Hey, don't shoot the messenger! I'm PAYING FOR BUSINESS CABLE. IE, my TOS says I CAN run servers, and I'm STILL Getting joe-jobbed.
We all need to band together and find a way to send a giant FU to these guys. How about a mass switch, at the end of the next quarter, to Verizon? Make them show a huge "surprise" to Wall Street and have to explain it in the context of their "net neutrality" position?
They control the connection. Unless you are using a Diffie-Hellman key exchange or other form of Perfect Forward Security, they can run a Man In the Middle attack. From my reading of this spec, it's still susceptible to MIM, ergo, you're still at the mercy of your carrier.
They don't care about any protocol analysis. Any sufficiently long-lived, high volume, traffic flow between two IP addresses gets hit. I've had IPSEC VPN connections behave strangely and opened tickets, where the techs have admitted I had "accidentally" been flagged (IE, the IPSEC endpoints weren't on the whitelist, even though I have business class service).
The only way around this is to open multiple connections to different addresses, transfer small amounts per connection, and then shut it down, opening the next connection to a different endpoint. It requires a total reengineering of P2P, although the BitTorrent mechanism is closest to what would work.
Because TCP/IP has become the generic name for the IETF managed suite of protocols. BGP is only one of the routing protocols used to route IP packets. If you're going to be a pedant, then at least be accurate: from a traffic perspective it's IP, everything else rides on top of it (except ARP and RARP).
SO, Smart arse: Here's the real deal: MPLS creates effective PVCs that map BGP propagated routes to telco circuits in a deterministic manner, which undermines the fundamental dynamic nature of all Internet routing protocols, of which BGP is only one (and the most brain dead/static). The reason we have such a cluster-bollocks is because Cisco made underpowered, fundamentally single-threaded, routers, and so were wedded to Bellman-Ford/distance vector routing protocols. This is because their routers couldn't handle the demand of link-state algorithms, especially OSPF, which would not have required any of this mucking around with alternate routing protocols, Autonomous System numbers and route reflectors, since it included the concept of stub, not so stubby, and aggregated areas. Instead they had to devise a suite of ever increasingly unreliable/suboptimal routing protocols named IGRP (It Greatly Reduces Performance), EIGRP (Egads! It Greatly Retards Packets), and BGP (Broken Gateway Protocol).
Believe it or not, there were, and may still be, networks that run OSI routing protocols to route IP, like IS-IS, which works pretty well. The problem is, all these require people with clue and background, which the ILECs, in their race to the bottom, have jettisoned wholesale, to be replaced with those who hold vendor certs, and therefore only know one vendor's approach, and nothing of the history or underlying protocols.
Before spouting off, go read your Perlman, Stevens, Moy, and anything written by Li.
Smoke all the weed you want. Just don't do a job that requires lightning fast reflexes, unclouded judgement, or where the consequences of your being addled are death or dismemberment for people. Pot hangs out in your system for weeks, affecting memory, judgement, and reflexes. All of these are critical in a military context.
We don't let people with ongoing prescriptions for pain killers like Oxycontin in either.
I'm all for legalizing drugs. I'm also all for making people bear the consequences of their drug use (instead of being bailed out by taxpayers when they lose everything), and being excluded from certain jobs due to it.
Caused by politics and telco monopolies created a network without redundancy. A combination of the infeasibility, due to the political situation, of overland links through the middle east and central Asia, and the hidebound Indian telco not providing sufficient redundancy in connections out of the country, never mind the total misallocation of resources inside it, are the cause of this. TCP/IP is specifically designed to recover from link outages, if it doesn't, you've got an improperly designed and/or operated (statically, as opposed to dynamically, routed) network.
Good news for US and European IT workers though: that buffoon who offshored your jobs has to explain why the IT department has been down for a few days. I guarantee the CEO/CFO is not amused that he can't get to SAP, or that the stores can't upload, or that whatever other mission critical system is off-line isn't working.
Thing is, that Mosquitoes kill millions of people is demonstrable fact. The down-chain effects of eliminating them are hypothetical.
Further, based on our understanding of the ecosystems involved, that there are multiple alternative food sources for Mosquito predators, and very few secondary or tertiary benefits to mosquitoes (unless you're one of the people who think that controlling human population through the suffering of millions from a preventable disease is a benefit, as some have posted here), eliminating mosquitoes is significantly UNLIKELY to result in ecosystem collapse to the extent that human life is threatened.
