Woman And computer
Human And Computer

Tablet thoughts

I don't know anything about Apple's tablet, and I generally don't pay much attention to the speculation about their unannounced products. However, John Gruber has a nice post today which discusses the hypothetical Apple tablet.

The best part is the core product question -- how does this new product fit in with all existing products? Revolutionary products are underestimated because we evaluate them relative to existing products. This quote gets it:

Like all Apple products, The Tablet will do less than we expect but the things it does do, it will do insanely well. It will offer a fraction of the functionality of a MacBook� but that fraction will be way more fun. The same Asperger-y critics who dismissed the iPhone will focus on all that The Tablet doesn't do and declare that this time, Apple really has fucked up but good.

That was certainly the case with the iPod, or as slashdot put it, "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

When considering revolutionary new products, we can not simply compare them with existing products, but must instead compare them with the products that don't yet exist, but should. For example, the PC was more than just an expensive, hard-to-use typewriter -- it was a whole new thing that just happened to have some typewriter features. Obviously this comparison is much more difficult than the "count the checkboxes" approach that we like to use when evaluating the "better mousetrap", but it's critical if we're going to understand or create anything truly new.

I have no idea what Apple is planning to release, but to me the revolutionary product need is in bridging the virtual and physical worlds. If you spend your entire day in front of the computer, this need may not seem real, but if you move between the two worlds you may notice that they are strangely disconnected. For example, imagine that I'm looking at a picture on my computer and want to give you a copy. In the physical world, I would simply hand you the print (I would have gotten double-prints), but with computers it's nearly impossible. Yes, there may be some complicated 10-step process that I can use to share the image, or maybe I can download and install some obscure software, but I'm not going to do that and neither are most other people. Imagine if I instead had a simple (built-in) gesture for passing the photo off to person standing next to me, and it were just as easy as handing them a real photo.

Of course exchanging photos is just one small example of these physical/virtual interactions. It's a whole new category, so many of them, including the most important, haven't been invented yet. However, you can get some ideas by thinking of the marketing cliche where two people are standing around a computer collaborating on something, taking quick notes, working off a recipe, etc. Those images occur in marketing because they are appealing, but they don't occur much in real life because our existing devices and software are awful. Current laptop computers are too bulky, awkward, and keyboard centric (the ui needs to be gesture-centric), and the iPhone is too small and limited. I want something about the size of a notepad that can be used naturally while standing up and walking around, just like an actual pad of paper, except that it's fully integrated with the virtual world as well as the physical world.

I hope this is what Apple is building -- it would be a great product. (or someone else could build it, though honestly I can't imagine anyone besides Apple getting it right)

Serangan Umum Internet di 2009

Labels:

Sepanjang tahun 2009 ini, gelombang serangan terhadap pengguna internet di seluruh dunia tak habis-habisnya menghadang. Symantec, salah satu pemain utama di bidang keamanan mencatat beberapa metode utama serangan yang marak hadir tahun ini.

Drive-by Download Semakin Banyak
Penyerang menginfeksi komputer penjelajah internet secara diam-diam dengan menyusup di situs legal. Popularitas metode ini terus tumbuh. Di tahun 2008, Symantec mengamati sebanyak 18 juta percobaan serangan drive-by download; akan tetapi, dari Agustus sampai Oktober 2009 sendiri, Symantec mencatat terjadi sebanyak 17,4 juta serangan.

Kembalinya Intensitas Spam ke Sebelum McColo
Symantec melihat penurunan sebesar 65 persen dari jumlah total pesan spam dalam 24 jam setelah penutupan McColo di akhir 2008 dan 24 jam setelahnya, jumlah spam turun mencapai level 69,8 persen dari seluruh email. Akan tetapi, di 2009, volume keseluruhan spam kembali ke angka rata-rata 87,4 persen dari seluruh email, mencapai maksimum 95 persen dari seluruh pesan di akhir Mei.

