Discussion on:
Power User
View:
Show:
Being the professionally paranoid individual anyone has to be if they started programming computers in the early 1960?s and is still in the field, not to mention having been a high-tech reporter since before IBM shipped the first IBM-PC, I have been watching the Sony DRM saga unfold with great interest. After the second major security threat in Sony BMG music CDs appears in a very short period and just before the holiday season, I've begun to have some very nasty thoughts.
You'd have to be pretty incompetent if you were Sony and put these untested chunks of code in your expensive CDs, but you'd have to be a fool to sell Sony this malware and expect to stay in business for long, yet two companies appear to have done so.
Isn't it interesting that the rootkit malware and now the SunnComm MediaMax threat both appear just about the time people are thinking what a nice present it might make to cut a few mix CDs for friends and family?
The new MediaMax threat is particularly worrying because it will be installed on ANY PC which plays the ?infected? CDs, EVEN if you decline to accept the EULA which is presented.
Now it would be a nice question trying to determine just how much North American business Sony BMG might loose in the short term from people hesitating to buy new CDs under that imprint, and then compare that potential loss to the potential savings from scaring the holy heck out of anyone who might consider loading any Sony music CD into their PC even to make a legitimate backup exclusively for their own use, let alone blocking any thoughts of making up a few gift mixes for the holidays.
Is it just me, or could this make economic sense? (I say North American because the software in the MediaMax case appears to be only in CDs sold to the U.S. and Canada.)
For further details about these two digital rights foul ups you can look to this week?s issue of my TechRepublic Locksmith Column which will run soon.
BTW, the original patch for this second DRM junk had a flaw. Somehow that sounds familiar too and all in all I ain't about to insert ANY music CD in my PCs for a while.
You'd have to be pretty incompetent if you were Sony and put these untested chunks of code in your expensive CDs, but you'd have to be a fool to sell Sony this malware and expect to stay in business for long, yet two companies appear to have done so.
Isn't it interesting that the rootkit malware and now the SunnComm MediaMax threat both appear just about the time people are thinking what a nice present it might make to cut a few mix CDs for friends and family?
The new MediaMax threat is particularly worrying because it will be installed on ANY PC which plays the ?infected? CDs, EVEN if you decline to accept the EULA which is presented.
Now it would be a nice question trying to determine just how much North American business Sony BMG might loose in the short term from people hesitating to buy new CDs under that imprint, and then compare that potential loss to the potential savings from scaring the holy heck out of anyone who might consider loading any Sony music CD into their PC even to make a legitimate backup exclusively for their own use, let alone blocking any thoughts of making up a few gift mixes for the holidays.
Is it just me, or could this make economic sense? (I say North American because the software in the MediaMax case appears to be only in CDs sold to the U.S. and Canada.)
For further details about these two digital rights foul ups you can look to this week?s issue of my TechRepublic Locksmith Column which will run soon.
BTW, the original patch for this second DRM junk had a flaw. Somehow that sounds familiar too and all in all I ain't about to insert ANY music CD in my PCs for a while.
You said "The new MediaMax threat is particularly worrying because it will be installed on ANY PC which plays the 'infected' CDs, EVEN if you decline to accept the EULA which is presented." That's not entirely true: this only applies to Window PCs. There's always a way around this crap.
It's possible that a CD with one of these "DRM" rootkits might prevent a non-Windows PC from reading the CD, but if that's the case all you've done is saved yourself from getting a rootkit on your PC. That seems like a perfect opportunity to return it for a refund.
This move of Sony's only makes economic sense if you let it. Get your money back where you can, and stop buying anything of theirs until they get the message that screwing with your computer is not allowable.
While Apotheon?s comment is undeniably true, it is also 95% irrelevant.
Most of these music CDs are not bought by computer security
experts, they are bought by average individuals ? mostly kids, in fact, who
love to rip their own mix CDs so any arguments about not playing into Sony?s
possible plot have nothing to do with reality.
As
for non-Windows, come on now ? That is obviously completely off
base. 95%+ of the home PCs in the world are
Windows-based, political correctness never stopped a tornado and saying
non-Windows PCs are the solution to a massive consumer problem simply
isn?t the
mark of someone living in the real world. Linux has a place in
business, a very important place, but not in the average home. As for
Apple, I don't like single sourcing hardware for business, never have,
never will, and I used to work for Wang (my attitude didn't make me
terribly popular there, but it did make me correct and kept me employed
when everyone else there was looking for work).
Most of these music CDs are not bought by computer security
experts, they are bought by average individuals ? mostly kids, in fact, who
love to rip their own mix CDs so any arguments about not playing into Sony?s
possible plot have nothing to do with reality.
As
for non-Windows, come on now ? That is obviously completely off
base. 95%+ of the home PCs in the world are
Windows-based, political correctness never stopped a tornado and saying
non-Windows PCs are the solution to a massive consumer problem simply
isn?t the
mark of someone living in the real world. Linux has a place in
business, a very important place, but not in the average home. As for
Apple, I don't like single sourcing hardware for business, never have,
never will, and I used to work for Wang (my attitude didn't make me
terribly popular there, but it did make me correct and kept me employed
when everyone else there was looking for work).
It seems to me that what you suggest, that Sony wanted to scare customers out of playing their (is that Sony or the customer) CD on a computer, is just a by-product of the whole fiasco. Some smart Sony employee may have suggested how, "hey, this could work to our advantage!". There are people in Sony's PR department who are paid good money to think about things like that. If they planned to scare people to begin with then Sony's legal department were left out of the loop because they would probably have had a few strong words about it. For me, either way, I have lost respect for Sony as a company. They have no business "scaring me" and they have no business assuming I won't make use of *my* CD in a responsible way. If they think I am a criminal then they should charge me with a crime, not dick me around because the music I'm interested in happens to be on the Sony/BMG Label.
Although the Federal government seems completely helpless
when it comes to providing radios to first responders so police, emergency
management, fire, and EMS workers can actually communicate during a disaster,
at least they have been able to completely foul up the entire digital TV market
in the U.S.
Since old TVs won?t work when all stations change over to
digital TV, the same people who weren?t able to get water to the New Orleans
Super Dome to save some lives, have decided to take tax money and use a billion
or so to help people buy converter boxes.
As a final irony, can you believe this boondoggle is part of
a bill euphemistically described as an effort to cut spending!
But, believe it or not, the $1.5B which is being spent is
actually only half the $3 billion which the Senate wanted ? apparently some of
the Senators may own professional football teams and need to ensure viewers.
There is a good story in AustralianIT.news.com
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,17619408%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
if
this is a major worry for your household.
when it comes to providing radios to first responders so police, emergency
management, fire, and EMS workers can actually communicate during a disaster,
at least they have been able to completely foul up the entire digital TV market
in the U.S.
Since old TVs won?t work when all stations change over to
digital TV, the same people who weren?t able to get water to the New Orleans
Super Dome to save some lives, have decided to take tax money and use a billion
or so to help people buy converter boxes.
As a final irony, can you believe this boondoggle is part of
a bill euphemistically described as an effort to cut spending!
But, believe it or not, the $1.5B which is being spent is
actually only half the $3 billion which the Senate wanted ? apparently some of
the Senators may own professional football teams and need to ensure viewers.
There is a good story in AustralianIT.news.com
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,17619408%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
if
this is a major worry for your household.
Saying, ?these video games are stealing the innocence of our
children,? Senator and former first lady Clinton yesterday submitted a bill to make it a
federal misdemeanor to sell adult-rated video games to anyone under the age of
17. (In the U.S.of course.)
What?s
your opinion? As a journalist of 30+ years I am pretty strong on freedom of
speech but I am also against child abuse and I feel that selling violent video
games to kids should be criminalized.
children,? Senator and former first lady Clinton yesterday submitted a bill to make it a
federal misdemeanor to sell adult-rated video games to anyone under the age of
17. (In the U.S.of course.)
What?s
your opinion? As a journalist of 30+ years I am pretty strong on freedom of
speech but I am also against child abuse and I feel that selling violent video
games to kids should be criminalized.
