...and he provides a critical rejoinder to grandparent who misunderstood what BluePill does (or rather what it claims it does).
Grandparent seems to think that BluePill merely is a mal-VMM that sits between any guest OS and the host OS. So the guest OS won't know that he's being thwarted. What these folks are claiming is two-fold:
They'll do what SubVirt did -- move the VMM which is usually operating as a process on a host OS below that host OS. So, not only are all the guest OSs not going to know a/b the the mal-VMM, but also the host OS itself effectively becomes another guest OS.
Unlike SubVirt which required that the mal-VMM exploit a vulnerability in the *host OS* in order to do this swallowing-up of the host OS, these folks' claim is that there are generic mechanisms to inject code into the Vista kernel. And these generic mechanisms are sufficient for this subversion.
Moreover, they're saying that this is the case, despite security mechanisms in Vista that prevent kernel-mode code from running if that code is not signed (by a trusted party).
Anyway these are some pretty tall claims (particularly, re: the ability to inject arbitrary code into the Vista kernel). I initially thought the same thing as the grandparent: that they were saying that you could create a mal-VMM so that any VM running on that mal-VMM would not be able to detect the badness of the VMM (which is pretty trivial, actually).
Be careful with that one. Not only Warren Buffett is rich; everyone posting to Slashdot is -- relative to the world -- wealthy. Yes, that includes you (and me).
...which at times may be a fundamentally irrational thing -- demanding as it does that one do the *right* thing (perhaps at great personal cost with little obvious gain) rather than the most reasonable one.
Nearly everything you do is of no importance, but it is important that you do it. -- Gandhi
His charity is outstanding, but his sacrifice is non-existent.
Actually, that's not exactly true. Certainly, his standard of living -- such as it is -- will not suffer. However, he is (eventually) relinquishing a controlling stake in Berkshire Hathaway. Certainly he could have kept this control in the family as the Mars (candy) family has done, the Waltons, and many more.
Or you don't think that this denigration is sourced in envy?
If it's the former, then I disagree; to me there is an obvious (negative) editorialization inherent in the parent's subject line. If it's the latter, well, let's just say there's a reason the green-eyed monster is proverbial.
This passage is not meant to deride those who have earned much and given generously (as the parent seems to intend for it to do); it is intended to countermand society's view (throughout history, in all of society) which respects those who have power (which in many cases == money) and looked down absolutely upon those of modest means despite whether they are persons of great honor, dignity, and heart.
Certainly if those who have attained great wealth have done so via exploiting others then those wealthy deserve derision. But merely to be successful and powerful is not an indictment. The old camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle quote is often misinterpreted in the same way. The meaning of that passage is to point out that with wealth comes great power and with great power comes great temptation. So if you don't have the wealth/power, it may be easier for you to live a clean/good life (i.e. to pass into heaven).
That leaves an estimated six billion dollars to his heirs, who I expect also have their own stakes in the company as well.
Well, not quite. From the article:
Sticking to his long-term intentions, Buffett says the residual 5%, worth about $6.8 billion today, will in time go for philanthropy also, perhaps in his lifetime and, if not, at his death.
Buffett is a genuine iconoclast in this regard (contrast the Sam Waltons family and almost all other precursor generators of real wealth, cf. the The Forbes Richest List). It's true his kids will never go hungry but if you read the article his current bequeaths are to their (philanthropic) foundations, not to the kids themselves who will get a modest inheritance.
...besides the fact that they are woefully 2-dimensional despite what is--by all accounts--a very multi-dimensional experience, falling in love, IS that they ask individuals to evaluate themselves: a losing proposition from the get-go.
Haven't we already established that people are terrible judges of themselves? Don't something like 80% of people think they are of above average intelligence? looks? etc?
I tire quickly of these questionnaires for another reason too: they are, to my mind, somewhat mood- or life-stage-dependent. I often have a hard time answering the questions because BOTH answers could be true (or all, for the range queries) at any given time. I suspect I'm not alone in this.