Ergo, eliminating the mosquitoes saves more lives than letting them live.
Who cares where the funding comes from? Science is Science. It is proven or not.
Actually, what is supposed to happen is you advance a Hypothesis, if any cases are found that disprove it, you revise the hypothesis and lather, rinse, repeat. This process continues until the Hypothesis fits observed reality so closely that no cases are found to disprove it. After enough peer review and failures to disprove, it gets elevated to Theory. If a Theory stands long enough, and accurately predicts new phenomena, then it MIGHT get elevated to the category of Law.
Most of what is claimed by the Enviro movement as fact is merely statistical correlation, which only indicates where one might want to start looking for a Hypothesis to a real scientist.
You can apply the same rigor to the counterargument as he does to yours. The thing is, your arguments don't stand up to the light of day.
Steven Milloy has degrees in Science (BA, Johns Hopkins), statistics as they relate to Biology (masters, Johns Hopkins) and law (Masters from Georgetown and Doctorate from University of Baltimore). Notably liberal universities, I might add. Presumably he didn't get those degrees on the basis of holding the right opinions or social promotion. He sure didn't get in on the basis of who his Dad was, or spend his whole career riding someone else's coattails.
Al Gore, on the other hand, has a BA from Harvard and a some studies in Divinity from Vanderbilt. His professional career consists of being a Journalist, taking over his Daddy's seat in the senate, and being second string to Bill Clinton. Followed by so inept a presidential campaign that, despite winning the popular vote (the first presidential candidate to do so since 1988), he lost the election. For a comeback, he puts out a propaganda film that has been shown to have glaring factual errors that undermine his credibility, and thus the very real, and important, case he is trying to make.
Which one is more qualified to weigh the evidence on all manner of biology, climate, and public policy?
I would say that Steven Milloy has the requisite credentials, and Al Gore does not. He may be a Saint when he's preaching to the choir, but he is not going to convince anyone with a modicum of understanding of Science, and he provides lots of fodder to the opposing viewpoint with his hypocrisy in his personal lifestyle.
Last, but no no means least, like a true Enviro-Nut, you resort to ad-hominem name-calling.
And if it's losing effectiveness gradually, people will use more and more of it as it does. The salesmen will assure them that they simply need to spray more of it to reach the places they missed.
This is still a non-sequitur to the decision to ban or not ban. It is perfectly reasonable to establish maximal doses, and safe locations (around the outside and windows and doors of human habitation, but avoiding watercourses) for spraying.
Banning is knowingly killing millions of people on the basis that human lives are less valuable than the birds.
I can counter your hypothetical straw man of over-use with a more real one: People have figured out that a container of motor oil punctured slightly and thrown in a lake tied to a rock (to sink the oil) stops mosquitoes from breeding, because as the oil floats to the top it effectively seals the surface of the lake. Of course, that kills EVERYTHING in the lake, but if you're a desperate impoverished village that wants to save your kids from Malaria, what else is available to you?
Everything in life is about choices, often between the lesser of two evils, or an known evil and an unknown one. It's well proven that not using DDT leads to much greater incidence of Malaria. The evidence for the doomsday scenarios and carcinogenic effects of DDT trumpeted by the enviros is anecdotal/statistical correlation and extrapolation of trends, which is NOT scientific proof.
I note you made no attempt to discuss any of my other points, or to address the report from the CDC that shows how stopping using DDT has resulted in millions of deaths, and millions more sickened for life, or further, that the resumption of use of DDT in Ecuador in 1997 led to a drastic reduction in the incidence of Malaria. I guess you ignore inconvenient truths, and like to fabricate convenient and hyperbolic hypothetical scenarios to advance your case. This, of course, along with ad-hominem attacks and an assumption that anyone who criticizes the courses of action advanced by radical environmentalism is a robber-baron capitalist who would rape the earth and leave it scarred for future generations, as opposed to someone who might actually prefer to think things through as opposed to act on emotion, and doesn't share the religion of the Enviros, are hallmarks of the current Enviro movement.
Gaianist is those who worship Gaia: mother Earth. Since you spout as truth the propaganda of its adherents, you should know more about where the mediated version of it in the Mainstream Media has its origins. You could have Googled it, or Google "Gaia Hypothesis". Also known as "Deep Ecology". Unfortunately, they have hijacked the environmental movement; which started out being about not soiling our own nest, to create a clean and safe environment for people; and turned it into a "four legs good, two legs baad" movement. "Silent Spring" represents that watershed.
