Thursday, February 16, 2006

What Cisco and the Telcos haven't accounted for


Photo
Another compelling "deal" from BellWest

Last time out, I discussed the kinds of wares hardware vendors like Cisco are hawking to cable companies and telcos. The vendors' new hardware whets the service providers' appetite for more draconian controls over content providers and consumers alike. Certainly, the telcos' top executives have served up inflammatory rhetoric of late, which only serves to confirm their desire to pile-drive the Googles of the world into submission while turning consumers' pockets inside out every time they connect.

Not a business model that makes much sense, but about what you would expect from a bunch of classic, unreformed monopolists.

Cisco's new hardware allows the service providers to limit consumer activities, throttle performance of a rival content provider's service, inspect users' packets, and perform other fairly invasive operations on traffic. Our hypothetical RBOC -- call it BellWest -- could, for instance, slow down search engine performance for Google and Yahoo while letting its own search service perform lickety-split.

That's certainly fair for them to try. Fair, but incredibly short-sighted.

The possibility that the carriers are considering these services implies a business case for implementing them. We won't be seeing that business case anytime soon, but I'll bet you a case of Guinness it's fatally flawed. The recent WSJ article on China's Internet censorship helps point out why:

1) Tor and related anonymous routing software packages prevent deep-packet inspection and disable any determination of the true source and destination IP addresses. Tor can be distributed to an infinite number of machines, making controlling a Tor network next to impossible.

2) SSL VPN technologies allow tunneling of IP traffic through SSL (and, last time I checked, no one was routinely cracking TLS).

3) OpenVPN and related technologies allow tunneling any IP traffic through UDP using strong encryption.

These are what I would consider "first-generation" anonymizing technologies that are quickly becoming mainstream. Any combination and/or improvement of these technologies would make them even more formidable. They fundamentally resist the kinds of controls that the telcos want to slap on consumers and content providers.

What to consider some possibilities? Google distributes a version of Firefox that incorporates automatic use of an SSL VPN through its enormous -- and growing -- server farm. Yahoo distributes a version of Tor integrated with its desktop search offering. And so on.

Any business case that fails to consider the impact of these "carrier avoidance technologies" is rotten to the core.

Here's a novel concept for the carriers: try competing at layers 4 through 7, where there's value to be added. Yes, that's right. I said, "value-added." A foreign concept for the telcos, to be sure, and therefore one certain to be ignored.

Is 'Best Effort' Good Enough?


The term 'best effort' describes how packets are routed through the Internet today. No prioritization of packets occurs so, for example, a packet of audio data for a phone call doesn't get any better treatment than part of a web page you just requested.

In their efforts to wrassle the Internet back into the box it came from (think of Pandora for sheer futility here), the telcos and cable companies have been arguing that 'best effort' won't get it done. The carriers assert that video and audio require special prioritization to ensure there's little or no latency that would affect user experience.

But as fiber optic "last mile" connections get rolled out, is best-effort really good enough? Representative Boucher (D-VA) clarifies the issue:

Internet2, a nonprofit partnership of universities, companies and affiliate organizations, including federal agencies and laboratories, has been studying this matter and has demonstrated that a multitrack Internet model is unnecessary to assure quality of service. Internet2 has for the past seven years deployed an advanced broadband network to more than 5 million users and has learned that in a network with enough bandwidth there is no congestion and no bits need preferential treatment because all of them arrive quickly enough to assure excellent quality, even if intermingled...

In countries such as Japan and Korea, network speeds over the last mile of 100 megabits per second (mbps) are common. In the United States, our typical speed is less than 1 mbps. If broadband providers would increase their network speeds to approximate those in other countries, all content would reach consumers with assured quality. No prioritization of bits would be needed.


Exactly. Let's mark this down as reason #813 that the carriers should not be allowed to violate network neutrality.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Network Neutrality: What the Cable Companies and Telcos Want


In the plans the cable companies and telcos are considering, everyone -- from content providers to consumers -- would pay more to connect to the network. The marketing material from the networking vendors (like Cisco) -- who anticipate a windfall from new infrastructure spending -- points to an ominous future for the Internet.

