| Thursday,
July 13, 2006 Subject: Looks like the
Marines have been reading Pournelle
Marines want a Spaceplane
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,104739,00.html?ESRC=marine.nl
"It's called Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion,
or SUSTAIN, and it's a reusable spaceplane meant to get a squad of Marines
to any hotspot on Earth in two hours -- then get them out. The idea is to
reinforce embattled embassies, take out terrorist leaders or defuse hostage
situations before it's too late. "The Marine Corps needs [this] capability,"
Brig. Gen. Richard C. Zilmer told Congress in 2004."
I've always thought this to be one of the most
exciting concepts in your books.
Ron Booker
===============
“We don’t find it embarrassing."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/
12/washington/12assets.html
--- Roland Dobbins
On the other hand, Homeland Security doesn't
find the TSA embarrassing either.
===========
Subject: two millennia succumb to high heels and
chewing gum
Now if I were Wrigley and Nordstrom, I would see an
opportunity here for sponsorship!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060712/ap_on_re_eu/greek_theater_rescue
ATHENS, Greece - Over the centuries, they withstood
the forces of wind, water and earthquakes. Today, Greece's two main ancient
theaters face new threats: high heels and chewing gum.
During a pre-summer cleanup, workers removed 60 pounds
of chewing gum left by spectators under seats of the Athens theater.
Lefantzis said gum, which remains a problem, will be dried and pried off
during the first weeks of August.
"The wet gum on the marble is hard to get off and it
takes off small pieces of marble with it," he said.
Marble seating in the lower section has been damaged
by high heels from more than 250,000 visitors each year.
Petronius
========
Why globalisation isn't a win-win situation.
http://www.moneyweek.com/file/15086/why-globalisation-isnt-a-win-win-
situation.html
--- Roland Dobbins
===========
Subject: No Segways in Berkeley
Hi Jerry, in regard to your musing in View (7/10) if
there are Segways in Berkeley, not that I've seen. My wife and I go down
there from our apartment in north Oakland at least a couple of times a week,
and I have yet to see one on either Telegraph or Shattuck Aves. Not
conclusive of course, and lord knows there may be some whizzing about on
campus that I'd never see.
Oh and on the topic of LInux: you mention Xandros on
Chaos Manor Reviews, and while it is pretty good, I have to chip in with a
good word for Ubuntu Linux. I have done "Aunt Minnie" installations of
Xandros that I later converted to Ubuntu, and they were happier with the
Ubuntu. I myself have preferred it the last year plus, and that's after 10
years of desktop linux use at home, of a number of distributions. With
Ubuntu, linux finally Just Works (it is the only distro I have used to ever
correctly setup the various Nvidia cards I have with no manual
intervention).
-David Mercer
Oakland, CA
=========
Subject: How google does it
Dr. Pournelle,
This is fairly important. It's a compilation, summary,
and analysis of the important lessons of google's IT infrastructure. It's
gleaned from multiple sources since google refuses to openly discuss their
core technologies, but what the authors have been able to put together is
extremely interesting.
http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,1540,1985040,00.asp
The idea that google has developed a deployable
package currently equivalent to 5000 opteron processors and 3.5 petabytes of
storage that fits into a standard shipping container, and is dropping those
wherever it can buy raw network access, is nothing short of revolutionary.
Nobody else is doing this but everyone is going to have to figure it out or
be left behind. This is raw computing power on an unheard of scale, and 6
billion dollars of investment funding is behind a swarming expansion of
capacity.
Microsoft and AOL should feel very threatened, as this
sort of thing could displace every ISP in the country overnight if google
decided that they would benefit from such a move. Let's hope Google has
learned from Microsoft's mistakes, and is generating it's own political
special interest groups to counter the inevitable congressional interference
as the buggy whip makers start spinning up this generation's resistance to
inevitable technological change.
The article even mentions how the US Military would be
well advised to copy Google's IT deployment methods, as they have pared it
down to capacity for dollars in the best capitalistic fashion possible. In
any case, the article is a great read.
Sean
==========
Subject: r.e. Holistic
Intelligence
Dear Jerry,
Me too on the last part of Roland Dobbins:
>>The civilian and military intelligence services will
continue to be overlawyered in ways which ensure operational
inefficacy...and both underlawyered and amoral in ways<<
And Roger Shattuck's entire letter.