Meningkatnya Ancaman Polimorfis
Polymorfisme berarti memiliki kemampuan untuk bermutasi. Dengan demikian, ancaman polimorfis merupakan ancaman yang membuat setiap malware sedikit berbeda dengan malware sebelumnya. Kode pengubahan otomatis yang dibuat di dalam malware tidak mempengaruhi fungsionalitasnya, tetapi membuat teknologi pendeteksian milik antivirus tradisional tidak dapat mengatasinya. Symantec telah mengamati ancaman polimorfis seperti Waladac, Virut, dan Sality, menjadi semakin umum sejalan dengan penjahat dunia maya mencari cara untuk memperluas cara mereka mengelak dari teknologi antivirus konvensional.

Meningkatnya Pembajakan Reputasi
Geocities merupakan merek yang paling umum yang dibajak oleh spammer sebagai usaha untuk menipu pengguna komputer, tetapi dengan penutupan layanan web hosting tersebut oleh Yahoo pada akhir Oktober lalu, Symantec melihat bahwa terjadi peningkatan pesat dari jumlah layanan web gratis berskala kecil, seperti layanan pemendek URL, yang nama dan reputasinya disalahgunakan oleh spammer. Hal ini dikarenakan oleh kemajuan di teknologi penembus CAPTCHA, yang memudahkan karakter berbahaya membuat akun dan profil ganda yang digunakan untuk spamming. Symantec bahkan telah mengamati bahwa beberapa dari perusahaan layanan web berskala kecil tersebut telah menutup situs mereka sendiri sebagai satu-satunya cara untuk menghentikan spam.

Pencurian Data Terus Berlangsung
Menurut Identity Theft Resource Center, sampai 13 Oktober 2009, 403 kasus penerobosan data telah dilaporkan sepanjang tahun dan mengekspos lebih dari 220 juta dokumen. Menurut Ponemon Institute, orang dalam yang tidak bermaksud jahat terus mewakili bagian terbesar dari insiden hilangnya data dengan 88% dari seluruh insiden kehilangan data disebabkan oleh orang dalam seperti karyawan dan partner. Meski demikian, terdapat peningkatan perhatian terhadap kehilangan data berbahaya. Menurut penelitian Ponemon, 59% mantan karyawan mengakui bahwa mereka mengambil data perusahaan saat mereka meninggalkan pekerjaannya. Di saat organisasi semakin meningkatkan fokus untuk menghindari kehilangan data, tampak jelas bahwa banyak hal yang perlu dilakukan untuk mencegah informasi sensitif dibawa ke luar dari perusahaan.

Kabar gembiranya, di tahun 2009 ini, kerjasama intra dan lintas industri untuk mengatasi ancaman internet semakin semakin solid. Bersama dengan ulang tahun varian pertama ancaman Conficker pada pengguna, kita diingatkan bagaimana peningkatan organisasi dan kecerdasan penjahat dunia maya telah membuat jalinan kerjasama yang lebih luas di antara vendor keamanan, penegak hukum, dan penyedia layanan internet.

Contoh yang tampak di tahun 2009 antara lain adalah Conficker Working Group (CWG), gerakan �Operation Phish Phry� yang dilancarkan FBI dan Digital Crimes Consortium, yang menggelar pengukuhannya di Oktober.


Sumber : http://www.arrahmah.com

FREE DOWNLOAD James Cameron s Avatar: The Game

Labels:

http://i46.tinypic.com/2n8vptg.jpg


Publisher: the Beech | Genre: Action (Shooter) / 3D / 1st Person | 4,4 GB
Language : English

Year of release: 2009
The Genre: Action (Shooter / Slasher) / 3D / 1st Person / 3rd Person

The game Description:
In the far future earth dwellers have settled resources of a native planet and now Pandory aspire to seize gifts not the Earth, but. Peaceful Na'vi, natives of Pandory, live, without knowing technologies, in harmony in the fine world of the wild nature. What happens with the fragile world ????????? giants of Na'vi with long tails and huge green eyes when the technogenic armada of the Earth will hang in heavens of their planet? How to rescue mankind from resource hunger and, at the same time, not to ruin a biological civilisation of natives? What of civilisations eventually will come the first in race for a survival? To these a question players can receive answers, having risen on one of the parties of the conflict and with own hand having constructed the future of the nation.

