| Tuesday, May
9, 2000
Hi Jerry,
here are some links on personal firewalls that
provide some information beyond what you mentioned in your article:
http://grc.com/default.htm
"Shields Up" will try a simple attack on your system and show
you the results.
http://grc.com/su-firewalls.htm
A review of many personal firewalls on the market
http://www.zonelabs.com/
The recommended (in the review above) and free personal firewall.
I'm using ZoneAlarm 2.1 and am very satisfied with
it so far. The Gibson Research site http://grc.com
also features a spy-ware killer (OptOut) and more information on
ad-supported Shareware - something related to the firewall topic.
Moritz Berger
I thought I had mentioned Gibson's
site in my column, but perhaps it was in an earlier one. Certainly I
recommend that you look there for advice. I
now have a ton of mail about ZoneAlarm, all favorable. I'm having people
who know a lot more about security matters than I do look further into
this. It has always been a principle with me that having a "software
firewall" on the machine you are using is a LOT BETTER THAN NOTHING,
but that you're still better off using a dedicated system. In the rodeo
business they have a maxim: "There never was a horse that couldn't be
rode, and there never was a cowboy who couldn't be throwed." As
information warfare gets more sophisticated, the tools available to
crackers get better and better. It was not long ago that one needed a
$25,000 box to have any confidence in firewall security. Just at the
moment the security tools are winning (provided that they are installed!)
but that situation probably won't last. Freeware
is a wonderful thing. I continue to worry about the stamina of individuals
and freeware outfits: one of the reasons I used to recommend Dr. Solomon's
anti-virus programs was that his team was working 24 hours a day --
literally -- back when a new virus a week came out of Eastern Europe.
Hi, Mr.
Pournelle;
I read your column about firewalls for the home
user. You mentioned that most home users wouldn't want to buy an extra
machine to use for a firewall. I will be replacing my Pentium 200 MhZ, 64
MB machine with a P III machine shortly. I was wondering if this almost
valueless machine would be able to serve adequately as a firewall? Could I
not install Unix on it if I was willing to learn to do so?
Thank you for your columns over the years. I have
read, enjoyed, and learned from then a lot. I also enjoy some of your
books.
Best wishes, Jefferson Kent jeffskent@msn.com
Indeed you could. You'd probably
want to do Linux, not Unix, but there's ample information on line for
doing all this. Valueless! It's true, of course, in the old legal maxim
"the value of a thing is what that thing will bring," but a
Pentium 200 is hardly valueless in what it will do. Fireball, my Primary
Domain Controller was a dual Pentium Pro 200, and Spirit, which has taken
over many server duties here, is even older and slower, and I get a lot of
work out of those machines. Do
note that there are Windows and even DOS firewall programs (see the letter
above) that might be a bit simpler to install on your older machine: but
it's not that hard to learn enough Linux to do this, and there are many
benefits to having learned all that. By all means!
And see BELOW
I do not normally
run press releases, but you may not have seen this one, and it's got a lot
of information in it.
Good morning Jerry, A million copies may not land
them on MTV, but it makes the latest version of BeOS a strong alternative
OS for people who work with digital media. If the following release is of
interest to your audience, I'd be happy to connect you with a company
executive.
Regards, Elena
BE GOES PLATINUM WITH BEOS 5
Over One Million Copies of BeOS 5 Personal Edition
Downloaded in First Month; Over Four Million CDs to be Distributed
Worldwide
Menlo Park, Calif.--May 9, 2000--Be Incorporated (Nasdaq:
BEOS) today announced that one million copies of BeOS 5 Personal Edition
have been downloaded worldwide since its release on March 28th. This
number includes all downloads from Be's Website, as well as from numerous
reporting download partners. BeOS 5 Personal Edition is the latest release
of Be's highly-acclaimed digital media operating system and is available
at no charge via the Web at http://free.be.com.
In addition, Be has secured the distribution of over
four million BeOS 5 Personal Edition CDs through agreements with numerous
publications worldwide. Thus far, 46 publications in 18 countries around
the world have agreed to bundle the BeOS 5 Personal Edition CD with their
publications at no additional cost to their readers. Be also has a number
of distribution agreements with publications pending which have the
potential to further increase the distribution of BeOS 5 Personal Edition.
"Demand for BeOS 5 Personal Edition has been
enormous," said Stephan Altmann, marketing and public relations
director of Computer Channel, a major computer news and information site
located in Germany. "Since we began offering BeOS 5 Personal Edition
on our Website, we have had over 120,000 downloads."