Here's Cisco's brochure hawking its Service Exchange features:

...By tracking all IP traffic flows and performing stateful deep packet inspection, the solution collects statistics on the applications and services used by individual subscribers. Taking the guesswork out of capacity planning and detailing the subscriber demographics helps operators uncover the new revenue potential and hidden operational costs associated with IP service delivery in both broadband and mobile
networks...

...Specifying a User’s Bandwidth Based on Access or Type of Application - For example, depending on the way a subscriber logs on to the network, the service provider can determine the services that are available for that session...
...Identifying Subscribers and Associating their use of Specific Applications - This capability is essential to optimize application-level traffic and, furthermore, help ensure operators can accurately meter and charge for individual or bundles of premium services.


Furthermore, Cisco's marketing lit points to a future in which the carrier -- not the merit of the content provider -- determines which services live or die. Though the phrasing is couched in terms of "partnerships" with independent content-providers, the implication is clear and foreboding: the carrier will control whose packets transit the network:

One of the most significant risks that broadband service providers face is the threat from “nonfacility” service offerings. Traditional service provider services often compete with alternative “over-the-top” services such as broadband voice, online DVD streaming and downloads, and centralized multiplayer online gaming. Nonfacility services typically ride on a best-effort network and may not benefit from the same QoS as managed “triple-play” services.

Nevertheless, nonfacility operators can provide an adequate user experience with comparatively lower operational expenses and a larger addressable market, making them formidable competitors.

However, with the Cisco Service Exchange Framework, service providers can treat over-the-top services as partners rather than competition. By creating an open network environment through which nonfacility operators can ensure a more reliable customer experience for their application traffic, broadband service providers can create new revenue-sharing business models. The Cisco SEF allows service providers to efficiently and equitably identify nonfacility service traffic streams for billing, auditing, and guaranteed performance...


Read between the lines. The SEF exists to monitor and control performance of competing services. Say AT&T wants to get into the search-engine business. What better way to get started than to start slowing down the leading search engines?

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

What network neutrality might nean to you


The Center for Digital Democracy has an entire corner of its site dedicated to network neutrality. You may remember the term: it's the concept that telcos, cable providers, and other layer 0-3 providers should not inspect, filter, delay or otherwise discriminate against traffic.

That's way the network operates today. But that may change as the FCC and Congress prepare to write new regulations. The cable companies and telcos, as you might expect, are lobbying for the ability to prioritize traffic in various unspecified ways. Here's my take on what it might mean for our future:

Network Neutrality


More later.

Introducing the disgraced former President, Jimmy Carter


If there's an award for the most egregious behavior by an ex-president, Jimmy Carter's fatuous endorsement of terrorists, unwarranted criticisms of US national policy, and consistent failures of thought and action all combine to earn him the statuette.

This 1985 interview with Carter -- which I've code-named "The Sour Grapes Transcript" -- was featured on (where else?) 60 minutes. And it's simply devastating.

“"What will be the Reagan heritage is too early to say. I cannot think of a single international or diplomatic achievement that’s been realized by Ronald Reagan,'’ Jimmy Carter said...

Under Reagan, the nation has lost its place as the “"foremost proponent or user of negotiations and diplomacy,'’ said Carter, who was interviewed at his Plains, Ga., home. A transcript was released by the network.

“"… Our country’s first reaction to a troubled area … is to try to inject American military forces or threats as our nation’s policy,'’ he said.

On prospects for peace in the Middle East, Carter said substantive progress cannot be made “"without the Palestinians being intimately involved in the process.'’ He also said he believes it would be a “"good move'’ for Secretary of State George Shultz to “"sit down with'’ Yasser Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization...


Nice work, Mr. Peanut. It's just another tape for the Carter Presidential Library of Failures in downtown Jasper, Georgia.

PoliPundit: Introducing the disgraced former President, Jimmy Carter

Monday, February 13, 2006

The Mayor's Letter


The Mudville Gazette posts a letter from the Mayor of Tall 'Afar, Iraq to the men and women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.

In the Name of God the Compassionate and Merciful

To the Courageous Men and Women of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who have changed the city of Tall’ Afar from a ghost town, in which terrorists spread death and destruction, to a secure city flourishing with life.

