- · Pelosi: I want to pass more laws I haven’t read.
- · Schummer: I’ll do anything I’m told.
- · Boehner: I don’t like it.
- · Paul: this is unjust for the people and for the government to enact.
- · Christie: I am for my state no matter what I need to do.
- · Obama: I’m no Dick Cheney.
- · Durbin: Chicago politicians own me. I obey.
- · Romney: I believe in the goodness of man.
- · Priebus: I just don’t know what happened.
- · Cheney: We did what we had to. I’m no Obama
- · Palen: I’m against most everything liberal.
- · Rick Santorum: Forget internationalism. Let’s fight gay rights.
- · Alexander: I promise, we make inquiries only with a court order.
- · McCain: We should be more aggressive about supporting whomever.
- · Rubio: Gotta do something to move up the chain.
- · Clinton: What matter does it make now?
- · Kim Jong Un: We want only peace.
- · Admaninejad: Our nuclear program is only for peaceful energy.
- · Xi Jinping: We’re not spying on anybody.
- · Putin: Fuck off. We’ll do what we want.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Possible Dream Quotes
I'm sure this one will get me in trouble. It is offered only tongue-in-cheek, total accuracy not implied. It seems to be differentiated on both sides. Enjoy.
Hacking from the Inside
We hear so often about governmental and/or industrial hacking against a government and/or industrial concern. What we never hear about, very much, is hacking from the inside. The "insider hacking" is behind the firewall, inside the layers of protection, and inside the detection screens. The insider hacker knows the full protocols of the system and is accustomed to working within them. It is still not the work of an amateur, but the location is closer to where the information is kept.
Suppose someone, rather gifted in this art, is compromised. (Spies have been doing this forever.) The price of silence is information. The horrified victim dreads the revelations and agrees to comply. Then, voila, information is extracted, and later transmitted, and used by the enemy - whomever. No one ever knows. This sort of hacking remains undetected for a long time. Insider hacking has betrayed nuclear for generations, industrial secrets for centuries, and military secrets for millennia. This is one thing that worries me about the massive modern databases held by agencies (of all flavors) we should trust.
In our current situation of "meta-data" reposited by the NSA, this type of hacking completely transcends the rigors of a court order. In the private sector, the collection of any and all data is an obstacle that never was.
Please note: hacking can take many forms including misinformation about what is known, what could be known, and what will be known. If my opponent believes I have something deleterious, it really doesn't matter if I have it.
Suppose someone, rather gifted in this art, is compromised. (Spies have been doing this forever.) The price of silence is information. The horrified victim dreads the revelations and agrees to comply. Then, voila, information is extracted, and later transmitted, and used by the enemy - whomever. No one ever knows. This sort of hacking remains undetected for a long time. Insider hacking has betrayed nuclear for generations, industrial secrets for centuries, and military secrets for millennia. This is one thing that worries me about the massive modern databases held by agencies (of all flavors) we should trust.
In our current situation of "meta-data" reposited by the NSA, this type of hacking completely transcends the rigors of a court order. In the private sector, the collection of any and all data is an obstacle that never was.
Please note: hacking can take many forms including misinformation about what is known, what could be known, and what will be known. If my opponent believes I have something deleterious, it really doesn't matter if I have it.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Unintended consequences - Part I
The new jobs report (6/7/13) created this week of 175,000 new jobs was higher than expected by a small amount, and the boost in consumer confidence reported last week in the economy has generated a conflict or paradox in a grave situation.
The higher consumer confidence has probably inspired a large number of people, previously off the books in job-seeking to resume their search for employment. The higher than expected number of new jobs, though underwhelming, was well noted. Yet, the unemployment rate remained about the same, slightly up, at 7.6%.
What would happen if all those drop-out job-seekers suddenly got reengaged in finding a job? And what if the number of new jobs increased at their current tepid rate. Nothing less than Disaster. The unemployment rate would leap at least a couple of percentage points. This implies the Administration, while enjoying greater consumer confidence, doesn't what too much of it. Damn!
Quote of the Day:
The higher consumer confidence has probably inspired a large number of people, previously off the books in job-seeking to resume their search for employment. The higher than expected number of new jobs, though underwhelming, was well noted. Yet, the unemployment rate remained about the same, slightly up, at 7.6%.
What would happen if all those drop-out job-seekers suddenly got reengaged in finding a job? And what if the number of new jobs increased at their current tepid rate. Nothing less than Disaster. The unemployment rate would leap at least a couple of percentage points. This implies the Administration, while enjoying greater consumer confidence, doesn't what too much of it. Damn!
Quote of the Day:
- Longevity is like fire retardant for the ambitious.
- When there is a power at hand, a purpose evolves to apply it.
- A license to practice does not confer the wisdom to do so.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Businessmen are Like Athletes
Businessmen are like athletes; liberals are like your mom. Just for fun.
On each of these there is an up-tick and on each a down-tick. But they are interesting, even if you disagree. They are stated in universal terms formed that way mostly for contrast. If you agree with the only the first set, you may be a liberal; if you agree with only the second set you may be a conservative. If you agree with both sets, well then where does that place you??? In the middle? This cannot be. There is no middle anymore. If you disagree with both, I dunno.
Businessmen are like athletes.
1. You will rarely hear of a businessman that gave his competitors every possible break, and never took advantage.
2. You will rarely hear of a businessman that did not compute his possible gain in a business transaction.
3. You will rarely hear of a businessman that will not hesitate to cut loses when the ship is sinking.
4. You will rarely hear of a businessman who is not proud of making money.
5. You will rarely hear of a businessman who disdains success.
Liberals are like your mom.
