Version 2.5.1 of WordPress is now available. It includes a number of bug fixes, performance enhancements, and one very important security fix. We recommend everyone update immediately, particularly if your blog has open registration. The vulnerability is not public but it will be shortly.

Some of the listed improvements include:

• Performance improvements for the Dashboard, Write Post, and Edit Comments pages.
• Better performance for those who have many categories
• Media Uploader fixes
• An upgrade to TinyMCE 3.0.7
• Widget Administration fixes
• Various usability improvements
• Layout fixes for IE

Upgrade, if you haven’t already.

There’s no debating Freeney’s value to the Colts, who signed him to a six-year, $72 million contract last July. They were able to get by without him during the seven regular-season games he missed at the end of last season, but a Freeney-less pass rush was a major factor in the Colts’ postseason loss to San Diego.

“I’m not sure there is another defensive player that has had as big an impact on a team as Dwight Freeney the last few years,” said former Houston Texans general manager Charley Casserly. “He makes the whole defense better in Indianapolis.”

In what will be perplexing to Colts fans, the Patriots have signed 36-year-old, former Colts TE Marcus Pollard. Living in Rams land, I saw way too many Seahawks games last year. I have to say, I’m not all that impressed with Pollard’s skills these days. He’s not the same player he was for the Colts. I really have no idea what the Patriots are thinking with this move.

(H/T: 18to88)

The backstory: In July of 2005, Michael Arnold, who was 43 at the time, was pulled aside for secondary questioning upon arriving at LAX from the Philippines. Customs agents checked out his laptop and, according to the ruling, found “numerous images depicting what they believed to be child pornography.”

Arnold was later charged with possessing and transporting child porn and with traveling to a foreign country with the intention of having sex with children. But lower court Judge Dean Pregerson of Los Angeles suppressed the evidence after finding that customs agents didn’t have reasonable suspicion to search the contents of Arnold’s laptop.

The Ninth Circuit, in an opinion penned by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, reversed on Monday, holding that “reasonable suspicion is not needed for customs officials to search a laptop or other personal electronic storage devices at the border.”

In reading the decision, my initial reaction is that while the conclusion is ultimately wrong (opening files on a laptop without reasonable suspicion is clearly a violation of the Fourth Amendment, regardless of what precedent rulings exist), the defendant chose an absolutely absurd defense. It is that absurd defense that is the basis of the court’s decision.

Arnold based his defense on two arguments: one, that the laptop is an extension of the human body (since it contains data in the same way that the human mind contains ideas) and thus is protected from unreasonable searches, and two, that the laptop is analogous to a person’s “home” (due to the capacity of the data storage and thus is protected from undue damage or destruction during a search.

Given the two prongs of this defense, I can understand how the Ninth Circuit would reverse.

I’m no lawyer, but in my opinion, a much more sound defense would have been that viewing personal data without cause or suspicion is an unreasonable search, even at the border. The Ninth Circuit’s decision references United States v. Tsai (border searches of briefcases) and United States v. Ickes (border searches of vehicles, and electronic devices contained therein) as precedent that the defendant was not subject to unreasonable search.

Recall the words of the Fourth Amendment:

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.

Apparently, the courts have ruled that “searches made at the border…are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border”, under the justification that “…the United Stats, as Sovereign, has the inherent authority to protect, and a paramount interest in protecting, its territorial integrity” (United States v. Flores-Montano). Similarly, the Supreme Court (United States v. Ramsey) has held that:

The authority of the United States to search the baggage of arriving international travelers is based on its inherent sovereign authority to protect its territorial integrity. By reason of that authority, it is entitled to require that whoever seeks entry must establish the right to enter and to bring into the country whatever he may carry.

The issue, however, is that these searches are not appropriately bounded. While it is reasonable for a border agent to require a passenger to turn on a laptop to ensure that all its components are legitimately part of a laptop (e.g. the battery is not actually some sort of bomb), it is in no way reasonable for that border agent to rummage through the files contained on that laptop without reasonable cause.

Essentially, the justification by the courts here is that, since some things are illegal in the US but are legal elsewhere, any traveler could have legally obtained something that is illegal in the US, thus everything is subject to search at the border, and that the search takes place at the border establishes that such searches are reasonable.

Basically, this justification completely guts the Fourth Amendment. It is as if the courts are saying, “check your Constitution at the border.”

Arnold should have challenged the unconstitutionally broad application of conferring reasonableness on searches simply by virtue of their occurrence at a border entry.

Another reasonable argument would have been the court’s equation of a laptop to a traveler’s luggage. The contents of luggage is in no way inherently analogous to the contents of a laptop (or of an MP3 player, a digital camera, or camcorder).

Oh, and as others have said: TrueCrypt. Either encrypt your entire drive, or put all private data inside an encrypted partition. If the courts won’t uphold the Fourth Amendment, then perhaps the Fifth Amendment will still apply, and you’ll still be protected from being forced to divulge your password for your encrypted data.

Volokh Conspiracy has a lot of interesting commentary. Dailybreeze also covers the story.

(H/T: PCWorld)

Police officers and security guards were attempting to clear the parking lot after the club closed when they noticed that Keith, 27, 6700 block of Echo Lane, and other men with him were not leaving. According to the police report, the men ignored several requests to leave and began to dance, yell and lean into cars in the parking lot.