To the lion-hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of terrorists who were beheading men, women and children in the streets for many months.

To those who spread smiles on the faces of our children, and gave us restored hope, through their personal sacrifice and brave fighting, and gave new life to the city after hopelessness darkened our days, and stole our confidence in our ability to reestablish our city.

Our city was the main base of operations for Abu Mousab Al Zarqawi. The city was completely held hostage in the hands of his henchmen. Our schools, governmental services, businesses and offices were closed. Our streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our people were barricaded in their homes out of fear; death awaited them around every corner. Terrorists occupied and controlled the only hospital in the city. Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their young. This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto them the courageous soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who liberated this city...


Read the whole thing. No. Seriously. Do it. You know you want to.

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Book Review: Joseph Finder's Killer Instinct 


It's like reading an action movie


Entronics salesman Jason Steadman is struggling. His career and his marriage are both suffering, the former because of lethargic sales of plasma displays and the latter due to a serious case of envy. His sister-in-law's mega-successful Hollywood lifestyle stands in direct contrast to his low-key livelihood.

All that changes one fateful day when he runs his Acura off the road. Steadman isn't hurt. But -- ever the consummate small-talk artist -- he strikes up a conversation with the tow-truck driver who happens to show up. The driver, Kurt Semko, is an interesting fellow. He made it to the minor leagues as a pitcher and later served in the special forces in Iraq. A dishonorable discharge ended his military career, ostensibly because of a disagreement with superior officers.

Steadman, a baseball junkie, recognizes that Semko might fit the bill as a ringer for the company softball team. In addition, he figures that Semko's background would be a good fit for corporate security. With Steadman's strong recommendation, Semko becomes a fixture at the company, on the softball field, and as a personal friend to the salesman.

Soon, Steadman and Semko are working out together and sharing personal experiences. Steadman voices his concerns about other salesmen, cheating competitors, and incompetent management. And, it turns out, Semko listens. Before long, Steadman's rival for the top sales position botches a major customer opportunity with a faulty plasma display. And a competitor's shipment of displays to another large customer has a rather stunning failure rate: 100%, which results in a major sale for Steadman.

Before long, Steadman is moving up the corporate ladder while gradually realizing that Semko is orchestrating the ascent through nefarious means. Recognizing that Semko's behavior is increasingly psychotic, Steadman decides something's got to be done. And that's when things get truly ugly as Semko lives up to his motto -- "Never a better friend, never a worse enemy."

Finder's work is exceptional; his easygoing writing style is a perfect match for a white-collar thriller. Don't expect to get any sleep after you get started with this one. It really is like reading a movie.

Saturday, February 11, 2006

The most secure operating system on the planet?


The most secure operating system on the planet is arguably SELinux (Security-Enhanced Linux), which is now bundled with RedHat's Enterprise Linux. SELinux began as an NSA research project, which added a mandatory access control architecture into the Linux kernel.

Now Novell has added AppArmor to SUSE Linux through its purchase of Immunix. It, too, provides a mandatory access control architecture.

So what is mandatory access control?

Traditional access control systems are called 'discretionary'. That is, a user can accidentally or intentionally provide access to his or her resources to unauthorized users. An example of this is a corporate user who creates a file on a shared drive and then gives everyone on the network the ability to read the file. This would not be wise if, for instance, the file was a salary spreadsheet or contained other sensitive data.

Another example of a discretionary access control system is more pervasive and potentially dangerous. Consider a web server that is compromised remotely by an attacker using a zero-day exploit. The attacker, running as the web server, has all the access rights the server does. The attacker could potentially wreak havoc by reading sensitive files, installing nefarious software, or vandalizing the machine.

Most operating systems we use today -- including Windows and default installations of Linux -- are discretionary access control systems.

Mandatory access controls (MAC) use a system security policy that completely restricts the access to be granted for its users and processes. Let's say I create a file. In a MAC environment, I no longer control who can access the file. A system security policy, defined by an administrator, determines my access rights. And I can't make the rights less restrictive... only more restrictive.