Features of game:
- Play we can both for people (corporation), and for Na'Vi.
- The subject line of game will differ from film history though, certainly, familiar characters will meet everywhere.
- Battling to enemies, you will receive experience which can be spent for improvement of skills.
- James Cameron�s Avatar: The Game - one of few games using technology of the volume image, that is for high-grade immersing in - process to you is required to put on 3D-points with which each box with game will be completed.
- Developers promise tremendous special effects: fire, explosions, the three-dimensional grass, bullets whistling by you, etc.

The Minimum system requirements:
- An operating system: Windows� XP (with SP2) or Windows Vista� (with SP1);
- The processor: 3 Ghz Intel� Pentium� D 830, AMD Athlon � 64 X2 3800 + or better;
- Operative memory: 1 GB Windows XP / 2 GB Windows Vista, Windows 7;
- A video card: NVidia � 6800 or ATI � X1650 or better 256 MB DirectX� 9.0c-compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher;
- An empty seat on ?????? a disk: 1.5 GB


http://hotfile.com/dl/19617952/dac0a8b/James_Cameron_s_Avatar_YMT.part01.rar.html http://hotfile.com/dl/19619100/c89afd5/James_Cameron_s_Avatar_YMT.part02.rar.html
[ ... ]

FREE DOWNLOAD GAME : Greed

Labels:

Image

Publisher: Headup Games | Platform: PC | English | Bin | 742Mb
Genre: Action

GREED features all ingredients to create an enthralling hack'n'slash classic. In the tradition of other critically acclaimed and proven genre colleagues you as the player will need to fight your way through masses of critters, robots, aliens and many other exotic adversaries while collecting unique items and skills thus leveling up your character. In contrast to the genre ancestors, the story of GREED takes place in an adult and mature science fiction scenario. In the futuristic universe of GREED the discovery of novel interstellar travel possibilities has lead to a new age of colonialization. The five largest colonial powers are
entangled in a full-scale war over a new element called Ikarium, the recently discovered rare source of nearly unlimited energy. You as a former member of an elite military unit will fight a battle for your survival not know-ing that your actions will lead fate of all mankind into dramatic consequences

System Requirements - minimum:
* DirectX 9c compatible graphics card with Shader 2.0 (GeForce 6200 or Radeon 9700 min)
* CPU: Pentium 4 3.2 GHz or Athlon 64 3500 +
* Min RAM. 1 GB
* Display: 1024x768
* DVD-ROM drive


http://uploading.com/files/8969f398/GREED.Black.Border-ViTALiTY.part1.rar/
http://uploading.com/files/27cem327/GREED.Black.Border-ViTALiTY.part2.rar/
http://uploading.com/files/mm2eb97c/GREED.Black.Border-ViTALiTY.part3.rar/
http://uploading.com/files/6d6f82fm/GREED.Black.Border-ViTALiTY.part4.rar/

"IE is being mean to me"

Promoting a comment, since it includes a musical performance of an original song (embedded below):

Anonymous said...

One of our developers wrote a song called "IE is being mean to me" and you can find the video here:

http://with.us/meanie
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTTzwJsHpU8

Hope you like it.


"IE is Being Mean to Me" is an original song written and performed by Scott Ward.

So I finally tried Wave...

Last week, TechCrunch published a story about me not yet trying Google Wave ("Gmail Creator Thinks Email Will Last Forever. And Hasn't Tried Google Wave"). The is apparently unacceptable, or as one commenter put it, "Paul may have been trying to be cool and ironic, but really he should be ashamed for not having tried Wave yet." I'm not sure if this is because I have an obligation to try all new products, or because my views on the longevity of email will seem hopelessly naive once I try Wave, but either way, I mustn't disappoint the good people of TechCrunch :)

The Google Wave About page and video does a good job of summarizing what Wave is and how it works. If you want to learn more about Wave, I would start there and skip this post. That said, here are my thoughts on Wave:

First off, Wave is clever and full of interesting ideas.