After telling the men several times to leave, police told them to put their hands on a vehicle. Keith initially refused and tried to pull out a cell phone to record the incident, according to the report. He eventually was handcuffed while officers sorted things out.

According to the police report, Keith “kept hollering that he was a Colts player, he wasn’t doing anything wrong, and he would leave when he was ready.”

Keith was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, resisting law enforcement, public intoxication and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, as another man with him was 19.

The Colts organization doesn’t take too kindly to this sort of behavior. Did you catch that part in the middle?

Keith “kept hollering that he was a Colts player, he wasn’t doing anything wrong, and he would leave when he was ready.”

Perhaps not for long, KK. The Colts don’t like players who catch rap sheets better than passes from Manning.

(H/T: 18to88)

Turns out it was a 5.2-magnitude earthquake.

Post-Dispatch and Tribune-Star stories here.

The U.S. Geologic Survey Web site says the quake was centered near West Salem, Ill., or about 40 miles northwest of Evansville, Ind.

…

The quake occurred in the Illinois basin-Ozark dome region that covers parts of Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and Arkansas and stretches from Indianapolis and St. Louis to Memphis, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Also, apparently, the quake was felt in Grand Rapids, MI,, Cincinnati, OH - and even 450 miles away in Des Moines, IA.)

Of course, I couldn’t get back to sleep - so I’m going to be a bit tired today!

As relieved as I am to note that SCOTUS has not lost all common sense (it does not take a Constitutional Law degree to come to the conclusion that a) the Constitution explicitly permits the death penalty, and b) lethal injection is neither cruel nor unusual, therefore c) lethal injection does not violate the 8th Amendment), I was particularly impressed by Justice Scalia’s takedown of Justice Stevens’ concurring opinion, in which he argues that in his experience the death penalty has not benefited society and that the death penalty is unconstitutional. Here’s an excerpt of Scalia pointing out Stevens’ judicial activism and illogic:

But actually none of this really matters. As JUSTICE STEVENS explains, “ ‘objective evidence, though of great importance, [does] not wholly determine the controversy, for the Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.’ . . . I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty” is unconstitutional.”

Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat. In the face of JUSTICE STEVENS’ experience, the experience of all others is, it appears, of little consequence. The experience of the state legislatures and the Congress—who retain the death penalty as a form of punishment—is dismissed as “the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process.” The experience of social scientists whose studies indicate that the death penalty deters crime is relegated to a footnote. The experience of fellow citizens who support the death penalty is described, with only the most thinly veiled condemnation, as stemming from a “thirst for vengeance.” It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ experience that reigns over all.

I take no position on the desirability of the death penalty, except to say that its value is eminently debatable and the subject of deeply, indeed passionately, held views—which means, to me, that it is preeminently not a matter to be resolved here. And especially not when it is explicitly permitted by the Constitution

God bless Justice Scalia!

(H/T: RedState, which you should read for the full, color commentary.)

I finally had a chance to finish Gary Taubes’ book Good Calories, Bad Calories, and all I can really say is, “Wow!”

Taubes’ 600-page book is the culmination of five years of work researching a century worth of epidemiological and clinical research into the carbohydrate and fat hypotheses regarding physiology, metabolism, obesity, and the “diseases of civilization” - coronary heart disease, diabetes, cancer, dementia, etc. The volume, which includes some 70 pages of bibliographical references, is divided into three sections: a history of the fat-heart disease hypothesis, a history of the carbohydrate-heart disease hypothesis, and a history of the fat-obseity and carbohydrate-obesity hypotheses.

Taubes reviews this century-worth of data, and comes to the following conclusions:

1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, does not cause heart disease.
2. Carbohydrates do, because of their effect on the hormone insulin. The more easily-digestible and refined the carbohydrates and the more fructose they contain, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.
3. Sugars—sucrose (table sugar) and high fructose corn syrup specifically—are particularly harmful. The glucose in these sugars raises insulin levels; the fructose they contain overloads the liver.
4. Refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are also the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer’s Disease, and the other common chronic diseases of modern times.
5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating and not sedentary behavior.
6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter any more than it causes a child to grow taller.
7. Exercise does not make us lose excess fat; it makes us hungry.
8. We get fat because of an imbalance—a disequilibrium—in the hormonal regulation of fat tissue and fat metabolism. More fat is stored in the fat tissue than is mobilized and used for fuel. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses this imbalance.
9. Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated, we stockpile calories as fat. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and burn it for fuel.
10. By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.
11. The fewer carbohydrates we eat, the leaner we will be.

I found the book to be an enjoyable, if dense, read. While Taubes of necessity sometimes gets into the scientific and physiological details, in general he keeps the prose at an understandable level. With the exception of the forward, which I found to be a bit tedious in my first attempt to read, the book is a page-turner, and reads much like investigative journalism.

The preponderance of the evidence - and if you wish to refute it, start with that 70-page bibliography of references - clearly sides with Taubes’ conclusions. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of this book is not Taubes’ conclusions, but rather the implied indictment of the medical research community with respect to hypothesis regarding the connections between fat, carbhoydrates, heart disease, metabolism, and obesity. That indictment is perhaps best summarized in this line from the Epilogue:

The urge to simplify a complex scientific situation so that physicians can apply it and their patients and the public embrace it has taken precedence over the scientific obligation of presenting the evidence with relentless honesty. The result is an enormous enterprise dedicated in theory to determining the relationship between diet, obesity and disease, while dedicated in practice to convincing everyone involved, and the lay public, most of all, that the answers are already known and always have been - an enterprise, in other words, that purports to be a science and yet functions like a religion.

