| Friday,
March 26, 2004 Open
with this warning:
The "Bagel.U" virus variant is becoming more
prevalent. You can tell you got an message from this virus when you see a
blank subject and message, but an executable attachment (randomly named).
The viral messages started late yesterday.
The AntiVirus companies have released special update
files today (Friday) to sense that variant. But there was a bit of delay
between the first known viral messages being sent out, and when the AV
companies had their updates ready. Those that automatically block or delete
messages with executables were protected against that delay ("zero-day"
viruses); this blocking is highly recommneded (should be common at
corporate/business mail gateways). Home users will have to be more careful.
The usual mantra applies....
Regards, Rick Hellewell, Information Security,
securitydude@digitalchoke.com
====
Yesterday I got:
This is an interesting
article:
<http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,62780,00.html.
The AeA report blames
outsourcing on the failure of US education.
Also, I don't remember for
sure who recommended it to me. It may have been you. But the book _Castles
of Steel: Britain, Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea_ by
Robert K. Massie is excellent. I'm about half-way through it.
Thinking about it, I
believe it was Barbara who mentioned it to me first when she read a review
of it in Library Journal or one of her other library magazines. I thought at
the time that it was a history of dreadnought battleships, and told her I'd
be interested in reading it.
She bought it for me, and
as it turns out it's a history of the naval war in WWI, as the full title
indicates. It's well worth reading, although heavier going than the light
fiction I usually read to relax.
Robert Bruce Thompson
thompson@ttgnet.com
http://www.ttgnet.com/thisweek.html
http://forums.ttgnet.com/ikonboard.cgi
To
which I answered Castles of Steel was book of the month in one of the
columns. I gave my copy to my naval officer son.
I
have long said that the education system is the reason for most
disasters here. And
Federalizing it and letting the blasted teachers unions impose "standards"
for teachers is the dumbest move ever.
Note that private
schools can make use of retired military and other people as teachers and
not have to mess with 'credentials': and they get better results.
Oh well.
I
remember a few months ago sitting around with three of my astronomy club
observing buddies. Paul Jones got his PhD in Organic Chemistry from Duke and
did his postdoc work there. He's an Organic Chemistry professor at Wake
Forest. His wife, Mary Chervenak, got her PhD in Organic Chemistry from Duke
and did her postdoc work there. She's a research chemist for Dow Chemical.
Steve Childers got his PhD in Biochemistry and did his postdoc work at
Wisconsin, and is a full professor in the Department of Physiology and
Pharmacology at Bowman Gray School of Medicine.
We were discussing the
problems with public education, and I pointed out that not a one of them was
qualified to teach even an elementary school science class in North
Carolina.
Robert Bruce Thompson
thompson@ttgnet.com
http://www.ttgnet.com/thisweek.html
http://forums.ttgnet.com/ikonboard.cgi
After the "No Child Left Behind" federalization of
credentials, it is my understanding that they are not qualified to teach in
any state or anywhere else in a public school. Note that I am not qualified
to teach in this country either. You must be "qualified" with the proper
"credentials": your results don't matter. You can be the dumbest bonehead in
the world, so long as you have attended the workshops and found some way to
get passing grades from Department of Education. Of course everyone knows
about the academic standards of the Department of Education in every major,
minor, tiny, large, etc. college in the nation.
So maybe we should be outsourcing work we don't
teach Americans to do.
I am not sure whether Bar Associations or Teachers'
Unions are the biggest public enemies in the country, but they certainly are
the top two.
And yes, I know there are plenty of dedicated
teachers breaking their hearts out there: but until they take the
credentialing power away from their unions and the Departments of Education,
the nation is doomed.
The only bright spots are private schools and home
schooling. And see next week.
===================
Feeling Safer Already
on
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html dated today:
Remember "You don't professionalize unless you
federalize"? Only a politician could say that. Now airports are having their
say, and they've had about enough, thank you, of the TSA.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0304/26security.html
Jim Woosley
=========================
Greg Cochran on Clarke and
Iraq:
< From previous: My take is
that he never had any specific proposals, he kept insisting on
Presidential Access and the ability to by-pass his superiors, and unlike
Clinton, Bush doesn't work that way. The Bush people demoted him to cyber
terrorism chief, he fumed (and made no contributions in preventing cyber
terrorism that I am aware of, but perhaps things happened I don't know
about). He kept insisting on direct Presidential access, which is hard to
come by, and when he didn't get what he wanted, he brooded and began
writing a book. >
I think you're wrong. Clarke was
pretty much right on the money: he thought Al-Qaeda was going to do
_something_ very bad, very soon and he couldn't get the Administration to
do much of anything. They did less than Clinton had. People like
Wolfowitz believed in Iraqi anti-US terrorism which did not exist, and
ignored people actually blowing up embassies and destroyers.