Gainaist propaganda, like the DDT scare, kills at least as many people as the corporate kind. If we are to believe its core adherents, it requires a reduction of world population of anywhere from 50%-90%. That's a lot of people that have to die in the name of the religious belief of "sustainability" and "harmony with nature".
DDT losing its effectiveness over time is a non-sequitur in the ban or not ban decision. If it isn't effective, people won't use it. There's ample proof that banning it (sorry, refusing to allow USAID $ to be spent on it, which amounts to the same thing) has led to a massive increase in the incidence of Malaria in poorer countries.
Here's an inconvenient truth for you: DDT, used inside dwellings, has no effect whatsoever on fish, but is highly effective at preventing malaria. Instead of buying emotional religious arguments and then regurgitating them in ad-hominem rants, go learn the scientific method and read something written by scientists, instead of activists.
It's easy to swear at people behind the protection of a keyboard or at a rally surrounded by your screaming hippie throwback brethren. Note two things: 1: It doesn't lend any credibility to your argument, it merely makes you look irrational to normal people, and thus undermines it. 2: If you keep addressing people like that, someday you're going to pick a fight with the wrong guy.
Next time you want to insult someone, try using an expanded vocabulary: you ignorant, monosyllabic, cowardly, luddite, verbal incontinent.
I wasn't making any value judgement. I was just pointing out that this was one effect that will happen when MS pushes out IE7 as an automatic "upgrade".
However, since you opened the door: what kind of unsegmented, conflated, monolithic ass of an OS has a browser upgrade that kills a scanner driver?
And now comes the truth of the Enviro Movement: They hate the human race. They see the evils of pestilence and war as part of Gaia's grand plan. They would like to see the third world stay mired in misery and massive deprivation, so they can enjoy their sanitary lives far from the seething mass of humanity. Never mind that as people emerge from filth and massive infant mortality they actually tend to moderate their own birthrates to about replacement. Or that modern society is what has produced all the wondrous things that make the concept of a carbon neutral (hunter gatherers burning wood, or worse, subsistence slash and burn farmers, are not exactly "sustainable") lifestyle possible, and that there seems to need to be a progression from stone age through medieval to industrial to get there. Millions (and actually Billions, if you read the writings of much of the core leaders of the modern Environmental movement) of lives must be sacrificed at the altar of Gaia's wishes as we wade through this valley of tears.
This is just the medieval Catholic church's BS message repackaged. Instead of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, we have the pre-industrial age (when we had bubonic plague, constant war, and a life expectancy of 36 years old). Instead of the devil and the apple, we have the industrial revolution: both being sins of knowledge. Instead of redemption by Jesus in an afterlife, we have heaven on Earth for those who survive the die-back and live "in harmony" with nature. All adherents should be non-violent and focus on contemplation and study of the religion, not the productive arts. For medieval Christianity, this was monastic life, for the enviro crowd, it's bing a "docent" or some other tour guide. Never mind that both actually require the support of the people who do the real work, and those who adhere too closely to their teachings get run over by aggressive barbarians, we're all going to be happy Eloi if we just follow the 'third way".
This meme is one of the most dangerous ones known to man, and always results in hell on Earth. Don't let the enviros do to modern civilization what the Christians did to classical Civilization. Ignorance is not bliss, and abandoning common sense for promises of utopia just creates hell on earth. For a recent example, see the former communist countries under communism.
As for you prophets of the Gaianist Utopia: Please follow your own beliefs to their logical conclusion by contracting some lethal disease or committing suicide. At the very least, neuter yourself. While you're at it, pass one on to all the others who think that killing off a lot of the human race is a good thing.
Prove that releasing these mosquitoes will fuck up the ecosysstem. It's clearly proven that the existing ones kill millions of people. That's why I pointed out the real known effect: millions dead and infected with malaria, versus the hypothetical one: all the birds gone, on which the DDT ban was based.
BTW: Why is corporate propaganda any less valid than Gaianist? At least they hew to the scientific method, as opposed to appeals to emotion and shamanism.
The reason the countries that you mention have solved the problem is, at least in part, that they USE DDT. Since they aren't dependent on aid from the US, they aren't stuck with the condition that they not use DDT that goes along with US aid.
