Crap Throwing Monkey

Not my point. My point is that security is not a technical exercise, it's an administrative and usually psychological one. Case in point: my current client has a password security policy that requires you to use a minimum of 12 characters, one of which must be a number and one of which must be non-alphanumeric, passwords expire every other week, and you can't use any of your last eighteen passwords. Technically very secure...and it forces people to write down their passwords and keep them near the computer, so that in terms of actual security it's completely counter-productive. The history of IT security is replete with examples like this, straight back to Lee's Lost Order before Sharpsburg and beyond. Which does not mean that you can skimp on technical security (2-digit PIN? MS Access? ) It does mean, though, that if you focus analysis strictly on technical security, you're not analysing security at all. The real problem is that American society nowadays is programmed to automatically assumed that the answer to anything is "better technology"...which usually causes more problems than it solves. The real solution to FL's balloting problems in 2000 wasn't better voting machines, it was a better definition of "What is a vote, and how do we count them?"

He was put on the short term IR, and should be cut next week. Spikes is pissed.

I believe Howard won Superbowl MVP with Green Bay for his ST play. Not the greatest player to come out of that draft...but it's hard to call a Superbowl MVP a complete bust.

I have problems with Princeton's analysis for one simple reason: the weaknesses they found are predicated on physical access to the machine. The thing is, any voting method can be corrupted if you can get physical access to the mechanics of it. That's not a security flaw in Diebold's machine, that's a security flaw in the democratic process. In Princeton's defense, they were only looking at the technical security of the machine...which isn't much of a defense, as security is less a technical exercise than it is an administrative one (i.e. it's a question of implementation; plenty of otherwise secure systems have been made insecure by idiots applying them in the real world). If Princeton chooses to only test the technical security aspects of the machine (and even then, does so in such a way that is predicated on the physical security being breached first), they're not testing security.

You're Bruce Schneier?

http://www.singingfool.com/musicvideo.asp?...shedid=00205093 Millions of peaches. Peaches for me... Millions of peaches. Peaches for free... Millions of peaches. Peaches for me... Millions of peaches. Peaches for free... LOOK OUT! And then they fight ninjas. Why are they fighting ninjas? Great music video...

Never mind that he's accusing Levy of not being prescient in knowing Vincent would get injured...is this dumbass actually saying that, because the dilemma is "obvious" [sic] in hindsight, it should have been obvious with foresight, too? That's why it's called "hindsight", you !@#$ing twit!

Are they the guys that did "Peaches"? Movin' to the country, gonna eat a lot of peaches. Movin' to the country, gonna eat a lot of peaches... Greatest music video ever.

Is this one of those trick questions, like "What year was 1865"?

I'm guessing...Bush.

Wow. That was an insightful, intelligent point. Who are you, and what'd you do with that idiot meazza?

I don't think he was arguing it's a small problem; I think he was arguing it's a smaller problem than fossil fuel emissions, and then from the technical perspective of being able to localize a far smaller amount of pollution. The political issue of nuclear waste is, of course, a much larger one.

"Mickey Mouse fake end-around bull sh-- reverse !@#$tard WR option pass play." I'm pretty sure that's what it actually says in the playbook.

You keep your tiny, hairy little paws away from the glockenspeil. It's mine. You can't have it. Go play with tater's cowbell or something...

Nearer bomb-grade than raw ore. And it's just a matter of scale: if you can enrich it to power plant grade, you can enrich it to bomb grade. The fact that they haven't yet...is pretty much irrelevent to the issue of Iran's nuclear program. It's only relevent to the issue of "Bush sucks!"

Except New England can. Even UB could win a Superbowl if they had the refs in their pocket.

Never?

Wow, Joe. That's actually quite...restrained. For you.

Now?

Post your opinion of Spikes, using ONLY smileys. For example, here's what I think:

Says the guy who asked "What year is 1865?"

But starting a new thread makes people feel more important. If you don't like it, don't read them.

The Land Of Misfit Toys will accept anyone...

Llama llama duck. Llama llama llama duck. Llama llama duck.

Can we just resurrect the old TD is Satan thread, but cut and past "Takeo" for "Donahoe"? It'll save everyone a LOT of time...