Friday, December 30, 2005

Researchers discover how a high-fat diet causes type 2 diabetes

Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers have discovered a molecular link between a high-fat, Western-style diet, and the onset of type 2 diabetes. In studies in mice, the scientists showed that a high-fat diet disrupts insulin production, resulting in the classic signs of type 2 diabetes....

Saturday, December 17, 2005

A presidential order allowing warrantless spying on American citizens goes far beyond even the Patriot Act

It's hard to say rather if the NSA has the right to take our constitutional liberties away from us.  For one thing you have to look at what they actually do. Who is the NSA? about the NSA   They stop wars, they stop threats against US soil, and they keep the bad guys from infiltrating our very government and taking over, or causing harm. NSA has some of the brightest minds in the world working there.  They have the people that all parents wish to brag about when mentioning their own children. Very few individuals make it into this elite group called the NSA. Lots of people wouldn't even make it through a résumé. NSA are the ones who's résumé reads like a book. Who's IQ is in the top percentile in the world.  They can make even top business people like Trump look like a idiot. 
Our constitutional liberties have been in force long before the NSA has been in power.  The NSA was born out of concern for protecting US government information systems and basically to spy on foreign intelligence information. Their home page is located here:  NSA   This is the ones that are stepping on our toes trying to take US citizens constitutional liberties away. 
We have to look at both sides of this issue to go one sided without consideration of the other would be just as bad.
First we have our  Constitutional Rights to consider.  The courts for years have been pretty good about our rights as citizens and they have stepped on quite a few toes in the past to protect our Constitutional Rights. So should they step on a few toes now? Ask yourself this...Do you as a citizen have the right to threaten our Nation?  Do you have the right as a US citizen to threaten the liberties that our Constitution has protected? There is a fine line in here to consider also. That fine line is free speech.  I am sure most are aware that even if you met a idiot on the street that said they was going to blow up your local Mall or worse.  You would first be asking yourself... "Would or could this person do it?" Or are they just blowing off steam? 
Our Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which required that agencies receive warrants from a special court staffed by judges with top secret clearance before spying on U.S. soil. Which means a warrant has to be issued before they can act on any person on US soil. This has been a standard for many years.  It was passed in the 1970's to stop abuse by the higher Government offices.  In other words abuse was rampid and then Congress went in and stepped on a few toes to protect our Constitutional Rights.  It's one thing to be acting like God, and another to be playing the part of God.  The NSA along with a few other agencies abused their power plain and simple.  Even though I don't remember Congress getting involved and this taking place. It had to be absolutely bad in order for Congress to be involved in it, and taking action against them.  So this is something to consider.
I just hope they didn't open another Pandora's box. I also hope that our President didn't abuse his powers to allow them to step on our Constitutional Rights. The Bush Justice Department has argued that the Constitution grants the president "inherent authority" to spy on foreign powers or their agents, including U.S. citizens, and Congress cannot extinguish that authority. I don't remember reading this in the Constitution. I have read every line and can't find this folks.  I must be not as so blind as Bush is so deaf. he could be blind too.  Who knows? But to give credit where credit is due here is Bush's side of it. Bush and NSA He claims this was not suppose to be made public.  Oops!
So how bad is this?  It can be very bad for the public because it goes against the very fabric of what our Country has told us about our Constitution all of these years.  Our Liberties can be stripped from us and we can become no more than just another piece of land with a dictator running it.  Our Constitutional Rights are being treated as no more than a piece of paper that can be wiped of all of our freedoms, one by one.  It should never ever be so easy for the American public to loose a Constitutional Right. It should never be left for one man to change how our freedoms are handled. Not even the president should be allowed to change our Constitutional Rights without the publics say in it, and not without a act of Congress that the public has full access, and knowledge of.  No investigation should be done behind closed doors either on how Bush was able to do this.   
So what do I believe after reading all of this news?  It's just the best excuse Bush could come up with.   But the so called law he put in affect makes not a damn bit of sense if you think about it.  He claimed he needed this so he could be ahead of terrorist, etc.  He was already ahead.  He had top level Court Judges that were cleared for Top secret material that he could get in touch with and get a court order to search and do about anything he needed to do through the NSA.  So the NSA having God like powers wasn't necessary.  Unless he wants to tell us he couldn't trust his top Court Judges that has the Top Secret clearance?  Maybe they couldn't sign the court orders fast enough too? Duh.  I will wait for a better answer from our President. After all everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. But the American public deserve better treatment also. Besides our Constitution is not just a piece of paper it's our backbone, heritage, history, and our livelihood...

Amendment IV - Search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



Friday, December 09, 2005


Now this is interesting! Could it be that someone is not waiting for the security experts to decide on whom is responsible for teaching security to the old and new computer users?   I believe so.  :)    Campaign

Thursday, December 01, 2005

The RIAA suicide pact

I don't play that many of my cds on my computer.  I have maybe 10 of my cds on my computer out of the 30+ cds I own.  I do have a Linux box and a Windows box.  I have less of my Cds on my Linux box. 
I believe this article makes sense though.  But he did miss one point that he should of made and I haven't seen too many make a point of posting on it.  That is the copyright that is in place does allow the copying of your owned cds, it also allows you to sell the cds if you don't want them anymore.  It also states that you own the cd. 
I can't help to think that one of these days all of this will backfire in the RIAA face.  All of this hardening down will come back to haunt them.  I never plan to buy another Sony product.  I may never put another cd on my boxes.  I may just switch to (gasp) radio or satellite feed.  The RIAA and DRM may get their wish.  People will stop buying the cds because like me they don't want either of them planting a damn thing on their computers.  It's obvious to me that Sony was sneaking it in.  How many others will try to sneak it in?  No on my watch, and not on my computers. Sony taught me one thing, and that is not to trust the music industry. I don't believe I am the only one that learned this.  So Sony and the rest of them may harden things a bit.  But in the end it could turn out to be their suicide.  In the end the customers decide how far they can drive that stake into the heart of their customers.  The customer is always right.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Sony's EULA

Is Sony's EULA to restrictive? Do you feel they are taking advantage of consumers? Read this: Sony's EULA
My thoughts:
Sony has no rights to the cd when you purchase it.  This is outlined in a CD music copyright protection act that was written for both the copyright owners of the cd and the consumers.  You do not "license" it!  It will be far fetched for the Copyright office to change this law now.  We have had this law a long time, and it has served the public well.  I just can't see Sony coming along and writing a Eula that is so restrictive towards the consumer. It's degrading too.  The copyright office should be coming along and telling them to back up and regroup it's a music CD not a software program. Sony is clearly taking this too far.  As I have said in the past there are quite a few EULAs that abuse the public. Sony's is one of them.  I believe the copyright office should be telling Sony to change the EULA or the music CD's can't be copyrighted. I believe the copyright office should also come out and announce to the public that Sony's EULA is invalid. Sony's rootkit was installed on many computers without their consent.  Regardless if you agreed or not to Sony's EULA the rootkit was installed on your computer.  Many consumers do not know this.  Hopefully now they do. I hope so... Their computers are at risk.  