This book puts the imprimatur on what I have been saying for almost a decade: There is absolutely no rigorous, scientific evidence that dietary fat causes heart disease or obesity. To the contrary: plenty of bona fide evidence places the blame squarely upon the over-consumption of refined carbohydrates.

Simply put: if you care about your health and nutrition, read this book. Come to your own conclusions. But if you want to argue the dietary fat-heart disease or dietary fat-obesity hypotheses, then you’d better read this book first, or else you will only make a fool of yourself.

Others’ reviews of Good Calories, Bad Calories: Weight of the Evidence, Beantown Bloggery, Jollyblogger. And of course, plenty of coverage at Livin’ La Vida Low Carb.

• Spoonauer claims that the window of opportunity for Linux (as a desktop client) has closed, maybe for good. He gives some examples of the closing window of opportunity, such as BestBuy opting for the WinXP version of the EeePC instead of the Linux version, Wal-Mart “pulling” Linux PCs from store shelves and opting for internet-only sales, and Dell thus far being the only “major” PC vendor to offer pre-installed Linux.
• After getting slammed in the comments to his previous blog post, Spoonauer then goes about trying to defend his premise regarding the window of opportunity closing, but conceding that he may have been premature in proclaiming a “death knell” for desktop Linux.
• Spoonauer then attempts to portray some objectivity by interviewing some analysts who essentially say, “not so fast.” Their conclusions are that the BestBuy decision has no real bearing on the future opportunity of Linux, and that Microsoft is making concessions with respect to licensing in order to fend off a legitimate threat from Linux.
• But the Spoonauer goes right back to his premise, interviewing yet another expert in attempt to discount EeePC Linux sales. Here, the premise is basically that while the Linux EeePC has sold over one million units worldwide, it has only sold about 100,000 in the US, which the expert claims have all gone to existing Linux geeks.

Others are picking up on the meme, and refuting it. See Linux Watch and Linux Solutions. Let’s do the same, shall we?

As I have already pointed out, Microsoft’s dual actions in extending the end-of-life for Windows XP and in offering pennies-on-the-dollar licensing for ULCPCs is a de facto concession of the threat of Linux. These actions are a stop-gap gambit to avoid loss of market share, and are neither sustainable nor viable, long-term.

OEM licensing (presumably, Windows and Office) accounts for 95% of Microsoft’s revenues. Thus, Microsoft finds itself in a no-win situation in the ULCPC market: either concede the market to Linux, and thus generate no revenue due to no OEM licensing, or else give away OEM licenses (essentially for free) and thus generate no revenue from the OEM licenses they do procure.

The Linux business model is entirely different. With a few rare exceptions (SLED, Xandros, etc.), Linux distributions do not make money by selling OEM or end-user licenses for use of their OS; rather, the Linux business model is to give away the software and then make money by selling support contracts.

So, extrapolating the current environment several years: Microsoft continues to generate no revenues by giving away OEM licenses and offering support for an otherwise end-of-life operating system, while the Linux revenue stream is entirely unaffected. Linux is positioned to win any protracted desktop market share battle of attrition.

The second fatal flaw in Spoonauer’s argument is the inherent assumption that US market share will continue to dictate the adoption rate for desktop Linux. While this assumption may hold true today, it is quickly being invalidated.

While Microsoft has entrenched itself in the various sales channels in the US (retail outlets, vendor online sales, etc.), it is quickly losing its grip outside of the US, due to increasing open source (and, in some cases, anti-Microsoft) trends, especially in Europe and Asia - not to mention the growing computer-user market in third-world countries.

Government agencies, educational institutions, and others are moving desktop installations wholesale from Windows to Linux, by the thousands and tens of thousands. Each one of these desktop Linux installations directly impacts Microsoft’s bottom line.

In short, the jury may still be out regarding the ability of Linux eventually to realize its full potential - and market share - but if Windows remains the only viable threat to Linux desktop market share, Then the Linux window of opportunity will remain open in perpetuity. Microsoft’s business model will ensure it.

The Huffington Post Web site reported Friday that Obama, speaking of some Pennsylvanians’ economic anxieties, told supporters at the San Francisco fundraiser: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. … And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Needless to say, the Conservative side of the ’sphere has taken these statements and run with them:

• LGF: Obama: Small-Town People Cling to Religion, Guns, and Xenophobia
• Michelle Malkin: Snob-ama disses pro-gun, religious, anti-illegal immigration activists in Penn.
• PowerLine: Is Obama’s Campaign Over?
• RedState: Obama explains why small towns in the midwest don’t like him
• The Other McCain: Obama trashes small-town America
• Hot Air: Obama on small-town voters: Bitter, xenophobic, religious (with comprehensive updates)

Of course Hilary Clinton, ever the opportunist, jumped at the chance to take a shot at her opponent:

“It’s being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who face hard times are bitter,” Clinton said during a campaign event in Philadelphia. “Well that’s not my experience. As I travel around Pennsylvania. I meet people who are resilient, optimist positive who are rolling up their sleeves.”

“Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them,” she said. “They need a president who stands up for them, who fights hard for your future, your jobs, your families.”

The McCain campaign has also responded:

Asked to respond, McCain adviser Steve Schmidt called it a “remarkable statement and extremely revealing.”

“It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking,” Schmidt said. “It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans.”