Second, comparisons to Facebook and Twitter are nonsensical. If Twitter were CNN Headline News, Google Wave would be Microsoft Office. Wave is less of a social network and more of a productivity tool. It's Google Docs meets Gmail, or as Google puts it, "A wave is equal parts conversation and document. People can communicate and work together with richly formatted text, photos, videos, maps, and more."

Third, although Wave is very promising, it's clear that it still needs some refinement. This is why Google calls it a "preview release". The trouble with innovative new ideas is that not all of them are worth keeping. While developing Gmail, we implemented a lot of features that were either not released, or not released until much later. Some of the most interesting ideas (such as automatic email prioritization) never made it out because we couldn't find simple enough interfaces. Other ideas sounded good, but in practice weren't useful enough to justify the added complexity (such as multiple stars). Other features, such as integrated IM, simply needed more time to get right and were added later. Our approach was somewhat minimal: only include features that had proven to be highly useful, such as the conversation view and search. It's my impression that Wave was released at an earlier stage of development -- they included all of the features, and will likely winnow and refine them as Wave approaches a full launch. The Wave approach can be a little confusing, but it allows for greater public feedback and testing.

From what I've seen, the realtime aspects of Wave are both the most intriguing, and the most problematic. I think the root of the issue is that conversations need to be mostly linear, or else they become incomprehensible. IM and chat work because there is a nice, linear back-and-forth among the participants. Wave puts the conversation into little Gmail-like boxes, but then makes them update in realtime. The result is that people end up responding (in realtime) to things on other parts of the page, and the chronological linkage and flow of the conversation is lost. I suspect it would work better if each box behaved more like a little chat room. A single Wave could contain multiple chats (different sub-topics), but each box would be mostly self-contained and could be read in a linear fashion.

So now that I've tried Wave, do I expect it to kill email? No. The reason that nothing is going to kill email anytime soon is quite simple: email is universal (or as close to it as anything on the Internet). Email has all kinds of problems and I often hate it, but the fact is that it mostly works, and there's a huge amount of experience and infrastructure supporting it. The best we can do is to use email less, and tools like Wave and Docs are a big help here.

I don't know what Google has planned for Wave or Gmail, but if I were them I would continue improving Wave, and then once it's ready for the whole world to use, integrate it into Gmail. Moving Wave into Gmail would give it a huge userbase, and partially address the "email is universal" problem. They could use MIME multi-part to send both a non-Wave, HTML version of the message, and the Wave version. Wave-enabled mail readers would display the live Wave, while older mailers would show the static version along with a link to the live Wave.

Damai Dengan Israel? No Way!

Labels:

Israel kembali menunjukkan watak aslinya, haus darah kaum Muslimin. Pasukan zionis Israel laknatullah kembali secara membabi buta menyerang kaum Muslimin, di tempat suci mereka, Masjidil Aqsa, ahad pekan lalu. Bentrokan brutal tersebut sebagaimana dilansir hampir seluruh media berita di dunia menggambarkan bahwa bangsa Israel memang tidak beradab dan tidak mengenal kata damai dengan kaum Muslimin. Untuk itu, sudah seharusnya pula kaum Muslimin mengatakan Tidak Ada Damai Dengan Israel, sebagaimana ulasan dalam buku ini. Allahu Akbar!

Apa hukumnya berdamai dengan Israel ? Apa solusi tuntas mengatasi krisis Palestina ? Apa seruan dan pendapat para ulama mujahidin dan para pemimpin jihad di front terdepan untuk mengatasi krisis Palestina ? Buku karya Syekh Umar Bakri Muhammad berjudul Tidak Ada Damai Dengan Israel, Jihad Solusi Tuntas Krisis Palestina menjawab ketiga pertanyaan di atas.

Dengan pemaparan yang ringkas, padat, disertai fatwa-fatwa ulama haq di sepanjang masa, dijelaskan mengenai hukum haramnya kaum muslimin mengadakan perdamaian permanen dengan zionis yahudi. Dalam buku tersebut, Syekh Umar Bakri, ulama yang kini mukim di Libanon ini juga menyemangati kaum muslimin agar peduli dengan masalah Palestina dengan jalan memerangi tiada henti yahudi Israel hingga mereka terusir atau tunduk kepada Islam.