He was anti-terrorism czar until
October 2001: the Administration had demoted that position, not just him -
it had been at near-Cabinet rank - at the _beginning_ of the
Administration because they weren't much interested. Here is what Clarke
wanted to do, _well_ before 9-11:
<In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint
presentation reads, "Response to al Qaeda: Roll back." Clarke's proposals
called for the "breakup" of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their
personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be
systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake
charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble-Uzbekistan,
the Philippines, Yemen-would be given aid to fight the terrorists. Most
important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in
Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" where al-Qaeda had its terrorist
training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic
Taliban regime. The Taliban had come to power in 1996, bringing a sort of
order to a nation that had been riven by bloody feuds between ethnic
warlords since the Soviets had pulled out. Clarke supported a substantial
increase in American support for the Northern Alliance, the last remaining
resistance to the Taliban. That way, terrorists graduating from the
training camps would have been forced to stay in Afghanistan, fighting
(and dying) for the Taliban on the front lines. At the same time, the U.S.
military would start planning for air strikes on the camps and for the
introduction of special-operations forces into Afghanistan. The plan was
estimated to cost "several hundreds of millions of dollars." In the words
of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to
"everything we've done since 9/11." > This in January 2001.
I might also point out that
the _next_ antiterrorism czar, Rand Beer, who had been in government for
many years and was thought pretty much apolitical resigned, on the eve
of our invasion of Iraq. Now he's working for Kerry. Greg Thielmann,
Powell's intelligence deputy, says much the same thing. The former head of
DIA's Middle East section says the same thing. So does Howard Zinni - so
does the Army War College, for Christ's sake. It's the revolt of the
professionals.
If _I_ had worked for Bush, I'd be
trying to kick him out now , and I'm more of a yellow-dog Republican than
anyone you've ever known.
Gregory
Cochran
If Bush doesn't get the oil prices down (by pumping
more oil in Iraq, presumably) he's in political trouble. If he can do
something about fuel prices he's safe.
As to Clarke, I still don't see a lot of specifics.
Going to war in Afghanistan prior to 911 would have been a pretty big deal,
and I doubt Congress could have been talked into it. For good or ill we do
not have much in the way of CIA clandestine operations of the sort we had
when the Company saved Indonesia (probably the CIA's most important coup); and
you can't lay that to the Republicans. Democratic Congresses since Viet Nam
have undermined our ability to project force overseas without sending in the
overt forces.
That may be a good thing. It may not be. Covert
operations are always tricky, and more likely to go wrong than overtly
exerting the power of the Republic using the uniformed services, if only
because of the limited number of resources you can put in.
Domestic Security has always been a problem. The
FBI has always had charge of internal security as well as the Caribbean
region due to bureaucratic coups in the time of Wild Bill Donovan, and the
Company has never recovered internal security jurisdiction despite repeated
efforts to play counterintelligence games. The Bureau was thoroughly
politicized under the Affirmative Action AG Janet Reno, and it will take a
long time to recover. The counterintelligence operations were all blown by
moles and defectors, and while that was Cold War stuff, it much affected our
abilities to operate in other places.
The fact is that we don't know what we are doing
here, and it will take a while to figure it out. Sending in the Army is what
we know how to do; although the Afghan war against the Taliban is a damned
good model of what we could do if the Company were given the resources.
Special Ops work, especially in cooperation with smart bombs and missiles
and the like; but you need the forces on the ground, and they need to know
what they are doing, and to speak local languages, and be able to run
agents, and such: it's a shadow war where you have to be able to fight but
it's even more important to recruit locals to work with you.
We have had that capability in the past, and the
Agency was damned good at it at one time -- you can get some hints of it in
the novels of Helen McInnes and the very competent Company people she lets
flit through the stories. Try Snare of the Hunter as an example. Of course
most of her stories take place in Europe. In the glory days of the CIA it
was highly competent while managing to project an image of being hopeless
inept: an image that in those days it wanted to project. Unfortunately as
the politicals got into the act the image was all too accurate a picture of
reality.
