January 31, 2006
Posted by: Teresa in
FUN
at
11:54 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.
From Computer World...
JANUARY 30, 2006 (IDG NEWS SERVICE) - Users of Advanced Micro Devices Inc.'s microprocessors may want to think twice before looking for technical support on the company's Web site. Customer support discussion forums on the forums.amd.com site have been compromised and are being used in an attempt to infect visitors with malicious software, an AMD spokesman confirmed Monday.
Yep - you read that right - the hackers are going after the geeks with more esoteric attacks. This is the WMF flaw coming back to bite those who haven't patched their systems yet... for whatever reason. (some of those reasons are good - but that doesn't help once you're system has been compromised)
Attackers have figured out a way to use AMD's forums to deliver maliciously encoded WMF images to visitors, which are then used to install unauthorized software on the unpatched systems, he said.In this case, the software appears to be a number of different malicious tool bars. "Most of the tool bars show pop-ups, follow your search and other keyword activity, and use that to target ads to you," Hypponen said. "It's for-profit hacking. Somebody is making money from each machine that is hit by these tool bars."
Because of the nature of the WMF vulnerability, however, hackers could install any type of software they wanted on unpatched systems, he said.
Interesting and scary thought. Here you wanted some info on an AMD product and who knows what you've picked up! So far they're talking about toolbars... but I wonder if there were any more malicious payloads out there.
These attackers need to be seriously hurt... seriously.
Posted by: Teresa in
WebTech
at
10:08 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Teresa in
Current Affairs
at
09:23 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
I've just spent a good chunk of time moving my personal email over to Thunderbird. It's time consuming and annoying to make even minor changes like this. The nitpicky details of getting things set up the way I want them and making the rules work for distributing my email. You see... I have specific folders I like to use so I know who the emails are coming from. And even though I still overlook stuff - I "lose" less email in the mess of too many messages when I can distribute to different folders.
What I want to see is if their spam filter actually works.
I've been using the "evil" Outlook for a number of years. Some of this had to do with compatibility issues with my husband's work email. The rest had more to do with laziness than anything else. But in the last couple of months the spam has become intolerable. I spend more time deleting that than actually reading emails. It was either - get a filter for Outlook - requiring much research on what's available and pouring through reviews to see what problems people run into... OR I could try Thunderbird...
So here I am - messing about with my regular email when it occurs to me, I might as well mess about with my blog email too. Why not. I've never been very happy with Hotmail - I just don't like the interface... it's a personal preference. Plus it dawned on me that I have several available email accounts sitting around not being used. So, I created a new account - and thus you see the new and improved email addy on the right sidebar at the top.
I'll see how it goes - I may even try working it out so the sidebar account gets POPped directly to my new Thunderbird setup. If I like this enough - I may end up moving blog comments off gmail and putting them on this account too. But - one thing at a time.
Posted by: Teresa in
WebTech
at
08:36 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.
January 30, 2006
As for the show...
I think Bou said it best...
Will the President's wife finally get a clue that he's a weasel and punch him in the face for being a condescending patronizing SOB towards her? (I frickin' hate that in a man. Blech.) The First Lady NEEDS to meet Chloe...
Oh yeah - I want to see Chloe out there with a gun again - that girl has what it takes. Let her give a few lessons to Mrs. President. And while we're at it - Martha Logan can slap her stupid assistant upside the head. (Well, she's either stupid OR has been in cahoots with Walt to take Mrs. Logan out of the picture.)
Now - can we cut the high school love story crap and get back to the mayhem... PLEASE!!!! Un-frickin-believable! My husband warned me that the action scenes are great - but the character interaction is way too juvenile.... how right he is!
Like Bou - I find it beyond credibility that Audrey would call Jack to chat about their love life when he's trying to stop terrorists from exploding nerve gas cannisters. (do the writers get this stuff by watching old reruns of Days of Our Lives?) Jack should've just hung up on her - why would he want to be anywhere near someone so stupendously self-centered? (Audrey - yeah I know that terrorists might kill about a million people any time now, but do you still love me Jack?.... ARG!!! Kill her!)