I remember, but can't cite, an article or study that pretty much shows the odds of people staying together
You're disregarding obvious cultural differences between residents of the US and residents of a small town in India.
As I understand in India there is or at least has historically been a very strong taboo on divorce. This might account for why as many of these folks stay together as those conjoined by "love marriages." But anyway I think the numbers for arranged marriages staying together are much, much higher due to the near impossibility of obtaining a divorce.
A 13-year old betrothed to a 60-year old cannot actually be thought to have the same opportunity for divorce as a rich Manhattan female attorney.
Isn't it the case that most people you've had physical chemistry with: it was an instantaneous, physical thing? Or at least started with some initial attraction? That's certainly been the case for me.
But don't confuse: it's not purely looks-based. I've been attracted to ("had chemistry with") plenty of not-Brad-Pitt-looking (who I think is very pre-packaged looking anyway) guys. I personally can't explain what its source is. Instinct? Intuition? Pheromones? But I likewise have difficulty believing that a questionnaire can capture all of what goes on in that nanosecond when we see a member of hte opposite sex and go, hmmm.
Especially given what she cites re: internet dating and which probably more of us than would like can substantiate from personal experience: you can be very familiar with a person's personality via the written word (e.g. hours kept, sense of humor, energy level, aggressiveness, character even...) and then meet them in person and be revolted or at least unmitigatedly disappointed.
A strict questionnaire is a bullshit game; they should have at least had folks choose musical snippets they preferred, pictures they preferred -- make it somewhat not all 2-dimensional ASCII text.
For what it is worth every Republican christian in the SouthEast that I have met believes that evolution is a lie or are seriously consider ID. On the other hand the Democratic Christians actually hold scientific research in high regard. The religous right is ruining it for all the other Christians.
According to the linked polls, almost 6/10 Kerry voters think BOTH Creationism AND evolution should be taught; if we assume the Kerry voters are Democrats then it can hardly be said that the "religious right" are the only crackpots who believe in creationism or are "ruining it for all other Christians." Surely the original poster doesn't believe that Creationism has ANY place in the classroom? I sure don't. And I'm a fucking real right winger!
I'll help the original poster out, though, much as he wishes this could be reduced to yet another partisan squabble: the distinction is not between Democratic Christians and Republican Christians; the distinction is between evangelical Christians and others. There are of course still exceptions but that's the real fault line.
I genuinely want to offer some help; both you and the poster I originally replied to seem to have really very little experience with Christians, Republicans, Christian Republicans.
I'm a Catholic (which makes me a Christian!), born and raised. I'm also an engineer and a political conservative--have voted Republican most all of the time.
So you might label me a member of the religious right. It's unclear, am I? That's why this particular label isn't terribly descriptive, except for use as a pejorative to label large swaths of "people of faith" (many of whom are black and (therefore) Democratic voters--look it up!).
Anyway so I know from religious people, Catholics in particular. I attended Catholic grammar school and high school and we were never taught Creationism in science class and that was before ID was any sort of theory let alone political force. To this day, the same holds. In fact the Catholic Church issued a proclamation of some sort--maybe 20 years ago?--indicating that Evolution was not mutually exclusive with religious faith: the Church saw no contradiction between believing in evolution and believing in God.
In fact I do not know personally any single religious person (and, as you can see above, I actually KNOW some) who believes in ID at the exclusion of evolution, who believes evolution should not be taught, even who believes ID should be taught WITHIN the science curriculum.
ID and "the religious right" are not to blame for our country's lacksadaisical science education status. They are new phenoms, for starters, and their influence on educational policy is almost nil.
Finally I don't mean to offer up my anecdotal life experience as representative of the diverse and multi-faceted "religious right" since--given that I'm not an evangelical--it's clearly not. I only want to urge caution in interpreting poll results as the questions leave out a lot of variables and as such in my opinion say really very little. These are complicated questions to ask people about well: to actually get at their beliefs (which may be a little self-conflicting). And the questions in particular in the CBS poll you cited are really not very good, IMO.