I find the hearings interesting. "We did too
authorize assassinations by the CIA, didn't you know?" asks Clinton's
National Security Advisor, to the astonishment of the Agency people.
Hmmm.
Clinton had his chance to implement whatever Clarke
wanted done, and didn't do it: he sprayed cruise missiles around, but they
didn't do anything real. Do not wound your enemies...
On that subject, from another conference:
[The] academy also has a big "diversity" problem
as S. has pointed out. The old Arabists have been run out of academy by
Edward Said et. al. and the result is that ideologues rule the roost.
Another unfortunate diversity hire was Janet Reno. I
was watching C-Span last night with George Tenet being questioned and if I
understood him correctly Reno didn't want anyone in DOJ to talk to anyone in
the CIA. The mind boggles. Unfortunately Tenet's testimony and the questions
session are not yet on the web site:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing8.htm
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/index.htm
I think the questions and answers will eventually be
at the second link.
Tenet made some excellent points about the
institutional barriers in the form of regulations and laws that prevented a
lot of information from being synthesized. So the criminal investigation of
the first WTC bombing produced a lot of information that could have led back
to Al Qaeda but the CIA wasn't allowed to see it. In the FBI there were law
enforcement and intelligence groups that couldn't talk to each other either.
Some of this has already been reported. But Tenet put it into a larger
context.
Also, Tenet alluded to immigration and border control
problems with watch lists that were not shared. But immigration and border
control seemed like something the elites did not want to discuss.
Which is to the point. Things were screwed up under
Clinton, and I doubt Clarke liked that much; but all his ire is directed at
Bush who had 200 days to straighten things out and didn't, and also demoted
Clarke; as opposed to Clinton who gave Clarke the perks and titles, but
didn't do anything about the mess either.
Now on this subject:
My how Clarke's story has changed since 2002.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html
-- John Harlow, President BravePoint jharlow@BravePoint.com
A mind is like a parachute; it works best when fully
opened..
And also I have mail (which I seem to have
misplaced) asking if the Iraq invasion didn't work to concentrate Qadaffy's
mind something wonderful, and thus encourage him to rejoin the civilized
nations lest he find himself next.
Possibly. The implications are much larger than
that, though, and need more time than I have to give just now.
==========================
RE: EISENHOWER AND THE RB-47 INCIDENT
I was in diapers when this happened. I can find
information about the incident itself easily enough, but can't find any
discussion of Eisenhower sending a message back to the Soviets. A brief
rehearsal of that part of the history would be appreciated.
Many thanks,
Mike Cheek Tallahassee, FL
Not from me you won't get it. I wasn't in diapers.
========================
This comes up periodically, but it's worth your
attention if you have not seen it before:
Jerry,
This is one of the best descriptions of so-called
progressive taxes that I've seen. It was forwarded to me, so I'm not 100%
sure the attribution at the bottom is correct.
Cheers,
Doug
Sometimes Politicians can exclaim; "It's just a
tax cut for the rich!", and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does
that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue,
we hope the following will help.
Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics
This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it
carefully.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can
understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for
all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our
taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest)
would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The
seventh $7. The eighth $12. The ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would
pay $59.
So, the ten men ate dinner in the restaurant
every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the
owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he
said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The
group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So, the first four men were unaffected. They
would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying
customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would
get his 'fair share'?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is
$3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth
man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it
would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now
paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%
savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth
now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of
$18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And
the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant,
the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared
the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man.
"I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than
me!"
"That's true!!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why
should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in
unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The
nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for
dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to
pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough
money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and
college professors, is how our tax system works. The ones who get the most
money back from a reduction are those who paid in the most. Tax them too
much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the
table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the
Caribbean.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D Distinguished
Professor of Economics 536 Brooks Hall University of Georgia
And of course it is all true.
The real problem is, why are some of them so broke
they can't pay, or have so little pride they don't want to contribute? With
attitudes like those above, the dinner party can't be much fun.
Democracy only works in middle class societies.
>> Democracy only works in middle class societies. <<
I think you're wrong. Republics work only with a
strong and numerous middle class that takes an interest in its government.
Democracies never work at all.
-- Robert Bruce Thompson
Well, it seems to have worked in Switzerland. But
in general I'll agree; republics have self government or they don't survive.
And the Framers said "There never was a democracy that didn't commit
suicide."