And now, caught red-handed in his arrogance and elitism, Obama is trying to make quick work of spinning his remarks. Unfortunately for him, he’s not doing a very good job of it.

First, the Obama campaign spokesperson tries a diversionary tactic [emphasis added]:

“Senator Obama has said many times in this campaign that Americans are understandably upset with their leaders in Washington for saying anything to win elections while failing to stand up to the special interests and fight for an economic agenda that will bring jobs and opportunity back to struggling communities. And if John McCain wants a debate about who’s out of touch with the American people, we can start by talking about the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans that he once said offended his conscience but now wants to make permanent,”

Then in Terre Haute yesterday, Obama tried the “Nuh-unh” approach in response to the McCain campaign’s assertions that Obama’s statement indicated that he was “out of touch with average Americans” [emphasis added]:

In Terre Haute, Obama chided McCain for not responding promptly to the home mortgage crisis and criticized Clinton for voting for a bankruptcy bill supported by credit card companies.

“No, I’m IN touch,” he said. “I know exactly what’s going on. People are fed up, they are angry, they’re frustrated and they’re bitter. And they want to see a change in Washington.”

And finally, in the same speech, he tried to re-phrase his message [emphasis added]:

“People don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody is going to help them,” Obama told a crowd at a Terre Haute, Ind., high school Friday evening. “So people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.”

Man, the cheap-seat view of the Democratic primary is so fun to watch!

State public health officials say two babies were accidentally switched at a southern Illinois hospital, with one of the infants sent home with the wrong family.

Officials say the mistake happened in March at Heartland Regional Medical Center in Marion and involved two newborn boys.

Hospital workers soon learned of the error and immediately contacted the family.

Apparently, this hospital gives free car seats to all babies born there. Just make sure you’re putting the right baby in that car seat!

In a brief filed in federal court yesterday, Universal Music Group (UMG) states that, when it comes to the millions of promotional CDs (”promo CDs”) that it has sent out to music reviewers, radio stations, DJs, and other music industry insiders, throwing them away is “an unauthorized distribution” that violates copyright law. Yes, you read that right — if you’ve ever received a promo CD from UMG, and you don’t still have it, UMG thinks you’re a pirate.

This revelation came in a brief for summary judgment filed by UMG against Troy Augusto. Augusto (aka Roast Beast Music Collectibles, eBay handle roastbeastmusic) buys collectible promo CDs at used record stores around Los Angeles and resells them on eBay. UMG sued him last year, claiming that the “promotional use only” labels on the CDs mean that UMG owns them forever and that any resale infringes copyright.

The music industry, apparently, will never learn…

(H/T: TSDgeos)

1. Microsoft extends life of Windows XP for Ultra-Low-Cost PCs
2. Microsft Vista successor Windows 7 rumored to be released in 2009

What do these mean? Two things: Microsoft recognizes that Vista has not been well-received in the market, and Microsoft recognizes an emerging threat from Linux.

Consider the various markets for computers: enterprise (corporate) systems, high-end (gaming, graphic design, etc.) systems, standard consumer systems, and ultra-low-cost PC (ULCPC) systems. Other niche markets also exist, as well.

Even more than a year after its release, Vista has not been well-received in any of these markets. By all accounts, the corporate adoption rate has been dismal. Due to hardware/software compatibility issues, users of high-end systems likewise have stuck with Windows XP. ULCPCs do not meet the system requirements for Vista. The other niche markets include MacOS and Linux users who don’t use any version of a Microsoft operating system.

This scenario leaves the standard consumer system market as the only viable growth option for Vista. This market includes the pre-configured computers purchased through retail outlets or manufacturers’ direct-sale web sites. The vast majority of Microsoft’s claimed, more than one hundred million Vista license sales come from this market. However, consumer backlash against pre-installed Vista has led to a resurgence of sorts in sales of Windows XP installation media. Windows Vista has trailed Windows XP in these so-called boxed-copy sales from the week Vista was released - and many of those XP copies are being installed over pre-installed Vista.

Microsoft’s business model for Windows depends upon the operating system becoming a commodity - that is, for the average computer user, Windows equals computer use, and computer use means Windows.

In this model, corporations standardize on Windows, and follow the upgrade path defined by Microsoft: when Microsoft releases a new OS, corporations dutifully upgrade their systems all at once. In the consumer market, the business model assumes first that users will view the operating system as an unchangeable part of the computer, and second, that those users will replace their systems every 2-3 years, by purchasing another pre-configured computer at retail.

Similar to Microsoft’s Office business model, in which Microsoft ensured product lock-in by creating an environment in which their proprietary document format was used by 99% of productivity suite users, Microsoft’s Windows business model ensured product lock-in by creating dependency on Windows-only third-party applications and by creating an environment in which consumers could only purchase PCs with Windows pre-installed.

Previous threats to this business model have been relegated to servers, high-end systems, and certain niche markets: Linux is incredibly popular in the server market, MacOS owns the market of those for whom their computer is a fasion statement or status symbol, the computer-geek market often favors GNU/Linux, etc.

However, the emergence of the nascent ULCPC market poses a serious threat to Microsoft’s Windows business model. ULCPCs appeal to lower-income PC owners in the US and Europe (the largest PC markets), but are also being targeted at impoverished and third-world communities - especially as an educational tool for children in those communities (see: OLPC and similar projects). These ULCPCs open up a market segment that could, theoretically, dwarf either the corporate or consumer market segments; not to mention, the ULCPC would have an impact on at least the consumer market segment, given its attractive price.