All in all - there hasn't been NEARLY enough action in the last 2 segments. It better pick up quick, cause this stupid stuff is going to drive me up the wall.
Oh yeah... last but not least...
Bou is right - Bauer and Buchanon - both day pass material. :-)
Posted by: Teresa in
Television
at
06:35 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 2 kb.
The NOdometer display shows the outstanding debt owed to the Social Security Trust Fund. Congress will have to raise taxes, reduce Social Security benefits, reduce other spending, or borrow more when it comes time to repay the Trust Fund--starting in 2017, according to the Social Security Administration.Without reform, future taxpayers will be paying down the Trust Fund debt until 2041. But things don't just get better then. When the trust fund is finally paid off in full, Social Security will face annual deficits just under $400 billion (in 2004 dollars), relative to the benefits that it has promised. Under present law, Social Security would have to cut benefits across the board by about 25 percent. The only alternatives are raising taxes, cutting away entire government departments, or borrowing more money.
Something to consider when the Democrats start screaming about how Social Security reform is going to bring about a total collapse. Looks like we are well on our way to that point now - just by the stalling tactics being used to keep us from investing a miniscule amount of our own hard earned money for our own retirement. Heaven forbid we actually try to help ourselves - especially when we can see the coming train wreck of the current system.
Guess it all adds up.
Posted by: Teresa in
Current Affairs
at
07:09 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.
January 26, 2006
OS X contains unpatched security flaws of a type that were fixed on alternative operating systems more than a decade ago, according to a security researcher credited with finding numerous bugs in Apple's increasingly popular platform.
So, the next time a Mac user laughs at you for being on a Windows platform (maybe even out of necessity)... you may want to tell them to keep an eye on their own systems instead of mocking yours.
"In my experience -- which is also the experience of some of my peers -- Apple has been very slow to respond to reported security vulnerabilities. It expects security researchers to wait indefinitely to release the vulnerabilities and offers no incentive for them to do so," said Archibald.Apple's impressive security record is likely to be tarnished if the company continues to grow its market share while undervaluing security researchers and not properly auditing its code: "During the small time Suresec researchers spent auditing Mac OS X, many vulnerabilities like this turned up. Suresec is currently aware of many bugs which exist by default in the latest version of Mac OS X, on both the Intel and PPC Architecture."
Yep, just because you haven't heard about a bug - doesn't mean it's not there just waiting to pounce. Keep your eyes open Mac users. Learn how to deal with bugs and security patches or you may be sorry one day.
Posted by: Teresa in
WebTech
at
01:18 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.
Jan. 24, 2006 (KRT News delivered by Newstex) -- SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Google announced that it is officially launching its services in China, a move that will require the Internet firm to subject itself to self-censorship.
Google is one of the last large U.S. Internet companies to officially set up shop inside China. The delay reflects months of internal wrangling over how to balance business interests against its distaste at having to comply with China's restrictive speech policies.
Oh they certainly are not alone, Yahoo is in China, Microsoft, News Corp... among others. All of them censoring items that the Chinese government decrees are off limits. They must, that's the only way you can do business in China.
This does make one stop to wonder... all of our search engine companies here in the US are bending right over for the Chinese government - this is something we know about and is publicly being bandied about. My question is... what is being censored over here? I know there are government censorship rules in place on things like bomb making... but it's a simple step from there, to censoring other things.
That's the problem. When you help a repressive government try to maintain it's iron fist over it's own people, you become tarred with the same dreck as those you are helping. It leads people to believe that you will cave in all aspects of your business. (unless of course you are talking about pornography... they won't cave on that one - well that's a relief...)
Posted by: Teresa in
WebTech
at
11:33 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.