Monday, November 21, 2005

Sony's Rootkit

While most of you will brush off Sonys bad fortune, and call it a mistake.  Perhaps you need a lesson in what a rootkit is?  Well on this page: Sony, Rootkits  it tells you what rootkits are, and it explains why they are used in the very first paragraph. Read on to get info on how Sony's rootkit was exposed. Sony knew what they was doing.  Yes they are liable because no one in their right mind does business with someone without first checking them out first.  So don't baby Sony. For further study read this: Definition rootkit  Sony got caught pure and simple.  This information was not hidden on the internet.  it's information that anyone online can find easily. Sony is guilty!

Monday, November 14, 2005

Boycott Sony

Christmas is upon us folks, and it's also upon Sony.  No way will they ignore the public, not thinking about their Christmas sales that will be hurt drastically I hope.  We are not asking for much.  Yes we want a total recall the of Cds, we need a removal tool, (that fully removes  XCP ) and I would like a full apology. (sincere apology) from Sony.  

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Are You Infected by Sony-BMG's Rootkit?

The chatter is your screwed if you are not a tech savvy person. Maybe you can get help but read this carefully.  The lawsuits have started too.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Golden Retriever Gives Birth To Green Puppy

I guess I haven't seen it all.  Because the puppy is green, and the Vet said it is possible. You be the judge folks.  I just think it's amazing.  So... one question though.  Will the puppy stay green?  Or will the puppy loose the color as it gets older.  If the  placenta  did cause this, then it seems as though the green will fade away. Their are a couple nice pictures too for you to view.  Click below.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Want to buy some info?

For years now I have watched the Tech World struggle with theft of peoples information.  I have heard it all.  From "At least they only hit the wireless community." to "They are actively suing these people, so at least they are trying to stop it." 
Well if you agree with those statements, then you might as well sell your own information to the ones that want it so bad.  You don't need a middle mans help.  Why not you get paid instead of the middle man? 
Your info is very valuable to those whom want it.  It's so valuable to where employees are even willing to steal it from their places of work. So how could the statements above be wrong?  Two reasons off the top of my head leads me to believe you still need to worry. 
First reason is most Tech related businesses these days do a lot of business multi tasking when it comes to what they offer their customers.  Some offer just cable.  Others offer cable and broadband.  But a third could offer cable TV, broadband, and wireless.   
So the more you have as a customer the more info they could have on you.  They may offer you a great bundle, and a great price cut.  But perhaps this is putting you more at risk?  After all folks they have control of everything from your TV set to your phone.  So they could not only have just a password, they could have your phone number, email address, credit card number, social security number...   the list goes on. 
So now lets look at the second statement.  What is wrong with this?  Plenty folks.  If they are suing all the time, then it means they are not patching the vulnerable areas.  One time is a lesson learned, but twice is a "shame on them".  
Now I have my own statement for which none of the business sect will like at all. 
If the business does not say they have taken extra steps to protect your information.... DROP THEM! If a business keeps having the same area compromised DROP THEM!
It's time folks for the consumer to take back control of their personal information.  After all if the business sect wont do it then who will?  We shouldn't have to deal with this on a month by month basis.  Not if they want our business.  We should not be treated in this manner folks.  We deserve better than this.  plus our very livelihoods are at stake too. 
Why so harsh?  Because this has been in the news and worn out to a frazzle each and every month, and year for at least the last five years.  Businesses already know this problem exist.  We have excused them enough folks its time for us to take a stand.  I am also sorry too for having to say this Verizon, but if someone proves that this has happened before in your company,  then I believe a class action suit should be brought against you also for failure to protect the data. 

Saturday, November 05, 2005

When Vendors Install Malware

Vendors need to be open with what exactly they are putting onto our computers.  They also should inform us if a uninstaller is included.  Also we shouldn't be forced to fill out a bunch of BS just to get the fix for it.  I don't care to get their spam.  This is all they are doing now.  First they stick us with malware, now we have spam to contend with.  Doesn't anyone other than me see a problem with this? 

Cheney wants CIA exempt from abuse rules

I was so shocked at this.  If ever our Government says that the USA will partake in such activity I believe all of them in office should be impeached. 

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Sony to patch copy-protected CD

Is Sony so damn stupid they didn't think this could happen?  I don't think so.  I believe they got caught in the cookie jar.  They never planed for the public to investigate what their software was doing in the background.  When they got caught you didn't see Sony or BMG offer an apology to no one.  This is another good reason to regulate software companies.  They have no right putting something on my computer that I can't uninstall through the add/remove.  Sony did no more better than the rest of these blood sucker virus writers online.  They even gave them a helping hand. I think its time the public woke up and started giving these companies a taste of their own medicine.  We don't need their service that bad.  So don't buy it. Move on.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Sony installs a virus on computers. There may be legal action brought against them.

For those of you that want to call this DRM fine they have a right to do this.  Your right I suppose.  But do they have the right also to cause your computer to become a haven for viruses?  Think about it folks right now virus writers are armed with software that was provided by Sony that allows them to literally hide their virus on your computer. Before this is over you could end up with a computer badly infected all thanks to Sony. 

Who is responsible for the security on your computer?

Apparently a few want to make ISPs responsible.  But I am sorry I don't agree with this.  Responsibility starts at home.  Users are just given the computer, they are not given instructions as soon as they turn it on.  So I recommend that the ones making the computers include a flash file explaining to the user they need to protect their box, and what safeguards they have in place how long till they expire, and where to go for more help.  This flash file should auto come on as soon as they boot the computer for the first time. 
I don't believe ISPs should be the ones to secure the boxes after all they didn't create this mess.  However I do believe they could add just one safeguard like limiting the amount of emails that a regular user sends out per hour.  That will keep a lot of these e-mails that get forwarded at bay.  But a good majority of the blame lies with the computer owner.  Safety is a responsibility that falls squarely on the individual.

Sunday, October 30, 2005

How many times should you pay for software?

I have touched on this subject before. But only on the context of just the fact they are asking too much for their software, and I don't feel they have a right to tell me how long I can use the product.  I believe it is wrong for the software to expire a year later.  Expiring even three years later is wrong.  This does more than force them to upgrade.  It also forces them to upgrade a computer that they may not have the money to fork out cash on.  Computers for many family's are a gift. Or a blessing just to own.  They can't run out and keep purchasing this software over and over again. 
 It was President Bush that said he wanted every home to have a computer, and be wired to the internet.  That may be what he wants.  But if the software industry don't come down out of the clouds and stop their damn fleecing the consumer I don't see computers being something that every family will be able to afford in the future.  We will have the software industry to thank for it too. 
If you own like seven software programs and they all expire within a year, a person could be dishing out well over $600.00 just for the software.  Just to have the right to use it.  Now the upgrades of the software may cause the computer itself to not be compatible with the software so it will have to be upgraded as well.  So by the time you upgrade the computer and the software your dishing out well in excess of what some family's are even dishing out for their autos every year for insurance, and even maintenance.  It's maybe even more than what some are dishing out for their home owners insurance.  Don't forget this will be a every month ordeal for some, or an every other month ordeal for some.  Plus the prices of the software is going up too.   The software industry is killing us.  That is why I said in the past a line has to be drawn, and the software industry has to follow it.  Because eventually people will leave Windows and go for Linux because of the greed in the Windows software market.  That will really Piss Billy off.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Tamiflu Supply

I can't help to think of how many people will look like idiots if the Tamiflu does nothing for the mutated bird flu that is expected to hit this world of ours.  Chances are of Tamiflu being a waste of money are high.  If you must buy this, then please do so.  But don't think for one minute you will be anymore protected against the bird flu than those that don't buy Tamiflu.  What will help you against this mutated bird flu is isolation, cleanliness, (hand-hygiene)  and perseverance in taking care of your self and your family.  But tamiflu is not the cure for it because this flu has not mutated as of yet and the CDC doesn't have that clear picture on what the mutation looks like.  Using Tamiflu would or could be no different than taking a glass of water and a sugar pill.  Your odds are not that good either that Tamiflu will even work. 