This emerging market would not threaten Microsoft’s business model, were it not that almost all such PCs currently come pre-installed not with a Microsoft operating system, but rather with GNU/Linux. These PCs favor Linux for two reasons:

1. Hardware capability: ULCPCs, due to their hardware specs, are better-suited to running Linux. In almost all cases, they cannot run Vista at all. In most cases, though many are capable of running XP, they perform better under Linux.
2. Cost: Linux distributions are almost all free; Windows requires licensing - a cost which directly impacts the bottom-line cost for the consumer, and which is counter-intuitive to a product positioned as “very low cost.”

Thus, the ULCPC market segment poses a serious threat to Microsoft’s market share. This short-term threat, if realized, would have long-term impact on Microsoft’s Windows business model.

Should Linux-based ULCPCs become the norm, then what is potentially the largest market segment would be brought up in an environment in which Microsoft Windows is not equivalent with computer use. If the ULCPC brings the computer to those segments of the world population that could not otherwise afford a computer, then this entire population would be brought up in this non-Microsoft Windows environment.

Currently, one of the most popular ULCPCs is the EeePC, sold by Asus. This computer has proven to be popular: sales are expected to be around four million units for 2008 - and while Asus now makes a Windows XP model, the EeePC originally only came pre-installed with Linux. Granted, Asus expects the XP model to take up about 60% of expected 2008 sales, but that still leaves 40% - or nearly two million units - of those sales for Linux-based units.

Microsoft has conceded that increasing Linux pre-installation poses a threat to its Windows market share, due primarily to the ULCPC market. (Linux pre-installation in the consumer market segment, while not insignificant, still remains a niche. It may yet pose a threat to Microsoft’s dominant market share, but that outcome will take significant time.) Note that, in order to break into the ULCPC market, Microsoft had to make two important concessions: Microsoft first had to offer discount XP licenses to ULCPC manufacturers, and then had to extend the end-of-life date for XP at least another year.

Microsoft has found itself caught in an untenable situation: take reduced profits (due to licensing discounts) on OEM sales of a product the company wants to end-of-life (Windows XP), in order to prevent a potential hemorrhage of market share, meanwhile trying to cut losses on the product into which the company has most heavily invested in the past seven years, but which has been mostly rejected by the market (Windows Vista) - all while being forced to put all long-term hope in a product the company must now rush to get out the door early in order to stem the tide (Windows 7).

Microsoft is facing a complete upheaval of its operating-system business model. Could this scenario be the reason that Microsoft is all of a sudden so interested in buying Yahoo?

While listing her credentials to be president, Clinton also said people vote for different reasons, including how a person looks or their hairstyle.

“And that is another difference, you know how long it takes me to get ready than my two opponents — I mean really just think about it,” she joked. “I think I should get points for working as hard as I do plus the time it takes to get ready.“

Nevermind that, had one of her male opponents said something similar - “jokingly” or otherwise - he would have been castigated to no end for his bigotry; when Hillary says it, the statement gets only passing comment as a humorous anecdote.

Okay, Hillary: we all feel so sorry for you - even without your on-cue tears (which, I assume, will be turning up again, just any day now). You could always try shaving your head and going without the makeup. It would sort of be like campaigning on your true agenda, without trying to pretend your some kind of moderate. Both would have the same outcome: scaring the crap out of the electorate.

(H/T: RedState)

As it is, she had better re-think her views on some issues before I could even hope to support her on the ticket.

(H/T: LGF)

The ’sphere is already buzzing.

The digital indicator says “Pregnant,” and yes, we are - as this test (and two others, just for good measure) confirmed today!
Photo © Chip Bennett, all rights reserved.

We quite literally just found out today, and are incredibly excited and overjoyed! More news as we have it, but in the meantime, please keep Steph in your prayers.

The message covered a lot of ground, but initially addressed the concept of boundaries and having a compliant or controlling nature - that is, those who have a compliant nature tend to allow their boundaries to be tresspassed by others and those who have a controlling nature tend to tresspass others’ boundaries. As the pastor began discussing these concepts, I was reminded of Steven Covey’s principle of our Circles of Influence Concern. I thought that concept analogous to what the pastor was explaining, with influence and concern on one hand, and responsibility and authority on the other.

Here’s what I mean:

Each one of us has some amount of responsibility, which can be envisioned much like Covey’s Circle of Concern. For this example, we can treat this Circle of Responsibility as a fixed area - that is to say, at any given point in time, our area or amount of responsibility is a fixed, or unchanging, quantity.

Each of us also exerts some amount of authority, which can be envisioned much like Covey’s Circle of Influence. Unlike our Circle of Responsibility, our Circle of Authority is variable. We choose the extent to which we exert our authority.

Consider the following diagrams:

• The first diagram represents balanced boundaries: the circles of responsibility and authority encompass the same area. Such a person exerts his authority commensurately with his area of responsibility.
• The second diagram represents compliant character: the circle of authority encompasses a lesser area than the circle of responsibility. Such a person allows others to exert their authority within his own area of responsibility.
• The third diagram represents controlling character: the circle of authority encompasses a greater area than the circle of responsibility. Such a person exerts his authority beyond his own area of responsibility and into others’ areas of responsibility.