Memang, perseteruan umat Islam melawan yahudi Israel tidak akan pernah berakhir hingga kaum Muslimin dapat mengusir seluruh kafir zionis itu dari tanah suci kaum Muslimin Palestina. Untuk itu, segala daya upaya dan tipu daya kaum kuffar zionis yahudi dan antek-anteknya termasuk Amerika, sang pelindung yahudi internasional, harus diwaspadai oleh kaum Muslimin sebagai bentuk makar, yang salah satunya dengan menawarkan jalan damai. Janji-jani manis perdamaian kadangkala melenakan perjuangan jihad kaum Muslimin. Kondisi inilah yang menjadi sorotan khusus dalam buku yang sebelumnya berjudul The Peace Process, Is The Peace Process with Israel Possible ?

Didahului dengan penjelasan syar�i tentang hukum damai dalam Islam, hukum berdamai dengan Israel, serta fatwa-fatwa ulama Najd, Iraq, Al Azhar, Pakistan, India, dan juga penulis sendiri. Secara keseluruhan dipastikan bahwa para ulama memfatwakan haram bagi kaum Muslimin untuk mengadakan perjanjian damai yang bersifat permanen dengan Israel. Dalam buku ini, Syekh Umar Bakri juga mengeluarkan Deklarasi Jihad untuk memerangi zionis yahudi Israel hingga mereka semua dikalahkan atau tunduk kepada hukum Islam.

Pesan dari para ulama mujahidin dan para pemimpin jihad di fornt terdepan jihad global diawali oleh peryataan Tandzim Al Qaeda di Magrib Al Islami. Kemudian pesan jihad dari Asad al Jihad dengan judul �Wahai Rakyat Palestina, Siapakah Lawan dan Kawan Kalian!!! Pesan berikutnya disampaikan oleh Hakimul Ummat orang kedua di Al Qaeda, Syekh Aiman Al Dzawahiri, dengan judul �Datanglah Untuk Membantu Saudara-saudara Kita di Gaza! Sebagai pamungkas, dan merupakan pesan yang paling ditunggu-tunggu oleh umat adalah pesan dari Syekhul Jihad abad ini, pimpinan Al Qaeda, Syekh Usamah bin Ladin. Dengan pesan yang ringkas, padat, dan jelas, beliau menyemangati umat dalam pesannya � Seruan Jihad Untuk Menghentikan Agresi Israel ke Gaza. Benang merah dari isi buku dan pesan dari para ulama dan mujahid ini adalah jihad merupakan satu-satunya solusi untuk mengatasi masalah Palestina.

Maka benarlah, jika Syekh Abu Mush'ab Az Zarqawi pernah mengatakan : "Sesungguhnya kami berjihad di Irak sementara mata kami tertuju ke Baitul Maqdis". Sementara itu Syekh Usamah bin Ladin mengatakan : �Kepada saudara kami di Palestina. Kami ucapkan, Sesungguhnya darah anak-anakmu adalah darah anak kami. Dan darah kalian adalah darah kami. Darah dibalas darah kehancuran dibalas kehancuran. Kami bersaksi atas nama Allah bahwa kami takkan membiarkan kalian sampai kita menang�atau mati seperti Hamzah r.a.

Allahu Akbar!


Sumber: http://arrahmah.com

Open as in water, the fluid necessary for life

"Open" is a great thing. Everyone likes it. Unfortunately, nobody agrees what open is. There are many meanings, but in general, I think "open" must be the opposite of "closed". In the world of abstract things like software, protocols and society, closed is secret, hidden, or locked.

"Closed" limits our mobility, prevents discovery, and discourages new connections. Imagine being in a building where all of the doors are locked or guarded, and it's difficult to move from room to room or leave. A closed world is one where people are forced to stay in their place, sometimes because of physical constraints, but more commonly because they simply don't know where else to go. A closed world is giant prison.