Curbing Spam

I am so sick of who is responsible for the spammers these days. It's very clear to me who is. It's the ones paying the spammers. No one in the Internet community has said a word about making the ones that pay the spammers responsible for the spam. It's like the Internet community has put these businesses on ignore. They know who is doing the spamming. Plus they can curb it if they really wanted too. Make the ones paying the spammers responsible for the spam in our in-boxes, and webmail. This is what will help to reduce the spam.

I have set up a poll for this.  I wanted to see if anyone agrees or not.  Go here and vote yes or no.  The poll is to your right on this page:

Conspiracy Theories Poll



Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Catholic School Principal To Students: Thou Shalt Not Blog

Well I thought I heard it all, but apparently not.  This does make you wonder why such a strict rule against blogging?  Could it be the school is afraid that a student could blog one of their dirty little secrets?  I don't agree with MTV on one part of this news article though.  Just because a student goes to a private school does not mean their rights are void.  If their rights were void then prisoners would not have the right to sue for such violations.  Even though their school is private, doesn't mean they are any less of a American.  MTV should of gotten down right dirty with this story, and got to the heart of the matter of what really is going on.  On a personal note once my child hits the front door from school other than homework and activities related to sports at school etc, school is on the back burner.  The principal, the school, or any one affiliated with it doesn't run my household, neither do they pay my bills so they can butt out.  They are truly taking matters too far.  MTV was too nice to them in that article.  See link below.

Friday, October 21, 2005


I am all for the nofollow.  I guess some people feel it necessary to spam every blog they can.  But my philosophy is if you are spamming my blog then you really must be hard up for hits to your website.  So I make it a point not to even click on the links supplied in my blogs comments section.  I also tell people never to click on these links because you never know what is on their pages.  You might be selling something, and you could be downloading something else onto my computer behind my back. Or you could be advertising one thing, and selling a entirely different item on the website.    I tell all visitors to my blogs:
Please don't click on any links in the comments section of my blog.  You never know what could be lurking at these websites.  So for your protection, dont visit these websites. 
Here is Googles info on this subject:

Thursday, October 13, 2005

EU says internet could fall apart

I believe that the USA will hold out to the last breath being stubborn jerks they will not give in.  I don't see them giving up the internet pie they have had all of this time.   Regardless of what the UN or EU think the USA Government loves domination.  USA looses power if they give up ownership.  At the same time too allow a country to take over a majority of the internet would be just like accepting a Internet that doesn't allow free speech anymore.  Dictatorship would be  universal. Some countries would force rules on the internet that would or could hurt the internet.  It all starts with whom has the power to  govern the internet.  it  will end when the consumer gives up logging onto the internet stating that the internet is not worth all of the trouble logging on to it anymore.  That will be a bad shame that will hang on all governments shoulders.   The consumer will no longer have all of the information available to them.  Maybe we need to line up all these  bureaucrats and just whoop all their asses for being such jerks? 
 Who ever runs it needs to be neutral.  They can not be for or against any one nation on this planet.  Everyone should have access to it equally, and no one nation should be allowed to dictate it. 


Developing countries demand share of control 
US says urge to censor underlies calls for reform
 A battle has erupted over who governs the internet, with America demanding to maintain a key role in the network it helped create and other countries demanding more control.

The European commission is warning that if a deal cannot be reached at a meeting in Tunisia next month the internet will split apart.

At issue is the role of the US government in overseeing the internet's address structure, called the domain name system (DNS), which enables communication between the world's computers. It is managed by the California-based, not-for-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) under contract to the US department of commerce.

Read the rest here: EU says internet could fall apart

Saturday, October 08, 2005

sorry it's not for sale used

I don't get it.  I can go to a thrift store and buy tapes and cds that are used.  I can buy a used car, and purchase used furniture.  I can go to a yardsale and purchase stereo equipment, and take it home and have my neighbor give me a few cds they don't want anymore.  I can do all of this legally. 
But you can't do this with computer software.  
 The first-sale doctrine is an exception to copyright codified in the US Copyright Act, section 109. The doctrine of first sale allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e. sell or give away) a particular, legally acquired copy of protected work without permission once it has been obtained. That means the distribution rights of a copyright holder end on that particular copy once the copy is sold.

The doctrine of first sale does not include renting and leasing phonorecords (recorded music) and computer software, although private non-profit archives and libraries are allowed to lend these items provided they include a notice that the work may be copyrighted on the copy.

US copyright case law supports that consumers cannot make copies of computer programs contrary to a license, but may resell what they own. This however is conflicting with both section 117 and 109, and the case law itself is conflicting depending on which circuit the case was heard in.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

What is spyware?

Ok Gurus here is your chance to shine.  It seems as though the Government can't come to a good conclusion on just what spyware is.  They feel if they label it a certain way then certain Apps will be caught in the rut of the definition of it.  While other spyware will end up free as a bird to do as they please.  So the laws they are trying to make to protect the public could backfire on many software vendors, as well as the public. 
Yes I have two cents worth of my own buzz on this.  But after considerable thought on the subject.  I found my self having doubts on my own definition on it.  I could see between the lines on how anyone could come along and misconstrue the definition just to "get even" with a company they felt had done them wrong in one way or another. Possibly even trying to get rich off of them.  Maybe even getting upset because the APP wanted a email addy and a name.  Plus if you look at many of the APPs today quite a few would be engulfed into being called spyware because of how they install.  One of those that come into mind is "America's Army".  Several other games have protection built in to keep the person whom is cheating, or trying to cheat from cheating.  They could be hit hard by such a law. 
So what is spyware? 
I consider it any APP/software that installs a program capable of collecting data of the user not related in no way to the original software for the purpose of gathering info on the user(s) or the computer to commit illegal financial gain with the information collected on the user(s).  Like gathering the social security numbers, birthdays, maiden names, snail mail addresses, tax information, keystrokes, timed pictures of the desktop, websites visited etc. I will also include that the spyware can or could be used to sell information on the data collected from a user(s).  You have to include the selling of information, because many people have been hit hard by individuals collecting data to sell. And because if you don't then many software vendors could turn a blind eye to what a piggy back software is doing along with their software. Not to forget how the selling of data has affected many businesses. The catch phrase of "gee I didn't know" could be used, and would be very hard to prove in court.  You would also have to add that it is the responsibility of the software vendor to be sure that a piggy back software is not illegal. The same goes for any business.  You have to know how the info if it was collected could be used against a client.   
If it is a software program that helps with editing graphics then they have no business what so ever needing any personal information on the user.  Game software only needs to know what you have installed in the main folder of the game.  They don't need to know what you have installed in your "My Documents" folder.  The same goes for any other APP you have installed on your computer.  As far as business is concerned, they must be forced to protect the clients personal data.  Sorry folks but in the past most business used a half ass means of protecting data collected on their clients.  They wont clean up their act so someone needs to lend them a helping had, tell them how it is, and force them too.   
I also have to make it a point to say that their should also be a clause in the law to stop piggy back software period.  Because even now the software vendors have developed a way around letting you know that the piggy back software is there.  They bury it in the EULA.  The EULA is always a mile long and somewhere in that rubbish is a small note stating they have a piggy back software also included with their APP.  The law they have now only states they have to let you know that the software is there what it does etc.  So they do in a small as way as possible so not to disturb the reader trying to find the bottom of a damn EULA that goes on forever saying how you have no rights to own their software, and how their asses are protected from you.   
I realize this has nothing to do with spyware but I am almost to the point of not installing software unless they have a small EULA with just the facts instead of rambling on like they do.  Hell, I am not out to marry the software I just want to use it.  Enough already, let me get on with the install.  Perhaps even EULA standards should be in place for all software vendors to follow?
What ever the case what is your legal definition for what spyware is?