I absolutely love the visual quality and beauty of many "video" games that I see currently. But I myself do not play video games, I am just a part-time artist that loves where the industry has been able to go with the imagery of gaming. However, visual art whether it is a film, a painting, or a video game, very often takes a back seat to the message being given. In many cases the message of video games is not a positive one. The message is usually violent, cruel, horrific, disgusting, etc. No child should be exposed to that in whatever medium it is communicated.I often see the mistake, in my opinion, of people who believe that Freedom of Speech absolves them of responsibility. If someone walks into a grade school and starts showing pictures of dead bodies and violence to underage children, is that a crime? I think it should be. They have the right to do the "freedom of speech" but they also have the responsibility to deal with all of the angry parents, teachers, police, etc. that I'm sure would take offense.
Freedom of speech doesn't absolve anyone of anything under the
constitution - I think that is the REAL problem, thinking that it does
(not the respondant to my posting, WearsManyHats, but the people who, I completely
agree, DO seem to think it it leaves them unaccountable.) That is why
reporters go to jail to protect sources rather than fleeing the country
- they recognize that freedom requires taking personal responsibility.
FoS is actually Freedom of the Press, not just license for anyone to
say anything they want - this has been distorted too much in recent
years.
I do think that taking too much freedom at the expense of
responsibility, especially just to make money, is irresponsible - the
problem is just WHO draws the line - it is usually government and the
big concern faced by reporters and the ACLU is really whether the
govt. is limiting speech because it is bad, or because it criticizes
the government.
That is what really frightens a lot of people about what the administration with wiretaps sans warrants.
But, it is an established point of law that
"The Constitution is not a suicide pack"
The problem comes in reconciling that with FoS.
However, I just don't see how this can be legitimately applied to
marketing violent video games to children - that strikes me as a
question of public health, albeit mental health in this case.
When weighing FoS questions, I, as a reporter and member of The
National Press Club of many year's standing, like to pose the question:
What is the harm if I (or society) am wrong in limiting this?
In cases of religion, government ethics, corruption, etc, the harm of
preventing opposing or even outrageous ideas from being explored
publically, can be enormous - as big as risking freedom and democarcy.
But the harm, if any, of not letting children be immunized to participating in virtual killings??
The good posed by enforcing a ban which is already agreed upon, verses some imiganary harm, is simply not worthy of debate.
Game makers try to make this an FoS argument at the expense of society.
If we can't enforce the prohibition aginst kids buying and using these
games, I, for one, would gladly give up my persona lright and freedom
to
play Doom in the interest of living in a less violent society - even,
and I want to emphasize this, if it is only a slight chance that the
society would benefit.
constitution - I think that is the REAL problem, thinking that it does
(not the respondant to my posting, WearsManyHats, but the people who, I completely
agree, DO seem to think it it leaves them unaccountable.) That is why
reporters go to jail to protect sources rather than fleeing the country
- they recognize that freedom requires taking personal responsibility.
FoS is actually Freedom of the Press, not just license for anyone to
say anything they want - this has been distorted too much in recent
years.
I do think that taking too much freedom at the expense of
responsibility, especially just to make money, is irresponsible - the
problem is just WHO draws the line - it is usually government and the
big concern faced by reporters and the ACLU is really whether the
govt. is limiting speech because it is bad, or because it criticizes
the government.
That is what really frightens a lot of people about what the administration with wiretaps sans warrants.
But, it is an established point of law that
"The Constitution is not a suicide pack"
The problem comes in reconciling that with FoS.
However, I just don't see how this can be legitimately applied to
marketing violent video games to children - that strikes me as a
question of public health, albeit mental health in this case.
When weighing FoS questions, I, as a reporter and member of The
National Press Club of many year's standing, like to pose the question:
What is the harm if I (or society) am wrong in limiting this?
In cases of religion, government ethics, corruption, etc, the harm of
preventing opposing or even outrageous ideas from being explored
publically, can be enormous - as big as risking freedom and democarcy.
But the harm, if any, of not letting children be immunized to participating in virtual killings??
The good posed by enforcing a ban which is already agreed upon, verses some imiganary harm, is simply not worthy of debate.
Game makers try to make this an FoS argument at the expense of society.
If we can't enforce the prohibition aginst kids buying and using these
games, I, for one, would gladly give up my persona lright and freedom
to
play Doom in the interest of living in a less violent society - even,
and I want to emphasize this, if it is only a slight chance that the
society would benefit.
An excellent point that many people miss.
Yes, you have freedom of speech to pretty much say what you want.
The part that people forget is there can be negative impacts from saying whatever you want.
I have a right to say something racist, and then everyone around me has the right to treat me like an idiot for being so.
Journalist have a right to freedom of the press, and I have a right to
not buy their publication if I think they are out of line.
The best interests of our children and our socety should be our first
concern. People care about the enviroinment being poluted, why
not our minds?
Responsiblity. What a concept. (it will never catch on)
Yes, you have freedom of speech to pretty much say what you want.
The part that people forget is there can be negative impacts from saying whatever you want.
I have a right to say something racist, and then everyone around me has the right to treat me like an idiot for being so.
Journalist have a right to freedom of the press, and I have a right to
not buy their publication if I think they are out of line.
The best interests of our children and our socety should be our first
concern. People care about the enviroinment being poluted, why
not our minds?
Responsiblity. What a concept. (it will never catch on)
All too simplistic?
I started gaming back in the 80s on the Commodore 64. Before that I toyed with Atari. I'm now in my early thirties and still love gaming as much as I did then. I have no criminal record. I got my first speeding fine last year (15 km/h above). I've been in one fight all my life - and both of us got some. I've pretty much played everything PC related out there and still participate in LAN events. As an experienced gamer I have started taking exception with titles such as Doom 3 and Quake 4. I wiped both half-way through. Why? Because they are an insult to anyone with 2 brain-cells. They contain no story-line and their only selling-point is the graphics. Gameplay is utterly predictable. Yet, there are recent titles like the Knights of the Old Republic series (or earlier Deus Ex) - brilliant. A believable uninverse. Are they any less violent that Doom or Quake - no. The point here is that for some the gaming industry has stood still. Games are becoming increasingly like interactive movies, and movies have plots. The good gaming houses have realized this.
This brings me to my point - at which age should a kid be exposed to violence? None during the childhood years and then straight to George Bush's army? I am of the oppinion that children should be exposed to violence in a constructive way. Have them kick the daylight out of each other in a martial arts class. Once you've gotten kicked in the ribs you know it hurts like hell and will think twice about doing to someone else just on the off chance that he/she may do it back to you. Simply put, sanitize your childrens' world from violence and you raise adults with no experience of it, no respect for its extremes, totally self-centred because they believe what they dish out never comes back, or totally pathetic ending up being bullied anyhow. Violence is part of human nature. Deny that at your own risk. Prohibition has never worked and it never will. Rather, take an interest in what your kids are doing. Play the games with them. Then at least you'll know what they are being exposed to. And there may be the off chance that it keeps you young and thinking.
I started gaming back in the 80s on the Commodore 64. Before that I toyed with Atari. I'm now in my early thirties and still love gaming as much as I did then. I have no criminal record. I got my first speeding fine last year (15 km/h above). I've been in one fight all my life - and both of us got some. I've pretty much played everything PC related out there and still participate in LAN events. As an experienced gamer I have started taking exception with titles such as Doom 3 and Quake 4. I wiped both half-way through. Why? Because they are an insult to anyone with 2 brain-cells. They contain no story-line and their only selling-point is the graphics. Gameplay is utterly predictable. Yet, there are recent titles like the Knights of the Old Republic series (or earlier Deus Ex) - brilliant. A believable uninverse. Are they any less violent that Doom or Quake - no. The point here is that for some the gaming industry has stood still. Games are becoming increasingly like interactive movies, and movies have plots. The good gaming houses have realized this.
This brings me to my point - at which age should a kid be exposed to violence? None during the childhood years and then straight to George Bush's army? I am of the oppinion that children should be exposed to violence in a constructive way. Have them kick the daylight out of each other in a martial arts class. Once you've gotten kicked in the ribs you know it hurts like hell and will think twice about doing to someone else just on the off chance that he/she may do it back to you. Simply put, sanitize your childrens' world from violence and you raise adults with no experience of it, no respect for its extremes, totally self-centred because they believe what they dish out never comes back, or totally pathetic ending up being bullied anyhow. Violence is part of human nature. Deny that at your own risk. Prohibition has never worked and it never will. Rather, take an interest in what your kids are doing. Play the games with them. Then at least you'll know what they are being exposed to. And there may be the off chance that it keeps you young and thinking.
All too simplistic?