We are a victim of our own success. Not a novel occurrence in history. Become wealthier, more liberalized --> become softer, less familiar with struggle, delay of instant gratification etc.
I believe this is at heart a cultural problem. I don't think the NEA is without blame but nor do I think they are the only party blameworthy.
Make no mistake; I am not advocating abolition of private property nor am I convinced that wealth in fact necessarily implies a certain softening.
Let's think about this aloud for a moment; the "religious right" as it were has been a prominent political force for, how long? Maybe 10 years? And the hullabaloo over ID is, what, about 5 years old max? Really gaining speed lately but rather novel just the same.
Continuing, our problem with science education is how old? 5 years? 10 years? more?
The fact is American education, generally, has been in decline for over 40 years; go back and read about what they were saying in the early to mid-80s: that our education system was in crisis. Etc etc etc. And that same system has declined even further in the years since then: causing science, math, & engineering grad programs to have 1 international student on average for every US citizen (the top programs anyway). Clearly our kids are not applying or if they are, they're not sufficiently competive candidates.
Now, time for synthesis. Let's be conservative and say that the "science education problem" -- its effects -- is about 10 years old (note: that it is better for anti-religious-right advocates that this problem be YOUNGER since they can more easily pin the blame on that movement in that case).
When do you think the problem -- its source -- started? Should this be some time period relative to when its effects were seen? After all we don't think these type of seismic shifts happen overnight, do they? Let's say the source of the problem originated about 5 - 10 years (at least) before its effects were visible and incontrovertible.
What we have conjectured, then, is that it is actually impossible that the religious right--a movement that really didn't gain any sort of recognizable force or stature til about 10 years ago--is responsible for a problem that has its roots at least 20 years ago and likely more.
Anyway it's fascinating that those who have absorbed 1/2 the real estate for this story's replies apparently have little of the analytical thinking skills critical for scientific advancement. Or, giving these folks the benefit of the doubt, they possess these skills but haven't yet acquired the discipline / character necessary to apply them uniformly: in spite of prejudice.
The religous right is ruining it for all the other Christians.
Anyone else positively surprised that this guy apparently has a small circle of Christian friends? Or, rather, Republican Christian friends?
No harm there but when he believes that his self-selection out of those social circles (and resulting diversity-emaciated contact list) is evidence of anything other than what a handful of people think, well that's positively anti-scientific kookery!
What a maroon. Anti-scientific thinking is OK for me but not for thee... hmm, sounds familiar.
Anyway isn't this another one of those Rhythms/Covad/Northpoint etc. companies. They collocate in the Central Offices and rely on the Bells if some particular piece of fit hits the shan. I NEVER understood how that model could work; dsl service is basically a commodity meaning: no room for a middleman reseller.
For all I know SpeakEasy has its own copper wire loops and central offices, though...
As far as I'm concerned for the company's own self interest, SBC SHOULD unbundle it.
After all, how many people order phone service in order to get DSL? Don't most people who have the option of DSL also have the option of cable?
I know plenty of people who only have cell cervice -- no land line -- and who by default get cable just because DSL (in our area) always implies existence of phone line first. Which is -- in their view -- an unnecessary expense.
Especially in light of the fact that we're hearing more mutterings lately about TV-via-Internet which might in the future give the cable networks a run for their money (or provide an alternative distribution channel for them). Which would make DSL vs. cable a tougher choice (if DSL were unbundled and Internet content were richer).
us liberals because we're coming to clean up your mess and take out the trash.
Try winning an election first, fuckwad. Or even controlling a single branch of gov't, you impotent twit.
The whole fucking lot of you much more interested in mental masturbation than in actually addressing hard problems. You guys haven't even earned a place at the fucking table, let alone to lead the effort to clean up the mess.
To say nothing of the fact that the scariest scenario vis a vis Pakistan is NOT a Pakistani publicly-state-sanctioned nuke attack but rather the leaking of fissile materials into the hands of Islamists.
