We will obviously see what all this is about in the coming years.
At this point is smacks of the war on Doha Accord. US believes they will benefit more from bilateral and multilateral trade agreements as oposed to one global same-for-all agreement. The main benefit is, of course, the power that comes from selective trade agreements - there is allways a third side that is at a loss from a bilateral agreement. Take recent US-Chile agreement which has hit Brazil hard. These agreements are controversial because they often divert trade as opposed to creating new trade (some regional agreements excluded).
US has maintained control over the world bank from the very beggining, but there is not much to argue about there - US based investors are the large majority.
Washington Post fails to ask the right questions.
Mr. Wolfowitz's critics, domestic as well as international, should now get beyond their dislike of his role in the Iraq war and give him a chance to succeed at one of the world's hardest jobs.
Why should he be given the chance? Are there no real professionals who can run this enterprise without controversy?
In fact, the real question is why Wolfowitz? One must immediatelly note the amount of work and political credits that have been put into this appointment. It is not only the 'old' Europe who were appaled by the choice. Mr Wolfowitz has travelled the world and among others, spoke to Bono from U2, apparently getting his blessing. Why? Why does he want to do this job so much?
My answer is that Wolfowitz is the best candidate to establish control over increasingly important part of the world trade and delay the Doha accord as far as possible. As a master of spin he has already excelled in convincing US and satellites into a perpetual bloody war. All while it is universally obvious that those resources could be put to a better use for dealing with real problems we are facing - environment and poverty. You can expect to see many ex-world bank employees and many new ones as well...
> I am getting tired of trying to correct all > the misinformation and anon posters have a > limit to how many factual corrections they > can post in 24 hours (10 corrections maximum). > > The only reason I am trying to educate people > again and again is becasue NO ONE is reading > the -1 posts and some fool keeps modding these > facts down for no reason.
I have also given up posting factual corrections, because moderators seem to arbitrarily filter posts, often based on their own opinions and not facts.
Factual errors are really too common. Even more so with comments in discussion.
What I find most distasteful is relaying pure hype and then shaping the discussion by moderators own ignorance on the topic.
While working at Symbian (my job was to investigate virus and security threats), I have several times pointed out in discussions that none of what they called 'virus' or 'worm' was actually any serious threat. Having seen the code *and seen them run* I can claim with 100% certainty that there has not yet been a single exploit of faulty symbian code. I am not saying Symbian code is perfect in any way though. Rather, Symbian has some fundamental design choices that protect it. First, all system files are in a flash rom so cannot physically be modified without extra hardware. Runtime security benefits from descriptors (eliminate buffer overflows), servers (for example only way to access file system is through file server) and others but most importantly kernel and MMU design that give memory protection unseen in other OS. Countless symbian 'features' typically annoy people switching from coding for windows, linux or java but are proving to be a valuable asset in security. Needless to say, Symbian also knows how important security is and even our moderator would be surprised with how richly exotic Symbian's new 'plaform security' is.
Anyway, my point is that instead of my posts on Symbian related stories, you could read some kid's off-topic bitching.
Vital security guy says that this is "CAUSED BY JAVA". Well, as a matter of FACT, not opinion, he is wrong.
Runtime.exec() does exactly what it says on the tin. Full stop.
You allways basically get the choice - not have a feature or try to protect it. Not having a feature is hardly an option. Asking the user what they want to do is the best option available.
So, if you have no protection (e.g. spybot, or your ISP could have scanning proxy/ICAP) AND you are stupid enough to click something you are bound to become a victim.
The same goes to your sensationalism about Symbian viruses. You are happy to publish unsound rumours but never dig deep enough to see that all that fuss is for nothing. The only exploited thing is users stupidity, and not any flaws in the code.
Symbianite writes to Ron Condon (SC editor) and David Quainton (article author):
In your article Mobile virus infects Lexus cars by David Quainton a reference is made to Symbian operating system as follows:
" It is still unclear whether the cars in question use the Symbian operating system which has recently been under attack from various worms and viruses. "
Symbian is a MOBILE PHONE operating system and has nothing to do with cars. No car manufacturers are Symbian licensees. This could not have been hard to verify - Symbian's web site (www.symbian.com) clearly lists Symbian licensees.
Further to this, what you refer to as "various worms and viruses" is actually malware. All existing malware for Symbian is not based on bad code exploits but rather on user's explicitly bypassing security and dismissing security warnings.
Please ensure that this error is corrected asap. This is bad press for a good company (Symbian) and I am sure they will not waste time in debunking this ignorant rant.
Hopes are growing that UN will indeed take over from ICANN.
To see why this is so good, just remember what veris.gn did few months ago... ICANN was slow to react and the reaction was silly.
With UN, the service will be *regulated* and governed better.
Slashdot Mirror
We will obviously see what all this is about in the coming years.