Lest the Eco-Nuts post Lambert's screeds in reply: the requirement that no USAID funds be used for DDT is an effective ban, since the record keeping required if you DO use DDT anywhere to prove no US funds were used for it is onerous beyond all reason for a third world country.
Lots of people worried about birds or "The Ecosystem". Very few seem to be worried about the millions of PEOPLE who die HORRIBLE DEATHS thanks to Dengue fever.
I guess it's to be expected from the "Silent Spring" crowd, who refuse to acknowledge that the REAL effect of banning DDT has been millions of deaths from malaria, against a hypothetical doomsday scenario. Sound familiar?
One good reason is that IE7 breaks HP multifunction drivers. There's a workaround out now (there wasn't when IE7 first came out), but, how many people are going to wake up and find that their scanner/fax machine will no longer talk to their computer?
I'm still really wondering what on earth a browser upgrade would need to do that would break your scanner, but then, ever since IE4, the browser has been your shell, hence all of our security issues.
When a jurist with little or no technical understanding attempts to make a ruling in a case where much of the evidence is technical, there is often a serious case of cognitive dissonance. This is the case in Judge Rothe-Seeger's ruling in the Ritz case.
I am not a lawyer, and make no comment about the merits of the behavior of Mr. Ritz. I am, however, a network engineer, and someone actively involved in information security, particularly using DNS.
In ruling that querying a nameserver that was configured to provide a zone transfer for a list of all the hosts in a zone illegal, Judge Rothe-Seeger has demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the technical design of the Internet, not just of DNS, but of ALL the applications and protocols. Further, the comment that Mr. Ritz's querying and republication of the public WHOIS data "without Network Solutions permission" was illegal also completely misunderstands the nature of Whois data.
What the judge has done is, effectively, to say that each person who asks a public server for information that it is explicitly designed to provide to all and sundry needs to get specific permission for that content from that publisher. This is completely at odds with how the Internet works. The Internet is designed in such a way that servers provide content to anyone who asks, unless the owner has configured the server not to do so.
Sierra could easily have prevented zone transfers from their name servers if they so chose. If they did not do so, then the presumption is that they intended to allow it. There are many very good reasons why a service provider would want their zone to be transferrable, and by configuring their nameservers in that way, they were, in effect, doing the same thing as someone leaving a stack of maps out in public, for all to take at their leisure. What the judge has ruled would be analogous to finding a crime when someone took a copy of an ad that included a layout of a house from a realtor's office.
The WHOIS data, on the other hand, is public record BY DESIGN. It is part of the basic design of the DNS that you be able to find out who the registrant for a given domain is. How else are all the legal remedies for copyright infringement, illegal content, abuse of service, etc. to be exercised if there is no way to find out who to serve notice on and in what jurisdiction they reside?
It is clear from Judge Rothe-Seeger's bio that she has little or no experience of life beyond North Dakota. It is also clear from her ruling that she has little or no understanding of the Internet. Based on her age, it is time for the judge to retire, as she clearly fails to understand the world in which she now lives.
The problem is that the organizations that lose the data, and the people who work there, are not the ones who bear the pain of the result. Furthermore, we usually have no choice in handing over the personal data, most of which is completely unnecessary (but very useful for marketing), in order to get things we need.
Unless and until that changes, all the hand-wringing in the world won't make a hill of beans of difference.
It will take something like Sarbanes-Oxley, making the officers of companies and non-profits, and government workers, who handle our data personally criminally liable for failure to take due care, before there is any change. As it is now, it is a simple cost calculation, and security is pure cost. The people in charge are betting that they can cash in their stock options or get promoted/transferred before the failure to protect data causes a problem.
Last, but by no means least, everything that the naysayers said about Social Security when it was first proposed have come true: the SSID is a national ID number, and is routinely abused; and the Ponzi Scheme has run afoul of demographics. It's time to end the charade: outlaw the use of SSIDs by anyone except the SSA, and to allow people to opt out of SS.
Public officials should not be protected in this way. They protect themselves with "Parliamentary Privilege", so they should not have protection from others.
In New Jersey, being identified as the person who outed corrupt officials could be lethal (mob).
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, don't shoot the messenger! I'm PAYING FOR BUSINESS CABLE. IE, my TOS says I CAN run servers, and I'm STILL Getting joe-jobbed.