JANUARY 26, 2006 (COMPUTERWORLD) - The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has imposed a $10 million civil penalty against data aggregator ChoicePoint Inc. for a massive data security breach that resulted in the compromise of nearly 140,000 consumer records last year (see "ChoicePoint to tighten data access after ID theft").In addition to the penalty, which FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras described as the largest ever levied by the agency, ChoicePoint has been asked to set up a $5 million trust fund for individuals who might have become victims of identity theft as a result of the breach.
As part of its agreement with the FTC, Alpharetta, Ga.-based ChoicePoint will also have to submit to comprehensive security audits every two years for the next 20 years.
Do have a look at what ChoicePoint did on it's way to giving out customer information to anyone who claimed to be a legitimate business...
In its decision, the FTC slammed ChoicePoint, saying that it did not have reasonable procedures in place to screen prospective subscribers and that it turned over sensitive personal information to subscribers whose applications raised obvious red flags. The FTC said ChoicePoint approved customers for its service who lied about their credentials and used commercial mail drops as business addresses. In addition, the applicants reportedly used fax machines at public commercial locations to send multiple applications for separate companies.According to the FTC, ChoicePoint also failed to tighten its application approval procedures or monitor subscribers, even after it got subpoenas from law enforcement authorities alerting it to fraudulent activity that dated back to 2001.
While I'm assuming they have a firewall in place, you almost have to wonder why. They pretty much threw open the information to anyone who asked for it... and television commercials would have you worry about dumpster diving - good grief! Why go to the trouble of going through people's trash, when all you have to do is call ChoicePoint?
They deserved this penalty and far more! The 140,000 names that were disclosed last year as being compromised is simply the tip of the iceberg. I'm sure far more data has left their hands to go to the criminals before it became illegal to cover it up.
Now the question becomes, are they going to levy such huge fines against companies that try their hardest and are still breached? As current systems stand right now, it is impossible to be connected to the internet doing business, and be totally secure. Yes, ChoicePoint deserved it and the ruling will definitely make other companies look very hard at their security. But it remains to be seen if the real punishment will be reserved for those who simply ignore security in the quest for business, or if the penalties get tougher even for those who do all in their power to prevent data theft.
Posted by: Teresa in
WebTech
at
09:20 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.
The last couple of days have brought us a frenzy of posts about an LA Times column by Joel Stein, wherein he proclaims to the world that he does NOT support our troops.
When I first stumbled across the story, I was going to blog it along with everyone else, but very luckily, I ran across this interview, wherein Hugh Hewitt shows us a pathetically ignorant Joel Stein. It's so bad, I realized that all I can do is laugh at this guy.
[note JS - Joel Stein... HH - Hugh Hewitt... just want to be clear]
HH: All right. Now who is your...this is a column about the troops that begins, "I don't support our troops." We'll get to the specifics in a second. But who is your closest family member or friend who is on active duty?JS: That's an excellent question. I wouldn't say I have a very close friend. I would say only acquaintances. No family at all.
.
.
.
HH: All right. Now let me ask you a little bit about...have you ever been to one of the Naval...you know, one of the service academies? Annapolis, West Point, Air Force Academy?JS: I have never been to any of the academies.
HH: And do you know anyone who went to any of them?
JS: Do I know anyone who...yes. Yeah, I have a cousin at West Point.
HH: You did. Did you think he was crazy?
JS: My cousin who went to West Point?
HH: Yeah.
JS: No, not at all.
HH: What year did he go?
JS: My cousin's like six years younger than me. He has the exact same name as me, so hopefully, he's doing okay today.
HH: Where is he?
JS: He is serving here in the U.S. right now. I'm not sure where.
HH: Has he been deployed abroad?
JS: He has been deployed to Asia.
HH: Did you support him when he was in Asia?