At this point is smacks of the war on Doha Accord. US believes they will benefit more from bilateral and multilateral trade agreements as oposed to one global same-for-all agreement. The main benefit is, of course, the power that comes from selective trade agreements - there is allways a third side that is at a loss from a bilateral agreement. Take recent US-Chile agreement which has hit Brazil hard. These agreements are controversial because they often divert trade as opposed to creating new trade (some regional agreements excluded).
US has maintained control over the world bank from the very beggining, but there is not much to argue about there - US based investors are the large majority.
Washington Post fails to ask the right questions.
Mr. Wolfowitz's critics, domestic as well as international, should now get beyond their dislike of his role in the Iraq war and give him a chance to succeed at one of the world's hardest jobs.
Why should he be given the chance? Are there no real professionals who can run this enterprise without controversy?
In fact, the real question is why Wolfowitz? One must immediatelly note the amount of work and political credits that have been put into this appointment. It is not only the 'old' Europe who were appaled by the choice. Mr Wolfowitz has travelled the world and among others, spoke to Bono from U2, apparently getting his blessing. Why? Why does he want to do this job so much?
My answer is that Wolfowitz is the best candidate to establish control over increasingly important part of the world trade and delay the Doha accord as far as possible. As a master of spin he has already excelled in convincing US and satellites into a perpetual bloody war. All while it is universally obvious that those resources could be put to a better use for dealing with real problems we are facing - environment and poverty. You can expect to see many ex-world bank employees and many new ones as well...
sosumi
> I am getting tired of trying to correct all
> the misinformation and anon posters have a
> limit to how many factual corrections they
> can post in 24 hours (10 corrections maximum).
>
> The only reason I am trying to educate people
> again and again is becasue NO ONE is reading
> the -1 posts and some fool keeps modding these
> facts down for no reason.
I have also given up posting factual corrections,
because moderators seem to arbitrarily filter
posts, often based on their own opinions and not
facts.
Factual errors are really too common. Even more
so with comments in discussion.
What I find most distasteful is relaying pure
hype and then shaping the discussion by moderators
own ignorance on the topic.
While working at Symbian (my job was to
investigate virus and security threats), I have
several times pointed out in discussions that
none of what they called 'virus' or 'worm' was
actually any serious threat. Having seen the
code *and seen them run* I can claim with 100%
certainty that there has not yet been a single
exploit of faulty symbian code. I am not saying
Symbian code is perfect in any way though.
Rather, Symbian has some fundamental design
choices that protect it. First, all system files
are in a flash rom so cannot physically be
modified without extra hardware. Runtime security
benefits from descriptors (eliminate buffer
overflows), servers (for example only way to
access file system is through file server) and
others but most importantly kernel and MMU design
that give memory protection unseen in other OS.
Countless symbian 'features' typically annoy
people switching from coding for windows, linux or
java but are proving to be a valuable asset in
security. Needless to say, Symbian also knows how
important security is and even our moderator would
be surprised with how richly exotic Symbian's new
'plaform security' is.
Anyway, my point is that instead of my posts on
Symbian related stories, you could read some kid's
off-topic bitching.
Vital security guy says that this is "CAUSED BY JAVA". Well, as a matter of FACT, not opinion, he is wrong.
Runtime.exec() does exactly what it says on the tin. Full stop.
You allways basically get the choice - not have a feature or try to protect it. Not having a feature is hardly an option. Asking the user what they want to do is the best option available.
So, if you have no protection (e.g. spybot, or your ISP could have scanning proxy/ICAP) AND you are stupid enough to click something you are bound to become a victim.
The same goes to your sensationalism about Symbian viruses. You are happy to publish unsound rumours but never dig deep enough to see that all that fuss is for nothing. The only exploited thing is users stupidity, and not any flaws in the code.
Symbianite writes to Ron Condon (SC editor) and David Quainton (article author):
In your article Mobile virus infects Lexus cars by David Quainton a reference is made to Symbian operating system as follows:
" It is still unclear whether the cars in question use the Symbian operating system which has recently been under attack from various worms and viruses. "
Symbian is a MOBILE PHONE operating system and has nothing to do with cars. No car manufacturers are Symbian licensees. This could not have been hard to verify - Symbian's web site (www.symbian.com) clearly lists Symbian licensees.
Further to this, what you refer to as "various worms and viruses" is actually malware. All existing malware for Symbian is not based on bad code exploits but rather on user's explicitly bypassing security and dismissing security warnings.
Please ensure that this error is corrected asap. This is bad press for a good company (Symbian) and I am sure they will not waste time in debunking this ignorant rant.
... seems to be the first step ...
This works with most reasonable email clients and notably Outlook Express (without implying OE is a reasonable email client choice).
I have to use Outlook Express but my little workaround renders all email virus attacks benign to all but really stupid users.
I've got two servers in Manchester and there was a several-hour outage last weekend. But that was it, everything seems to be fine since.
Hopes are growing that UN will indeed take over from ICANN. To see why this is so good, just remember what veris.gn did few months ago... ICANN was slow to react and the reaction was silly. With UN, the service will be *regulated* and governed better.
... and its the best way my phones (nokia) will talk to my pc. It's also fast for this purpose...