Take the web server example in a MAC system. The web server should only be able to access files under its direct control (say, a configuration file, logs, the document root, virtual directories, etc.). Any other access (say, of the password file) violates policy and therefore throws an alarm.

Okay, so how does MAC work?

MAC needs to be integrated at the kernel level of an operating system. An application simply can't be trusted. Therefore, the OS kernel must support MAC to ensure adherence to security policy.

In the older versions of the Linux kernel, MAC was implemented directly in the kernel code and "bolted on" with conditional compiles. As you could have expected, this got downright ugly from a maintenance perspective.

The version 2.6 rewrite of the Linux Kernel allowed designers to step back and reevaluate how MAC could be integrated into the OS. What they come up with was -- dare I say it -- downright elegant. They invented a loadable module interface called LSM (Linux Security Module), which provides a kernel API for run-time access control mediation.

The kernel now includes LSM "hooks", which make "up-calls" for each access control decision. If no LSMs are loaded, the up-calls come back with a "thumbs up". If LSMs are loaded, however, they can assess the request and come back with a "yes" or "no" answer to the kernel. The kernel can, in turn, allow the access or return an error the requestor, respectively.

The neat thing about the new LSM approach is that SELinux and AppArmor can perform their mediation work as loadable modules... no more kernel patches or conditional compiles are needed.

So why doesn't everyone use MAC?

The issue with actually implementing SELinux is configuration complexity. Trying to describe policies for processes is painful and difficult; the tools to help are rudimentary and somewhat immature. To get a sense of its complexity, the Gentoo SELinux Overview is the online equivalent of Ambien.

AppArmor, however, provides some unique tools to make administration of MAC easier. It includes "learning mode", which lets an application run unconstrained and monitors its behavior. In this mode, access control rules are ignored, but any violations are logged. In addition, process forking is monitored. Thus, AppArmor can build up a complete description of the application's legitimate activities.

Why is AppArmor easier to use?

From a user interface perspective, AppArmor provides the administrator with a profile-building application. This app reads the log and interviews the administrator. Once the interview is complete, the program profile is created. If a profile has already been started, the app can build upon the existing profile by adding incremental knowledge to it.

Profiling is typically performed for applications that access the network (e.g., a web server that could theoretically be compromised through a zero-day buffer overflow exploit). But there's nothing that prevents other programs from similar analysis.

The AppArmor documentation describes a hypothetical kiosk workstation. Each program running on the kiosk could be attacked by users. Therefore, an administrator could profile each of these apps and any attached devices (say, a bar-code scanner) to secure the system from externally sourced compromise.

Sounds neat, but... what's your point?

As MAC systems become more prevalent, expect financial institutions, communications companies, and other large organizations to run their publicly facing bastion servers on secure operating systems. It won't be acceptable -- from either a security or a liability viewpoint -- to accept the risks associated with discretionary systems.

In other words, at some point in the not-so-distant future, MAC systems will be required. Whether the requirement is explicit (e.g., via regulatory dictate like Sarbanes-Oxley) or implicit (the threat of lawsuit), expect MAC to go mainstream.

Friday, February 10, 2006

Pot, meet Kettle


The rocket scientists at the Associated Press finally discovered the Harry Reid-Jack Abramoff connection, which means someone must have duct-taped notarized evidence around a baseball-sized rock and beaned the AP reporters with it - in full view of their editors.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wrote at least four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and the senator's staff regularly had contact with the disgraced lobbyist's team about legislation affecting other clients. The activities — detailed in billing records and correspondence obtained by The Associated Press — are far more extensive than previously disclosed... Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients.


AP: Reid Aided Abramoff Clients, Records Show

EarthView: See the Earth in Real Time

This FermiLab site simulates how the Earth looks from the vantage point of the Sun. It's depicted in "real time" and is easily manipulated. Trés cool.

read more 

The Good, the Bad, and the Asinine


This Henry Hyde statement resonates with the power of undying truth (hat tip: PoliPundit):

Democrats should at least silently confess to themselves that their actions pose real dangers to our country.


Got that, Richard Dowd-Pelosi Heinz?