I started gaming back in the 80s on the Commodore 64. Before that I toyed with Atari. I'm now in my early thirties and still love gaming as much as I did then. I have no criminal record. I got my first speeding fine last year (15 km/h above). I've been in one fight all my life - and both of us got some. I've pretty much played everything PC related out there and still participate in LAN events. As an experienced gamer I have started taking exception with titles such as Doom 3 and Quake 4. I wiped both half-way through. Why? Because they are an insult to anyone with 2 brain-cells. They contain no story-line and their only selling-point is the graphics. Gameplay is utterly predictable. Yet, there are recent titles like the Knights of the Old Republic series (or earlier Deus Ex) - brilliant. A believable uninverse. Are they any less violent that Doom or Quake - no. The point here is that for some the gaming industry has stood still. Games are becoming increasingly like interactive movies, and movies have plots. The good gaming houses have realized this.
This brings me to my point - at which age should a kid be exposed to violence? None during the childhood years and then straight to George Bush's army? I am of the oppinion that children should be exposed to violence in a constructive way. Have them kick the daylight out of each other in a martial arts class. Once you've gotten kicked in the ribs you know it hurts like hell and will think twice about doing to someone else just on the off chance that he/she may do it back to you. Simply put, sanitize your childrens' world from violence and you raise adults with no experience of it, no respect for its extremes, totally self-centred because they believe what they dish out never comes back, or totally pathetic ending up being bullied anyhow. Violence is part of human nature. Deny that at your own risk. Prohibition has never worked and it never will. Rather, take an interest in what your kids are doing. Play the games with them. Then at least you'll know what they are being exposed to. And there may be the off chance that it keeps you young and thinking.
I started gaming back in the 80s on the Commodore 64. Before that I toyed with Atari. I'm now in my early thirties and still love gaming as much as I did then. I have no criminal record. I got my first speeding fine last year (15 km/h above). I've been in one fight all my life - and both of us got some. I've pretty much played everything PC related out there and still participate in LAN events. As an experienced gamer I have started taking exception with titles such as Doom 3 and Quake 4. I wiped both half-way through. Why? Because they are an insult to anyone with 2 brain-cells. They contain no story-line and their only selling-point is the graphics. Gameplay is utterly predictable. Yet, there are recent titles like the Knights of the Old Republic series (or earlier Deus Ex) - brilliant. A believable uninverse. Are they any less violent that Doom or Quake - no. The point here is that for some the gaming industry has stood still. Games are becoming increasingly like interactive movies, and movies have plots. The good gaming houses have realized this.
This brings me to my point - at which age should a kid be exposed to violence? None during the childhood years and then straight to George Bush's army? I am of the oppinion that children should be exposed to violence in a constructive way. Have them kick the daylight out of each other in a martial arts class. Once you've gotten kicked in the ribs you know it hurts like hell and will think twice about doing to someone else just on the off chance that he/she may do it back to you. Simply put, sanitize your childrens' world from violence and you raise adults with no experience of it, no respect for its extremes, totally self-centred because they believe what they dish out never comes back, or totally pathetic ending up being bullied anyhow. Violence is part of human nature. Deny that at your own risk. Prohibition has never worked and it never will. Rather, take an interest in what your kids are doing. Play the games with them. Then at least you'll know what they are being exposed to. And there may be the off chance that it keeps you young and thinking.
Locksmith Opinions that just didn't fit my usual newsletter/column format.
Satchel Page said, ?Don?t look behind you,? but Santayana said,
?Those who don?t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it,? while Dr. Phil (pop
behavioral psychologist and not much of an original thinker) says, ?The best
predictor of future behavior is past behavior.?
Over 45 years in the IT game I?ve found that the real trick
is to decide what recent events are predictive and which ones are just
background noise.
In IT security you need experience and technical skills but
you also need the right kind of education to see into the future ? personally I
studied both quantum physics AND behavioral psychology. Before I began in
computer security I fleshed out that meager resume with several years working
for law enforcement and later a private detective firm. In fact, I was even a
real locksmith so, while I?m not always right about future trends, I?m seldom
uncertain.
I?ll leave it to you to decide which recent events were background
noise and which predict the future but I have my opinions and I bet you can
guess what they are.
>A few years ago Congress passed anti-spam laws (which did
little except to make spam from big businesses legal) but the same legislators
have failed to protect private data or pass any laws against phishing (it isn?t
even a federal crime to COLLECT someone?s private data, only to ?misuse? it
later).
The lesson ? Don?t look to Congress
for protection in personal data matters. The old saying, ?We?re from the government
and we?re here to help you,? is still a good reason to hide your wallet and run
for cover.
My reasoning ? most people elected
to Congress are lawyers and their campaigns are paid for by businesses that
simply LOVE to collect data about customers and potential customers. Why would ?their?
legislators vote against it?
>A number of serious vulnerabilities in the much-touted open
source Firefox browser surfaced soon after Rel. 1.0 appeared ? this despite
years of development in the ?superior? open source environment.
The lesson - although it is sometimes
patched more quickly, the open source model isn?t necessarily more secure
except to the extent that it is often smaller (smaller is always more secure).
My reasoning ? useful software is far
too complicated to ever be perfect. As for the open source idea of fixing vulnerabilities
before they cause damage, why would malicious hackers share any bugs they had
found before they had a chance to exploit them? Only the honest testers report
problems.
> FBI Assistant Director Louis
Reigel, head of the agency's Cyber Division, said in December 2005, ?Al-Qaida
and similar groups do not have the ability to disable power plants, airports
and other 'critical infrastructure' through the Internet."
The lesson ? terrorists can
probably disrupt the Internet or at least some vital services whenever they
want to.
My reasoning ? much as I respect
FBI work in some areas, outside the crime lab technology isn?t their strong point. It
took more than a decade for the FBI to really grasp that child predators were
actively prowling the Internet for victims; they routinely reject ideas and ignore
threats reported by non-FBI sources or even by agents outside HQ (remember Minneapolis
agent Coleen Rowley and 9-11? ); and the bureaucrats quickly at the top dismiss
threats they aren?t really able to address adequately.
My evidence? Just a month before The
Assistant Director?s statement, the FBI?s own computer system almost collapsed under
the flood of emails triggered by the Sober worm. Most worms have been created
by individuals, so is it difficult to believe a well-funded terrorist
organization couldn?t do something a 17-year-old German hacker can do?
>President Bush gave secret orders allowing The National
Security Agency to spy on people in the U.S., including citizens, without
warrants either before or after the fact. Both the CIA and NSA are precluded by
law from conducting surveillance of people inside the U.S. For better or worse,
that job was specifically given to the FBI. Even worse, they could have done
the same surveillance legally by getting secret warrants.
The lesson is ? if the president
can decide on his own to turn the NSA loose on anyone, then none of your data is
ever really safe, not even from the people who are required by The Constitution
to protect us and by their oath of office to protect The Constitution. If you
have really critical data, never transmit it electronically.
My reasoning ? politicians will
always do whatever they think is in their best interest, even in violation
their own laws. Heads of state often do so. Why? They do it because they think they can get
away with it, even when if it is illegal. Several Senators, including Russ
Feingold (D) Wisconsin, have said
the White House activities are illegal. Sen. Feingold said on TV that President
Bush is just making up laws as he goes along. In addition, US District Judge James
Robertson of the same Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court that would have had to pass on
wiretap requests recently resigned in protest. (Some in Washington are even whispering the dreaded 'impeach' word.)
>Open source advocates continue to ignore flaws in their favorite
software development and support methodology. They point out how bad Microsoft
is, while failing to explain why Microsoft continues to enjoy a massive
market share despite being so terrible. Open source advocates cite all the
reports of problems with Microsoft software but, until open source fanatics (as
opposed to those who, like me, are merely reasonable advocates of using open
source where appropriate) temper their rants and admit that the main reason
Microsoft flaws are so well known is simply because most people use Windows and
IE.
The lesson comes in two parts -
Microsoft is likely to remain the dominant force in business and home software
for years to come. Open source will never gain a real foothold until there is a
solid business model to make money off of it. Marx and Engels thought people
would work hard for the good of others without compensation ? communism failed
because most people do what is in their own interest or benefits them.
My reasoning also has two aspects ?
First, most people using computers don?t understand them and will continue to
use what is shipped pre-installed on their computers ? they will also continue
to demand Microsoft because that is the brand name they know. Second, many open
source fans fail to grasp what Newton demonstrated and every sailor knows in
their bones, it takes a very, very long time to turn a supertanker and there
needs to be a very good reason to start the process.