It is important to realize that these boundaries do not exist in a vacuum. A controlling character cannot exert authority outside of his area of responsibility in the absence of a compliant character into whose area of responsibility he can exert that authority - and vice versa. In other words, these concepts are meaningless outside of the context of relationship. Likewise, it is the relationship between two people that experiences stress as a result of such a trespass of boundaries:

The stress exists in the overlap of the controlling character’s authority and the compliant character’s area of responsibility.

Herein lies the point, for those experiencing stress induced by lack of healthy relational boundaries: identify either compliant or controlling character - or both - in your relationships, and then make the necessary changes to ensure that you are exerting your authority in balance with your responsibility.

As Pastor Ron emphasized in the sermon this morning, learning to exert authority is often as simple as learning when to say “yes” and when to say “no” with respect to the expenditure of your time, effort, and resources. Discipline yourself to establish healthy boundaries in your relationships by balancing your area of responsibility with the exertion of your authority, and you will find that those relationships will be come much less stressful, and much healthier themselves.

We have tried several churches, trying to keep an open mind about non-essential things such as membership size and style of worship, while at the same time looking for unity in the things we consider essential: namely, doctrinal matters. For the past couple months, we have been attending Grace Church of St. Louis, and have connected well enough that we have decided to go through the four-week membership class to determine how well this church might fit for us.

We will be considering several things, including the details of the church’s doctrine, the dynamics of a smaller group (our class has about 70 people, which is considered “small” for a church the size of Grace), the ministry/small group/service opportunities, and the emphasis/mission of the church (missions, evangelism, discipleship, etc.).

If we have one concern thus far, it is the somewhat overwhelming size of the church. While I would be perfectly comfortable, provided that we can find smaller groups with which to get involved, Stephanie is not quite so comfortable. That is why the nature and dynamics of the church’s small group ministries will be critical to our decision.

Please be praying for us in our search for a church home - that God will show us where He would have us to be, and especially that He will enlighten us with respect to Grace Church through this membership class.

My most recent project is the basement. When we moved in, I had basically everything that we didn’t know what to do with, put into the basement workshop/storage room. So, now that we’ve got the main level and upstairs essentially in shape (except for the breakfast room), I’ve been concentrating on organizing the basement and storage room. Here’s what it looks like now:

Cleanup and organization of the basement living areas.
Photo © Chip Bennett, all rights reserved.

Of course, I had to make some special additions:

The basement would not be complete without a Colts shrine.
Photo © Chip Bennett, all rights reserved.

And then there’s the workshop/storage room. Without having seen the before pictures, you really won’t get the transformation - so these pics are mainly for my dad:

The area now resembles a workshop and storage area, rather than an overflowing dumping ground.
Photo © Chip Bennett, all rights reserved.

I also uploaded a bunch more Lily photos, to her Nine Month and Ten Month sets. She’s been as adorable as ever, learning new things such as clapping, drinking through a straw, and trying to climb the stairs. But of all the photos, this one has to be the best:

Lily gives such sweet kisses. Also, note mommy’s cute new hairdo!
Photo © Chip Bennett, all rights reserved.

“This is a very difficult issue, and I understand sort of the passions on both sides of the issue,” he said. “I have two precious daughters — they are miracles.”

But politicians must trust women to make the right decisions for themselves, he said.

“This is an example where good people can disagree,” the Illinois senator said. “The question then is, are there areas that we can agree to that everybody can get behind? We can all agree that we want to reduce teen pregnancies. We can all agree that we want to make sure that adoption is a viable option.”

This response is, of course, the typical liberal approach of ignoring the biological reality that an abortion impacts not just the woman carrying the unborn child, but also the separate, unique life that is that unborn child. Note also the canard about adoption (the viability of which is a non-issue, but ostensibly sounds good when making such deflection).

Unfortunately for Obama, he continued on with his comments in an attempt to persuade the audience regarding sex education - and in so doing revealed his true beliefs.

Somehow, I don’t think his comments will have their intended affect (emphasis added):

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

There you have it: babies are a “punishment” resulting from a mistake - the moral equivalent of contracting an STD.

Of course, what else would one expect, from such a radical proponent of abortion such as Barack Hussein Obama?

(H/T: RedState)

Let me know if you notice any issues, and if you use Wordpress, go install Version 2.5 now!

Three targets, all patched. All in typical client configurations with typical user configurations. You hack it, you get to keep it…

Each has a file on them and it contains the instructions and how to claim the prize.

Targets (typical road-warrior clients):

• VAIO VGN-TZ37CN running Ubuntu 7.10
• Fujitsu U810 running Vista Ultimate SP1

MacBook Air running OSX 10.5.2

…Once you extract your claim ticket file from a laptop (note that doing so will involve executing code on the box, simple directory traversal style bugs are inadequate), you get to keep it.

The contest took place over three days, the challenge - and the cash prize - diminishing each day:

Day 1: March 26th: Remote pre-auth

All laptops will be open only for Remotely exploitable Pre-Auth vulnerabilities which require no user interaction. First one to pwn it, receives the laptop and a $20,000 cash prize.

The pwned machine(s) will be taken out of the contest at that time.

Day 2: March 27th: Default client-side apps

The attack surfaces increases to also include any default installed client-side applications which can be exploited by following a link through email, vendor supplied IM client or visiting a malicious website. First one to pwn it receives the laptop and a $10,000 cash prize.

The pwned machine(s) will be taken out of the contest at that time.