Just to reinforce the message, here's former Democratic Congressman Robert Livingston. His statement rejects the Donkocratic party's call to criticize President Bush for wielding 'too much power' while waging war against Islamofascists (hat tip: Powerline):

The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. He is Constitutionally obligated to do everything possible in time of war to safeguard the American People. This tempest in a teapot about treatment of cowardly un-uniformed mass murderers and terror mongers, as well as restriction of his ability to monitor conversations of potential terrorists is in my view asinine, and I will have nothing to do with any effort that might be used to undermine his ability to keep us free from terrorism.

Indeed, we are at war with a most formidable and intractable enemy. He is insidious, cowardly, and bent on the destruction of all civilized society. Innocent men, women and children are cannon fodder in his eyes, and efforts such as the one you are sponsoring will be unappreciated by practitioners of his cause. This effort would have looked insane in Lincoln’s day, and he was far more intrusive in his practice than anything that has been envisioned today. Frankly, some Members of Congress and self-appointed leakers in the Executive Branch have put this country in grave danger with this very discussion. I have seen no evidence at all that American citizens have had their Constitutional 4th Amendment rights infringed upon (as they were in the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon eras). Until such evidence is shown, I shall do nothing to keep this President from protecting American citizens from harm’s way.


Is that clear, Richard Feinstein Kennedy-Reid?

Thursday, February 09, 2006

Where's Waldo? Where's Mary Jo? And where's the WMD?


The New York Sun reports on a fascinating story... one with the potential to transform the '06 Congressional elections into a Democratic trail of tears.

A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed...

...[There were] four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. But in all but one case, they never arrived...


Hmmm. Care to speculate on the odds that the Democratic leadership will apologize -- en masse -- when these bunkers get opened up? I'm thinking the odds are a tad lower than the chance that Dale Earhhardt and Elvis will collaborate on a surprise duet of Viva Las Vegas  at next year's Grammies. But just a tad lower.

Why do workouts work?


LiveScience features a fascinating article on workouts:

As weightlifters know, the more that people use their muscles, the stronger they become. And unused muscles do not remain preserved; neglect causes them to waste away, or atrophy...

NASA needs to know [why workouts work]. Astronauts in space exercise furiously to keep fit. Even so, their muscles tend to weaken... To find out [which type of space workout is best], Baldwin's group gave laboratory rats a workout by activating the rodents' leg muscles with painless electrical stimulation. They tested three types of exercise: muscle contraction, muscle lengthening, and isometric, where the muscle exerts a force while remaining the same length...

...after 12 sessions, all three types of workout tended to provide about the same amount of muscle growth... In addition to measuring overall muscle mass--how "buff" [lean] were the rats? ...To their surprise, Baldwin's team found that while isometric exercises did prevent leg muscles from withering, they did not stop a decline in the amount of contractile proteins in those muscles. The muscle was actually degrading on the molecular level...


LiveScience: Why do workouts work?

Cartoon Riots


The one-and-only Mark Steyn on the cartoon riots:

Even if you were overcome with a sudden urge to burn the Danish flag, where do you get one in a hurry in Gaza? ...where do you get one in an obscure town on the Punjabi plain on a Thursday afternoon? ...Say what you like about the Islamic world, but they show tremendous initiative and energy and inventiveness, at least when it comes to threatening death to the infidels every 48 hours for one perceived offense or another. If only it could be channeled into, say, a small software company, what an economy they'd have.


And the Globe's Jeff Jacoby nets it out:

While Islamist clerics proclaim an ''international day of anger" or declare that ''the war has begun," leading publications in Norway, France, Italy, Spain, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have reprinted the Danish cartoons. But there has been no comparable show of backbone in America, where (as of Friday) only the New York Sun has had the fortitude to the run some of the drawings.

Make no mistake: This story is not going away, and neither is the Islamofascist threat. The freedom of speech we take for granted is under attack, and it will vanish if it is not bravely defended. Today the censors may be coming for some unfunny Mohammed cartoons, but tomorrow it is your words and ideas they will silence. Like it or not, we are all Danes now.

