There are lots of threats to individuals today, some of which were not dreamed of 50 years ago. Yes, we still have our traditional crimes of violence, like armed robbery, as well as threats from those who take a more clandestine approach to relieving us of our goods like the burglars and embezzlers.
Add to that the terrorists. They don’t need to strike often. As their title suggests, their job is to strike terror. They want us to live in fear. They control us that way. And an occasional terrorist strike is usually all it takes.
But we are often assaulted on another front today. The assaults are certainly less menacing than terrorist activity, or even armed robbery. But they still can result in everything from simple annoyances to wiped out bank accounts.
Internet crimes are becoming much more prevalent as more and more people become wired. And I use the term “crime” loosely here, because some of the perpetrators are not technically breaking any laws. Their lawyers see to that.
Let’s start with the simply menacing activity. Recent studies have shown that more than half of all Internet users who have computers at home or work are bothered by what is generally termed spyware or adware.
Adware is a concept that allows software developers to give away their programs to computer users because they contain built-in ads. If you are willing to put up with a banner ad or two, you get to use the software for free.
The trouble is, some of the more unscrupulous programmers also build in code that causes the ads to pop up at any time, no matter what program you’re running. It is not only quite annoying; it can cut into your productivity by slowing down your computer.
Spyware is similar to adware except that it also traces your computer activity and then sends that information to the company who developed it. Every keystroke you take or every Web page you visit is recorded and sent to some company who uses that information to tailor even more ads to your personal habits.
In 1999 a TV movie was produced called Netforce. It starred Kris Kristoferson and Scott Bakula as agents in a division of the FBI, the Netforce division. It was charged with preventing Internet crime. The movie was set in 2005 when everything literally depended on the Internet.
The plot twist was that the person who was in charge of developing Netforce, its leader, was ultimately responsible for trying to bring the whole Internet down because it had become too sleazy.
The Internet certainly has its sleazy side, but it has become like the television. You might be able to live without it, but you are loathe to give it up. To some people, it’s become as important a part of their lives as their automobiles. They utterly depend on it.
I am one of those people. I use it for not only communicating, keeping informed, and playing; I also use it to earn part of my income. If the Internet suddenly went away, it would create a severe hardship for me and others like me.
It is also a tremendous labor-saving device and convenience tool. I use it to pay all my bills, balance my bank account, buy Christmas presents, and download most of my music. It is as much a part of my life today as the pencil used to be.
But between all the computer viruses, e-mail spam, adware, spyware, and now phishing scams, one has to stay on their toes to prevent chaos or disaster.
Phishing is the e-mail device whereby unscrupulous spammers try to gain access to your bank accounts by sending e-mail messages claiming that your account is in danger of being closed unless you confirm your personal information, such as account numbers and passwords.
The e-mail messages look so authentic that it’s easy to fall into the trap. It has already claimed many unsuspecting victims who have had their accounts wiped out.
The Internet is here to stay. It is a vital and necessary part of the world economy. But, like the brick and mortar world, the cyberworld is full of criminals and deceitful individuals who are always coming up with new and innovative ways to part you from your money.
Let the surfer beware.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Comet Impact Screws Up Horoscopes
NASA, it seems, likes to do big things on July 4. Several important unmanned space probes have either been launched or have gotten to their destination on that date, including the first Mars space rover.
This year on July 4, NASA sent a washing-machine-sized probe crashing into a comet, Tempel 1. It was the first time a man-made object has ever touched a comet.
The probe punched a crater in the comet’s surface, produced a huge explosion and fireball, caused outgassing of primordial comet debris, caused the comet to brighten by a factor of five, and ruined the natural balance of forces in the universe, deforming a Russian woman’s horoscope.
Well, those last things are contentions made by Marina Bai, a Russian astrologer who apparently makes a living at telling people’s horoscopes. She claims the probe's impact on the comet upset the balance of nature in the universe and, thus, has thwarted her own horoscope as well as her ability to chart the stars for others.
She, therefore, is suing NASA for $300 million. That happens to be the approximate total cost of the suicide mission to the comet. So, if she wins, it would end up costing U.S. taxpayers twice as much to crash an object on a comet.
A Russian court judge has scheduled hearings on the suit for later this month. NASA refused comment.
However, scientists in charge of studying the collision say that the collision did not significantly alter the comet’s course and that it did not result in any increased threat to Earth.
The story of the Russian woman’s lawsuit appeared on a CBS News Web site. But it belonged in the strange news department. In fact, it might fit well on the comic page of most newspapers.
But it really did happen. A woman has sued NASA for sending a probe to collide with a comet because she claims it messed up her horoscope. Late night comedy hosts are bound to have a field day with this one.