JS: Um, support is an interesting word. Did I support him in Asia? Sure, he wasn't on active military duty. He wasn't fighting.[emph. mine --ed]
Okay, so maybe at the beginning of the interview he simply forgot about his cousin who is a graduate of West Point. I guess I could see how that could happen. After all I have about 50 cousins. I have no idea what any of them do for employment and I seldom think about them.
However, anyone who is so badly informed that he doesn't know the difference between "active duty" and "combat duty"... well, I just can't take him seriously. Why should I care what this guy thinks about the Armed Services when he so obviously knows nothing about it? Why should anyone buy this newspaper to acquire information when the columns they print are written by people who haven't even got enough knowledge of a subject to answer basic questions?
As I noted in Sissy's comments, it's possible that the LA Times hired Stein to show that they don't discriminate against the mentally incompetent in their hiring practices. The problem is that they should have given him a less conspicuous job. After all, if this is the level of knowledge that is standard for LA Times writers, the only reason they can publish a paper is because they can string words together into sentences. They certainly don't understand their subject matter.
We shouldn't be surprised though. In an age where our news people think that "fake but accurate" is just fine, who needs facts about a subject? The only thing that counts is how you "feel" about it. Right?
UPDATE: After reading the Joel Stein ramblings - go read this interview Hugh Hewitt had with Jonathan Alter. Alter has quite clearly done some homework! I have not studied the Federalist Papers - so I don't know who is closer to being right here, but the main point is - you CAN make the effort to educate yourself so you don't sound like a complete imbecile when you are asked questions.
Plus - these are NOT simple questions being thrown at Alter - this is very esoteric stuff. I commend him for looking into the history of the matter and for trying (short of being a law professor) to figure out these things based on the history of our country.
Posted by: Teresa in
Idiocies
at
07:47 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 774 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Teresa in
FUN
at
05:57 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.
January 25, 2006
That was how it got its hands on a copy of "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" - a documentary about how the MPAA rates films. The director, Kirby Dick, specifically asked the MPAA not to make any copies of his film. Dick was assured by an MPAA representative that "the confidentiality of your film... is our first priority. Please feel assure [sic] that your film is in good hands".But on Monday the MPAA admitted it had made a copy of the film but claimed, because their staff were the subject of the film, they were not breaking copyright law.
If I do something like trying to copy a DVD or CD, these people get completely bent. Even if my intent is to prolong the life of a movie or music that I have LEGALLY PURCHASED! But, they can... with a straight face... outright LIE to a film maker and pirate a copy of a movie themselves. Then try to justify it with this lame excuse.
What were they going to do with it? Give a freebee copy to everyone who was in the movie? Isn't that like... ILLEGAL? I hope this guy can take them to court and clean them out! Sadly he probably doesn't have the deep pockets needed for the job, but I'd love to see him do it. I also hope this breaks some law that MPAA has lobbied long and hard to get passed - then they can be investigated by the police... thoroughly. The Wankers.
UPDATE: It occurs to me to wonder what else they've pirated over the years.
Posted by: Teresa in
Idiocies
at
04:50 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.
January 24, 2006
For the most part the editorial is about the prosecution of Lawrence Franklin - a former defense department analyst who leaked classified information... and the sentence of 12 years handed down on Friday for this offense. This part was straightforward. It was the end of the editorial that became a convoluted mess.
...the Franklin verdict doesn't bode well for the NSA wiretap leakers, if they are ever found out. If the Justice Department goes after them with the same determination that Patrick Fitzgerald went about the Valerie Plame leakers, prosecutors will subpoena reporters and ask them to reveal their sources. As reporters ourselves, we don't relish that prospect, which is one reason we opposed the Fitzgerald probe from the very start. But once again liberals promoting a prosecution on partisan political grounds might end up hurting the cause of press freedom.As for Mr. Franklin, it's possible that his sentence will be reduced after he testifies against the two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The damage he did to U.S. security seems to have been relatively small, which is more than can be said of the NSA leakers.