We all need to band together and find a way to send a giant FU to these guys. How about a mass switch, at the end of the next quarter, to Verizon? Make them show a huge "surprise" to Wall Street and have to explain it in the context of their "net neutrality" position?
Since they already ARE interfering with VPN connections, they already ARE doing this.
They control the connection. Unless you are using a Diffie-Hellman key exchange or other form of Perfect Forward Security, they can run a Man In the Middle attack. From my reading of this spec, it's still susceptible to MIM, ergo, you're still at the mercy of your carrier.
They don't care about any protocol analysis. Any sufficiently long-lived, high volume, traffic flow between two IP addresses gets hit. I've had IPSEC VPN connections behave strangely and opened tickets, where the techs have admitted I had "accidentally" been flagged (IE, the IPSEC endpoints weren't on the whitelist, even though I have business class service).
The only way around this is to open multiple connections to different addresses, transfer small amounts per connection, and then shut it down, opening the next connection to a different endpoint. It requires a total reengineering of P2P, although the BitTorrent mechanism is closest to what would work.
Because TCP/IP has become the generic name for the IETF managed suite of protocols. BGP is only one of the routing protocols used to route IP packets. If you're going to be a pedant, then at least be accurate: from a traffic perspective it's IP, everything else rides on top of it (except ARP and RARP).
SO, Smart arse: Here's the real deal: MPLS creates effective PVCs that map BGP propagated routes to telco circuits in a deterministic manner, which undermines the fundamental dynamic nature of all Internet routing protocols, of which BGP is only one (and the most brain dead/static). The reason we have such a cluster-bollocks is because Cisco made underpowered, fundamentally single-threaded, routers, and so were wedded to Bellman-Ford/distance vector routing protocols. This is because their routers couldn't handle the demand of link-state algorithms, especially OSPF, which would not have required any of this mucking around with alternate routing protocols, Autonomous System numbers and route reflectors, since it included the concept of stub, not so stubby, and aggregated areas. Instead they had to devise a suite of ever increasingly unreliable/suboptimal routing protocols named IGRP (It Greatly Reduces Performance), EIGRP (Egads! It Greatly Retards Packets), and BGP (Broken Gateway Protocol).
Believe it or not, there were, and may still be, networks that run OSI routing protocols to route IP, like IS-IS, which works pretty well. The problem is, all these require people with clue and background, which the ILECs, in their race to the bottom, have jettisoned wholesale, to be replaced with those who hold vendor certs, and therefore only know one vendor's approach, and nothing of the history or underlying protocols. Before spouting off, go read your Perlman, Stevens, Moy, and anything written by Li.
Never mind that there already IS a joint command for all IO/IA. They gotta grab more taxpayer $$ to do it their way.
Smoke all the weed you want. Just don't do a job that requires lightning fast reflexes, unclouded judgement, or where the consequences of your being addled are death or dismemberment for people. Pot hangs out in your system for weeks, affecting memory, judgement, and reflexes. All of these are critical in a military context.
We don't let people with ongoing prescriptions for pain killers like Oxycontin in either.
I'm all for legalizing drugs. I'm also all for making people bear the consequences of their drug use (instead of being bailed out by taxpayers when they lose everything), and being excluded from certain jobs due to it.
The people who REALLY MUST have their laptop work, like the US Special Forces, use these.
You'll also want a travel charger/solar backpack like this.
Caused by politics and telco monopolies created a network without redundancy. A combination of the infeasibility, due to the political situation, of overland links through the middle east and central Asia, and the hidebound Indian telco not providing sufficient redundancy in connections out of the country, never mind the total misallocation of resources inside it, are the cause of this. TCP/IP is specifically designed to recover from link outages, if it doesn't, you've got an improperly designed and/or operated (statically, as opposed to dynamically, routed) network.
Good news for US and European IT workers though: that buffoon who offshored your jobs has to explain why the IT department has been down for a few days. I guarantee the CEO/CFO is not amused that he can't get to SAP, or that the stores can't upload, or that whatever other mission critical system is off-line isn't working.
Thing is, that Mosquitoes kill millions of people is demonstrable fact. The down-chain effects of eliminating them are hypothetical.
Further, based on our understanding of the ecosystems involved, that there are multiple alternative food sources for Mosquito predators, and very few secondary or tertiary benefits to mosquitoes (unless you're one of the people who think that controlling human population through the suffering of millions from a preventable disease is a benefit, as some have posted here), eliminating mosquitoes is significantly UNLIKELY to result in ecosystem collapse to the extent that human life is threatened.