RFID Conspiracy

While a good majority of Americans sit at home with their posh surroundings. A few companies have developed a way to track your every move.  It's called RFID chips.  While most will brush this off and claim a majority of people are trying to blow this out of proportion.  I just want to remind those idiots there is no law on the books to protect the public against this new technology.  It has the makings of being the publics worst enemy.  Not only could it track you while you are trying to plan that surprise birthday party for your significant other, it could also cause you to loose a job, open a can of worms with family and associates.  Yup folks your boss could have a legal way to ride your butt on that nine to five job you have. 
If that isn't bad enough for you to take notice of this new technology then maybe this is....
Your Government will have a way to monitor your every move 24 hours a day 7 days a week.  Nothing you do will be private.  So if you like to get up and have a stiff drink before going to work.  They will know about it.  If you have a legal case against someone, they will be able to track you and use that information against you in court.  Even if you did nothing wrong.  "The means of making mountains out of mole hills is upon us."  We wont have a life anymore because Uncle Sam and his Assistants will be monitoring us.  So will businesses.  If they don't like what they see they could question you.  You could end up in far more legal battles.  The word "privacy" will be in the history books.  But it wont be a part of our day to day living. 
But it doesn't stop here...
Stalkers could have a better way to stalk the public.  Paparazzi could have a better way to go after the famous.  The means of you hiding the fact that your mom or dad, or even your significant other has a medical condition that you have hid for years will be made public.  
Some one could walk into your home and actually take a audit of your personal belongings.  Years from now they could even try to pass a mandatory scan before your hired for a job.  They could even claim they found something in your home that doesn't meet their standards.     Even if you bought something and never used it.  The act of owning it could keep you from being hired. 
Could this technology help us?  It could if it was used to help find a child that was maybe kidnapped.  It could if your neighbors have no children but they buy children's things in order to entice them into their home to exploit them.  It could if someone bought a poison to kill mom because she's sitting on a few million and wont share.  So good buy mom hello money.  They could have the means to track down who bought the poison.  Or even a gun.  Maybe even the bullets. 
No it wont be used for just the security aspects and purchasing of the products for long. It will be a matter of just a few years before someone gets the bright idea they can snoop into your home too.  If our Government has their way you wont be able to breath without them knowing about it.  Unless something is done now privacy will be a old and ancient word in our vocabulary.  The public will be treated as dumb asses that didin't even know what was comming till it was too late. 
I thought they wanted those barcodes in order to track orders?  So why do they need RFID too? 
Read this:   Spychips Sees an RFID Conspiracy      I advise everyone to get that book too.  

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Oregon RIAA Victim Fights Back; Sues RIAA for Electronic Trespass, Violations of Computer Fraud & Abuse, Invasion of Privacy, RICO, Fraud



Tanya Andersen, a 41 year old disabled single mother living in Oregon, has countersued the RIAA for Oregon RICO violations, fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices.

Ms. Andersen's counterclaims demand a trial by jury.

Ms. Andersen made the following allegations, among others:

1. For a number of years, a group of large, multinational, multi-billion dollar record companies, including these plaintiffs, have been abusing the federal court judicial
system for the purpose of waging a public relations and public threat campaign targeting digital file sharing activities. As part of this campaign, these record companies retained MediaSentry to invade private home computers and collect personal information. Based on private information allegedly extracted from these personal home computers, the record companies have reportedly filed lawsuits against more than 13,500 anonymous “John Does.”

2. The anonymous “John Doe” lawsuits are filed for the sole purpose of information farming and specifically to harvest personal internet protocol addresses from internet service providers.

3. After an individual’s personal information is harvested, it is given to the record companies’ representatives and the anonymous “John Doe” information farming suits are then typically dismissed.

4. The record companies provide the personal information to Settlement Support Center, which engages in prohibited and deceptive debt collection activities and other illegal conduct to extract money from the people allegedly identified from the secret lawsuits. Most of the people subjected to these secret suits do not learn that they have been “sued” until demand is made for payment by the record companies’ lawyers or Settlement Support Center.....

5. Tanya Andersen is a 42-year-old single mother of an eight-year-old daughter living in Tualatin, Oregon. Ms. Andersen is disabled and has a limited income from Social Security.

6. Ms. Andersen has never downloaded or distributed music online. She has not infringed on any of plaintiffs’ alleged copyrighted interest.....

7. Ms. Andersen has, however, been the victim of the record companies’ public threat campaign. The threats started when the record companies falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had been an “unnamed” defendant who was being sued in federal court in the District of Columbia. She was never named in that lawsuit and never received service of a summons and complaint.

8. Neither did Ms. Andersen receive any timely notice that the suit even existed. That anonymous suit was filed in mid-2004. Ms. Andersen first learned that she was being “sued” when she received a letter dated February 2, 2005, from the Los Angeles, California, law firm Mitchell Silverberg & Knupp, LLP. The LA firm falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had downloaded music, infringed undisclosed copyrights and owed hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ms. Andersen was understandably shocked, fearful, and upset. ....

9. After receiving the February 2, 2005 letter, Ms. Andersen contacted the record companies’ “representative,” which turned out to be Settlement Support Center, LLC. This company was formed by the record companies for the sole purpose of coercing payments from people who had been identified as targets in the anonymous information farming suits. Settlement Support Center is a Washington State phone solicitation company which engages in debt collection activities across the country.

10. When Ms. Andersen contacted Settlement Support Center, she was advised that her personal home computer had been secretly entered by the record companies’ agents, MediaSentry.

11. Settlement Support Center also falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had “been viewed” by MediaSentry downloading “gangster rap” music at 4:24 a.m. Settlement Support Center also falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had used the login name “” Ms. Andersen does not like “gangster rap,” does not recognize the name “gotenkito,” is not awake at 4:24 a.m. and has never downloaded music.