Pakistan's terrorist training camps are legion; how many of the UK bombers logged time at one or another of these? [Point: state-sponsorship of terrorism would not be a new charge against that country].
My grandparent -- your parent -- was a total troll and you're right to satirize him. For shame. Slashdot is so predictably knee-jerk liberal that the only reasonable explanation can be that the median posting age is 15.
Politically there's no group in America more committed to Israel than the Evangelicals. Why? Because the Bible says that Jews must return to their homeland before Jesus will return:
[Jer 30:2-7] : 'For, behold, days are coming,' declares the Lord, 'when I will restore the fortunes of My people Israel and Judah.' The Lord says, 'I will also bring them back to the land that I gave to their forefathers, and they shall possess it.'
And in Ezekiel [37:21]: "This is what the sovereign Lord says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land."
Btw., he's giving a lot of examples of people using a default permit policy as a security idea, so your point is still moot.
Well, let's look at his examples:
firewalls 15 - 20 years ago: even then there's no evidence that "Default Permit" was chosen for security reasons rather it's obvious it was chosen for convenience reasons (don't have to handle annoying lusers calling and saying they can't connect) and was rationalized by "We're Not a Target" [under "The Minor Dumbs"]
second example: programs executing on our comps; first he says that "default permit would be to allow any program we click on to execute" whereas default permit would actually be to allow *any* program to execute, not just ones we click on. Because of this broken definition, his citing of viruses (which do require user assistance to execute, at least the first time) and spyware (which don't and which may be installed by passive or active means, i.e. requiring user clickage or not) isn't really coherent.
Then the E-banking security project: here he never says that this company wanted to do "default permit" because they thought it was a good security idea...
In summary I think if he rephrased this idea as "Default Permit is harmless", that would have been much more coherent.
I didn't say: "HE advocates..." I said "WHO advocates."
Slow down and read my fucking post.
The point was this:
This was supposed to be a list of security ideas that suck
My fucking point in my original post was that the first dumb idea (i.e. "security idea that sucks") -- "Default Permit" -- isn't even a fucking security idea
To go extra slow for the Really Big Retards, therefore, what is idea # 1 even doing on the list?
My understanding was that these would be security ideas that were basically empty suits. Ideas #2 - #6 confirm this understanding. But then who advocates "Default permit" on the basis that security-wise it's the right thing to do?
ANS: No one I have ever seen.
People may advocate default permit but usually for performance, business, laziness etc. reasons. Never as a good security idea. Ergo "Default Permit" isn't even a security idea therefore how can it make some list as the most prevalent ("most-frequently-seen")? Makes no sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Grandparent seems to think that BluePill merely is a mal-VMM that sits between any guest OS and the host OS. So the guest OS won't know that he's being thwarted. What these folks are claiming is two-fold:
- They'll do what SubVirt did -- move the VMM which is usually operating as a process on a host OS below that host OS. So, not only are all the guest OSs not going to know a/b the the mal-VMM, but also the host OS itself effectively becomes another guest OS.
- Unlike SubVirt which required that the mal-VMM exploit a vulnerability in the *host OS* in order to do this swallowing-up of the host OS, these folks' claim is that there are generic mechanisms to inject code into the Vista kernel. And these generic mechanisms are sufficient for this subversion.
- Moreover, they're saying that this is the case, despite security mechanisms in Vista that prevent kernel-mode code from running if that code is not signed (by a trusted party).
Anyway these are some pretty tall claims (particularly, re: the ability to inject arbitrary code into the Vista kernel). I initially thought the same thing as the grandparent: that they were saying that you could create a mal-VMM so that any VM running on that mal-VMM would not be able to detect the badness of the VMM (which is pretty trivial, actually).Be careful with that one. Not only Warren Buffett is rich; everyone posting to Slashdot is -- relative to the world -- wealthy. Yes, that includes you (and me).
...which at times may be a fundamentally irrational thing -- demanding as it does that one do the *right* thing (perhaps at great personal cost with little obvious gain) rather than the most reasonable one.