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

The 2006 Democratic Contract with Al Qaeda


Epiphany: after hearing an EIB broadcast regarding terrorists and their perceived "rights", AJ Strata arrived at a stunning idea. Why not officially enunciate the Democratic position on Al Qaeda with the same clarity of vision and purpose that the GOP provided America in '94?

Thus was born the "2006 Democrat Contract With Al Qaeda." And the amazing aspect of the "contract" is that you can find sound-bites from Democratic leadership clearly advocating each of these positions. Read 'em and weep for the Republic:

FIRST, we will finally kill the Patriot Act so that no member of Al Qaeda will fear using our libraries to access international websites, access their email, or do basic research on major US installations and population centers...

SECOND, We will enact legislation to release all Al Qaeda members now held in custody in the GITMO Gulag, while providing legal counsel to all who have been unfairly detained during this unfortunate international misunderstanding between Al Qaeda and America...

THIRD, we will pass legislation ensuring that all Al Qaeda members will be free from government monitoring of their phone calls and emails with comrades back home monitored without probable cause...


Read the whole thing™.

The only one he forgot, as one commenter pointed out, is that if an Al Qaeda member does happen to suffer arrest and conviction, the Democrats will work to ensure that the terrorist/felon has a vote in our political system. That would give convicted terrorists the same voting rights as corpses and illegal multi-state voters, which appear to be key Democratic constituencies.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

The NSA, FISA and the 9/11 Commission Report


The next time you read the painfully pathetic Bob Herbert or the sour spinster Maureen Dowd, odds are they'll be carping about the NSA's "domestic" wiretaps and perceived violations of privacy on the part of the Chimpy McBushitler (or whatever they call W these days) administration.

Let's ignore the fact that the wiretaps are international and that we subject ourselves to warrantless search and seizure whenever we board a plane. And let's also ignore the fact that bi-partisan members of Congress had been briefed on the program for years -- with no complaint -- and that the NSA and the Attorney General's office stand behind it.

Instead, let's just rewind to the 9/11 Commission's Report for a moment... on the topic of the FISA court:

The FISA application process continues to be long and slow. Requests for approvals are overwhelming the ability of the system to process them and to conduct a surveillance...

..the FISA approval process involved multiple levels of review, which also discouraged agents from using such surveillance. Many agents also told us that the process for getting FISA packages approved at FBI Headquarters and the Department of Justice was incredibly lengthy and inefficient...


The New York Post's Debra Burlingame directly relates the wiretaps to 9/11:

A 2004 NBC report graphically illustrated what not having this program cost us 4 1/2 years ago. In 1999, the NSA began monitoring a known al Qaeda "switchboard" in Yemen that relayed calls from Osama bin Laden to operatives all over world. The surveillance picked up the phone number of a "Khalid" in the United States--but the NSA didn't intercept those calls, fearing it would be accused of "domestic spying."

After 9/11, investigators learned that "Khalid" was Khalid al-Mihdhar, then living in San Diego under his own name--one of the hijackers who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. He made more than a dozen calls to the Yemen house, where his brother-in-law lived.

NBC news called this "one of the missed clues that could have saved 3,000 lives."


When archaeologists pick over the remains of our civilization, hopefully they'll be able to deduce that backbiting citizens who "meant well" had helped bring about the end of a country they'd hoped to protect.

Monday, February 06, 2006

NFL Names Rooney Family 2006 Champions


The first four words of the New York Times headline says it all: "Calls hurt the Seahawks..."

When referees are mentioned in a SuperBowl headline, you know you have a problem.

ABC's cameras produced enough evidence to overturn three key calls, which translated into two non-touchdowns for the Seahawks.

On the first, Hasselbeck found Darrell ("D-Jack") Jackson in the end zone on a slant. Jackson and free safety Chris Hope separated from each other after minimal contact. Back judge Bob Waggoner flagged Jackson, but replays clearly showed there was no push-off. Watching the replay, analyst John Madden said, "When you think of pushoffs, that's not what you think about, really."

And at halftime, studio analyst Steve Young was more emphatic: "That is a touchdown ... that is an absolute mistake." Michael Irvin noted, "It was a ticky-tack foul."