Quick snippets
Some trends I intend to watch in 2006 include:
>The threat from bird flu (if it hits some government plans call for drastic
quarantines of large areas, including closing national borders); increasing
world-wide terrorism; and especially the end of the age of oil (world oil
production may already have peaked, see http://www.peakoil.ie) will continue to
push e-commerce and e-business activities including teleconferencing,
telecommuting, and online collaboration, while reducing the need for big
companies to have centralized management in large cities. Bet New Yorkers have
some special thoughts on that just now!
>Outsourcing from industrialized countries, especially to China
and India will continue and accelerate. While the number of U.S.
engineering graduates
continues to drop, China and India are graduating a vast number of
high-level
engineering students each year and will soon host most of the world?s
engineer
work hours. In the past many of the top foreign students studied in the
U.S. and stayed here to work. With today?s improved communications they
are now training
at home or heading back because they can live like kings on relatively
low
incomes within their familiar cultures.
>The real pocket book threat to average computer users is
identity theft and that is mostly due to social engineering, not worms or flaws
in browsers. Social engineers don?t care what OS or browser people are using.
Far too much is made of technical threats and far too little attention is given
to the human threat. More people and companies will realize that in 2006.
>Some sophisticated users are beginning to move from
Google to Clusty.com, a search site which does a far superior job of sorting
and displaying ?hits.? Clusty?s superior interface will soon force other search
engines to make it easier to locate just the information you want.
>California
passes cyber and privacy laws which force Congress into taking action - that almost
always weakens state cyber laws. Look to your state for legal cyber protection but
realize that you stand to loose protection when Congress steps in if there is
any business anywhere which benefits from weaker laws and has a lobbyist in Washington.
>Look for China to take piracy much more seriously in ten years when their engineers are
responsible for most new inventions. A sign of the times? Chinese could always
buy Marlboro cigarettes, but they were counterfeit ? Altria (Philip Morris) is about
to license the cigarette in China.
Can movies and software be far behind?
Final word
I?ve been doing this a very long time ? too long according
to my wife (GRIN) but I?ve always been fascinated by computers and constant
advances in the IT field have always kept my interest fresh.
Never before in history has any new technology had such a
massive immediate impact on society so quickly as PCs have in the past quarter of a century.
Automobiles essentially governed social changes in the 20th
century and personal computers will do so in the 21st.
It is already hard to imagine a world without computers but
the first PCs were sold only 25 years ago. This technology is still in its
infancy. Comparing a Pentium computer to a Model T isn?t far fetched. Gottlieb Daimler and Carl Benz were born before the American
Civil War. The first Benz was sold in 1894 and Steinway (the piano people) built
Daimlers on Long Island before WWI. Ford was selling Model T?s in 1909 but most
roads in the United States were still unpaved in the 1930?s and the car didn?t
radically change life in the U.S. until after WWII (motor vehicles also
radically changed the way wars were fought) ? that was essentially 60 years from
the initial product to major societal changes.
By contrast, the first microcomputer kit (the Altair 8800)
appeared on the cover of Popular Electronics in January 1975 (the magazine cost
75-cents and also carried a story about a $90 pocket calculator ? more powerful
ones are now given away as advertising premiums.)
But while computers are making information available even in
rural China, I am concerned that the United States is falling far behind in the
technological race. In terms of scientific and mathematical literacy the U.S.
is rapidly becoming a third-world country seriously debating Darwin.
Computers were essentially invented in England and became a massive
agent of change when IBM built the first PC. Most computer components now come
from overseas and ?IBM? labeled computers are built and sold by a Chinese
company.
But that is only a concern to me because I live in the U.S. and,
anyway, I really work on the Internet so it has little major effect on
me. I mention it because it is a major power-shift in the world of
technology, not because I think it is either bad or good. For
developing
countries, the growth of businesses which don?t consume massive amounts
of
natural resources and export knowledge while keeping workers (and their
incomes) at home is probably the greatest single advance in society
since the
end of Feudalism.
I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain - 2006 will be an interesting year.
Satchel Page said, ?Don?t look behind you,? but Santayana said,
?Those who don?t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it,? while Dr. Phil (pop
behavioral psychologist and not much of an original thinker) says, ?The best
predictor of future behavior is past behavior.?
Over 45 years in the IT game I?ve found that the real trick
is to decide what recent events are predictive and which ones are just
background noise.
In IT security you need experience and technical skills but
you also need the right kind of education to see into the future ? personally I
studied both quantum physics AND behavioral psychology. Before I began in
computer security I fleshed out that meager resume with several years working
for law enforcement and later a private detective firm. In fact, I was even a
real locksmith so, while I?m not always right about future trends, I?m seldom
uncertain.
I?ll leave it to you to decide which recent events were background
noise and which predict the future but I have my opinions and I bet you can
guess what they are.
>A few years ago Congress passed anti-spam laws (which did
little except to make spam from big businesses legal) but the same legislators
have failed to protect private data or pass any laws against phishing (it isn?t
even a federal crime to COLLECT someone?s private data, only to ?misuse? it
later).
The lesson ? Don?t look to Congress
for protection in personal data matters. The old saying, ?We?re from the government
and we?re here to help you,? is still a good reason to hide your wallet and run
for cover.
My reasoning ? most people elected
to Congress are lawyers and their campaigns are paid for by businesses that
simply LOVE to collect data about customers and potential customers. Why would ?their?
legislators vote against it?
>A number of serious vulnerabilities in the much-touted open
source Firefox browser surfaced soon after Rel. 1.0 appeared ? this despite
years of development in the ?superior? open source environment.
The lesson - although it is sometimes
patched more quickly, the open source model isn?t necessarily more secure
except to the extent that it is often smaller (smaller is always more secure).
My reasoning ? useful software is far
too complicated to ever be perfect. As for the open source idea of fixing vulnerabilities
before they cause damage, why would malicious hackers share any bugs they had
found before they had a chance to exploit them? Only the honest testers report
problems.
> FBI Assistant Director Louis
Reigel, head of the agency's Cyber Division, said in December 2005, ?Al-Qaida
and similar groups do not have the ability to disable power plants, airports
and other 'critical infrastructure' through the Internet."
The lesson ? terrorists can
probably disrupt the Internet or at least some vital services whenever they
want to.
My reasoning ? much as I respect
FBI work in some areas, outside the crime lab technology isn?t their strong point. It
took more than a decade for the FBI to really grasp that child predators were
actively prowling the Internet for victims; they routinely reject ideas and ignore
threats reported by non-FBI sources or even by agents outside HQ (remember Minneapolis
agent Coleen Rowley and 9-11? ); and the bureaucrats quickly at the top dismiss
threats they aren?t really able to address adequately.
My evidence? Just a month before The
Assistant Director?s statement, the FBI?s own computer system almost collapsed under
the flood of emails triggered by the Sober worm. Most worms have been created
by individuals, so is it difficult to believe a well-funded terrorist
organization couldn?t do something a 17-year-old German hacker can do?
>President Bush gave secret orders allowing The National
Security Agency to spy on people in the U.S., including citizens, without
warrants either before or after the fact. Both the CIA and NSA are precluded by
law from conducting surveillance of people inside the U.S. For better or worse,
that job was specifically given to the FBI. Even worse, they could have done
the same surveillance legally by getting secret warrants.
The lesson is ? if the president
can decide on his own to turn the NSA loose on anyone, then none of your data is
ever really safe, not even from the people who are required by The Constitution
to protect us and by their oath of office to protect The Constitution. If you
have really critical data, never transmit it electronically.
My reasoning ? politicians will
always do whatever they think is in their best interest, even in violation
their own laws. Heads of state often do so. Why? They do it because they think they can get
away with it, even when if it is illegal. Several Senators, including Russ
Feingold (D) Wisconsin, have said
the White House activities are illegal. Sen. Feingold said on TV that President
Bush is just making up laws as he goes along. In addition, US District Judge James
Robertson of the same Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court that would have had to pass on
wiretap requests recently resigned in protest. (Some in Washington are even whispering the dreaded 'impeach' word.)
>Open source advocates continue to ignore flaws in their favorite
software development and support methodology. They point out how bad Microsoft
is, while failing to explain why Microsoft continues to enjoy a massive
market share despite being so terrible. Open source advocates cite all the
reports of problems with Microsoft software but, until open source fanatics (as
opposed to those who, like me, are merely reasonable advocates of using open
source where appropriate) temper their rants and admit that the main reason
Microsoft flaws are so well known is simply because most people use Windows and
IE.