Day 3: March 28th: Third Party apps

Assuming the laptops are still standing, we will finally add some popular 3rd party client applications to the scope. That list will be made available at CanSecWest, and will be also posted here on the blog. First to pwn it receives the laptop and a $5,000 cash prize.

All three laptops survived the first day, as none of the contestants attempted any hacks.

However, day two brought the first successful attack: the MacBook Air was compromised in a matter of minutes. The attack vector was the Safari web browser. The contestant instructed the MacBook Air user to navigate to a specially designed web page using Safari. The attack reportedly took less than two minutes:

Charlie Miller, who was the first security researcher to remotely exploit the iPhone, felled the Mac by tapping a security bug in Safari. The exploit involved getting an end user to click on a link, which opened up a port that he was then able to telnet into. Once connected, he was able to remotely run code of his choosing.

And finally, day three saw the second successful attack, as the Vista laptop was compromised. This time, the attack exploited a reportedly cross-platform vulnerability in Java:

“The flaw is in something else, but the inherent nature of Java allowed us to get around the protections that Microsoft had in place,” he said in an interview shortly after he claimed his prize Friday. “This could affect Linux or Mac OS X.”

That means that in the end, only the GNU/Linux laptop (running Ubuntu) was left standing.

What is the moral of the story here? Well, in my opinion, there are two:

1. Don’t believe the Apple/Mac hype from Steve Jobs or his army of Apple fanboys. According to the two winning contestants, the Mac was the easiest of the three targets. Those who claim that Apple is inherently more secure have been proven to be making a baseless claim.
2. More importantly, remember that the single, weakest link in security is the user (this means you). The successful attacks were accomplished by exploiting vulnerabilities not in the OSes themselves, but in standard-install and popular third-party apps (web browser, Java). A security-ignorant user can have his Mac box compromised, just as a security-aware user can safely use his Windows box.

So, as a user, what can you do to protect yourself? Many things - and these apply regardless of which Operating System you choose:

1. Always operate behind a hardware firewall. Even if you only have one computer using your broadband internet connection, set it up behind a router. These devices are cheap (less than $100 for a wi-fi router, and $50 or less for an ethernet-only router), and provide the lion’s share of protection you need for your computer.
2. Never run as root (administrator). All operating systems have the ability to set up and use accounts with non-admin privileges. Linux and MacOS do so by default. Windows notoriously hasn’t in the past, but one of the best changes in Vista - annoying though it may be - is the User Account Control, allowing a user to operate without admin rights, until explicitly elevated. If you are still using WinXP (or older), set up an account with admin privileges, but also an account without admin privileges. Use the non-admin account on a regular basis.
3. Stay away from the internet’s red-light district. While it is true that any web site can be hacked, most internet-based exploits are found on adult web sites, warez (software-pirating) web sites, and other “black-hat” (malicious computer hacking) web sites. Avoid them, and you will limit your exposure.
4. Never, ever, open unsolicited email attachments. Surprisingly, email remains a viable attack vector, even though this basic rule has been preached for over a decade. If you receive an email attachment you didn’t request or weren’t otherwise expecting, do not open it. Period.
5. Use web scripts judiciously. Use ActiveX even more suspiciously. Most browser-based attacks take advantage of JavaScript (cross-platform), the Java Runtime Environment (JRE, also cross-platform), or ActiveX (IE-, and thus, Windows-only). If you use Firefox, use the No Scripts plugin. If you use Internet Explorer, set ActiveX controls to require explicit authorization.
6. Keep your third-party apps to a minimum. If you must use them, keep them updated. Another common attack vector is vulnerabilities discovered in third-party apps (e.g. QuickTime, Adobe Flash, Skype, etc.). If you don’t need them, don’t use them. Don’t have them running by default. If you must have them, ensure that their browser plugins are configured not to launch/run automatically.

There is, as always, more (avoiding phishing, etc.); but the above list should provide the bulk of protection. Learn to modify your computer-use behavior, bearing in mind that you cannot place ultimate trust in your operating system to protect you.

(According to the article, the game was the lowest-scoring state championship since Milan beat Muncie Central 32-30 in 1954 - which most people would recognize as the inspiration for the best basketball movie ever made: Hoosiers.

While I graduated from Shelbyville High School, several of my cousins went to Brownsburg, which is where many of my relatives live - including my parents, who moved to nearby Pittsboro after retiring. My aunt and uncle have stayed involved with athletic and other activities in the school system, so I am especially happy for them that they get to enjoy the Bulldogs’ run to the state championship.

So, congrats, Brownsburg Bulldogs!

Dutch lawmaker and filmmaker Geert Wilders made this mistake when developing a website for his forthcoming Fitna movie, which he describes as a “last warning for the West.” The movie is critical of the Koran - which means that the adherents to the “Religion of Peace”, when not calling for his death and threatening worldwide retaliation, are actively pushing for the movie (and the website) to be censored.