12. Settlement Support Center threatened that if Ms. Andersen did not immediately pay them, the record companies would bring an expensive and disruptive federal lawsuit using her actual name and they would get a judgment for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

13. Ms. Andersen explained to Settlement Support Center that she had never downloaded music, she had no interest in “gangster rap,” and that she had no idea who “gotenkito” was.

14. Ms. Andersen wrote Settlement Support Center and even asked it to inspect her computer to prove that the claims made against her were false.

15. An employee of Settlement Support Center admitted to Ms. Andersen that he believed that she had not downloaded any music. He explained, however, that Settlement Support Center and the record companies would not quit their debt collection activities because to do so would encourage other people to defend themselves against the record companies’ claims.

16. Instead of investigating, the record company plaintiffs filed suit this against Ms. Andersen. F. The Record Companies have no Proof of Infringement.

17. Despite making false representations to Ms. Andersen that they had evidence of infringement .... plaintiffs knew that they had no factual support for their claims.

18. No downloading or distribution activity was ever actually observed. None ever occurred. Regardless, the record companies actively continued their coercive and deceptive debt collection actions against her. Ms. Andersen was falsely, recklessly, shamefully, and publicly accused of illegal activities in which she was never involved.

Ms. Andersen further alleged:

20. Entering a person’s personal computer without their authorization to snoop around, steal information, or remove files is a violation of the common law prohibition against trespass to chattels.

21. The record company plaintiffs employed MediaSentry as their agent to break into Ms. Andersen’s personal computer (and those of tens of thousands of other people) to secretly spy on and steal information or remove files. MediaSentry did not have Ms. Andersen’s permission to inspect, copy, or remove private computer files. If MediaSentry accessed her private computer, it did so illegally and secretly. In fact, Ms. Andersen was unaware that the trespass occurred until well after she was anonymously sued.

22. According to the record companies, the agent, Settlement Support Center used the stolen private information allegedly removed from her home computer in their attempt to threaten and coerce Ms. Anderson into paying thousands of dollars. ....

Under the provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) it is illegal to break into another person’s private computer to spy, steal or remove private information, damage property, or cause other harm.

26. Ms. Andersen regularly used her personal computer to communicate with friends and family across the country and for interstate e-commerce. Ms. Andersen had password protection and security in place to protect her computer and personal files from access by others.

27. The record company plaintiffs employed MediaSentry as their agent to bypass Ms. Andersen’s computer security systems and break into her personal computer to secretly spy and steal or remove private information. MediaSentry did not have her permission to inspect, copy, or remove her private computer files. It gained access secretly and illegally.

28. According to the record companies’ agent, Settlement Support Center, used this stolen private information in their attempt to threaten and coerce Ms. Andersen into paying thousands of dollars. ....

31. According to the record companies, Ms. Andersen’s personal computer was invaded by MediaSentry after she was identified with a nine digit code (an Internet Protocol Address (“IPA”)) obtained from the anonymous information farming lawsuits. MediaSentry did not have permission to inspect Ms. Andersen’s private computer files. It gained access only by illegal acts of subterfuge.

32. The record companies’ agent has falsely represented that information obtained in this invasive and secret manner is proof of Ms. Andersen’s alleged downloading. Ms. Andersen never downloaded music but has been subjected to public derision and embarrassment associated with plaintiffs’ claims and public relations campaign.

33. The record companies have used this derogatory, harmful information to recklessly and shamefully publicly accuse Ms. Andersen of illegal activities without even taking the opportunity offered by Ms. Andersen to inspect her computer. .....

36. Despite knowing that infringing activity was not observed, the record companies used the threat of expensive and intrusive litigation as a tool to coerce Ms. Andersen to pay many thousands of dollars for an obligation she did not owe. The record companies pursued their collection activities and this lawsuit for the primary purpose of threatening Ms. Andersen (and many others) as part of its public relations campaign targeting electronic file sharing.

37. The record companies have falsely represented and pleaded that information obtained in this invasive and secret manner is proof of Ms. Andersen’s alleged downloading and distribution of copyrighted audio recordings. Ms. Andersen never downloaded music but has been subjected to public derision and embarrassment.....

40. The record companies knowingly represented materially false information to Ms. Andersen in an attempt to extort money from her.

41. For example, between February and March 2005, the record companies, through their collection agent Settlement Support Center, falsely claimed that they had proof that Ms. Andersen’s IPA had been “viewed” downloading and distributing over 1,000 audio files for which it sought to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars. This statement was materially false. Ms. Andersen never downloaded or distributed any audio files nor did the record companies or any of their agents ever observe any such activity associated with her personal home computer.....

49. Despite having never observed any downloading or distribution associated with Ms. Andersen’s personal home computer and despite refusing Ms. Andersen’s offer to allow an inspection of her own computer, the record companies wrongfully continued their improper debt collection activities against her.....

50. The record companies pursued debt collection activities for the inappropriate purpose of illegally threatening Ms. Andersen and many thousands of others. This tortious abuse was motivated by and was a central part of a public relations campaign targeting electronic file sharing.

51. An employee of Settlement Support Center admitted to Ms. Andersen that he believed that she had not downloaded any music. He explained that Settlement Support Center and the record companies would not quit the debt collection activity against her because to do so would encourage other people to defend themselves against the record companies’ claims.

52. The record companies were aware of Ms. Andersen’s disabilities and her serious health issues. Settlement Support Center knew that its conduct would cause extreme distress in Ms. Andersen. As a result of defendant’s conduct, Ms. Andersen suffered severe physical and emotional distress and health problems.

53. The record companies’ conduct resulted in damages, including harm to Ms. Andersen’s health and property in an amount to be specifically proven at trial......

55. Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act prohibits those in trade or commerce from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices in the course of business with consumers. ORS 646.605 et seq.

56. The record companies’ agent, Settlement Support Center, is a company doing business in Washington which was established to engage in debt collection activities in manystates, including Washington and Oregon.

57. Settlement Support Center acting as the record companies’ agent made false and deceptive statements to Ms. Andersen in an attempt to mislead, threaten, and coerce her into paying thousands of dollars.

58. Settlement Support Center acting as the record companies’ agent has made similar false and deceptive statements to many other residents of Washington and Oregon, and across the country. The public interest has been and continues to be directly impacted by plaintiffs’ deceptive practices.

59. The record companies’ conduct resulted in damages and harm to Ms. Andersen and her property in an amount to be specifically proven at trial. ....

61. The Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act prohibits companies from engaging in organized racketeering or criminal activities. ORS 166.715 et seq.

62. As fully set forth above, the record companies hired MediaSentry to break into private computers to spy, view files, remove information, and copy images. The record companies received and transmitted the information and images to Settlement Support Center. As the record companies’ agent, Settlement Support Center then falsely claimed that the stolen information and images showed Ms. Andersen’s downloading and distributing over 1,000 audio files. The record companies falsely claimed that Ms. Anderson owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in an attempt to coerce and extort payment from her.

63. The record companies directed its agents to unlawfully break into private computers and engage in extreme acts of unlawful coercion, extortion, fraud, and other criminal conduct.

64. The record companies and their agents stood to financially benefit from these deceptive and unlawful acts. Proceeds from these activities are used to fund the operation of the record companies’ continued public threat campaigns.