1. You will rarely hear of a liberal who believes in smaller government.
2. You will rarely hear of a liberal who believes all people should take full responsibiity for their lives.
3. You will rarely hear of a liberal who believes some people are incompetent, or worthless, or vile.
4. You will rarely hear of a liberal who declines to spend when money is available.
5. You will rarely hear of a liberal who doesn't believe that with just a little more money spent, things will not get better.
On each of these there is an up-tick and on each a down-tick. But they are interesting, even if you disagree. They are stated in universal terms formed that way mostly for contrast. If you agree with the only the first set, you may be a liberal; if you agree with only the second set you may be a conservative. If you agree with both sets, well then where does that place you??? In the middle? This cannot be. There is no middle anymore. If you disagree with both, I dunno.
Businessmen are like athletes.
1. You will rarely hear of a businessman that gave his competitors every possible break, and never took advantage.
2. You will rarely hear of a businessman that did not compute his possible gain in a business transaction.
3. You will rarely hear of a businessman that will not hesitate to cut loses when the ship is sinking.
4. You will rarely hear of a businessman who is not proud of making money.
5. You will rarely hear of a businessman who disdains success.
Liberals are like your mom.
1. You will rarely hear of a liberal who believes in smaller government.
2. You will rarely hear of a liberal who believes all people should take full responsibiity for their lives.
3. You will rarely hear of a liberal who believes some people are incompetent, or worthless, or vile.
4. You will rarely hear of a liberal who declines to spend when money is available.
5. You will rarely hear of a liberal who doesn't believe that with just a little more money spent, things will not get better.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
EMAIL secrets
It has been just disclosed that many government officials are using secret email addresses, possible to avoid disclosure from FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests. The latest high level government official transacting this practice is Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, possibly in requesting funds from private corporations to support the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The claim is that this is necessary to prevent their in-boxes from being overwhelmed with unwanted messages. This may be so. It may also be the case that many, not wishing or trusting the privacy of their communications are seeking closer privacy of their messaging. In a previous note, there was discussed this phenomenon by former EPA director Lisa Jackson. See,
http://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-two-generals-plus-one-more.html
If a SIO (some important official) wished to do this, it is possible with identity in place. For example, if the official email address is tomesh(at)hhs.gov, it could be somewhat privatized to tomesh2(at)hhs.gov. Just don't publish it. This would obviate the mailbox cluttering problem. (Even I do something like this, for exactly this purpose.) But if the privatization practitioner uses jomesh(at)hhs.gov or jomesh(at)hmail.com, this smacks of sneakiness. It conveys a disingenuous intent, at the very least. In the case of Sibelius, the secret address reported by the AP is KGS2(at)hhs.gov. This is reasonable, but if it was used for any kind of solicitation, not good would be the assessment of many.
What escaped me at the time was that if Jackson and Petraeus were doing this, many others may be doing likewise. "Fool me once, shame on you... ," begins the old aphorism.
This time I am certain the practice must be widespread throughout government, and probably in any information sensitive organization, public or private. The fact that it remains so very much undiscovered does not imply a conspiracy but more insidiously a type of mutual cooperation of people sharing co-vital information. Participants have mutual stakes in this enterprise, and this implies some nefarious purpose. Could it be power, profit, policy, infidelity, or what? Whatever, it is not benign. It has become a way to transact business at least one layer removed from discovery, much less scrutiny.
This is worrisome for a nation whose fundamental tenet is open freedom in multifaceted forms. Yet, one could argue that in times past such communications were transacted face-to-face and thus were non-discoverable. Nowadays, a wider scope of information transactions is required in a world of a distributed community contacts. The secret emails provide some cover. A most subtle matter this is. What is your view?
http://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-two-generals-plus-one-more.html
If a SIO (some important official) wished to do this, it is possible with identity in place. For example, if the official email address is tomesh(at)hhs.gov, it could be somewhat privatized to tomesh2(at)hhs.gov. Just don't publish it. This would obviate the mailbox cluttering problem. (Even I do something like this, for exactly this purpose.) But if the privatization practitioner uses jomesh(at)hhs.gov or jomesh(at)hmail.com, this smacks of sneakiness. It conveys a disingenuous intent, at the very least. In the case of Sibelius, the secret address reported by the AP is KGS2(at)hhs.gov. This is reasonable, but if it was used for any kind of solicitation, not good would be the assessment of many.
What escaped me at the time was that if Jackson and Petraeus were doing this, many others may be doing likewise. "Fool me once, shame on you... ," begins the old aphorism.
This time I am certain the practice must be widespread throughout government, and probably in any information sensitive organization, public or private. The fact that it remains so very much undiscovered does not imply a conspiracy but more insidiously a type of mutual cooperation of people sharing co-vital information. Participants have mutual stakes in this enterprise, and this implies some nefarious purpose. Could it be power, profit, policy, infidelity, or what? Whatever, it is not benign. It has become a way to transact business at least one layer removed from discovery, much less scrutiny.
This is worrisome for a nation whose fundamental tenet is open freedom in multifaceted forms. Yet, one could argue that in times past such communications were transacted face-to-face and thus were non-discoverable. Nowadays, a wider scope of information transactions is required in a world of a distributed community contacts. The secret emails provide some cover. A most subtle matter this is. What is your view?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)