"Since its launch, there have been over 110,000
downloads of BeOS 5 Personal Edition across the TUCOWS Network
worldwide," said Scott Swedorski, founder and editor in chief of
TUCOWS.com. "We are excited about this response and look forward to
continue working with the team at Be to offer our users the latest and
best software for BeOS."
"We continue to receive a phenomenal response
to BeOS 5 Personal Edition," stated Jean-Louis Gassie, chairman and
chief executive officer of Be. "One million downloads of BeOS 5
Personal Edition is a milestone for us. It confirms our conviction that
the public is eager for an operating system that seamlessly alleviates
many of the constraints of conventional OSes. We are committed to BeOS and
will continue to develop the operating system, which is also the
underlying foundation and development environment for BeIA, our software
platform for Internet appliances."
About BeOS 5 BeOS 5 Personal Edition is ideal for
first-time or casual users who want to experience the power of a digital
media operating system. This version is stored as a file within users'
existing Windows-based operating systems, without repartitioning their
hard drives. As a result, users will find the installation process no more
difficult and no riskier than installing a typical Windows application.
Launching BeOS 5 Personal Edition is as simple as double-clicking an icon
on the desktop. BeOS 5 Personal Edition is compatible with Intel-based PCs
and includes HTML-based documentation. Additionally, Be is offering a
programmer's development kit (BeIDE, or Be Integrated Development
Environment) and a library of demonstration applications at no charge.
These development tools aid software developers in bringing their products
to market faster.
A full-featured version of the operating system,
BeOS 5 Pro Edition, is available through third-party publishers. BeOS 5
Pro Edition is bundled with additional applications and services for
advanced functionality that truly take advantage of the power of BeOS,
including features that make it ideal for individuals involved in audio
and video production.
Availability and Pricing BeOS 5 Personal Edition,
the BeOS Developer Kit and demonstration application packages are
available at no charge from http://free.be.com, as well as dozens of
mirror sites throughout the world. BeOS 5 Pro Edition will be available in
the Americas through Gobe Software, in Asia via Hitachi, and in Europe
through Apacabar and Koch Media. Each publisher prices BeOS 5 Pro Edition
independently and based on other bundled components. Publishers are also
responsible for setting the upgrade policy for existing BeOS users in
their territories.
About Be Incorporated Founded in 1990, Be
Incorporated creates software platforms that enable rich media and web
experiences on personal computers and Internet appliances. Be's
headquarters are in Menlo Park, California, and its European office is in
Paris, France. It is publicly traded on the Nasdaq National Market under
the symbol BEOS. Be can be found on the web at http://www.be.com/.
###
Forward Looking Statements The statements contained
in this Press Release that are not historical facts are
"forward-looking statements" including without limitation
statements regarding the demand for, future market penetration and market
acceptance of BeOS. The number of downloads stated are based on numbers
reported to Be from the Web site managers handling such downloads, and may
not accurately reflect the actual number of copies of BeOS downloaded, nor
are such numbers intended to imply that every download will result in the
actual use and adoption of BeOS by the person or entity downloading the
copy. Actual events or results may differ materially as a result of risks
facing Be Incorporated or actual results differing from the assumptions
underlying such statements. Such risks and assumptions include, but are
not limited to, risks related to the continued availability of third party
BeOS applications and drivers, ability to establish and maintain strategic
publishing relationships, and the competition and market acceptance of
BeOS. All forward-looking statements are expressly qualified in their
entirety by the "Risk Factors" and other cautionary statements
included in Be Incorporated's prospectus filed pursuant to Rule 424(b) of
the Securities Act of 1933 on July 20, 1999 (Commission File No. 333-
77855), its Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999, and
other public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Note to Editors: Be and BeOS are trademarks or
registered trademarks of Be Incorporated in the United States and other
countries. Other brand product names are registered trademarks or
trademarks of their respective holders. All rights reserved.
The Internet is famous for its
conspiracy theories, and perhaps this is one more instance, but there is
at least some substance here. How much is real and how much is made up is
not known to me. I am certainly no expert in IR photo interpretation, nor
do I know any of the people involved in these reports. I
do know that the Congress, as the Grand Inquest of the
Nation, has yet to
do its duty regarding the disaster at Waco, and until everything is aired
to the satisfaction of all reasonable people, stories like this, and
worse, will continue to crop up. I post the following without any claim to
its veracity. I have not verified what is said at the sites it links to,
or what the usual fare on those sites might be. It is perhaps enough to
note that this sort of thing is being said to make my point, that the
Congress really must investigate ALL of what happened.