>>Everything has been said. But nobody listens.<<
JW made this observation:
>>It's significant that the article doesn't appear at
first glance to contain one word about using intelligence either to estimate
current target country technical capability<<
This glitch arises from one 'customer' (in this case
Department of Commerce and/or NSF) having too little control over what's
collected and subsequentlythe analyzed. Don't worry, given sufficient time
and quietude in the media headlines this glitch will recur in every other
functional area. It's inevitable for a bureaucratic organization which has
no operational responsibilities and has an organizational culture that says
its highest purpose is producing a daily entertainment show called the
Presidential Briefing.
End important comments.
The Holistic Analytical Unit:
I will concede that someplace we can afford a Gummint
Team B browsing through our foreign secrets and thinking about them at
leisure, without the pressure and possible bias introduced by having
executive responsibility for mission results. This Team B however should not
be empowered to:
"Identify intelligence requirements" "Establish
collection priorities" "Manage IC funding directed against the target"
There are the reasons for prohibiting this that I
mentioned before. An additional reason is that if any of these Holistic
Analytical Units ever come to be headed by moles (it's conceded they will be
career civil servants), we will be intentionally blinded and deceived by the
enemy. There are grounds for supposing this happened before. Not every great
spy gets into the history books. Concentrating such vast power in a few
people guarantees the personnel wielding it will become high priority
targets for foreign intelligence HUMINT efforts, and even domestic special
interests like AIPAC.
The first reality is that 99.5% of useful
'intelligence' these days is obtained by exploiting the electromagnetic
spectrum. We take pictures from planes and satellites, we intercept
electronic impulses by a variety of methods and we read public domain
material originating in the target areas. Then we convert this data into
forms intelligible to machines and people. The second reality is that 90% of
this material is now so real time it's applicable at strategic, operational
and tactical levels. The "Holistic" proposal states an office of bureaucrats
in Washington (ignore the huge mole danger for a moment) should gatekeeper
100% of the information for no greater reason than because they share a
common payroll office with the people collecting the other 0.5% (HUMINT).
Here is the door to institutionalized surprise.
And this suggestion: "Preside over programs sponsoring
in-country research, academic exchanges, student programs, conferences, and
other efforts." should only be adopted if we want to fertilize the growing
world-wide perception of us as the 21st Century Evil Empire replacing the
USSR. This is what the KGB did in former times. What the hell? It fits right
in with the rapid Sovietization of much else in our national life, so why
not?
HUMINT. This the 0.5% that is so fascinating to
everyone thanks to Ian Fleming and Hollywood. It's the least reliable form
of intelligence. We may end up with double agents who take our money and
then lie to us. We may end up with no agents at all. Even if everything is
done right this business still requires 'luck' in the form of finding
willing traitors in the right places in the target area.
At this point in time we need five (5) separate HUMINT
efforts. I see no desirable overlap between them. Their activities do not
leverage each other in-country and therefore they should be rigidly
compartmentalized. Otherwise one traitor in the local CIA Station or the
Washington Holistic Analytical Unit can destroy our entire national
capability in a particular country. The probability of this happening
increases with the importance of the target because the target will know we
are struggling with it on the 'intelligence' front, so it will start
struggling with us back.
HUMINT 1. This is recruiting agents in foreign
governments and organizations to tell us what the president and other
powerful figures are thinking and doing. It takes years and decades to find
and position such people. This activity is most successful when it's not
known to be needed and impossible to accomplish when it is. It is not very
responsive to increased resource inputs and not at all responsive to
decision maker temper tantrums ("higher priority") and the crisis du jour
for reasons mentioned above. Political pressures on a Holistic Analytical
Unit to produce an image of responsiveness provides entre to people like
Ahmed Chalabi. The unit doing this is best associated with the Department of
State even while kept 100% subterranean.
HUMINT 2. This is creating and maintaining in-country
networks of agents to support Covert Operations with local logistics and
timely information of general local conditions ("Route #3 is actually
impassable because..."). Covert Ops means activities like rescuing (and
kidnapping) people, killing bad people, blowing up things and even
sponsoring guerrilla insurgencies and coups. The policy paraphernalia of
spreading modern democracy to foreign lands. Clearly the Department of
Defense should operate this activity. We can add recruiting spies in foreign
militaries and defense contractors to the activities engaged in by a
separate branch of HU-2.
HUMINT 3. These are activities designed to leverage
the National Security Agency's intercept and code-breaking efforts with
local hardware placement and recruitment of local information technology
spies like John Walker. Obviously the NSA should directly operate "HU-3". Of
all the forms of HUMINT this activity will return the greatest return on
investment for the same reason electromagnetic intelligence already yields
99% of useful secret intelligence. Q. Who was the greatest known Soviet spy
of the Cold War? A. John Walker.