Does this mean that it's okay to go after leakers of highly classified information, as long as it's not a reporter you ask to identify the criminal? They seem to find the information leakage in the NSA case to be a very bad thing... but it's even worse that reporters might have to tell us who let the cat out of the bag?
If classified material was leaked, and this is illegal, then it doesn't matter WHO got the information. Lobbyists, spies, the press... so far as I am concerned the person who leaked it committed a crime. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If that means reporters will have to testify - then so be it. To dance around the issue by saying the Valerie Plame affair made things "worse" in some way is ridiculous. Do they think that a huge security issue like this wouldn't be investigated if the Valerie Plame affair hadn't happened?
Sorry, but I think this editorial is about the worst I've seen come out of the WSJ. While there have been many that I don't agree with in substance - at least the end result was their own logical progression. This editorial has no logic to it whatsoever.
Posted by: Teresa in
Current Affairs
at
07:55 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.
(click to enlarge)
Have a wonderful day!
Posted by: Teresa in
FUN
at
06:47 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.
January 23, 2006
Now you may be asking yourself where I'm going with this? Well... apparently our soldiers haven't done a SINGLE SOLITARY thing worth reporting. Nothing at all. Apparently there were no insurgents killed, none taken into custody, nothing done for the Iraqi people. I must then assume - from the "complete" news coverage I'm receiving that our Service Men and Women are just sitting over in Iraq waiting for their turn to head out the door to be the next terrorist casualty.
Yes, I've finally figured it out - we've sent our young men and women over there to be targets in a shooting gallery. They have no brains, no ability, no initiative, no nothing - they are paper targets. After all, if they were actually DOING something... the crackerjack news reporters would tell us... wouldn't they?
I knew there was a reason I didn't watch television.
Posted by: Teresa in
Idiocies
at
05:39 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.
January 22, 2006
Sadly I couldn't pass up the opportunity to slide on some ice and fall... we were only about 100 feet from the parking lot... nearly done for heaven sake - most annoying. The funny thing was that I didn't have any problem on the steep slopes of granite with ice on them... no, I had to find some ice covered in a thin layer of dirt so it looked like hard ground.
So, the next few days will be a challenge for my typing... because... I managed to cut the little finger on my right hand. Anytime I hit the shift key - it smacks right on the cut. Also managed to pull something in my left knee. Otherwise just a little bruised.
Thanks to tai chi - there were no ankle injuries... my ankles can take quite a bit of turning now without protest. Well - at least something still works. Heh.
Posted by: Teresa in
Ho-Hum
at
05:47 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.
January 19, 2006
Today they've been talking about an incident last night at the United Center in Chicago.
CHICAGO -- Antonio Davis thought his wife was in danger, so the New York Knicks forward dashed over the scorer's table and into the stands during a timeout in overtime.
Of course the controversy is - should he have gone into the stands or not? In other words should he have called Security over to take care of the situation. There are a few things I find interesting in reading the article and listening to Dale (he's for Antonio protecting his wife even if it means entering the stands) and Holley (he's against a player entering the stands because of the volatility of the situation at that point).
First of all - this man is a professional athlete, he's being paid HUGE dollars to play a game. What he's supposed to be doing is concentrating on playing. Why in the world is he looking at the stands and his family when the game is on the line? This screams to me that his mind was not on the game at all, he was more interested in the peripherals... his family in the stands. If your mind is not on the court, you can NOT possibly play your best.
Second - and here is where I part company with the guys out there. His wife is a grown woman. She is in a public arena with Security available. She should be able to take care of herself! Good grief this is ridiculous. From everything I'm hearing and reading from the men out there - you'd think she was a drooling idiot who must be coddled and protected from every wind blowing. If the man was being obnoxious, why wasn't she calling security to complain? I'm very sure he didn't just stand up and suddenly decide to attack her. From what I heard on the radio - apparently words were flying fast and furious before it got to the point of physical confrontation.