Nearly everything you do is of no importance, but it is important that you do it. -- Gandhi
is an attempt to denigrate Buffett's gift?
Or you don't think that this denigration is sourced in envy?
If it's the former, then I disagree; to me there is an obvious (negative) editorialization inherent in the parent's subject line. If it's the latter, well, let's just say there's a reason the green-eyed monster is proverbial.
This passage is not meant to deride those who have earned much and given generously (as the parent seems to intend for it to do); it is intended to countermand society's view (throughout history, in all of society) which respects those who have power (which in many cases == money) and looked down absolutely upon those of modest means despite whether they are persons of great honor, dignity, and heart.
Certainly if those who have attained great wealth have done so via exploiting others then those wealthy deserve derision. But merely to be successful and powerful is not an indictment. The old camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle quote is often misinterpreted in the same way. The meaning of that passage is to point out that with wealth comes great power and with great power comes great temptation. So if you don't have the wealth/power, it may be easier for you to live a clean/good life (i.e. to pass into heaven).
Well, not quite. From the article:
Buffett is a genuine iconoclast in this regard (contrast the Sam Waltons family and almost all other precursor generators of real wealth, cf. the The Forbes Richest List). It's true his kids will never go hungry but if you read the article his current bequeaths are to their (philanthropic) foundations, not to the kids themselves who will get a modest inheritance.
...besides the fact that they are woefully 2-dimensional despite what is--by all accounts--a very multi-dimensional experience, falling in love, IS that they ask individuals to evaluate themselves: a losing proposition from the get-go.
Haven't we already established that people are terrible judges of themselves? Don't something like 80% of people think they are of above average intelligence? looks? etc?
I tire quickly of these questionnaires for another reason too: they are, to my mind, somewhat mood- or life-stage-dependent. I often have a hard time answering the questions because BOTH answers could be true (or all, for the range queries) at any given time. I suspect I'm not alone in this.
As I understand in India there is or at least has historically been a very strong taboo on divorce. This might account for why as many of these folks stay together as those conjoined by "love marriages." But anyway I think the numbers for arranged marriages staying together are much, much higher due to the near impossibility of obtaining a divorce.
A 13-year old betrothed to a 60-year old cannot actually be thought to have the same opportunity for divorce as a rich Manhattan female attorney.
Isn't it the case that most people you've had physical chemistry with: it was an instantaneous, physical thing? Or at least started with some initial attraction? That's certainly been the case for me.
...) and then meet them in person and be revolted or at least unmitigatedly disappointed.
But don't confuse: it's not purely looks-based. I've been attracted to ("had chemistry with") plenty of not-Brad-Pitt-looking (who I think is very pre-packaged looking anyway) guys. I personally can't explain what its source is. Instinct? Intuition? Pheromones? But I likewise have difficulty believing that a questionnaire can capture all of what goes on in that nanosecond when we see a member of hte opposite sex and go, hmmm.
Especially given what she cites re: internet dating and which probably more of us than would like can substantiate from personal experience: you can be very familiar with a person's personality via the written word (e.g. hours kept, sense of humor, energy level, aggressiveness, character even
A strict questionnaire is a bullshit game; they should have at least had folks choose musical snippets they preferred, pictures they preferred -- make it somewhat not all 2-dimensional ASCII text.
I'll help the original poster out, though, much as he wishes this could be reduced to yet another partisan squabble: the distinction is not between Democratic Christians and Republican Christians; the distinction is between evangelical Christians and others. There are of course still exceptions but that's the real fault line.
I genuinely want to offer some help; both you and the poster I originally replied to seem to have really very little experience with Christians, Republicans, Christian Republicans.
I'm a Catholic (which makes me a Christian!), born and raised. I'm also an engineer and a political conservative--have voted Republican most all of the time.
So you might label me a member of the religious right. It's unclear, am I? That's why this particular label isn't terribly descriptive, except for use as a pejorative to label large swaths of "people of faith" (many of whom are black and (therefore) Democratic voters--look it up!).