Apparently, they have been successful in that censorship, since Dutch broadcasters have refused to air the movie, and Network Solutions, the company that provides Wilders’ web hosting services, has suspended the website. The FitnaTheMovie web site currently has the following notice:

This site has been suspended while Network Solutions is investigating whether the site’s content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy. Network Solutions has received a number of complaints regarding this site that are under investigation. For more information about Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy visit the following URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/aup.jsp

In case you’re curious, the only potentially relevant section of that Acceptable Use Policy is the first clause under the “Prohibited Uses” section (emphasis added):

Transmission, distribution, uploading, posting or storage of any material in violation of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes, without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right used without proper authorization, and material that is obscene, defamatory, libelous, unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, constitutes an illegal threat, violates export control laws, hate propaganda, fraudulent material or fraudulent activity, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature. You may not transmit, distribute, or store material that contains a virus, “Trojan Horse,” corrupted data, or any software or information to promote or utilize software or any of Network Solutions services to deliver unsolicited e-mail. You further agree not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, gives rise to civil liability or otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation.

One little catch, though: the web site, at the time of being suspended, had absolutely no content other than the words “”Geert Wilders presents Fitna, 23 March 2008.”

Network Solutions, say hello to Dhimmitude, and say goodbye to business, because you’re about to be mass-boycotted.

(H/T: LGF. More from Jihad Watch, Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Kyros.)

P.S. Apparently, hoax sites and movie trailers are popping up, in an apparent signal-to-noise attack strategy to keep people from seeing the real thing. Don’t be fooled. The real site is registered to Geert Wilder. This UK hoax site is registered to one Los Bol. These “trailer” videos on YouTube are also all either fakes or fanpics.

This just in, from Newsbleat: Network Solutions’ actions are even more insidious. These coward Dhimmis are not merely doing the bidding of their Islamic overlords; they are also bought and paid for by terrorists. Network Solutions hosts the hizbollah.org website.

Such a blogger exists, and his blog is Snapped Shot.

The AP apparently disagreed with his fair use of their photos, and sent him a cease-and-desist letter. (The fair-use defense in this instance is pretty cut-and-dry. Snapped Shot has a run-down of the blogosphere’s reaction, so there’s no need for me to re-hash it all here.) After some consultation, Snapped Shot decided to comply rather than to place his family in jeopardy. After all, who can afford to fight the AP’s legal department?

Here’s the irony, though: the AP, who disputes Snapped Shot’s fair-use right to their own copyrighted photos for the purpose of discussing the very photos themselves, apparently finds a fair-use right to others’ copyrighted photos, even though the photos used were in no way related to the story (unless the AP can prove some link to a photo of a bikini-clad Ashley Alexandra Dupre in the Caribbean to a story about Eliot Spitzer’s use of her call-girl services in New York).

Oh, but the irony gets even thicker: CNN is in on the copyright violations, too.

Hypocrisy: good for me, but not for thee.

Now, you may have heard that the report did just the opposite, confirming no link between Hussein and Al Qaeda. After all, that is how the MSM have been reporting it (see NYTimes blog, ABC News blog, and McClatchy Newspapers). These reports seem to be seizing (out of context) on the report’s executive summary and abstract, which say (in part):

This study found no “smoking gun” (i.e. direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and Al Qaeda.

…these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network…

That sounds like a pretty convincing refutation of any Iraq-Al Qaeda connection - except that it is taken out of context.

What these statements actually indicate is that “Al Qaeda” itself was not directly mentioned in such documents as Extract 10, found in Section II (”State Relationships with Terrorist Groups”). However, as Thomas Joscelyn (Weekly Standard) explains [italics in original, bold emphasis added]:

…the report ties Saddam’s regime to at least five different al Qaeda associated groups, including two groups that formed the core of al Qaeda.

The Iraqi Intelligence documents discussed in the report link Saddam’s regime to: the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (the “EIJ” is al Qaeda number-two Ayman al Zawahiri’s group), the Islamic Group or “IG” (once headed by a key al Qaeda ideologue, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman), the Army of Mohammed (al Qaeda’s affiliate in Bahrain), the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan (a forerunner to Ansar al-Islam, al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq), and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (a long-time ally of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan), among other terrorist groups. Documents cited by the report, but not discussed at length in the publicly available version (they may be in a redacted portion of the report), also detail Saddam’s ties to a sixth al Qaeda affiliate: the Abu Sayyaf group, an al Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines.

Both the EIJ and the IG were early and important core allies for Osama bin Laden as he forged the al Qaeda terror network, which comprises a number of affiliates around the world.

Stephen Hayes (also of the Weekly Standard, and author of The Connection), managed actually to read the report (unlike the drive-by media). He reports:

How, then, to explain this sentence about Iraq and al Qaeda from the report’s abstract: “At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust”? And how to explain the “considerable overlap” between their activities which led not only to the appearances of ties but to a “de facto link between the organizations?”…

And what about this revelation from page 34? “Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda — as long as that organization’s near-term goals supported Saddam’s long-term vision.” (The example given in the report is the Army of Muhammad in Bahrain, a group the Iraqi Intelligence Service describes as “under the wings of bin Laden.”)

And there is this line from page 42: “Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.”

Really? Saddam Hussein “supported” a group that merged with al Qaeda in the late 1990s, run by al Qaeda’s #2, and the New York Times thinks this is not a link between Iraq and al Qaeda? How does that work?

It’s really quite simple: the Saddam Hussein-Al Qaeda links indicated in this report represent far more bona fide proof of their ties than the tenuous Cheney-Halliburton connection liberals keep trying to assert. The difference between the two is that the latter (baseless though it remains) supports the Democrats’ (and the MSM’s) political agenda, while the former refutes that agenda.

(Kudos to the NY Sun for giving an accurate assessment of the report.)

Just be sure to read the report for yourself, and make your own conclusions.

(H/T: Scott and Paul at Power Line)