Ergo, eliminating the mosquitoes saves more lives than letting them live.
Who cares where the funding comes from? Science is Science. It is proven or not.
Actually, what is supposed to happen is you advance a Hypothesis, if any cases are found that disprove it, you revise the hypothesis and lather, rinse, repeat. This process continues until the Hypothesis fits observed reality so closely that no cases are found to disprove it. After enough peer review and failures to disprove, it gets elevated to Theory. If a Theory stands long enough, and accurately predicts new phenomena, then it MIGHT get elevated to the category of Law.
Most of what is claimed by the Enviro movement as fact is merely statistical correlation, which only indicates where one might want to start looking for a Hypothesis to a real scientist.
You can apply the same rigor to the counterargument as he does to yours. The thing is, your arguments don't stand up to the light of day.
Steven Milloy has degrees in Science (BA, Johns Hopkins), statistics as they relate to Biology (masters, Johns Hopkins) and law (Masters from Georgetown and Doctorate from University of Baltimore). Notably liberal universities, I might add. Presumably he didn't get those degrees on the basis of holding the right opinions or social promotion. He sure didn't get in on the basis of who his Dad was, or spend his whole career riding someone else's coattails.
Al Gore, on the other hand, has a BA from Harvard and a some studies in Divinity from Vanderbilt. His professional career consists of being a Journalist, taking over his Daddy's seat in the senate, and being second string to Bill Clinton. Followed by so inept a presidential campaign that, despite winning the popular vote (the first presidential candidate to do so since 1988), he lost the election. For a comeback, he puts out a propaganda film that has been shown to have glaring factual errors that undermine his credibility, and thus the very real, and important, case he is trying to make.
Which one is more qualified to weigh the evidence on all manner of biology, climate, and public policy?
I would say that Steven Milloy has the requisite credentials, and Al Gore does not. He may be a Saint when he's preaching to the choir, but he is not going to convince anyone with a modicum of understanding of Science, and he provides lots of fodder to the opposing viewpoint with his hypocrisy in his personal lifestyle.
Last, but no no means least, like a true Enviro-Nut, you resort to ad-hominem name-calling.
Thanks for proving my point, you ignoramus.
Banning is knowingly killing millions of people on the basis that human lives are less valuable than the birds.
I can counter your hypothetical straw man of over-use with a more real one: People have figured out that a container of motor oil punctured slightly and thrown in a lake tied to a rock (to sink the oil) stops mosquitoes from breeding, because as the oil floats to the top it effectively seals the surface of the lake. Of course, that kills EVERYTHING in the lake, but if you're a desperate impoverished village that wants to save your kids from Malaria, what else is available to you?
Everything in life is about choices, often between the lesser of two evils, or an known evil and an unknown one. It's well proven that not using DDT leads to much greater incidence of Malaria. The evidence for the doomsday scenarios and carcinogenic effects of DDT trumpeted by the enviros is anecdotal/statistical correlation and extrapolation of trends, which is NOT scientific proof.
I note you made no attempt to discuss any of my other points, or to address the report from the CDC that shows how stopping using DDT has resulted in millions of deaths, and millions more sickened for life, or further, that the resumption of use of DDT in Ecuador in 1997 led to a drastic reduction in the incidence of Malaria. I guess you ignore inconvenient truths, and like to fabricate convenient and hyperbolic hypothetical scenarios to advance your case. This, of course, along with ad-hominem attacks and an assumption that anyone who criticizes the courses of action advanced by radical environmentalism is a robber-baron capitalist who would rape the earth and leave it scarred for future generations, as opposed to someone who might actually prefer to think things through as opposed to act on emotion, and doesn't share the religion of the Enviros, are hallmarks of the current Enviro movement.
Were you a writer for an "inconvenient truth"?
Gaianist is those who worship Gaia: mother Earth. Since you spout as truth the propaganda of its adherents, you should know more about where the mediated version of it in the Mainstream Media has its origins. You could have Googled it, or Google "Gaia Hypothesis". Also known as "Deep Ecology". Unfortunately, they have hijacked the environmental movement; which started out being about not soiling our own nest, to create a clean and safe environment for people; and turned it into a "four legs good, two legs baad" movement. "Silent Spring" represents that watershed.
