be done just as easily, more reliably, and with better security if we were using another OS.
why the hell would a MCSE need ot care what HTML or COBOL is?
I don't, all I want them to do is to maintain the Windows boxes, which is a task for which they are perfectly qualified and I am admittedly not.
There is truth to the impression of many MSCEs see operating systems as little more than product, and being uninterested in computing as anything other than a paycheck, but I can hardly blame them for that (even though this is what my comment was intended to illustrate).
I've been using Linux (and occasionally BSD) for seven years now, but do not work with it for a living (I am working to change that). If a MSCE cert is what gets someone into the field, then they've made the correct choice. However, it would be nice to see people who demonstrate actual interest in the subject landing a job once in a while, instead of the folk who have attended the correct indocternation program.
but half the Indians I worked with wouldn't know HTML from Cobol.
Hell,more than half the MSCEs I've worked with don't know HTML from Cobol. And these guys were "educated" here in the US. So what's your point?
)The man was not even inside the vehicle.
I very much doubt that there is a law against standing alongside the road next to your own property while smoking a cigarette (even if you ae drunk).
I can't believe he was lucky enough to dodge a DUI
He wasn't driving, and nowhere in the charges against him is he accused of having been drunk.
and then has the gall to take this to the Supreme Court.
That's the court you want your case to go to when your Fourth Amendment rights are being violated.
And why is this on Slashdot?
Because search and seizure is a serious topic for geeks old enough to remember the late 1980s and early 1990s.
I would like to know how you have come to the conclusion that the Union of Concerned Scientists is recieving money from the labor unions.
Do you have some evidence to back up this allegation?
Are you assuming this because of the word "union", which means "a joining", as in: these Scientists have joined together (United) because of their Concern, thus forming the "Union of Concerned Scientists".
Nice troll.
Moreover, wouldn't a criminal be more willing to do something nefarious if the source was closed rather than if it was open ?
What is probably the most famous case of nefarious code being inserted into an app, the Promis Software / Inslaw case, was exactly that. This successful trojaning of a database system for prosecuting attourneys was possible only because the application was propietary, and the source could not be inspected by those receiving the trojaned app (from DEA, and CIA agents, no less.)
The premise, according to the article, is not that the guy can unlock encryption, but that he has encryption that the NSA cannot crack. Not all that scary. If you think about it, that would be rather ideal.
Hell, if the NSA can break it, then so can sombody else.
I won't bother reading this book, so far what I've read by this author (D'avinci Code" and "Angels and Dermons") has been utter crap.