Much the same story, minus some of the details about
what the HCGR was (is) sitting on, appears at:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_fosters_news/20000503_xnfos_waco_exper.shtml
Scanned images (jpeg) of Ghigliotti's preliminary
report can be found at:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/20000503SarahFpage1.jpg
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/20000503SarahFpage2.jpg
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/20000503SarahFpage3.jpg
Did you really have any doubt that this sort of
behavior was permissable in such social circles? Or of the complicity (and
I'm not really concerned with their _motivation_) of Republicans?
Ghigliotti's worst fault may have been naivete in dealing with the House
committee, but it may have been a fatal one.
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/4/30/155105
===
I checked with
adaptec that Cd Creator 4.01 supported win2k but it failed to install with
a "wrong IE5 version" errror . An email to Adaptec said install
our IE5 from CD . Its an earlier version than Win2K ships with but I did.
The install still fails with a wrong IE5 version errror . Can readers
help??
Nick Hanstock [j.n.hanstock@blueyonder.co.uk] I
gave up: I run CD CREATOR on a Win 98 machine. Can anyone help?
Dear Dr. Pournelle: Your analysis of the growing
mania for intervention is, as usual, pretty much on the money. However, I
don't think you paid as much attention as you might have to the fact that
these interventions cost the United States a great deal, and benefit us
very little. What we have is not an empire, but a Guilt-pyre - Modern
neo-totalitarians trying to assuage their own guilt feelings by getting
American soldiers killed.
As a trade power, the United States has a vested
interest in keeping the trade routes clear. This particularly means
keeping the sea lines of communication wide open, but a sound case can be
made for discouraging conflicts ashore as well. War is bad for business.
The problems arise from the fact that we have taken to sending troops to
nations where we have little interest - business or otherwise. Imperialism
is supposed to be a for-profit activity.
Where is the profit in Bosnia or Haiti? Worse, I
agree with you that we have taken a dangerous turn in actively taking
sides in these disputes. When I was taking Naval War College courses, a
great distinction was made between peace keeping (helping to promote a
peace freely reached between the former combatants) and peace enforcement
(picking sides). Peace keeping is a pacific activity. "Peace"
enforcement is combat. And by picking sides in these disputes, the United
States forfeits its traditional role as a neutral arbiter of
unquestionable moral authority. In 1905, Theodore Roosvelt won the Nobel
Peace Prize for brokering the end of the Russo-Japanese War. Two
generations later, George Marshall would repeat the feat with the Marshall
Plan. Both men leveraged off the traditional status of the United States
as a disinterested broker. The costs were minimal, while the benefits were
great.
Today, we have a generation of leaders who
have little to no knowledge of sound national security policy. This is not
so much a lack of military service as it is a lack of diligence in
studying the skills demanded of a statesman. The dirty truth is that a
lieutenancy teaches few of the skills needed in the strategic arena. Were
these people inclined to leave what they do not understand alone, things
would be OK. However, the same ignoramuses are also ridden by guilt. Show
them a photo of a civil war or a hungry child, and they rush to send other
men's money and other mother's sons to help (note that these
"leaders" do NOT send their own money or kin). The combination
of guilt over their own lack of martial/patriotic prowess and ignorance of
the costs of "peace enforcement" wars leads them into terrible
folly. What we have is not the profit-driven empire of the past, but the
emotion-and-folly-driven Guilt-pyre of the present. It is a far, far more
wretched thing than simple imperialisim. It must be abandoned. The blood
of our troops is too precious to waste slaking a politicians thirst for
power and "legacy".
V/R: Michael McDaniel
In a Republic government policy
represents the interests of the people; in an Empire the policy supports
the interests of the leadership; of the government, if you will. The
national interest of the people of the United States is not the same as
that of those who command them, and who control policy; at least not as
much as it used to be, and it is that growing separation that is
disturbing. I leave out such matters as trade policy, in which it is not
always clear that what's good for General Conglamorate Inc. is good for
the country; I mean simply interventions in faraway places. As
I write this, the State Department is saying we may have to become
involved in Sierra Leone to support the failed UN mission there: which
means taking sides in a Civil War, precisely what we were accused of doing
in Viet Nam. At least in Viet Nam there was an interest: bleed the
Russian. A long war of attrition is hard to continue for a Republic and
yet it was the most painless way to bring down the USSR; and that plus
Star Wars actually worked. In
the present situation it is easy enough to see what having small wars does
for the careers of senior officers; for major Washington lobby groups
including law firms; for international corporate houses (I understand Mr.