HUMINT 4. This group should be dedicated to going
around and knowingly or unknowingly debriefing other people who recently
returned from the target areas.
HUMINT 5. Foreign Counterintelligence efforts. This
should be run by the FBI and aimed at obtaining agents in foreign
intelligence services so we can discover who among us are traitors.
I have no idea why any Team B Holistic Analytical Unit
needs any knowledge even of the existence of HU-2 or HU-5 activities in
their target area. HU-2 is a policy decision approximating war. HU-5 is
really directed against domestic traitors, including possible traitors in
the Holistic Analytical Unit. Nor do they need any specifics about HU-1 and
HU-3 beyond knowing the information is reliable. Let them operate HU-4. This
will provide them some foreign travel to third countries and help satiate
their Tom Cruise fantasies.
Best Wishes,
Mark
=========
Subject: Lecturer seems to have won an argument
Dear Dr. Pournelle:
You may remember that a British lecturer was suspended for mentioning
that population genetics-based studies show that different groups may have
different IQ levels. He seems to be forced to take an early retirement - for
claiming such an "abhorrent" thing. Using Peter Brimelow's definition - that
a "racist" is someone who seems to be winning an argument over a liberal -
this fellow seems to have won becasue it is now official that he is a
"racist" by establismentarian standards:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1174101.ece
Regards -- KE
It is clear that political superstition
takes precedence over science. The IQ people have data. The explanation of
that data needs discussion. There can be no discussion. Thus the whole
matter stays below the surface, where all kinds of speculations and
prejudices can be attached to the known facts -- only of course the facts
aren't known to most, just some descriptions of them and interpretations and
the rest.
I would have thought it better to have
open debates on any subject. But clearly liberals have a different view. But
then liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as
it commits suicide.
=============
(Copied from View; discussion below)
Subject: Vulnerabilities Everywhere
Dr. Pournelle:
Not only is Tuesday the monthly Microsoft
Patch Day to fix some vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer, but there
are problems in Firefox. The 1.5.04 update, released June 1, 2006, fixes
12 vulnerabilities, five are 'critical' that would allow an attacker to
take control of your computer. Information on the vulns are here:
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html#firefox1.5.0.4
.
There are vulnerabilities everywhere ...
Microsoft, Linux, Mac, etc. Users should remember to continually keep
current on patches and updates. All software has vulnerabilities. Moving
to Firefox or Unix might reduce your exposure/attack visibility, but you
should not think that you are safe by using non-MS alternatives.
"Safe computing" works. Even though I run
Microsoft products (Windows XP Pro, Office 2003, IE 6, etc), my
continual practice of 'safe computing' has not caused my computers to be
infected/'owned'.
"Safe computing is important". I tell you
three times.
Regards, Rick Hellewell
===
Subject: Vulnerabilities everywhere
It is of course a truism that security is a process
rather than a product, and that no platform is immune. However, I think it's
important to point out a couple of things:
1. Microsoft products are literally several orders of
magnitude less secure than Linux or OS X. For example, compared to the
literally tens of thousands of Microsoft viruses loose in the wild, there
are only a handful of Linux or OS X viruses in the wild. Nearly all of those
require the active cooperation of the Linux or OS X user to propagate, and
none of them have done so.
2. Most of the Firefox vulnerabilities and exploits to
which Mr. Hellewell frequently points are platform-specific. That is, those
who run Firefox on non-Windows platforms are not subject to these
vulnerabilities and exploits. These so-called Firefox flaws are therefore
actually flaws in Windows rather than in Firefox. The same is true for most
other vulnerabilities in cross-platform open-source applications as well as
commercial cross-platform applications. When an application runs on several
platforms but is vulnerable to a particular exploit on only one platform,
you don't blame the application. You blame the platform.
And it is the Windows platform that is to blame.
Ignore bogus arguments about the frequency and severity of Windows exploits
being a result of its large market share. That has nothing to do with it.
Windows would suffer just as many attacks if it had only 10% of the market
instead of 90%.
The fundamental problem is that Windows is easy to
attack, while Linux and OS X are very difficult to attack. That's a direct
result of design decisions that Microsoft made, emphasizing ease of use and
ignoring security. That, and the fact that the Windows code base is a
gigantic heap of tens of millions of lines of spaghetti code. It's
unmaintainable.