65. These unlawful activities were not isolated. The record companies have repeated these unlawful and deceptive actions with many other victims throughout the United States.

Answer and counterclaim.

Ms. Andersen is represented by:
Lory R. Lybeck
Lybeck Murphy, LLP
500 Island Corporate Center
7525 SE 24 Street
Mercer Island, WA 98040-2336
(206) 230-4255

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Intranet security is far worse than people think

They have laws for people that break into and steal the data. But where are the laws that tell the business they "have to" protect our data by using encryption, limiting those working for them the access to our data, and punishing those that blatantly don't use, or care about how they store our information?

It is just a matter of time now that a company will go belly up because they had no remorse for the data they stored, and someone was able to get to our information they stored in their database with little or no effort on their part.

Should we wait and see if this happens? NO! This will happen. For now the larger companies with major cash flows were hit, and customers info was stolen. Some they lost data because of a con artist was able to pay for it, by a willing employee within the company. Others it was a security breech within the company's database that allowed someone to steal thousands of the customers personal records.

It's a blatant attitude of a company that uses an attitude of "I don't care" I do just what I have too, and no more. This type company will be hit in probably less than three years. Plus it will go belly up because of it. There are plenty of these type company’s out there. They don't care because there are no laws in place to say they have to use every means to protect the database that stores our personal records. So they don't protect it.

There are plenty of security methods available to protect a database. So explain to me why they are not using them? Could they be that damn lazy? I have to say yes. I have heard horror stories from many people talking about how their employer doesn't care. He only wants to get to the information with the least amount of headaches.

So the consumer has to deal with the business that wants to operate with the least amount of headaches. Mean while our lively hoods are at stake. It looks as though the Government will wait again for "it" to happen. What ever happen to plan ahead? If our personal information is so important to the Government, then why wait for this to happen?

Was it bend over? or Open mouth insert foot?

Then read this:  Mozilla hits back  I was asked by someone to write a blog about this.  They was interested in what I had to say. So here it goes folks.
I don't believe that Symantec's head of threat intelligence EMEA  Graham Pinkney did his homework at all.  If your going to be top dog on any job, at least make sure that the reports you release to the public reflect that you have a head on your shoulders, you have done your homework, and are professional at all times.  
It was very clear that he didn't have the whole story on the subject of security risk for browsers.  His story makes me think he had a even more alternative motive behind the warning. 
I don't mean to cast doubt on any person that has a very critical job to do each day. So what could of gone wrong?  Maybe he made two reports, and grabbed the wrong one?  Maybe his fingers were itching, and he had to use the keyboard  ... I mean he had to type something right?  Perhaps he was sick the day the report was written up, and accidentally gave it to a intern, instead of his secretary?   Maybe he is biased after all, and will say anything to give Bill Gates a helping hand? last but not least...  Perhaps even Graham Pinkney thinks he has to put the scare into the public so they will keep purchasing the Symantec products?
All of these are just maybes.  But I maybe think he jumped the gun, and now he looks like a total idiot. He might of thought it was a good report, but now the news, and the public are having a field day kicking his butt.  
BTW I want to commend the fine man  Tristan Nitot, president of Mozilla in Europe.  It's nice to know we still have one president in this world with a head on their shoulders.  Notice the man didn't bash too?  He just laid out the facts.  Thank you  Tristan Nitot! 

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

Katrina survivors

It's been a week now since Katrina left her deadly path behind.  For some of those who survived the ordeal.  The flashbacks may have started because before they were rescued they only had one thing on their mind and that was "Survival". 
It is very important for all the family's to know that even though your children may look picture perfect.  They may not be.  Yes children have a resilience that all adults wish they had.  A bounce back affect, and a means to conform to their surroundings.  But because of what they went through.  Some wont talk about it.  Others, will be told not to talk about it.  They will be told to hush it's in the past now, so move on. 
It's important for all adults to know that your children were seeing the aftermath of hurricane Katrina from their eyes.  Not yours.  Their understanding of the aftermath will not reflect the same meanings, nor will they recall the devastation in the same light as you had.  They are children.  So they will recall things differently. 
Don't shun their recalling of the devastation.  Don't tell them to hush because it's over with now. 
It's not over with now.  Before they were in survival mode just like you was.  Now the feelings as well as the memories will come out.   Be there for them.  Don't tell them what they saw.  Let them tell you. Their recollection will be far different from yours. They have little eyes.  Their little eyes will forever have Katrina etched in their minds.  Even the smallest of the survivors have a story to tell.  They will be forever etched in the landscape as the survivors of katrina.  Just like you will be.  You will always have a story to tell, and so will your children.  Be a listener.

Sunday, September 04, 2005

Please take the poll

You can pick a answer plus at the end of this survey you can also add your own comments under "other"   The other can be used incase none of the answers reflect what you aim to do.  This poll only takes a couple minutes.  One question several answers for you to choose from.  Pass it along if you like too. 

Was Hurrican Katrina a wake up call for you?


Monday, August 29, 2005

global warming

 Do you believe global warming is a factor behind the recent severe weather?  In a way I do, but in a way I don't also.  I know I can't have it both ways, but just read on, and maybe you will see my point. 
Hurricanes etc will just like any thing else will have a time to where you don't have as many.  You can go 25 to 40 years, and have a decrease in them.  Then one year they are on the increase again.  The increase will last for years.  It has nothing to do with global warming.  It's just mother natures way of giving mother earth a break then taking that break away.  It's the same as you seeing a famous desert dry as a bone for years, and then one day it rains.  It's no different than earthquakes becoming more intense.  They are not as intense, then one year you have a major quake.  Think back to when you was young, Grandma use to say we are due for bad weather this year.  Remember?   Same with Hurricanes. 
Does this mean we don't have global warming?  No.  Look at the North and South pole.  Yes the glaciers are melting.  So that means the climate is changing.  So this in itself could be global warming.  However who is to say that this also is just part of mother natures way of giving the North and South pole a rest?  It could be that just like everything else that has years of what they feel is normal temps, were not normal at all.  Or maybe even it has periods of many years of freezing, and many years of melting.  Who knows.  But if you look at weather as a whole instead of just including a certain amount of years then passing judgement, the weather is just doing what it has always done.  It waxes and wanes just like it did 100, 200, and even 300 years ago.  Didn't they also say at the beginning of the spring that there would be a increase in storms this year? Plus didn't the weather people all say we was over due for this to happen?  Think about it.  I realize they want to blame this all on the ozone, and global warming.  How can that be if they have been predicting it for years to happen and point blank came out and said that it was a pattern, and that it will last for years, then we will have a decrease again? 
However if the weather we are having now never goes away and gets worse year by year, then yes this is global warming caused by the ozone layer.  The same goes for snow, rain, and all the other climate.  So we all shall see what happens years from now. 

Thursday, August 25, 2005

Employees unleashing viruses on purpose?