The lesson comes in two parts -
Microsoft is likely to remain the dominant force in business and home software
for years to come. Open source will never gain a real foothold until there is a
solid business model to make money off of it. Marx and Engels thought people
would work hard for the good of others without compensation ? communism failed
because most people do what is in their own interest or benefits them.
My reasoning also has two aspects ?
First, most people using computers don?t understand them and will continue to
use what is shipped pre-installed on their computers ? they will also continue
to demand Microsoft because that is the brand name they know. Second, many open
source fans fail to grasp what Newton demonstrated and every sailor knows in
their bones, it takes a very, very long time to turn a supertanker and there
needs to be a very good reason to start the process.
Quick snippets
Some trends I intend to watch in 2006 include:
>The threat from bird flu (if it hits some government plans call for drastic
quarantines of large areas, including closing national borders); increasing
world-wide terrorism; and especially the end of the age of oil (world oil
production may already have peaked, see http://www.peakoil.ie) will continue to
push e-commerce and e-business activities including teleconferencing,
telecommuting, and online collaboration, while reducing the need for big
companies to have centralized management in large cities. Bet New Yorkers have
some special thoughts on that just now!
>Outsourcing from industrialized countries, especially to China
and India will continue and accelerate. While the number of U.S.
engineering graduates
continues to drop, China and India are graduating a vast number of
high-level
engineering students each year and will soon host most of the world?s
engineer
work hours. In the past many of the top foreign students studied in the
U.S. and stayed here to work. With today?s improved communications they
are now training
at home or heading back because they can live like kings on relatively
low
incomes within their familiar cultures.
>The real pocket book threat to average computer users is
identity theft and that is mostly due to social engineering, not worms or flaws
in browsers. Social engineers don?t care what OS or browser people are using.
Far too much is made of technical threats and far too little attention is given
to the human threat. More people and companies will realize that in 2006.
>Some sophisticated users are beginning to move from
Google to Clusty.com, a search site which does a far superior job of sorting
and displaying ?hits.? Clusty?s superior interface will soon force other search
engines to make it easier to locate just the information you want.
>California
passes cyber and privacy laws which force Congress into taking action - that almost
always weakens state cyber laws. Look to your state for legal cyber protection but
realize that you stand to loose protection when Congress steps in if there is
any business anywhere which benefits from weaker laws and has a lobbyist in Washington.
>Look for China to take piracy much more seriously in ten years when their engineers are
responsible for most new inventions. A sign of the times? Chinese could always
buy Marlboro cigarettes, but they were counterfeit ? Altria (Philip Morris) is about
to license the cigarette in China.
Can movies and software be far behind?
Final word
I?ve been doing this a very long time ? too long according
to my wife (GRIN) but I?ve always been fascinated by computers and constant
advances in the IT field have always kept my interest fresh.
Never before in history has any new technology had such a
massive immediate impact on society so quickly as PCs have in the past quarter of a century.
Automobiles essentially governed social changes in the 20th
century and personal computers will do so in the 21st.
It is already hard to imagine a world without computers but
the first PCs were sold only 25 years ago. This technology is still in its
infancy. Comparing a Pentium computer to a Model T isn?t far fetched. Gottlieb Daimler and Carl Benz were born before the American
Civil War. The first Benz was sold in 1894 and Steinway (the piano people) built
Daimlers on Long Island before WWI. Ford was selling Model T?s in 1909 but most
roads in the United States were still unpaved in the 1930?s and the car didn?t
radically change life in the U.S. until after WWII (motor vehicles also
radically changed the way wars were fought) ? that was essentially 60 years from
the initial product to major societal changes.
By contrast, the first microcomputer kit (the Altair 8800)
appeared on the cover of Popular Electronics in January 1975 (the magazine cost
75-cents and also carried a story about a $90 pocket calculator ? more powerful
ones are now given away as advertising premiums.)
But while computers are making information available even in
rural China, I am concerned that the United States is falling far behind in the
technological race. In terms of scientific and mathematical literacy the U.S.
is rapidly becoming a third-world country seriously debating Darwin.
Computers were essentially invented in England and became a massive
agent of change when IBM built the first PC. Most computer components now come
from overseas and ?IBM? labeled computers are built and sold by a Chinese
company.
But that is only a concern to me because I live in the U.S. and,
anyway, I really work on the Internet so it has little major effect on
me. I mention it because it is a major power-shift in the world of
technology, not because I think it is either bad or good. For
developing
countries, the growth of businesses which don?t consume massive amounts
of
natural resources and export knowledge while keeping workers (and their
incomes) at home is probably the greatest single advance in society
since the
end of Feudalism.
I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain - 2006 will be an interesting year.
Debating Darwin does not automatically qualify a country as 'a third-world country seriously debating Darwin.'.
In fact I challenge you to produce one incontrovertible fact that proves 'Molecules to Man' evolution. Micro evolution happens all the time, but Macro evolution is unscientific and is based on faith not fact.
A man of your 'scientific' training should be aware of that or do you really swallow everything you are told without thinking it through?
In fact I challenge you to produce one incontrovertible fact that proves 'Molecules to Man' evolution. Micro evolution happens all the time, but Macro evolution is unscientific and is based on faith not fact.
A man of your 'scientific' training should be aware of that or do you really swallow everything you are told without thinking it through?
As a scientist, what I always notice first about the
complaints that evolution hasn?t been absolutely proven with every single piece
of evidence filling in every single gap , is that, while there are millions of
pieces of data supporting Darwin?s
concepts, there isn?t a single piece of evidence for creationism or intelligent
design .
Faith, or an inability to understand just how statistics work
and how many possible things might happen in a couple billion
years, isn't the same thing as evidence.
So, the current score is:
Millions of pieces of evidence proving evolution
Zero evidence proving intelligent design
Science and technology are all based on scientific
method rather than faith. What non scientists tend to forget is that,
when you
come to the bottom line, airplanes fly, people can easily create new
breeds of
dogs and chickens in just a few years, medicine works, and so forth. If
scientific method didn't work then we couldn't have medicine,
technology, etc.
And, looking only at a single instance, the famous penguin movie -
just what is so intelligent about laying eggs on glaciers and birds
having to walk miles to the sea to gather food?
Faith is a wonderful thing, it just isn?t science. Also, of course,
there are an awful lot of different faiths and believers in each one
say their is the only correct one so that poses a problem when you try
to make faith the basis of technology.
In science it is easy to see what works.
While a scientist can certainly believe in god and have a firm
faith, a scientist doesn't let faith substitute for facts and never
confuses the two.
complaints that evolution hasn?t been absolutely proven with every single piece
of evidence filling in every single gap , is that, while there are millions of
pieces of data supporting Darwin?s
concepts, there isn?t a single piece of evidence for creationism or intelligent
design .
Faith, or an inability to understand just how statistics work
and how many possible things might happen in a couple billion
years, isn't the same thing as evidence.
So, the current score is:
Millions of pieces of evidence proving evolution
Zero evidence proving intelligent design
Science and technology are all based on scientific
method rather than faith. What non scientists tend to forget is that,
when you
come to the bottom line, airplanes fly, people can easily create new
breeds of
dogs and chickens in just a few years, medicine works, and so forth. If
scientific method didn't work then we couldn't have medicine,
technology, etc.
And, looking only at a single instance, the famous penguin movie -
just what is so intelligent about laying eggs on glaciers and birds
having to walk miles to the sea to gather food?
Faith is a wonderful thing, it just isn?t science. Also, of course,
there are an awful lot of different faiths and believers in each one
say their is the only correct one so that poses a problem when you try
to make faith the basis of technology.
In science it is easy to see what works.
While a scientist can certainly believe in god and have a firm
faith, a scientist doesn't let faith substitute for facts and never
confuses the two.
Look, I'm not going to try to convince you that intelligent design is correct. What I find offensive is that if someone disagrees with Darwinian evolution, those people are written off as stupid. The truth is, that there are millions of pieces of evidence that support the theory of evolution, but nothing that proves it. The same evidence often supports a belief in intelligent design.