Anyway so I know from religious people, Catholics in particular. I attended Catholic grammar school and high school and we were never taught Creationism in science class and that was before ID was any sort of theory let alone political force. To this day, the same holds. In fact the Catholic Church issued a proclamation of some sort--maybe 20 years ago?--indicating that Evolution was not mutually exclusive with religious faith: the Church saw no contradiction between believing in evolution and believing in God.
In fact I do not know personally any single religious person (and, as you can see above, I actually KNOW some) who believes in ID at the exclusion of evolution, who believes evolution should not be taught, even who believes ID should be taught WITHIN the science curriculum.
ID and "the religious right" are not to blame for our country's lacksadaisical science education status. They are new phenoms, for starters, and their influence on educational policy is almost nil.
Finally I don't mean to offer up my anecdotal life experience as representative of the diverse and multi-faceted "religious right" since--given that I'm not an evangelical--it's clearly not. I only want to urge caution in interpreting poll results as the questions leave out a lot of variables and as such in my opinion say really very little. These are complicated questions to ask people about well: to actually get at their beliefs (which may be a little self-conflicting). And the questions in particular in the CBS poll you cited are really not very good, IMO.
We are a victim of our own success. Not a novel occurrence in history. Become wealthier, more liberalized --> become softer, less familiar with struggle, delay of instant gratification etc.
I believe this is at heart a cultural problem. I don't think the NEA is without blame but nor do I think they are the only party blameworthy.
Make no mistake; I am not advocating abolition of private property nor am I convinced that wealth in fact necessarily implies a certain softening.
Let's think about this aloud for a moment; the "religious right" as it were has been a prominent political force for, how long? Maybe 10 years? And the hullabaloo over ID is, what, about 5 years old max? Really gaining speed lately but rather novel just the same.
Continuing, our problem with science education is how old? 5 years? 10 years? more?
The fact is American education, generally, has been in decline for over 40 years; go back and read about what they were saying in the early to mid-80s: that our education system was in crisis. Etc etc etc. And that same system has declined even further in the years since then: causing science, math, & engineering grad programs to have 1 international student on average for every US citizen (the top programs anyway). Clearly our kids are not applying or if they are, they're not sufficiently competive candidates.
Now, time for synthesis. Let's be conservative and say that the "science education problem" -- its effects -- is about 10 years old (note: that it is better for anti-religious-right advocates that this problem be YOUNGER since they can more easily pin the blame on that movement in that case).
When do you think the problem -- its source -- started? Should this be some time period relative to when its effects were seen? After all we don't think these type of seismic shifts happen overnight, do they? Let's say the source of the problem originated about 5 - 10 years (at least) before its effects were visible and incontrovertible.
What we have conjectured, then, is that it is actually impossible that the religious right--a movement that really didn't gain any sort of recognizable force or stature til about 10 years ago--is responsible for a problem that has its roots at least 20 years ago and likely more.
Anyway it's fascinating that those who have absorbed 1/2 the real estate for this story's replies apparently have little of the analytical thinking skills critical for scientific advancement. Or, giving these folks the benefit of the doubt, they possess these skills but haven't yet acquired the discipline / character necessary to apply them uniformly: in spite of prejudice.
The religous right is ruining it for all the other Christians.
Anyone else positively surprised that this guy apparently has a small circle of Christian friends? Or, rather, Republican Christian friends?
No harm there but when he believes that his self-selection out of those social circles (and resulting diversity-emaciated contact list) is evidence of anything other than what a handful of people think, well that's positively anti-scientific kookery!
What a maroon. Anti-scientific thinking is OK for me but not for thee... hmm, sounds familiar.
...which is FAR more useful than a POTS phone
Not if the power goes out, it's not...
try this one, instead: Speakeasy.NET -- NOT computational econometric software... but, as you say, naked dsl.