Here is something interesting.Employees unleashing viruses on purpose? I kind of believe that some employees are capable of doing this.  But I am more inclined to believe that it is a lack of teaching employees security measures in the office. I have asked employees in the past what they were taught, and most of them said nothing except how to log on and go.  I then asked a few questions to find out just what they know about the computer they use everyday.  Most were dumb founded.  Some were even down right stupid with their answers.  One told me "that is the IT's department headache not mine I only need to know how to run Excel, and email, keeping out viruses is not part of my job description".  Others said that the IT told them to "log on, and to call if the computer started acting up".  I have seen a great misuse of company time on a computer.  The use of Instant Messengers, and accepting emails from family and friends at work.  Plus the actual download and install of software etc. that was nowhere related to work.  Like games, movie trailers, etc.  
I believe unless the IT community, and job environments don't start taking their computers seriously when it comes to security then the security problems will never get any better.  I also believe that it is a jobs responsibility to be sure that their employees understand and know all of the security rules.  It doesn't matter how small their job is.  Get rid of the ones that don't want to learn the ropes.  Get rid of the ones, that keep infecting the boxes.  Show them the street if they continue to download crap that is not part of their job, and email every Tom, Harry, and Jane. I also believe that a job has the right to be sure that they are not downloading this crap, and emailing every Tom, Harry, and Jane.  

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Robertson should be ousted!

First read this, and be sure you watch the video on the page. Robertson comments for assassination call   He did say assassination! He did say our men should go in and get rid of this guy.  He did not say as he claimed in his so called apology to just remove him.  I saw the tape.  I know first hand from his mouth the exact wording that he said.  NO the media did not take his words out of context as Robertson claims.  So his apology means nothing to me.  If I was in power I would arrest this man under the terrorist laws.  I would throw the book at him.  He as a public figure was in fact to me inciting a terrorist threat.  because of his following, and because people have a tendency of taking his words as power.  This man could in fact be a wart that the USA doesn't need.  I don't believe the USA should let this go.    
But what about free speech?  There is a big difference between free speech, and using your political power to convince the public to assassinate someone.  That is what Robertson was doing.  It is as clear as you can get in any type of speech a person could make.  It also was as clear as you can get when a public figure such as Robertson tells the USA to send  covert operatives  to kill someone. 
We don't need our Churches and synagogues inciting riots, killings, and assassinations.  If that is what Church is about, then I don't want to go to one ever again.  Robertson needs to be ousted. Or a public ban put upon him for TV and public speaking.  Because Robertson was infact promoting terrorism.  

Monday, August 22, 2005

Music on the move: music downloads and DRM

 In the first of a two part series on digital music on the move, we look at the controversial issue of digital rights management (DRM) and consider to what extent - if at all - users are discouraged from using legitimate download services.   read the rest here  DRM Blues
See I knew this was all going to crop up.  If you want to include DRM then ALL software wanting to run DRM should also be included.  There should be no restrictions on the Licenses.  because after all Bill Gates we already are having to deal with DRM! So include all MP3 players that are willing to go along with the BS.  To hell with this crap of different download places saying who's MP3's they will support.  That is total BS. 
They should be able to back up any License they have. NO ONE should have to purchase the same License again. THEY HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR THE DAMN THING YOU MORONS!  Because of the set up now people are having to repurchase the same music again.  Hell if my cds that I purchased in the store did this  I wouldn't even fool with them again.  I would go back to radio. 
OH! that reminds me I heard that Satellite radio is the next coming good thing. 
I agree!  

Intel quietly adds DRM to new chips

OH! INTEL!  Shame on you!  you didin't really think you could sneek this in did you? 
Intel quietly adds DRM  and Intel is not the only one! Sun Launches DRM Initiative  
Time to maybe switch to AMD?   

Friday, August 19, 2005

Epilogue : I'm busted! I installed the SP2

Well the Sp2 lasted long enough for me to realize I could not get into any folders or launch anything on the quick launch bar.  So I uninstalled it.  Which wasn't half bad at all.  The uninstall was smooth. 
For those that dont know
how this is done...

"start "run"  type:
c:\windows\$NtServicePackUninstall$\spuninst\spuninst.exe   Follow instructions.  At least Microsoft was nice enough to give us a sp2 uninstall wizard.  Thank you Microsoft!

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Ok Bushy listen up!

Thank you Bushy for thinking twice before allowing the xxx domain! We don't think alike in most areas.  But I do agree with you on this.
Creating a XXX domain will do nothing to protect the public except give them a false sense of security for protecting their children.  You create this domain you will have many people thinking this is where all the porn is.  You have to first get into the mind of a new computer user to understand how they think.  If no one had told you about the XXX domain what do you think your first line of thought would be on what type of content this domain has?  I have had new computer users to write me and ask why a certain website that was a dot com was trying to put a virus on their computer if they are a business?  They don't comprehend that any of the domains on the Internet today can be bad, or be a false/misleading website.  Some think when first new that a "dot com" is a commercial site, and a "dot org" is a nonprofit.  The "dot net" they think those are everyday people.  And surely they all must be legit because after all they are on the Internet. 
Second is the XXX domain can be abused tremendously  by lobbyist thinking we shall throw all the porn over there including all the stuff we think is crap even though it is not crap and certainly not porn but instead just related or has a sexual tendency to it.  So many websites will be forced to move because their website just has a sexual nature to it.  It may not be Porn but who cares its going there anyway because I don't like their content. 
Third is the porn sites themselves.  You don't really believe they will give up those domains they have had for years do you? 
fourth is very scary... Just whom is going to monitor the backlash of non complying porn domains?  There will come a day when someone tries to force a move on them to the XXX domain. Even worse is that today the other domains are not really complying to the domain types so does this mean they will have to move also?   
It wont work because The USA will be the only one complying with the new rules.  Actually no one will comply  because they will just move to a host in a country that doesn't have the silly rules.   
It's just all a bad idea.  Keep on telling them no.  Ok Bushy?

Thursday, August 11, 2005


Iran is at it again and the USA is watching.  What I don't get is if these countries that the USA claim are hurting the Iraq war by sending their bombers and weapons over to Iraq...  Then why hasn't those borders into iraq been closed to traffic? WeeBit shrugs and scratches head.  

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

I'm busted! I installed the SP2

Yes folks I installed the SP2 today. I must admit I was impressed with the
ease of instillation process too. It is kind of slow to install, and the
download on my DSL took 40 minutes. It actually to me took longer for the
SP2 to install than it did to download.
I am so far impressed with it too. First the hoopla about not having a
choice about certain aspects of the security like the firewall and the auto
updates... I got asked if I wanted these on or off. A shield shows in the
taskbar and a click of the mouse gives you the options of what you want on
and what you want off.

I decided to turn the auto updates off, but I kept the firewall check on and
the antivirus check was left on also. I am hoping that this is added
protection incase a virus or Trojan should sneak onto my box and disable

If you install this please take the time to read the windows that pop up.
and be sure your box is clean before you even install this. Later on I will
update and let you all know if I have any problems with the SP2.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Woman sues video game manufacturer (I say throw the lawsuit out!)