======================
Jerry
The info in today's [Wednesday's]
column is wrong. That was the cause of the "Pines Fire" from 2002. They
are still fighting about the cause of the 2003 "Cedar Fire".
The Pines Fire started in the eastern foothills below
Julian. It burned the eastern edge of our mountains and into the desert. The
Cedar Fire started to the West of the mountains and burned mainly West -
South - East.
Two different fires!
Chris Landa
Thanks
=============================
A continuing discussion:
Subject: Kings and Generals
Dear Dr. Pournelle,
William I certainly did take the field after assuming
the English crown; he personally commanded the army that put down Edwin and
Morca, and died as a consequence of injuries sustained at Mantes. Septimius
Severus may not have had to fight much take the throne from Didius Julianus,
but he certainly had to fight against the other two self-appointed saviors
of the res publica, Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus (there was a moment
when the smart money was on Albinus, not Severus, to be emperor).
The definition of "mature monarchy" takes a little
thought; Egyptian New Kingdom pharaohs routinely were field commanders,
although it might be asserted that human society in general was much more
mature in the days of the European Renaissance three thousand years later.
Alexander's empire was certainly different from
Augustus'; even so diffident a student of Spengler as myself would note that
the three centuries between them had wrought such changes to Classical
society as to make the accomplishments of one impossible for the other. And,
as Spengler was not the first, so am I most unlikely to be the last to note
that Alexander's empire was rather similar to Napoleon's; an American (or
perhaps better a Western) Empire is more likely to be similar to Augustus'
"Empire" really needs to be better defined. We speak
of the British Empire, the Persian Empire, and the Roman Empire, without
seeming to note the word hardly refers to the same thing. We ought to be
cautious that the idea of an American Empire is not improperly identified
with those.
------------------------------------------------ John
W. Braue, III <braue@ratsnest.win.net> http://www.win.net/ratsnest/log.htm
"Gold cannot always get you good soldiers, but good
soldiers can always get you gold" -- Niccolò Machiavelli
=============================
Subject: Microsoft's hidden victory?
Dr Pournelle,
in you comment on the EU anti-trust decision you asked
how the Europeans could prevent people from taking free stuff off the
Internet. This is not the intent of the ruling, the intent is to create a
level playing field for companies like Real Networks. Users will still be
free to download Windows Media Player, as well as other media players. So
hopefully the best player will win, instead of just Microsoft winning by
default.
Des Murphy
For your convenience this free software must be
downloaded and not provided with your OS. For your convenience this
exit is closed. For your convenience you will be strip searched. I am
from the government and I am here to help you.
And I offer this without comment other than to say
the author of this is not an idiot, and has some qualifications to comment:
Dear Jerry, Sitting, listening to Mr. Clarke's testimony, and his
cybersecurity priority concern, I am encouraged to send this note to you
regarding a possible connect-the-dots problem which may have emerged
perhaps less attended to than it should be. (So please allow me to try
to point out to an old timer how others might suck eggs.)
If these certain propositions are true:
a) There is a historical effort by Russia (from Soviet and even
Czarist times) to push for influences and alliances and outreach with
India, a primary supporting member of the Fidel led Non-aligned Nations
movement since 1966.
b) Jane's reports the continued active sales of military hardware,
building in technology, (submarines, aircraft carrier) to India by
Russia, including second level technology.
c) India has lately become the focus of off-shoring telephone
computer maintenance and tech support. An impression exists that all
major ISP support and service, HP support, MicroSoft support in part,
and Symantech and Earthlink support (in part), have off-shored, most at
a new money-per-minute format, since the onset of 2004.
d) It is reported, though I have no means to confirm or verify, that
these tech support services are as cheap as they are because they are
partly subsized by the Indian government. [UK based warning.]
e) It is reported, though I have no means to confirm or verify, that
these India tech support services are flypapering computer user data in
the Unites States to create intelligence MAPs. [Silicon based warning.]
f) MicroSoft has adopted a corporate stance opposed to the Monopoly
Law Enforcing sttes such as the U.S., and EU. Also, MicroSoft had
'sold*' its operating source code access [*-license? how can you
withdraw information obtained under license from a sovereign entity?) to
the state of Russia.
g) Russia is currently actively working to destabilize Lithuania, as
well as former Soviet ring-states.
h) Putin has re-asserted the use of apparatchiks to staff government,
and recaptured state control of the press, transforming the popular
participation available in Russia.