Security can't be added on to this pile of insecure
crap. The only way to secure Windows would be to start with a clean sheet of
paper and write a new operating system from scratch. Microsoft isn't going
to do that, so Windows is doomed to remain forever insecure.
Conversely, Linux is secure by design. That's not to
say it's invulnerable, of course, but merely that it is much, much more
difficult to develop a dangerous exploit against Linux, and that such
exploits are almost certain to fizzle because very few Linux users routinely
run as root. Even if Linux had 90% of the desktop market, the likelihood is
almost zero that the types of widespread exploits that are common on Windows
could ever succeed on Linux.
Barbara and I run various flavors of Linux almost
exclusively. We use a router between us and the public Internet, but take no
other precautions. We do not run antivirus software or malware scanners.
There's no need for them if you run Linux.
-- Robert Bruce Thompson
==
Subject: OS Vulnerabilities
Dr Pournelle:
What Robert Bruce Thompson fails to take into
consideration with his comments about Windows security vs Linux security is
the target audience. Linux, whatever distro, is far from perfect in getting
it to work on all manner of hardware. Some distros work better with certain
video cards but fall short on network. Other distros the other way around.
This makes it a problem for Aunt Minnie to get a well working Linux system.
Windows on the other hand simply works so the Aunt Minnies use Windows. Aunt
Minnie is not going to configure text files, find this module or that
module, or do as some have suggested to me when I have a problem, recompile
the kernel.
So what you have is “propeller heads” that are running
Linux because they can. These people also understand security and not
running as ROOT. These people know about email phishing attacks, bogus
emails, etc. All the nasty things that can cause problems. So of course
Linux users are not attacked as often.
Aunt Minnie on the other hand is simply running a
product that works and gets the job done. She is not concerned with having
signons, user privileges, secure passwords, or even that she needs to keep
her system up to date.
I run Windows because it gets the job done using
software that does the job. I have been running Windows for 15+ years and
have yet to be compromised. I too sit behind a router as does RBT. I have
anti-virus protection but have yet to have a virus detected or stopped by
the anti-virus software. I could just as easily rid myself of the AV
software and work just as well.
The biggest security risk is the user behind the
keyboard, not the choice of OS.
Ray Thompson
Safe computing is always safer. Hmmm.
See mail below
========
Subject: Mexican Presidential Election
Dear Jerry,
I see where 'Conservative' Calderon claims to have
beat 'Leftist' Obrador by fewer than 250,000 votes. Calderon is a member of
Vincente Fox's party.
Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman endlessly assure us the many
millions of Mexican illegals here are prime Republican material, despite
their current demonstrated Democratic tendencies. The only requirement is
the GOP must adopt more Democratic policies, such as multilingualism.
Therefore, according to the Rove-Mehlman Theory of Hispanic Political
Affinities, we can immediately strengthen existing 'Conservative' political
forces in both countries by returning several million of Calderon's missing
voters to him and building a stout fence after them.
We should start this experiment immediately. We can
then assess the Rove/Mehlman Theory on the basis of experimental results
from the 2008 US and 2012 US & Mexican Presidential elections, or as many of
them as take place.
Best Wishes,
Mark
===========
Subject: UK: Conservative leader's
call for "understanding" for thugs backfires politically
> They want to hear how the State is going to provide
> more prison capacity so that sentencing policy is set
> by the seriousness of the crime rather than the
> availability of cells
I wonder if it would help to add "caning" to the
punishment mix? It works for Singapore and it does not carry with it the
huge costs of "public housing" in the form of prisons
Jim
Prior to WW II, English judges routinely
meted out flogging with the cat of nine tails for crimes of violence. The
result was that English burglars were famously polite; if caught in the act
they'd ask for tea while waiting for the [unarmed] constable.
I think there is little of that in today's
England.
===========
Subject: White fears stifle
discussion
The reason for the monologue in biracial discussions,
even when the topic is not about race.
Louis
Hell is truth seen too late. - Thomas Hobbes
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/
0706/prager071106.php3?printer_friendly
Stifling the 'racists'
By Dennis Prager
I wonder if this is true?
==
Subject: Re: White fears stifle discussion
Astonishing. I would like to see more evidence though
-- replication of the focus group "experiments" especially -- before I
really believe it.
Luke
============
On Free Speech
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/5174010.stm
BBC News 12 July 2006
Racism row lecturer retires early
A lecturer at the centre of a race row has retired
early from his post at Leeds University.