I know the guys out there are all going to start sputtering and telling me how they would jump to the rescue if they thought their wife was being threatened... but I think we have to put it into context. She wasn't being accosted in a dark alley, she wasn't in a place where help was unavailable, she wasn't tied to the seats she was sitting in! For heaven sake... she could have taken off and gotten away from the guy if she felt he was a menace. Why are her actions or lack thereof being completely ignored?
Third - as I said, this guy is a highly paid athlete. He did play for Chicago in the past, but he is currently on a different team. His wife and supposedly his kids were in the stands (although the fact that the kids are there is barely mentioned at the end of the article)... if he is that worried about them, to the point that he can't concentrate on the job at hand, why didn't he buy and extra seat and hire a bodyguard to take care of them for a few hours?
I have to believe he thought something might happen between his wife and one of the local fans, because he seemed to be looking for it. This would be a prime reason for watching the stands during a timeout in overtime. A time when he should be evaluating the opposing team and thinking about his moves in various situations - not looking to see if the wife and (supposedly) kids are okay.
I guess what galls me the most about this episode is the way that Antonio's wife is given a complete pass on any responsibility in this matter. All the guys can think of to discuss is their protective instincts. She is like a cardboard cut out with no ability to do anything but stand there and be attacked.
While I understand the discussion about protecting your wife and kids, I find it maddening that his wife and her ability to avoid trouble are never given any credit or blame at all.
Posted by: Teresa in
Sports
at
07:51 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 722 words, total size 4 kb.
January 18, 2006
Jill Carroll's captors have issued a statement asking that the United States free all Iraqi women prisoners within 72 hours – and are threatening to kill Carroll if this demand is not met.
We all know that there won't be any prisoners released. So, unless the kidnappers can be persuaded to change their minds without their demands being met, there isn't much hope.
Now I realize that the CSM will certainly release statements asking for Ms. Carroll's safe return. But his particular part I find amusing in a rather backward way...
"Jill Carroll's colleagues at The Christian Science Monitor and journalists around the world appeal to her captors to release her immediately and without harm. They have seized an innocent person who is a great admirer of the Iraqi people. She is a professional journalist whose only goal has been to report truthfully about Iraq and to promote understanding. As an intelligent, dedicated, open-minded reporter, she has earned the respect of her Arab and Western peers. Since arriving in Iraq in 2003, Jill has always been treated as a guest by Iraqis and has sought to reflect their views and their hearts to the world. She has doggedly pursued stories for a variety of news organizations from several different countries. She began to file stories to The Monitor early last year.
Are they simply making a plea, or do they really not "get it" at all? The people who kidnapped her are NOT the Iraqi people she has been meeting in such a friendly fashion. The people who kidnapped her do NOT consider her to be an "innocent person". The people who kidnapped her do NOT want to see cooperation between the US and the Arab world. They are terrorists!
For that matter, if they are Islamic fundamentalists they would consider her to be in flagrant violation of all their behavioral rules regarding women. Just the fact that she is a woman with a job is enough to incur painful punishment and even death from these cretins. Not having seen how she dresses, but assuming that being an American she dresses in an American fashion, that is enough for her to be buried to her neck and stoned to death.
Do they not know that there is a war going on?
It will be interesting to see if this has any effect though...
Muthanna Harith al-Dhari, a leader of Iraq’s Muslim Scholars Association, an umbrella group for a number of leading Sunni clerics, today condemned the Jan. 7 kidnapping of freelance journalist Jill Carroll.
If anything will have an effect, it will be the clerics. If the kidnappers are religious and not only terrorists in it for the money, they may actually listen. Guess we'll have to wait just a little longer.
Posted by: Teresa in
Current Affairs
at
02:43 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.
January 17, 2006
Posted by: Teresa in
FUN
at
08:09 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
January 16, 2006
When they put their helmets on... They look like Predator.
However, instead of being scary - it just looks funny.
I'm just sayin'
Posted by: Teresa in
FUN
at
12:24 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