And it is not a lack of understanding of statistics that causes people to not believe in evolution. In fact it is a growing understanding of how statistically impossible it is that life evolved as Darwin suggests in the short time that the Earth has existed--yes, billions of years. The reason, as you say, that intelligent design doesn't have any 'evidence' to prove it, is because every time that someone presents evidence, it is utterly ignored or the definition of 'evidence' is changed by those who have a blind faith in Darwinian evolution. I believe that there is real natural evidence that points toward intelligent design, but at the very least, there are millions of pieces of evidence that point away from Darwinian evolution. But that evidence is ignored by neo-Darwinists.
And the scientifice method is not what the orignal posted comment was criticizing. I think we can all agree that the scientific method has produced some pretty tremendous technical advancements in the past 100 or so years. The problem is that Darwinian evolutionists tend to ignore the scientific method when they argue in favor of their idealism--naturalism. No amount of evidence can be presented to a neo-Darwinist that would cause them to ask any of the pertinent questions that scientists should be asking. They simply stick to their ideology in spite of the evidence. That's fine and you have a right to do that, but don't disparage others who do ask the questions and come up with different answers.
The main point of my post here is to say that there are many extremely intelligent people who support intelligent design theory. They include biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, doctors, lawyers, computer engineers, and many others. Disagree with them. That is your right. But please respect that this difference of opinion about the evidence does not make these people unintelligent or incapable of coming up with technological advances.
I enjoyed your article and think you have some good points. And even though I think you're wrong in you're posted comment, I enjoyed reading it and getting your perspective. Good job.
By the way, creating new breeds of chickens and dogs is more an example of intelligent design than evolution.
And it is not a lack of understanding of statistics that causes people to not believe in evolution. In fact it is a growing understanding of how statistically impossible it is that life evolved as Darwin suggests in the short time that the Earth has existed--yes, billions of years. The reason, as you say, that intelligent design doesn't have any 'evidence' to prove it, is because every time that someone presents evidence, it is utterly ignored or the definition of 'evidence' is changed by those who have a blind faith in Darwinian evolution. I believe that there is real natural evidence that points toward intelligent design, but at the very least, there are millions of pieces of evidence that point away from Darwinian evolution. But that evidence is ignored by neo-Darwinists.
And the scientifice method is not what the orignal posted comment was criticizing. I think we can all agree that the scientific method has produced some pretty tremendous technical advancements in the past 100 or so years. The problem is that Darwinian evolutionists tend to ignore the scientific method when they argue in favor of their idealism--naturalism. No amount of evidence can be presented to a neo-Darwinist that would cause them to ask any of the pertinent questions that scientists should be asking. They simply stick to their ideology in spite of the evidence. That's fine and you have a right to do that, but don't disparage others who do ask the questions and come up with different answers.
The main point of my post here is to say that there are many extremely intelligent people who support intelligent design theory. They include biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, doctors, lawyers, computer engineers, and many others. Disagree with them. That is your right. But please respect that this difference of opinion about the evidence does not make these people unintelligent or incapable of coming up with technological advances.
I enjoyed your article and think you have some good points. And even though I think you're wrong in you're posted comment, I enjoyed reading it and getting your perspective. Good job.
By the way, creating new breeds of chickens and dogs is more an example of intelligent design than evolution.
Sure, there is no proof of evolution, just millions of pieces of evidence it is true.
There is also no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, just millions
of pieces of evidence and none to the contrary. When I hire someone to
work for me I give preference to the ones who expect the sun to rise.
If you don?t believe it is important that people understand
the difference between theology and science, then logic says you should
hire
your engineers and doctors from Yale or Harvard Divinity Schools.
I?ll hire mine from MIT , CMU, and Harvard
Medical. My point, of course, was that most successful technology
companies will prefer to hire engineers over graduates from a theology
school, at least to design products. Theocracies tend not to be highly successful in business or scientific fields.
I do have lots of good Amish neighbors but they don?t
believe in electricity or internal combustion engines any more than they
believe in Darwin and you probably do have a car and electric lights. I did
notice some Amish in my cardiologist?s office last week though so perhaps faith
depends a lot on where you place your priorities and what threats you are
facing.
(Actually the Amish just think that living without electricy and
such gives them just as good a life as modern life, but at least they
are honest about it and don't just accept all the benefits of science
and technology while denying their underlying logic.)
I could be wrong. I am encouraged by the fact that you admit
that intelligent design doesn't require much intelligence and you see
that even people can design things, such as new dog breeds - I guess
that might indicate that it doesn't take all that much intelligence to
design when even your average puppy mill owner can do it. Kinda makes
you think that it could even happey just by accident, doesn't it?
There is also no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, just millions
of pieces of evidence and none to the contrary. When I hire someone to
work for me I give preference to the ones who expect the sun to rise.
If you don?t believe it is important that people understand
the difference between theology and science, then logic says you should
hire
your engineers and doctors from Yale or Harvard Divinity Schools.
I?ll hire mine from MIT , CMU, and Harvard
Medical. My point, of course, was that most successful technology
companies will prefer to hire engineers over graduates from a theology
school, at least to design products. Theocracies tend not to be highly successful in business or scientific fields.
I do have lots of good Amish neighbors but they don?t
believe in electricity or internal combustion engines any more than they
believe in Darwin and you probably do have a car and electric lights. I did
notice some Amish in my cardiologist?s office last week though so perhaps faith
depends a lot on where you place your priorities and what threats you are
facing.
(Actually the Amish just think that living without electricy and
such gives them just as good a life as modern life, but at least they
are honest about it and don't just accept all the benefits of science
and technology while denying their underlying logic.)
I could be wrong. I am encouraged by the fact that you admit
that intelligent design doesn't require much intelligence and you see
that even people can design things, such as new dog breeds - I guess
that might indicate that it doesn't take all that much intelligence to
design when even your average puppy mill owner can do it. Kinda makes
you think that it could even happey just by accident, doesn't it?
I'm encouraged that you can admit that evolutionists can't seem to tell the difference between theology and science. I, too, would only hire engineers, or any employee, who thought the sun was going to rise tomorrow. Whether that engineer believed the sun was created or just came into being by chance and natural law really has no bearing on whether he or she can design computers or bridges, etc. An engineer can be a fine engineer and a scientist can be a fine scientist regardless of their beliefs related to the origins of life and the universe.
Intelligent design theory is the study of natural evidence to point to the origins of life and the universe. Evolution theory is also the study of natural evidence (and ignoring much of it) to point to the origins of life and the universe. Carl Sagan, a scientist, when presented with the statistical improbability of life starting on this planet through nothing other than chance and natural law, given the age of the universe, suggested that perhaps there were an infinite number of universes. Surely if there were an infinite number of universes, one of them would be able to have the right conditions for life to begin, and we just happen to live in that universe. Of course, science cannot study those universes because they would exist outside our own. I wouldn't argue his point, but it requires a great deal of faith to believe something like that. Sounds a little like theology doesn't it. Would you not hire Carl Sagan? Intelligent design theory is not theology. When the discussion gets to the nature of the designer, if there is one, then that's theology.
By the way, I doubt that either one of us could design and build a dog. That is beyond either of our capabilities. But evolutionists tend to refer to creating new breeds being evidence of Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwinian evolution requires a genetic mutation which results in a feature that was not present in the parents. Dog and cat breeding is simply removing the unwanted genetic material and concentrating wanted genetic features by carefully planning breeding as opposed to allowing it to happen naturally. So you're point about design being a simple task is really erroneous.
Intelligent design theory is the study of natural evidence to point to the origins of life and the universe. Evolution theory is also the study of natural evidence (and ignoring much of it) to point to the origins of life and the universe. Carl Sagan, a scientist, when presented with the statistical improbability of life starting on this planet through nothing other than chance and natural law, given the age of the universe, suggested that perhaps there were an infinite number of universes. Surely if there were an infinite number of universes, one of them would be able to have the right conditions for life to begin, and we just happen to live in that universe. Of course, science cannot study those universes because they would exist outside our own. I wouldn't argue his point, but it requires a great deal of faith to believe something like that. Sounds a little like theology doesn't it. Would you not hire Carl Sagan? Intelligent design theory is not theology. When the discussion gets to the nature of the designer, if there is one, then that's theology.
By the way, I doubt that either one of us could design and build a dog. That is beyond either of our capabilities. But evolutionists tend to refer to creating new breeds being evidence of Darwinian evolution. It is not. Darwinian evolution requires a genetic mutation which results in a feature that was not present in the parents. Dog and cat breeding is simply removing the unwanted genetic material and concentrating wanted genetic features by carefully planning breeding as opposed to allowing it to happen naturally. So you're point about design being a simple task is really erroneous.