Anyway isn't this another one of those Rhythms/Covad/Northpoint etc. companies. They collocate in the Central Offices and rely on the Bells if some particular piece of fit hits the shan. I NEVER understood how that model could work; dsl service is basically a commodity meaning: no room for a middleman reseller.
For all I know SpeakEasy has its own copper wire loops and central offices, though...
As far as I'm concerned for the company's own self interest, SBC SHOULD unbundle it.
After all, how many people order phone service in order to get DSL? Don't most people who have the option of DSL also have the option of cable?
I know plenty of people who only have cell cervice -- no land line -- and who by default get cable just because DSL (in our area) always implies existence of phone line first. Which is -- in their view -- an unnecessary expense.
Especially in light of the fact that we're hearing more mutterings lately about TV-via-Internet which might in the future give the cable networks a run for their money (or provide an alternative distribution channel for them). Which would make DSL vs. cable a tougher choice (if DSL were unbundled and Internet content were richer).
us liberals because we're coming to clean up your mess and take out the trash.
Try winning an election first, fuckwad. Or even controlling a single branch of gov't, you impotent twit.
The whole fucking lot of you much more interested in mental masturbation than in actually addressing hard problems. You guys haven't even earned a place at the fucking table, let alone to lead the effort to clean up the mess.
Massively informative.
To say nothing of the fact that the scariest scenario vis a vis Pakistan is NOT a Pakistani publicly-state-sanctioned nuke attack but rather the leaking of fissile materials into the hands of Islamists.
Pakistan's terrorist training camps are legion; how many of the UK bombers logged time at one or another of these? [Point: state-sponsorship of terrorism would not be a new charge against that country].
My grandparent -- your parent -- was a total troll and you're right to satirize him. For shame. Slashdot is so predictably knee-jerk liberal that the only reasonable explanation can be that the median posting age is 15.
Politically there's no group in America more committed to Israel than the Evangelicals. Why? Because the Bible says that Jews must return to their homeland before Jesus will return:
[Jer 30:2-7] : 'For, behold, days are coming,' declares the Lord, 'when I will restore the fortunes of My people Israel and Judah.' The Lord says, 'I will also bring them back to the land that I gave to their forefathers, and they shall possess it.'
And in Ezekiel [37:21]: "This is what the sovereign Lord says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land."
Well, let's look at his examples:
- firewalls 15 - 20 years ago: even then there's no evidence that "Default Permit" was chosen for security reasons rather it's obvious it was chosen for convenience reasons (don't have to handle annoying lusers calling and saying they can't connect) and was rationalized by "We're Not a Target" [under "The Minor Dumbs"]
- second example: programs executing on our comps; first he says that "default permit would be to allow any program we click on to execute" whereas default permit would actually be to allow *any* program to execute, not just ones we click on. Because of this broken definition, his citing of viruses (which do require user assistance to execute, at least the first time) and spyware (which don't and which may be installed by passive or active means, i.e. requiring user clickage or not) isn't really coherent.
- Then the E-banking security project: here he never says that this company wanted to do "default permit" because they thought it was a good security idea...
In summary I think if he rephrased this idea as "Default Permit is harmless", that would have been much more coherent.Slow down and read my fucking post.
The point was this:
- This was supposed to be a list of security ideas that suck
- My fucking point in my original post was that the first dumb idea (i.e. "security idea that sucks") -- "Default Permit" -- isn't even a fucking security idea
- To go extra slow for the Really Big Retards, therefore, what is idea # 1 even doing on the list?
You can apologize now, asswipe.I think there's some miscategorization.
My understanding was that these would be security ideas that were basically empty suits. Ideas #2 - #6 confirm this understanding. But then who advocates "Default permit" on the basis that security-wise it's the right thing to do?
ANS: No one I have ever seen.
People may advocate default permit but usually for performance, business, laziness etc. reasons. Never as a good security idea. Ergo "Default Permit" isn't even a security idea therefore how can it make some list as the most prevalent ("most-frequently-seen")? Makes no sense.