Gainaist propaganda, like the DDT scare, kills at least as many people as the corporate kind. If we are to believe its core adherents, it requires a reduction of world population of anywhere from 50%-90%. That's a lot of people that have to die in the name of the religious belief of "sustainability" and "harmony with nature".
DDT losing its effectiveness over time is a non-sequitur in the ban or not ban decision. If it isn't effective, people won't use it. There's ample proof that banning it (sorry, refusing to allow USAID $ to be spent on it, which amounts to the same thing) has led to a massive increase in the incidence of Malaria in poorer countries.
Clearly you are incapable of rational argument.
Here's an inconvenient truth for you: DDT, used inside dwellings, has no effect whatsoever on fish, but is highly effective at preventing malaria. Instead of buying emotional religious arguments and then regurgitating them in ad-hominem rants, go learn the scientific method and read something written by scientists, instead of activists.
It's easy to swear at people behind the protection of a keyboard or at a rally surrounded by your screaming hippie throwback brethren. Note two things: 1: It doesn't lend any credibility to your argument, it merely makes you look irrational to normal people, and thus undermines it. 2: If you keep addressing people like that, someday you're going to pick a fight with the wrong guy.
Next time you want to insult someone, try using an expanded vocabulary: you ignorant, monosyllabic, cowardly, luddite, verbal incontinent.
I wasn't making any value judgement. I was just pointing out that this was one effect that will happen when MS pushes out IE7 as an automatic "upgrade".
However, since you opened the door: what kind of unsegmented, conflated, monolithic ass of an OS has a browser upgrade that kills a scanner driver?
And now comes the truth of the Enviro Movement: They hate the human race. They see the evils of pestilence and war as part of Gaia's grand plan. They would like to see the third world stay mired in misery and massive deprivation, so they can enjoy their sanitary lives far from the seething mass of humanity. Never mind that as people emerge from filth and massive infant mortality they actually tend to moderate their own birthrates to about replacement. Or that modern society is what has produced all the wondrous things that make the concept of a carbon neutral (hunter gatherers burning wood, or worse, subsistence slash and burn farmers, are not exactly "sustainable") lifestyle possible, and that there seems to need to be a progression from stone age through medieval to industrial to get there. Millions (and actually Billions, if you read the writings of much of the core leaders of the modern Environmental movement) of lives must be sacrificed at the altar of Gaia's wishes as we wade through this valley of tears.
This is just the medieval Catholic church's BS message repackaged. Instead of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, we have the pre-industrial age (when we had bubonic plague, constant war, and a life expectancy of 36 years old). Instead of the devil and the apple, we have the industrial revolution: both being sins of knowledge. Instead of redemption by Jesus in an afterlife, we have heaven on Earth for those who survive the die-back and live "in harmony" with nature. All adherents should be non-violent and focus on contemplation and study of the religion, not the productive arts. For medieval Christianity, this was monastic life, for the enviro crowd, it's bing a "docent" or some other tour guide. Never mind that both actually require the support of the people who do the real work, and those who adhere too closely to their teachings get run over by aggressive barbarians, we're all going to be happy Eloi if we just follow the 'third way".
This meme is one of the most dangerous ones known to man, and always results in hell on Earth. Don't let the enviros do to modern civilization what the Christians did to classical Civilization. Ignorance is not bliss, and abandoning common sense for promises of utopia just creates hell on earth. For a recent example, see the former communist countries under communism.
As for you prophets of the Gaianist Utopia: Please follow your own beliefs to their logical conclusion by contracting some lethal disease or committing suicide. At the very least, neuter yourself. While you're at it, pass one on to all the others who think that killing off a lot of the human race is a good thing.
Prove that releasing these mosquitoes will fuck up the ecosysstem. It's clearly proven that the existing ones kill millions of people. That's why I pointed out the real known effect: millions dead and infected with malaria, versus the hypothetical one: all the birds gone, on which the DDT ban was based.
BTW: Why is corporate propaganda any less valid than Gaianist? At least they hew to the scientific method, as opposed to appeals to emotion and shamanism.
The reason the countries that you mention have solved the problem is, at least in part, that they USE DDT. Since they aren't dependent on aid from the US, they aren't stuck with the condition that they not use DDT that goes along with US aid.
Lest the Eco-Nuts post Lambert's screeds in reply: the requirement that no USAID funds be used for DDT is an effective ban, since the record keeping required if you DO use DDT anywhere to prove no US funds were used for it is onerous beyond all reason for a third world country.