OK, I stipulate that I?ve been doing this for far too long
to have any illusions but still I recently agreed to buy a computer for a
friend.
If all goes well (and it seldom does,) they will think it
was no big deal. If it doesn?t, and there are a million ways it can go south,
then they will blame you.
Nevertheless, I agreed, as a friend, to help my farrier (the
person who cares for the feet of my miniature horses and donkeys) buy the least
expensive computer possible to meet her needs.
I always tell people that the ONLY way I will do this is if
they set a specific amount they want to spend and I will hit that on the dollar
? otherwise the number of options is simply too bewildering to contemplate.
Although it took three hours of arguing and demonstrating
the number of options available to get her to agree, she was the first person
who actually set a fixed price ? in this instance $320.
I had already decided to give her an old monitor of mine
(which was worth more than the entire computer she could afford) which saved on
shipping too.
So, first I went to Dell and ordered a closeout model which
cost $335 ? I was going to eat the delivery cost as an xmas present. I
got a confirmation email from Dell complete with the invoice and exact
configuration I had ordered online.
This and that, yada, yada, yada, two weeks later Dell
finally confirmed (after the 5th or 6th email back and
forth), not only that it was NOT on it?s way, but that it was an ?improper?
configuration and the computer wasn?t available any more, mind you, that was
two weeks AFTER I got my first confirmation from Dell that the order went
through.
So, not being a complete dummy, I also cancelled the order,
just to be sure (my computer CYA instinct is very strong), even though Dell had already told me in two emails that the
order hadn?t gone through in the first place.
Now it was a week before Xmas, so I turned to WalMart.com
and found a PC, without monitor, but apparently with everything else, including
XP Home, DVD, and CD-R, for $328.95 including shipping.
The WalMart computer arrived in three days. It had taken me all of five minutes to order it online.
I hooked it up, loaded in some essential software
including OpenOffice and Firefox, and, to safeguard my
reputation and sanity, a complete Norton/Symantec security suite.
Great! It booted a half dozen times and ran for 24 hours
here so I called Blu and she took it home at noon, along with a free trial to
PeoplePC on a CD-ROM.
By 7 p.m. she had called, leaving a message that, not only
couldn?t the software locate the modem, it was now refusing to boot ? on the day before Xmas
eve, the computer was back at my place.
Only then did I discover that WalMart had sold what may be the
ONLY home PC in the Western world which didn?t include a modem. Blu had somehow
plugged an RJ-11 phone cord into a 10/100 Ethernet port ? this PC came with
powered speakers, but not the phone connection advertised (the listing was
brief and didn?t specifically say there was a modem but did say there was a
phone jack which I foolishly assumed meant it had a Windows modem built into
the motherboard).
So I ran GoBack to before I had gotten the PC (strangely the
software I installed was still there, but it booted fine now),
installed a USR modem I had recently pulled from a
computer that was now on a wireless network.
Everything was fine, but my good deed had still turned
around and bitten me on the A**, despite having taken every precaution I could
reasonably think of, and, despite having experience buying personal computers going
back to a Tandy terminal which predated the Tandy CoCo, which predated the
first IBM PC.
This has actually restored my faith in the computer industry
? as I near retirement age, if not actual retirement, I can see that I will
always be able to find a job for the next thirty years or so of my golden years
- helping people buy and keep their computers running!
Oh, BTW, guess what happened the day AFTER I ordered the WalMart PC?
Yep! I got a
build/ship notice from Dell for the PC which they had told me multiple
times I hadn?t actually ordered - and a full three days
after I cancelled it just to be sure.
It only took five more emails to get the shipment stopped!
AHH the joys of online shopping and how the mighty have fallen
- I actually got FAR better customer service from WalMart, spent FAR
less time placing the order, got delivery FAR faster, and even saved
money!
To be fair, only a week before I had
ordered Dell's fantastic 24-inch LCD monitor and it arrived in perfect
condition, in only a few days, and at a great discounted price (there
was a sale available to everyone, they didn't know I was a journalist).
So, based on two orders Dell gets a 50% rating from me for last year on electronic purchases.
Based on three purchases WalMart gets a 100% rating (I also bought some Linksys and USR hardware in the local store.)
to have any illusions but still I recently agreed to buy a computer for a
friend.
If all goes well (and it seldom does,) they will think it
was no big deal. If it doesn?t, and there are a million ways it can go south,
then they will blame you.
Nevertheless, I agreed, as a friend, to help my farrier (the
person who cares for the feet of my miniature horses and donkeys) buy the least
expensive computer possible to meet her needs.
I always tell people that the ONLY way I will do this is if
they set a specific amount they want to spend and I will hit that on the dollar
? otherwise the number of options is simply too bewildering to contemplate.
Although it took three hours of arguing and demonstrating
the number of options available to get her to agree, she was the first person
who actually set a fixed price ? in this instance $320.
I had already decided to give her an old monitor of mine
(which was worth more than the entire computer she could afford) which saved on
shipping too.
So, first I went to Dell and ordered a closeout model which
cost $335 ? I was going to eat the delivery cost as an xmas present. I
got a confirmation email from Dell complete with the invoice and exact
configuration I had ordered online.
This and that, yada, yada, yada, two weeks later Dell
finally confirmed (after the 5th or 6th email back and
forth), not only that it was NOT on it?s way, but that it was an ?improper?
configuration and the computer wasn?t available any more, mind you, that was
two weeks AFTER I got my first confirmation from Dell that the order went
through.
So, not being a complete dummy, I also cancelled the order,
just to be sure (my computer CYA instinct is very strong), even though Dell had already told me in two emails that the
order hadn?t gone through in the first place.
Now it was a week before Xmas, so I turned to WalMart.com
and found a PC, without monitor, but apparently with everything else, including
XP Home, DVD, and CD-R, for $328.95 including shipping.
The WalMart computer arrived in three days. It had taken me all of five minutes to order it online.
I hooked it up, loaded in some essential software
including OpenOffice and Firefox, and, to safeguard my
reputation and sanity, a complete Norton/Symantec security suite.
Great! It booted a half dozen times and ran for 24 hours
here so I called Blu and she took it home at noon, along with a free trial to
PeoplePC on a CD-ROM.
By 7 p.m. she had called, leaving a message that, not only
couldn?t the software locate the modem, it was now refusing to boot ? on the day before Xmas
eve, the computer was back at my place.
Only then did I discover that WalMart had sold what may be the
ONLY home PC in the Western world which didn?t include a modem. Blu had somehow
plugged an RJ-11 phone cord into a 10/100 Ethernet port ? this PC came with
powered speakers, but not the phone connection advertised (the listing was
brief and didn?t specifically say there was a modem but did say there was a
phone jack which I foolishly assumed meant it had a Windows modem built into
the motherboard).
So I ran GoBack to before I had gotten the PC (strangely the
software I installed was still there, but it booted fine now),
installed a USR modem I had recently pulled from a
computer that was now on a wireless network.
Everything was fine, but my good deed had still turned
around and bitten me on the A**, despite having taken every precaution I could
reasonably think of, and, despite having experience buying personal computers going
back to a Tandy terminal which predated the Tandy CoCo, which predated the
first IBM PC.
This has actually restored my faith in the computer industry
? as I near retirement age, if not actual retirement, I can see that I will
always be able to find a job for the next thirty years or so of my golden years
- helping people buy and keep their computers running!
Oh, BTW, guess what happened the day AFTER I ordered the WalMart PC?
Yep! I got a
build/ship notice from Dell for the PC which they had told me multiple
times I hadn?t actually ordered - and a full three days
after I cancelled it just to be sure.
It only took five more emails to get the shipment stopped!
AHH the joys of online shopping and how the mighty have fallen
- I actually got FAR better customer service from WalMart, spent FAR
less time placing the order, got delivery FAR faster, and even saved
money!
To be fair, only a week before I had
ordered Dell's fantastic 24-inch LCD monitor and it arrived in perfect
condition, in only a few days, and at a great discounted price (there
was a sale available to everyone, they didn't know I was a journalist).
So, based on two orders Dell gets a 50% rating from me for last year on electronic purchases.
Based on three purchases WalMart gets a 100% rating (I also bought some Linksys and USR hardware in the local store.)
Some people think and even say out loud that I am paranoid.
Of course as a security specialist I am professionally
paranoid but even the average person on the street is now learning that you can
never be paranoid enough.