Clinton has been offered $10 million a year to take a post with an
international brokerage house after he leaves office -- can policy be
influenced by such offers? I don't know). It is easy enough to see the
interests of some of those ordering the interventions. It is not so easy
to see the interests of the American people.
I am interested in one of the implications of
"The need for [...] career peace keepers, is obvious -- for an
Empire."
Canada has largely dismantled our armed forces,
REPLACING them with a police army. (The fact that nobody noticed this
happening has led to morale problems and a couple fo massive fiascos in
implementation) We enthusiastically join in, or even push for
interventions that we could join. (NATO, UN, Brit Commonwealth).
But I am interested in the psychology. Canada will
never be an imperial power. But we have gone further towards what you
describe as imperial thought processes than the US has. Is this a
statement that we think of ourselves as a "client state" within
whatever empire? (Which empire depends on the Canadian you're talking to.
Brit/USA/"world")
I wouldn't care to speculate except
in general terms. Luttwak in The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire shows
a period when Imperial strategy was to keep an army able to win a war with
anyone, but use client state forces for most local
"peacekeeping" and other operations short of war. Tax farming
concessions made that a good deal for the leaders of the client states.
Their populations weren't really consulted. Imperial
does not necessarily imply an aggressively expansionist empire although
that has been the result every time. The Imperial system is one in which
the interests of the government are not those of the people, although
there may be many attempts to make them appear to be so. Citizens are
treated as subjects; obedience is compelled, not solicited or persuaded.
This has to be because there is a large bureaucracy whose interest is to
continue the bureaucracy and collect taxes to pay itself, and which
resists any and all attempts to cut it back or even halt its growth.
Imperial means that the President, or Emperor, or Consul, may be selected
by the people but is not among them and is no longer merely a citizen who
holds office, but something above and beyond that. Generally
the interests of the imperial ruling class will force expansionism because
client states and colonies, while often very unprofitable for the home
country, are quite profitable for international joint ventures in which
the governing class owns shares (or owns the company outright). Operations
that would not be tolerated in the home country become routine in the
colonies and client states. I
speak from history. The parallels won't be exact. Perhaps I am wrong to
see parallels at all.
Dear Jerry;
The objection to missile defense is utterly
perplexing in a rational sense, but it's understandable from a
psychological sense. I hate this kind of argument, so often used to
denigrate one's opponents; but in this case, I think it fits too well to
be dismissed sans consideration.
I see three major anti-defense arguments, and each
springs from a different cognitive dysfunction.
First, we must not ignore the disturbing fact that
there is a statistically tiny but (in a nation of 260 million) numerically
large portion of our population that passionately believes America is the
most immoral nation on earth, and that we're just itching for a chance to
destroy the rest of the world, villains we. (I believe this group is
overrepresented in the intelligencia and academe.) It would be terrible,
they argue, for America to have a missile defense because that would just
make it all the more likely that we'd launch a nuclear war for imperial
reasons (presumably when W. is elected, or whoever is the next Republican
president).
It's impossible to argue against these unamerican
idiots. But their arguments are so extreme that they're not much of a
political threat to building a solid defense.
Second, there is a group that believes a missile
defense would be a form of hubris, thinking we could win a nuclear war
when, as Dr. Caldicott so cheerfully announced, there could be no winners
and "the survivors would envy the dead." This is a strange sort
of magical thinking, where other nations would be so afraid of a defended
America that they would launch in a "use it or lose it" orgy of
self destruction. Our very attempt to defend ourselves from the
"indefensible" would tempt the gods themselves to smite us for
our audacity. It's similar to saying, as some do, that putting up a
firewall only makes hackers target you all the harder, as if throwing down
the gauntlet. This is a more dangerous irrationality, since many more
people believe it than the first.
The argument against this is that we obviously
wouldn't dismantle our retaliatory capability prior to building SDI;
therefore, these unnamed countries would have just as much deterrent
against launching missiles at us as they do today: Mutual Assured
Destruction. It might work, it might not -- but it's completely unrelated
to building SDI.
The third irrationality -- the "all or
nothing" zealots -- argue that since a missile shield wouldn't stop a
nuclear truckbomb, there's "no point" in building one at all (as
if a cop shouldn't wear a bullet-resistent vest because it wouldn't save
him from being poisoned).
This irrationality, probably the most widespread, is
the hardest to argue against, because the argument is simple logic... and
if they were logical, they wouldn't make it in the first place. If there
are three main vectors for delivering a nuclear warhead, strategic missile
launched from a land or sea, tactical missile or bomb launched or dropped
from an airplane, or ground-delivery vehicle, how can it make us /less/
safe to reduce that to only one vector, the last?