On another drive, Hasselbeck found Jerramy Stevens at the goal line; he made a great catch in heavy traffic. But, wait, a flag! Offensive holding had been called on RT Sean Locklear. Replays clearly showed there was no holding, no grabbing, nada.

Madden chimed in again, indicating that this too was a phantom penalty.

How about another blatant officiating gaffe? Late in the game, Seattle needed to stop Pittsburgh to get the ball back -- they were down 11. On third and six at his own 24, Steeler QB Roethlisberger called a timeout a second after the play clock ran out (replays showed this as well). Ah, but a timeout was granted by head ref Leavy, instead.

I won't even mention the phantom Steeler TD that didn't cross the goal line. And was initially spotted by the linesman short of the goal line. Until it was mysteriously, ex post spotto , ruled a TD.

And I won't bother to discuss the Hasselbeck tackle that resulted in a "blocking below the knees" penalty -- a 15-yarder personal foul -- and one that doesn't even exist in any rulebook known to professional football.

Next time, NFL, just award the Rooney family the trophy before the game. That will save us the hassle of actually watching the game when it's long since been decided in the halls of power.

Update: the NFL is defending this incompetent crew, claiming "no mistakes" were made. Not only were mistakes made, but they were discernible by announcers, analysts, and millions of viewers worldwide.

Sunday, February 05, 2006

UK and US testing EMP warhead

EMP stands for electromagnetic pulse and its effect was accidentally discovered when nuclear weapons were initially tested in the Forties. A nuclear explosion creates a series of electromagnetic waves -- pulses -- that damage or destroy electronics. And, with electronics getting ever smaller and more densely packed, vulnerability to EMP likewise increases.

The new weapon, reportedly developed by the UK and the US, is intended for use in cruise missiles and similar payload delivery vehicles. Rendering command-and-control facilities useless -- without necessarily harming civilians -- would seem to be the overriding goal...


read more 

This just keeps getting better and better


The hits just keep on coming:

> German Chancellor Angela Merkel likened Iran's nuclear plans to the threats of the Nazis.

>The IAEA voted to report Iran to the Security Council because of its obvious (even to the geniuses at the UN) attempts to craft nuclear warheads.

>Iran's president Ahmafrickingnuts Ahmadinejad ordered the resumption of uranium enrichment and an end to UN inspections. And there are reports that Iran tested a long-range surface-to-surface missile in January... capable of travelling in excess of 1200 miles.

Dee-lightful.

Victor Davis Hanson lifts off to 35,000 feet to provide some much-needed perspective (don't expect the rocket scientists at the Associated Press to figure out that a true historical and geographic analysis is required in this day and age):

Ever since that seminal death sentence handed down to Salman Rushdie by the Iranian theocracy, the Western world has incrementally and insidiously accepted these laws of asymmetry. Perhaps due to what might legitimately be called the lunacy principle (“these people are capable of doing anything at anytime”), the Muslim Middle East can insist on one standard of behavior for itself and quite another for others. It asks nothing of its own people and everything of everyone else’s, while expecting no serious repercussions in the age of political correctness, in which affluent and leisured Westerners are frantic to avoid any disruption in their rather sheltered lives.

Then there is “President” Ahmadinejad of Iran, who, a mere 60 years after the Holocaust, trumps Mein Kampf by not only promising, like Hitler, to wipe out the Jews, but, unlike the ascendant Fuhrer, going about the business of quite publicly obtaining the means to do it. And the rest of the Islamic world, nursed on the daily “apes and pigs” slurs, can just scarcely conceal its envy that the Persian Shiite outsider will bell the cat before they do.


Victor Davis Hanson: Three pillars of wisdom

Saturday, February 04, 2006

Diggalanche


Last week, I wrote a brief article speculating about what might be the best programming language for teaching computer science. Thinking that only a few die-hard geeks like myself might get a chuckle out of it -- I submitted it to Digg. Much to my surprise, within a half-day or so it had been bumped up ("dugg up?") to the home page.

Prior to this, traffic to the blog had reached a personal pinnacle of about 10,000 visitors in October of 2004, just prior to the presidential election. Since then, it had sunk to around 3,000-4,000 visitors monthly, give or take.

Anyhow, here's the diggalanche effect.