You may not have seen the reports on TV yet but you will
soon ? your cell phone records of incoming and outgoing calls are all a matter
of public record available online for about $100.
This should be particularly scary for those who are trying
to hide from domestic violence, celebrities, or executives who will now find
that all their private contacts are well known and will probably be posted on
the Web in one Blog or another.
But it is also a major concern for anyone in IT management
or security because of the massive potential for social engineering.
Who would question a call to a very private cell phone
number which you think is only known to company executives or the help desk?
Of course as a security specialist I am professionally
paranoid but even the average person on the street is now learning that you can
never be paranoid enough.
You may not have seen the reports on TV yet but you will
soon ? your cell phone records of incoming and outgoing calls are all a matter
of public record available online for about $100.
This should be particularly scary for those who are trying
to hide from domestic violence, celebrities, or executives who will now find
that all their private contacts are well known and will probably be posted on
the Web in one Blog or another.
But it is also a major concern for anyone in IT management
or security because of the massive potential for social engineering.
Who would question a call to a very private cell phone
number which you think is only known to company executives or the help desk?
All Things Considered on NPR had a very interesting story about this on January 18th, 2006. Here's the link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5162342
Your blackberry may stop working now that the U.S.
Supreme Court has declined to hear Research In Motion?s request for a stay in
the lower court ruling which involved a patent infringement suit.
RIM has been involved in a patent fight with NTP over the
wireless email technology used by Blackberry devices.
RIM had petitioned the Supreme Court to review the claim by
the Virginia-based NTP on the basis that RIM is based in Waterloo, Ontario and
is therefore not subject to U.S. patent rules.
This has been an ongoing battle since the Virginia U.S.
District Court ordered RIM to pay an 8.55% royalty on any U.S.
Blackberry sales back in 2003.
Today the Supreme court rejected the appeal which puts the
case back in the U.S. District Court but RIM hasn?t been sitting still and
relying on the lawyers, they have also developed an alternative technology
which, unfortunately for RIM, has been rejected by the U.S. PTO.
Supreme Court has declined to hear Research In Motion?s request for a stay in
the lower court ruling which involved a patent infringement suit.
RIM has been involved in a patent fight with NTP over the
wireless email technology used by Blackberry devices.
RIM had petitioned the Supreme Court to review the claim by
the Virginia-based NTP on the basis that RIM is based in Waterloo, Ontario and
is therefore not subject to U.S. patent rules.
This has been an ongoing battle since the Virginia U.S.
District Court ordered RIM to pay an 8.55% royalty on any U.S.
Blackberry sales back in 2003.
Today the Supreme court rejected the appeal which puts the
case back in the U.S. District Court but RIM hasn?t been sitting still and
relying on the lawyers, they have also developed an alternative technology
which, unfortunately for RIM, has been rejected by the U.S. PTO.
OK, it's not technology, but I am on location so I thought I would share this with my readers here.
7:23 a.m., Feb 2, 2006, Phil DID see his shadow!
There Will be 6 more weeks of winter!
Special bulletin - Phil emerged carrying TWO Terrible Towels!
For groundhog day lore and links to photos from this year's GHD celebration, visit www.punxy.net .
7:23 a.m., Feb 2, 2006, Phil DID see his shadow!
There Will be 6 more weeks of winter!
Special bulletin - Phil emerged carrying TWO Terrible Towels!
For groundhog day lore and links to photos from this year's GHD celebration, visit www.punxy.net .
Early reports out of Australia indicate that the latest big worm threat hasn't turned out to be much trouble so far.
I predicted that as soon as I saw that it was being reported on TV.
I haven't seen any big damage reports out of Europe either so I think this one will fizzle out.
I predicted that as soon as I saw that it was being reported on TV.
I haven't seen any big damage reports out of Europe either so I think this one will fizzle out.
Well, surprise, Kama
Sutra was a big bust, so to speak (pun intended). I was concerned at first
about this first big worm of the new year as I saw reports on the number of
infected computers, but most anti virus vendors were rating this a low-level
threat and the virus was known and in AV update packages long before the
trigger date so, while concerned, I certainly didn?t panic my clients.
But I can trace the exact moment
when I knew it was going to be a bust ? the morning of February 3 when I saw the first national
TV news report on Kama Sutra - when it was too late to
do anything about preparing for it by installing AV software or updating
signatures.
In case you hadn?t noticed, TV
news is in the business of scaring people and is very self-absorbed. After some
news organizations were taken down by malware because they didn?t take any
precautions, newsrooms are now hypersensitive to the threat.
Don?t agree? Well, how else do
you explain the incredible amount of coverage given to an injured TV talking
head when he and his cameraman were injured in Iraq ?
There was more time devoted to them than to all the injured or dead Iraqis AND
all the injured and dead military personnel in the entire previous week!
TV folks are always announcing
that so and so is off on assignment, or caught a cold, or is having a baby or know
someone who did. Who cares? They, including the weather person who mostly
reports what already happened or what you can see by looking out a window, do
little but wear makup and read news reported by other people who actually go out and find
facts. That and chat among themselves trying to seem more interesting than all those other talking heads.
If you scare people enough, they
will be very certain to watch every news program to see what new threat is coming.
This makes it difficult to separate real threats such as avian flu or failing
schools (which are mostly the fault of governments), from artificial threats
such as home invasions or random shootings which are actually extremely rare
with violent crime dropping steadily for nearly a decade!
Likewise, you seldom see a report on TV
about the real threats to computer security from insiders, or social
engineering, or the dangers of donating computers to charity without removing
the hard drives, or the dangers to privacy posed by poorly designed software.
Of course I reported in my column
about the Kama Sutra/Blackmal threat and many here on
TechRepublic covered the threat. It would have been irresponsible not to pass
along a warning because we cover all IT threats here and Kama
Sutra did have the potential to be dangerous. The difference is that we cover
the REAL threats also.
Don?t forget what I said about
this worm in my Locksmith Column back on January 30,
?I just don't know how dangerous
this new threat is. However, I suspect it won't amount to much because it's
already in the virus signature databases of most antivirus programs.
Keep your head down and maintain your security software!
Sutra was a big bust, so to speak (pun intended). I was concerned at first
about this first big worm of the new year as I saw reports on the number of
infected computers, but most anti virus vendors were rating this a low-level
threat and the virus was known and in AV update packages long before the
trigger date so, while concerned, I certainly didn?t panic my clients.
But I can trace the exact moment
when I knew it was going to be a bust ? the morning of February 3 when I saw the first national
TV news report on Kama Sutra - when it was too late to
do anything about preparing for it by installing AV software or updating
signatures.
In case you hadn?t noticed, TV
news is in the business of scaring people and is very self-absorbed. After some
news organizations were taken down by malware because they didn?t take any
precautions, newsrooms are now hypersensitive to the threat.
Don?t agree? Well, how else do
you explain the incredible amount of coverage given to an injured TV talking
head when he and his cameraman were injured in Iraq ?
There was more time devoted to them than to all the injured or dead Iraqis AND
all the injured and dead military personnel in the entire previous week!
TV folks are always announcing
that so and so is off on assignment, or caught a cold, or is having a baby or know
someone who did. Who cares? They, including the weather person who mostly
reports what already happened or what you can see by looking out a window, do
little but wear makup and read news reported by other people who actually go out and find
facts. That and chat among themselves trying to seem more interesting than all those other talking heads.
If you scare people enough, they
will be very certain to watch every news program to see what new threat is coming.
This makes it difficult to separate real threats such as avian flu or failing
schools (which are mostly the fault of governments), from artificial threats
such as home invasions or random shootings which are actually extremely rare
with violent crime dropping steadily for nearly a decade!
Likewise, you seldom see a report on TV
about the real threats to computer security from insiders, or social
engineering, or the dangers of donating computers to charity without removing
the hard drives, or the dangers to privacy posed by poorly designed software.
Of course I reported in my column
about the Kama Sutra/Blackmal threat and many here on
TechRepublic covered the threat. It would have been irresponsible not to pass
along a warning because we cover all IT threats here and Kama
Sutra did have the potential to be dangerous. The difference is that we cover
the REAL threats also.
Don?t forget what I said about
this worm in my Locksmith Column back on January 30,
?I just don't know how dangerous
this new threat is. However, I suspect it won't amount to much because it's
already in the virus signature databases of most antivirus programs.
Keep your head down and maintain your security software!
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