Maybe the best approach is to rename the program
from missile defense to nuclear defense and add a small plan or two to
make it even harder to smuggle fissionable materials into the US than it
already is: better intelligence, better remote radiation sensors, better
tracking and control of components necessary to make a bomb. No reason not
to do these anyway; it's good military policy.
Then, when somebody says "but the Iraqis could
just smuggle a nuke in a suitcase," we can simply point to the
Plutonium-sniffing-bloodhound-breeding program.
Sincerely, --
Dafydd ab Hugh
Beware of gifts bearing Greeks.
Good analysis. I am sure there are
also people who don't think we can build SDI, and some who think we can't
afford it, and some who really do think we don't need it; but I admit that
I don't much understand the objections to shields. I like your plutonium
sniffing bloodhounds!
And a reader with a problem:
Dr. Pournelle -
Perhaps one of your readers knows the solution to my
problem.
I am involved in one of Microsoft's Beta programs,
and in the middle of March installed a Beta of Internet Explorer 5.5. This
new version of the browser works fine. However, after the install I
discovered that Outlook 98, which I use for email among other things, no
longer functions correctly.
The word wrap function when sending email no longer
operates correctly by wrapping words that would make a given line exceed
the length set (default 76 characters). Instead Outlook now makes every
line in a transmitted email exactly 76 characters long by breaking words
apart.
I reported this problem to Microsoft on 21 March,
and today they closed my bug report with the comment that this behavior
was "By Design".
Since this problem was effectively disabled the
email send function of Outlook 98 for me, and forced me to use Netscape to
send email, I am looking outside of Microsoft for a solution. I have to
suspect that the problem is due to a modified version of one of the common
files being replaced as part of the IE 5.5 Beta software. If I knew what
file(s) might be involved, I could try replacing them with files from
another non corrupted machine.
My machine is running Windows 98 with all the
available updates. My Microsoft Office installation (which includes
Outlook 98) has the 2b updates.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Ray A. Rayburn Audio@Technologist.com http://www.users.uswest.net/~rrayburn
A retired USAF Colonel friend sends this (he's a
decorated fighter pilot ace, Viet Nam era):
Can you check this out? If true (ref: Air Force
Times, March 27th) it should be widely reported, factually and not
editorially; let the readers make up their own minds. I counted 90
aircraft. Bill Haynes
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 10:48 AM Subject: Totally
unacceptable
Subject: President Clinton does it again...How much
more, America ?????
This has to be the most expensive and most useless
boondoggle in history. I'm sure President Clinton can write it off as a
Spring Break trip for Chelsea! Today, I received the March 27th Air Force
Times and was moved to send heads-up to some of the press re: Clinton's
travel costs. Doubt if press will respond, but with your e-mail list, you
may want to distribute to our Air Force friends who may not read AF Times,
the March 27th Air Force Times piece should be of interest. The article
details the more than $50 Million cost of the Clinton India/Pakistan trip.
Nowhere else in the press have we seen reported the fact that, in addition
to AIR FORCE ONE and five other Andrews aircraft, the outbound trip is
using 14 C-17s from Charleston, 12 C-5s , three C-141s, two C-130s. In
addition, seven KC-10s and 39 KC-135s are providing air-refueling support.
The return trip requires an additional 10 C-5s and another three KC-135s.
The 22 C-5s, thus occupied, represent one-third of the Air Force's entire
operational C-5 fleet. A point of interest to the civilian public might be
that each aging C-5 is capable of carrying internally, six Greyhound
busses. (that would be enough airlift for 132 Greyhound busses in C-5s
alone!) Some trip! In addition to the dollar costs, the huge number of
aircraft tied up with this operation has seriously degraded the ability of
the Air Force to support operational airlift and air refueling
requirements round the world. Must be increasing the workload across the
whole spectrum as well. In the face of continuing very careful military
budgeting, will the public pay any attention to the comparison of costs of
these trips to the unfunded needs of the military?
THIS IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY
7500 TROOPS ON FOOD STAMPS AND THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF INDULGES IN SUCH
ACTIVITIES AS THIS.
It does seem to be a bit excessive
to use about a third of our heavy lift capability for one trip. But
perhaps necessary. He is the President, and keeping him safe is a lot
cheaper than the war that would start if someone harmed him. Ounce of
prevention and all that. Still, this seems more like a kilo of
prevention...
For replies see
below.
TOP |
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
Perhaps this should be Immanent rather than
Imminent? 