In an open world, people are able to see more clearly, and more easily explore new ideas and possibilities. An open world is more fluid -- people and ideas easily flow over boundaries and other borders. This openness is what makes the Internet so powerful. The Internet is melting the world, but in a good way.

Open standards and open source software are important for making technology open and available to everyone, but it's important to remember that open goes beyond tech. Wikipedia makes knowledge open to everyone. Blogs and YouTube make broadcasting and mass communication open to everyone -- news and events that would have been suppressed in the past are now reaching the whole world.

These things have been discussed to death, but there's another "open" that still seems a little frivolous: our lives. We like to joke (or complain) about people who share every boring detail of their lives and thoughts on Facebook or Twitter, but they may be doing something important.

Most of our happiness and productivity comes from the everyday details of our lives: the people we live and work with, the books we read, the hikes we take, the parties we attend, etc. But how do we choose these things? How do we know what to do, and how do know if we'll like it? The obvious answer is that we do and like whatever the TV tells us to do and like. I'm not certain that's the best answer though.

By sharing more of our own thoughts and lives with the world, we contribute to the global pool of "how to live", and over time we also get contributions back from the world. Think of it as "open source living". This has certainly been my experience with my blog and FriendFeed. Not only do people occasionally say that it has helped them, but I've also met interesting new people and gotten a lot of good leads on new ideas. These are typically small things, but our lives are woven from the small details of everyday living. For example, I saw a good TED talk on "The science of motivation", shared it on FriendFeed, and in the comments Laura Norvig suggested a book called Unconditional Parenting, which turns out to be very good.

The next step is for people to open more of their current activities and plans. This is often referred to as "real-time", but since real-time is also a technical term, we often focus too much on the technical aspect of it. The "real-time" that matters is the human part -- what I'm doing and thinking right now, and my ability to communicate that to the world, right now. We see some of this on Facebook, FriendFeed, and Twitter, and also location-aware apps such as Foursquare, but it's still fairly primitive and fringe. When this activity reaches critical mass, it should be very interesting for society. It dramatically alters the time and growth coefficients in group formation. It enables a much higher degree of serendipity and ad hoc socializing.

The basic pattern of openness is that better access to information and better systems lead to better decisions and better living. This general principal is broadly accepted, but we're just now discovering that it also applies to the minutiae of our lives.

Sharing your boring thoughts and activities may seem narcissistic and self-absorbed at first (I'm still kind of embarrassed about having a blog), but there is virtue and benefit in it. Naturally there will be challenges and fear along the way, but in the long term we're contributing to a more open, fluid society, where people are more able to find happy, productive lives. It also encourages us to be more accepting of others. Everyone is flawed, and the more we see that we aren't alone, the less we need to fear that truth.

People can not truly live and thrive in a prison -- we require freedom and mobility. This may explain my incomprehensible analogy, "Open as in water, the fluid necessary for life".

Go forth and share.

IE8 XSS protection introduces XSS vulnerability to sites

Breaking the web in new and exciting ways: IE8 bug makes 'safe' sites unsafe

"The latest version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser contains a bug that can enable serious security attacks against websites that are otherwise safe.

The flaw in IE 8 can be exploited to introduce XSS, or cross-site scripting, errors on webpages that are otherwise safe, according to two Register sources, who discussed the bug on the condition they not be identified. Microsoft was notified of the vulnerability a few months ago, they said.

Ironically, the flaw resides in a protection added by Microsoft developers to IE 8 that's designed to prevent XSS attacks against sites�"

Applied Philosophy, a.k.a. "Hacking"

Every system has two sets of rules: The rules as they are intended or commonly perceived, and the actual rules ("reality"). In most complex systems, the gap between these two sets of rules is huge.

Sometimes we catch a glimpse of the truth, and discover the actual rules of a system. Once the actual rules are known, it may be possible to perform "miracles" -- things which violate the perceived rules.