Here is a grandmother with a 14 year old grandson whom she bought a game for that had a mature rating.  Well here is a website that tells you what each of the game ratings are, and the appropriate ages for each rating plus what each of the ratings could have for content.  Game Ratings  Now step up to plate the lawsuit the grandmother filed on the makers of the game Grand Theft Auto.  Read about lawsuit here   
Throw it out because even the mature rating states it is meant for people 17 and up, and the game could contain sexual content, or does contain sexual content. 
Come on people!  they release the games with the ratings for a reason! You don't by a game for a kid under 17 that is for mature audiences, and then sue the manufacturer because your too stupid to pay attention to the ratings, or just too damn lazy to pay attention to them.  Or give in to a child because they want the game.  If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen!  parents have to take responsibility for their own actions. 
This lawsuit should be thrown out because the wrong age group is suing.  People who meet the age requirements for the ratings on the game itself should be allowed to sue if they care to do so.   But if you bought a game for your kids that are not the proper age displayed on the box then I am sorry you're shit out of luck folks in my book.    

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Think about it


We live in a society to where a child does not decide on what to eat by the type of the food with their meal... They decide on what to eat by the toy that comes with their meal.

We live in a society that doctors decide what drugs we will take by the perks from the company's that make them.

Consumers choose prescription medicines by which of the drug companies can put out the most TV ads in one month.

Poverty is still acceptable because if it weren’t, no one in the USA would be living in poverty.

It's still ok and acceptable for our elderly and children to do without needed medical. Because if it wasn't acceptable then at least the richest Nation in the world could afford to take care of their own Nation's medical needs.

Our nation eats the most filler, preservatives, and processed food of any other nation.

It was shown that when the USA fast foods became available to other nations, along with the processed foods. Their people started having and showing signs of more diabetes, heart problems, obesity, etc. Yes some of these country’s spoil their children because they are a one child family mandated by their country. But clearly it has been noticed that more health problems have cropped up since fast food, and other quick to prepare foods have made it to the western markets, and drive through.  Do your own research on this.  I am not sure if you could call this a cover up by the USA.  Not when this is in the news all the time.  Some claim it is, and you just don't see it.  If you ever wanted to find out how they affect you... then eliminate these foods from your diet, give yourself three months, and don't forget to use those scales before and after.  Then decide if your health is better or not, and your family's.  Another thing to note if you try this is to remember the word "Moderation". 

Sunday, June 12, 2005

FCC Rules broken?

It has always been my thoughts that the FCC was born in order to protect the consumer. The laws they set forth are there also not only to protect the consumer but to protect the public at large. This protection extends all the way down to the very ones they are protecting us from!
This is a very hard subject to tackle by anyone. The FCC to me has one of the hardest jobs there is on this planet. It's a balancing act. You have to protect free speech, set rules and then decipher if any of the laws set forth are stepping out of bounds. Free speech on television is one of these rules.
It seems that as fast as you try to fix a broken law, the faster someone comes along to try to tell you everything wrong with it. Take for instance the laws that the FCC have recently put their foot down on. Television decency. Or what ever you want to call it. To make this short of what its about is it just boils down too no x rated, or vulgar language etc in prime time. Am I for this? To a certain extent. I am not sure if the guide lines are as straight forward as they should be on the matter, and because everyone's views of what clean content should be is different then who is to say that down the road that this could eventually get out of hand?
The thing though I want to discuss is the content of certain info commercials. Plus their record of sales etc to the public.
It is clear to me that info commercials are getting out of hand. I don't mean all of them either. Some of them are very legit businesses, whom care about their customers. Others you wouldn't do business with if your life depended on it. I wont sugar coat this. I believe the FCC has the right and the obligation to protect the public from the info commercials that blatantly are corrupt. You know the ones that take your money and run, are doing nothing but offering a pyramid scheme, and have a very poor report with the BBB. The complaints on some of them are ramped. But you still see their info commercials on TV. I want it stopped. While to public has to sit through these info commercials, a consumer is being ripped off. If the FCC cares so much for the public then why aren't they stopping this fraud? Not everyone knows about this fraud, and not everyone knows the schemes that these people are pulling. It's time that the FCC went after them. They claim they are cleaning up television. Ok lets see the FCC really clean up Television. protect the public FCC. Get rid of these bogus rip off's that are on the television. If they have a bad record selling to the public then ban them from our Television screens. Make them clean up their act. Give the ones that really have the public in their interest that air time.

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Who has the right to complain?

I am so amazed at people sometimes. I had asked a few people that complain how the Government runs the Country. Out of ten I asked, only two were registered voters, and only one of them voted this year. Excuses I heard? "It doesn't matter who I vote for... they will put who they want in office regardless if I like em or not." "Both candidates suck so it doesn't matter if I vote or not." Those were the two most popular reasons for not being a registered voter. One other that amazed me was this one... "No way will I register I am not serving on Jury Duty. "
But a good majority of them were displeased in how the President was doing. They had plenty to say about what was wrong. But they didin't vote, or they wasn't even registered to vote. So tell me... What gives them the right to complain? Is it enough to be a American to be able to complain anyway? They say they have every right to complain because they ARE American. Do they really have that right?

Sunday, June 05, 2005

Can you spell RFID?

'contactless chip' = RFID and 'proximity chip' = RFID There is no difference folks. And hang onto your hats because our very nice elected Government is putting this crap in passports. Which will put all those abroad at risk. Why? Because the chips in passports will not have any of those digital secure security features, that our own elected officials will have in theirs. Homeland Security Department "We want it to be compatible," she said, "with as many reader devices used by other countries as possible." Hogwash is what I say. Tell em to get off their buffs and enter into the 21st Century. Better yet trash the idea because Technology is not ready for this as of yet. They can't even secure a computer. And they want to broadcast private info on a contactless chip. Give me a break!

OH! and Homeland Security Department if you really care alot for your fellow Americans who helped you get that job. The least you could do is give us all the same type of security protection that you have. Not like you will listen to us when we say your making a big mistake with that chip. But you can't honestly say that no one will be able to pick up that signal or not. You don' know, and even if they can't today, you should at least be honest enough with the public, and let them know that tomorrow someone will have a device built just for those chips, and every person that they get info from will be at risk. The question is "Will it be just a few, or a few thousand, or more?" This contactless chip technology is no different than the computer you have in your office and someone out there is getting all happy just thinking about hacking it. It wont be just a few hundred or a few thousand either. Just visit your nearest airport, and see if you can get a good idea of the ones coming and going. So many of those have a passport on them, now multiply this ten fold. Because this wont be in one general area it will be a multitude of areas, and sure wont be very easy to catch. Bye the time you find out the damage is already done. You are at great risk if you feel otherwise.

RFID Cards Get Spin Treatment

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Another Day

DRM Ah yes this is suppose to save the RIAA's butt. But you know I don't think so. I believe just like all the other hoopla on software that has been hacked in the last 10+ years DRM will be no different. So what's the cure? Ask me in about ten years, or maybe even 20. Because everyone right now is treating the software industry as if it has been around for ever and it hasn't.
So how about the rest of the security industry for Software? Well that is iffy. You can lock a computer up as tight as you want too, but when you do that you loose also.
One thing though I would like to see is Hosting company's for websites they host for to start scanning more often to see what their customers are uploading. Did you know there are websites right now as you read this that are storing viruses, Trojans, all kinds of malware. I guess the Hosting company's just turn a blind eye. Meanwhile their customers are uploading this crap as fast as they can.