First of all, the woman is an astrologer, not an astronomer. There is a big difference. Astrology is an age-old superstition. It might be fun to read one’s horoscope in the newspaper, but nobody should take them seriously.
As far as creating horoscopes for other people, well what difference does it make if a comet is nudged off path slightly? Comets, unless they strike the earth, have absolutely no effect on anyone’s destiny. Neither do the position of the planets.
At one time, ancients believed that the position of the planets at the time of one’s birth could determine that person’s personality and even predict future events in the person’s life. This was also during the time when ancient astrologers were learning how to predict things like the rising and setting times of the sun, moon, stars, and known planets.
Before astronomy, the true science of the stars and planets, astrology was all we had.
We know now that there is absolutely no connection between a person’s destiny and the position of the planets, let alone a comet. And even if there were such a connection, modern astrologers continue to use ancient star charts. Because of the wobble of the earth’s axis, those star charts are about two months out of synch with the true position of celestial bodies.
NASA probably doesn’t have much to worry about from the misguided Russian astrologer. But it did give me a good chuckle when I read it. I can thank her for that.
This year on July 4, NASA sent a washing-machine-sized probe crashing into a comet, Tempel 1. It was the first time a man-made object has ever touched a comet.
The probe punched a crater in the comet’s surface, produced a huge explosion and fireball, caused outgassing of primordial comet debris, caused the comet to brighten by a factor of five, and ruined the natural balance of forces in the universe, deforming a Russian woman’s horoscope.
Well, those last things are contentions made by Marina Bai, a Russian astrologer who apparently makes a living at telling people’s horoscopes. She claims the probe's impact on the comet upset the balance of nature in the universe and, thus, has thwarted her own horoscope as well as her ability to chart the stars for others.
She, therefore, is suing NASA for $300 million. That happens to be the approximate total cost of the suicide mission to the comet. So, if she wins, it would end up costing U.S. taxpayers twice as much to crash an object on a comet.
A Russian court judge has scheduled hearings on the suit for later this month. NASA refused comment.
However, scientists in charge of studying the collision say that the collision did not significantly alter the comet’s course and that it did not result in any increased threat to Earth.
The story of the Russian woman’s lawsuit appeared on a CBS News Web site. But it belonged in the strange news department. In fact, it might fit well on the comic page of most newspapers.
But it really did happen. A woman has sued NASA for sending a probe to collide with a comet because she claims it messed up her horoscope. Late night comedy hosts are bound to have a field day with this one.
First of all, the woman is an astrologer, not an astronomer. There is a big difference. Astrology is an age-old superstition. It might be fun to read one’s horoscope in the newspaper, but nobody should take them seriously.
As far as creating horoscopes for other people, well what difference does it make if a comet is nudged off path slightly? Comets, unless they strike the earth, have absolutely no effect on anyone’s destiny. Neither do the position of the planets.
At one time, ancients believed that the position of the planets at the time of one’s birth could determine that person’s personality and even predict future events in the person’s life. This was also during the time when ancient astrologers were learning how to predict things like the rising and setting times of the sun, moon, stars, and known planets.
Before astronomy, the true science of the stars and planets, astrology was all we had.
We know now that there is absolutely no connection between a person’s destiny and the position of the planets, let alone a comet. And even if there were such a connection, modern astrologers continue to use ancient star charts. Because of the wobble of the earth’s axis, those star charts are about two months out of synch with the true position of celestial bodies.
NASA probably doesn’t have much to worry about from the misguided Russian astrologer. But it did give me a good chuckle when I read it. I can thank her for that.
Friday, July 01, 2005
Bush Likely to Appoint Ultra-Conservative to Court
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner dropped a bombshell last Friday when she announced her retirement from the High Court. It caught everyone, including Pres. Bush, off guard.
The Bush administration was expecting to have to replace one of the justices, Chief Justice William Renquist, who has been battling thyroid cancer. He may yet tender his resignation, though some believe if he hasn’t done so by now, he may go for yet another term.
O’Conner was the type of justice that should be on the Supreme Court. She made her decisions based on the law and the Constitution, not on her own ideology. For that reason, she was known as a moderate and was often on the majority side of the fence as she cast the swing votes in a number of important cases, including abortion rights.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that Bush will replace her with another moderate. It is more likely that her replacement will be a conservative Christian who will decide cases on his own value system, much the way Bush runs the country.
That would be extremely detrimental to our democracy as it might eventually lead to a lessoning of religious tolerance. As Justice David Souter wrote in his remarks in the recent Ten Commandments ruling, “A purpose to favor one faith over another, or adherence to religion generally, clashes with the understanding that liberty and social stability demand a tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens.”