Dr Frank Ellis sparked protests from students
after he said that, on average, black people are less intelligent than
white people.
He was suspended earlier this year while the
university began disciplinary proceedings against him.
More than 500 students signed a petition asking
for the Russian Studies lecturer to be sacked.
In a statement, the university said Dr Ellis left
on 30 June.
'Abhorrent' views
It continued: "Dr Ellis was suspended on 23 March
following remarks made in interviews which the university considered
unacceptably racist.
"Dr Ellis, 53, retired on the same standard terms
available to his colleagues.
"However, in bringing forward the retirement a
year sooner than Dr Ellis wanted, the university agreed to pay him a
year's salary and to make a contribution towards his legal costs."
Prior to his suspension the university said Dr
Ellis' views were "abhorrent".
Dr Ellis has expressed support for the Bell Curve
theory, examined in a book by Richard Hernnstein and Charles Murray,
which concludes that ethnicity can play a part in IQ levels.
Labelling him a racist was "an attempt to close
down any discussion" and an attack on his freedom of speech, he said.
We all know what we can't say. And bother
the data, we can't discuss that.
===========
Subject: Safe Computing
Dr. Pournelle:
In regards to my message about "Safe
Computing", and Mr. Thompson's letter (in your
7/13/07 mail): My intent on urging readers to practice "safe computing" was
not an attempt to get into the "my OS is more secure than your OS"
discussion. Rather, it was to alert users that, no matter which OS platform
or applications you use, safe computing practices can keep you out of
trouble.
The security/design of Windows vs. Linux is not an
issue here. Linux may be more secure for the approx 10% of users that use
it, but the rest of the computing world needs to ensure that they have
proper protection. That protection ('safe computing') includes installing
updates for operating systems and applications. It includes being aware of
practices that can cause problems, such as opening attachments, clicking on
links in emails that ask for financial information (phishing), installing
questionable software, web-surfing to questionable sites, etc.
Windows may be, as Mr. Thompson states, "easier to
attack [than Linus or OSX]". But users can limit their risks by practicing
'safe computing'. If you are driving a car 90 mph down US Highway 1 (an
often very coastal windy road right on the edge of cliffs on the Pacific
Ocean), it doesn't matter the kind of car you are driving -- your unsafe
driving techniques are likely to cause problems with your life force. By
practicing 'safe driving' (seat belts, reasonable and proper speed and
driving techniques, etc), you are more likely to survive to the next day.
(Notwithstanding random occurrences such as tunnel roofs crashing on your
car.)
So, I am glad that Mr. Thompson is happy with his
choice of operating system. My choice of operating system, combined with
'safe computing' practices, protects me from the attacks by evil software.
"Safe computing" works for my computing environment. And that's why I
recommend readers practice the same.
I tell you three times.
Regards, Rick Hellewell
===========
Subject: spaceplanes
I hate to pour cold water on the idea of Marines in
spaceplanes, but:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,104739,00.html?ESRC=marine.nl
-snip- Spaceplanes -- that is, craft that take off and
land like airplanes but achieve low orbit using rocket motors -- aren't
science fiction anymore. In 2004, Burt Rutan's Space Ship One snared the $10
million X-Prize by demonstrating that a relatively cheap and simple vehicle
could get a man into low orbit in two stages and return him safely. -snip-
(emphasis added)
Uh, no, it did NOT demonstrate any such thing. Burt
Rutan's SpaceShip One demonstrated the ability to achieve Mach 3 and 60
mile-plus altitudes in a rocketplane and to then return safely to ground.
The journalist author of the cited and quoted article appears to know little
of what Rutan did or did NOT accomplish.
SUSTAIN is a great concept, but I think a Delta
Clipper would be much better. After all, is there going to be a
fifteen-thousand foot runway available near every US Embassy or hostage
taking site? Not bloody likely, and, unlike a spaceplane, a Delta Clipper
don't need no stinking runway! Plus the sheer terror inspired in some mob or
terrorist gang by the sight of a ball of flame roaring out of the sky, as a
Delta Clipper lands on the street in front of the embassy, well that would
be an added bonus. After all, mobs are so much easier to control when they
are running AWAY from you!
Petronius
Rutan's Space Ship One had no thermal
protection, and did not re-enter the atmosphere. The feathering system
worked for the low speed flight regime employed, but it was engineered to
win the prize, and doesn't show an clear path to orbital or even sub-orbital
flight. The hybrid propulsion system is also of questionable value for
missions other than straight up.
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Thursday |