Lots of people worried about birds or "The Ecosystem". Very few seem to be worried about the millions of PEOPLE who die HORRIBLE DEATHS thanks to Dengue fever.
I guess it's to be expected from the "Silent Spring" crowd, who refuse to acknowledge that the REAL effect of banning DDT has been millions of deaths from malaria, against a hypothetical doomsday scenario. Sound familiar?
One good reason is that IE7 breaks HP multifunction drivers. There's a workaround out now (there wasn't when IE7 first came out), but, how many people are going to wake up and find that their scanner/fax machine will no longer talk to their computer?
I'm still really wondering what on earth a browser upgrade would need to do that would break your scanner, but then, ever since IE4, the browser has been your shell, hence all of our security issues.
Californians can shoot straight, which is why we only need handguns :-)
(I have a Shotgun too, just not for home protection.)
info@ndcourts.gov works
-----------SNIP-----------
I was at Cynthia A. Rothe-Seeger, District Judge (url http://www.court.state.nd.us/court/bios/rothe-seeger.htm) and I have this comment:
When a jurist with little or no technical understanding attempts to make a ruling in a case where much of the evidence is technical, there is often a serious case of cognitive dissonance. This is the case in Judge Rothe-Seeger's ruling in the Ritz case.
I am not a lawyer, and make no comment about the merits of the behavior of Mr. Ritz. I am, however, a network engineer, and someone actively involved in information security, particularly using DNS.
In ruling that querying a nameserver that was configured to provide a zone transfer for a list of all the hosts in a zone illegal, Judge Rothe-Seeger has demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the technical design of the Internet, not just of DNS, but of ALL the applications and protocols. Further, the comment that Mr. Ritz's querying and republication of the public WHOIS data "without Network Solutions permission" was illegal also completely misunderstands the nature of Whois data.
What the judge has done is, effectively, to say that each person who asks a public server for information that it is explicitly designed to provide to all and sundry needs to get specific permission for that content from that publisher. This is completely at odds with how the Internet works. The Internet is designed in such a way that servers provide content to anyone who asks, unless the owner has configured the server not to do so.
Sierra could easily have prevented zone transfers from their name servers if they so chose. If they did not do so, then the presumption is that they intended to allow it. There are many very good reasons why a service provider would want their zone to be transferrable, and by configuring their nameservers in that way, they were, in effect, doing the same thing as someone leaving a stack of maps out in public, for all to take at their leisure. What the judge has ruled would be analogous to finding a crime when someone took a copy of an ad that included a layout of a house from a realtor's office.
The WHOIS data, on the other hand, is public record BY DESIGN. It is part of the basic design of the DNS that you be able to find out who the registrant for a given domain is. How else are all the legal remedies for copyright infringement, illegal content, abuse of service, etc. to be exercised if there is no way to find out who to serve notice on and in what jurisdiction they reside?
It is clear from Judge Rothe-Seeger's bio that she has little or no experience of life beyond North Dakota. It is also clear from her ruling that she has little or no understanding of the Internet. Based on her age, it is time for the judge to retire, as she clearly fails to understand the world in which she now lives.
The problem is that the organizations that lose the data, and the people who work there, are not the ones who bear the pain of the result. Furthermore, we usually have no choice in handing over the personal data, most of which is completely unnecessary (but very useful for marketing), in order to get things we need.
Unless and until that changes, all the hand-wringing in the world won't make a hill of beans of difference.
It will take something like Sarbanes-Oxley, making the officers of companies and non-profits, and government workers, who handle our data personally criminally liable for failure to take due care, before there is any change. As it is now, it is a simple cost calculation, and security is pure cost. The people in charge are betting that they can cash in their stock options or get promoted/transferred before the failure to protect data causes a problem.
Last, but by no means least, everything that the naysayers said about Social Security when it was first proposed have come true: the SSID is a national ID number, and is routinely abused; and the Ponzi Scheme has run afoul of demographics. It's time to end the charade: outlaw the use of SSIDs by anyone except the SSA, and to allow people to opt out of SS.
Are you referring to FDR?
Public officials should not be protected in this way. They protect themselves with "Parliamentary Privilege", so they should not have protection from others.
In New Jersey, being identified as the person who outed corrupt officials could be lethal (mob).