i) Question 1: Is there substantial intelligence cross penetration
and sharing between India and Russia, (especially in the face of
American military presence in Pakistan)? I presume this exists sub rosa
by legacy if not overtly in the present.
j) Question 2: Does item (f) allow India a special advantage in
deploying chosen computer resources? Again, sub rosa mechanisms allow
this functions in the absence of conscious policy.
k) Question 3:
Have we in fact allowed and incentivized the following strategically
vulnerable situation contrary to American strategic interests?:
A hostile intelligence regime (Russia), now inter-cooperative to
national power with world concerns (India faced with China, US,
Indonesia, Pakistan) are in a position to gain Intelligence, and access
to numerous computer use and data reserves, and are able to be financed
by it's target's population at the infrastructure level, individually
yet collectably, to have this access.
Further these both are therefore incentivized at both national
security levels to craft, construct, and launch viral/worm/and other
program concepts, to seize upon exploits discoverable within the
MicroSoft user program architecture, being rewarded both with money and
sensitive internal information?
Thank you for your attention.
I hope to be in touch soon about another (lighter and recreational)
matter.
Hope you are doing well.
A
========================
Subject: Ode to
Napster, Music's Last Hope
Hello Jerry,
As always, Dvorak is thought provoking. Is RIAA its
own worst enemy?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1537393,00.asp
Regards, Clyde Wisham
**** "Some cause happiness wherever they go; others,
whenever they go."-- Oscar Wilde ****
As you say...
=============
Another item on Clarke
Subject: Information on Richard Clarke
http://vmyths.com/resource.cfm?id=62&page=1
Fascinating reading. -- Harry
I remember him now; he seemed a bit familiar when I
saw him on TV. It was an Atlanta AAAS meeting, I believe, although it may
have been a COMDEX. Some of Clinton's science and technology people were at
the conference and I had lunch with them; I had been a panelist on cyberwar.
This was quite early in Clinton's administration, possibly first year,
although probably the second, but before the Gingrich Congressional win.
I am afraid I don't remember much about Mr. Clarke.
There was another chap on Clinton's staff who did impress me, and I believe
I wrote about him at the time in BYTE.
But not, I think, Mr. Clarke.
"I am waiting for him to tell us what,
precisely, he proposed prior to 911 that was not done. I am also waiting to
hear his precise advice to Clinton when the Sudanese offered us Bin Laden on
a silver platter."
In one of Clarke's many media appearances in the past
week, on NPR, he discusses this and seems to say that he believes the
Sudanese never extended such an offer. He explains his reasons for believing
this at some length but I do not recall genuine evidence being discussed.
I'm not familiar with what evidence there was of this offer in the first
place.
http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?display=day&todayDate=03/24/2004
In the media he certainly comes across as someone who
believes what he is saying.
Justin
I am sure he believes what he is saying. I am not
sure his memory is correct when it comes to the measures he proposed. And
whether or not he proposed an invasion of Afghanistan in the first year of
the Bush Administration is irrelevant since there was zero chance of getting
either a declaration of war or an appropriation for doing that; not until
911.
=========================
Jerry,
Well, the test message hasn't been bounced by your
spam blocker; I'll try this again...
For what it's worth, the gentleman running the new
NASA "Centennial Challenge" space prize program will be talking about what
they're up to at our Space Access '04 conference next month. (April 22-24 in
Phoenix, for details see
http://www.space-access.org/updates/sa04info.html )
They're currently running on a few hundred thousand in
Administrator's discretionary funds; the request for next year would give
them $20 million starting in October, if Congress approves. It's not in the
ballpark you're talking about here, but it's a start.
The principle seems to be getting established. Soon we
may be in a position to start haggling about price...
Henry Vanderbilt Executive Director Space Access
Society
I will probably manage to get to that conference
this year. I doubt I can get the Administrator of NASA to it this time,
though. It has been far too long since I attended one of those meetings
although my son Richard usually goes.
As to test messages and bounces, apparently
adelphia got itself black holed. I've arranged for our ISP to pass their
stuff through to me anyway, and the listing has been lifted but some routers
aren't updated yet. Or so I am told.
=================
Laws and Regulations
Hi Jerry,
A double whammy for you today...
Start with this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3560315.stm
which leads naturally into this:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Hide.shtml
Fred has it spot on.
- Paul
=
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Friday
|
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