Bush is under pressure from conservatives to appoint someone with a history of opposing abortion rights. But Bush stated he would select someone who would faithfully interpret the laws and the Constitution.
That would be nice, but what he really meant was he would appoint someone who would faithfully interpret the laws and the Constitution from the perspective of the Bush Administration. He has a strong track record of making such appointments.
Obviously, any president would be tempted to appoint federal justices with an ideological slant similar to their own. That is why there are currently four conservatives and four liberals on the High Court.
But sometimes, a president gets it right. Ronald Reagan was a conservative. Yet he appointed O’Conner in 1981, the first woman to ever sit on the Supreme Court, and a moderate.
Not everyone always agreed with her decisions, including me. That’s not the point. She didn’t decide cases based on popularity of opinion or by referendum of the masses. She seldom tipped her hand in advance of a decision because she wanted to be very deliberate in making it.
Although in a perfect world, all judges would be completely neutral, we’re not living in a perfect world. Knowing there is no way Bush will ever appoint a moderate, let alone a liberal, even most Democrats are willing to go along with a conservative, at least up to a point.
But if Bush appoints another ultra-conservative to replace a moderate, don’t rule out the possibility of another Senate filibuster.
Bush said that the country deserves a “dignified process of confirmation.” I agree, except that’s just more Bush-speak for “Let me have my way without arguing over it.” The only way we can have a dignified confirmation process is if he appoints someone who is ideologically neutral.
Bush has never had to replace a Supreme Court justice. In fact, it has been 11 years since the last time one was appointed.
He might offer up a surprise nominee. He has taken a lot of flack lately over some of his other appointees, including his choice for U.N. ambassador, John Bolton. He may not be in the mood for yet another confirmation battle.
But don’t look forward to any moderation on Bush’s part. He is one of the most obstinate presidents in decades. So his nominee will probably be an arch-conservative. If so, anything’s possible in the Senate.
The Bush administration was expecting to have to replace one of the justices, Chief Justice William Renquist, who has been battling thyroid cancer. He may yet tender his resignation, though some believe if he hasn’t done so by now, he may go for yet another term.
O’Conner was the type of justice that should be on the Supreme Court. She made her decisions based on the law and the Constitution, not on her own ideology. For that reason, she was known as a moderate and was often on the majority side of the fence as she cast the swing votes in a number of important cases, including abortion rights.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that Bush will replace her with another moderate. It is more likely that her replacement will be a conservative Christian who will decide cases on his own value system, much the way Bush runs the country.
That would be extremely detrimental to our democracy as it might eventually lead to a lessoning of religious tolerance. As Justice David Souter wrote in his remarks in the recent Ten Commandments ruling, “A purpose to favor one faith over another, or adherence to religion generally, clashes with the understanding that liberty and social stability demand a tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens.”
Bush is under pressure from conservatives to appoint someone with a history of opposing abortion rights. But Bush stated he would select someone who would faithfully interpret the laws and the Constitution.
That would be nice, but what he really meant was he would appoint someone who would faithfully interpret the laws and the Constitution from the perspective of the Bush Administration. He has a strong track record of making such appointments.
Obviously, any president would be tempted to appoint federal justices with an ideological slant similar to their own. That is why there are currently four conservatives and four liberals on the High Court.
But sometimes, a president gets it right. Ronald Reagan was a conservative. Yet he appointed O’Conner in 1981, the first woman to ever sit on the Supreme Court, and a moderate.
Not everyone always agreed with her decisions, including me. That’s not the point. She didn’t decide cases based on popularity of opinion or by referendum of the masses. She seldom tipped her hand in advance of a decision because she wanted to be very deliberate in making it.
Although in a perfect world, all judges would be completely neutral, we’re not living in a perfect world. Knowing there is no way Bush will ever appoint a moderate, let alone a liberal, even most Democrats are willing to go along with a conservative, at least up to a point.
But if Bush appoints another ultra-conservative to replace a moderate, don’t rule out the possibility of another Senate filibuster.
Bush said that the country deserves a “dignified process of confirmation.” I agree, except that’s just more Bush-speak for “Let me have my way without arguing over it.” The only way we can have a dignified confirmation process is if he appoints someone who is ideologically neutral.
Bush has never had to replace a Supreme Court justice. In fact, it has been 11 years since the last time one was appointed.
He might offer up a surprise nominee. He has taken a lot of flack lately over some of his other appointees, including his choice for U.N. ambassador, John Bolton. He may not be in the mood for yet another confirmation battle.
But don’t look forward to any moderation on Bush’s part. He is one of the most obstinate presidents in decades. So his nominee will probably be an arch-conservative. If so, anything’s possible in the Senate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)