Hacking is most commonly associated with computers, and people who break into or otherwise subvert computer systems are often called hackers. Although this terminology is occasionally disputed, I think it is essentially correct -- these hackers are discovering the actual rules of the computer systems (e.g. buffer overflows), and using them to circumvent the intended rules of the system (typically access controls). The same is true of the hackers who break DRM or other systems of control.

Writing clever (or sometimes ugly) code is also described as hacking. In this case the hacker is violating the rules of how we expect software to be written. If there's a project that should take months to write, and someone manages to hack it out in a single evening, that's a small miracle, and a major hack. If the result is simple and beautiful because the hacker discovered a better solution, we may describe the hack as "elegant" or "brilliant". If the result is complex and hard to understand (perhaps it violates many layers of abstraction), then we will call it an "ugly hack". Ugly hacks aren't all bad though -- one of my favorite personal hacks was some messy code that demonstrated what would become AdSense (story here), and although the code was quickly discarded, it did it's job.

Hacking isn't limited to computers though. Wherever there are systems, there is the potential for hacking, and there are systems everywhere. Our entire reality is systems of systems, all the way down. This includes human relations (see The Game for an very amusing story of people hacking human attraction), health (Seth Roberts has some interesting ideas), sports (Tim Ferriss claims to have hacked the National Chinese Kickboxing championship), and finance ("too big to fail").

We're often told that there are no shortcuts to success -- that it's all a matter of hard work and doing what we're told. The hacking mindset takes there opposite approach: There are always shortcuts and loopholes. For this reason, hacking is sometimes perceived as cheating, or unfair, and it can be. Using social hacks to steal billions of dollars is wrong (see Madoff). On the other hand, automation seems like a great hack -- getting machines to do our work enabled a much higher standard of living, though as always, not everyone sees it that way (the Luddites weren't big fans).

Important new businesses are usually some kind of hack. The established businesses think they understand the system and have setup rules to guard their profits and prevent real competition. New businesses must find a gap in the rules -- something that the established powers either don't see, or don't perceive as important. That was certainly the case with Google: the existing search engines (which thought of themselves as portals) believed that search quality wasn't very important (regular people can't tell the difference), and that search wasn't very valuable anyway, since it sends people away from your site. Google's success came in large part from recognizing that others were wrong on both points.

In fact, the entire process of building a business and having other people and computers do the work for you is a big hack. Nobody ever created a billion dollars through direct physical labor -- it requires some major shortcuts to create that much wealth, and by definition those shortcuts were mostly invisible to others (though many will dispute it after the fact). Startup investing takes this hack to the next level by having other people do the work of building the business, though finding the right people and businesses is not easy.

Not everyone has the hacker mindset (society requires a variety of personalities), but wherever and whenever there were people, there was someone staring into the system, searching for the truth. Some of those people were content to simply find a truth, but others used their discoveries to hack the system, to transform the world. These are the people that created the governments, businesses, religions, and other machines that operate our society, and they necessarily did it by hacking the prior systems. (consider the challenge of establishing a successful new government or religion -- the incumbents won't give up easily)

To discover great hacks, we must always be searching for the true nature of our reality, while acknowledging that we do not currently possess the truth, and never will. Hacking is much bigger and more important than clever bits of code in a computer -- it's how we create the future.

Or at least that's how I see it. Maybe I'll change my mind later.

See also: "The Knack" (and the need to disassemble things)

Kode Komunikasi

Labels:

Sebagai makhluk sosial, komunikasi merupakan kebutuhan utama manusia untuk melakukan hubungan dan sosialisasi terhadap lingkungan dimana dia berada. Prinsip dasar komunikasi adalah adanya pemahaman yang sama terhadap informasi yang disampaikan oleh sender terhadap receiver sehingga receiver dapat mengerti maksud yang ingin disampaikan oleh sender dan kemudian melakukan respon dalam bentuk feedback. Untuk mendapatkan kesamaan persepsi, perlu dilakukan persetujuan antara sender dan receiver tentang bentuk dan kode komunikasi yang digunakan.

Secara tradisional, telah ditetapkan beberapa kode komunikasi untuk menyampaikan pesan dan informasi kepada orang lain yaitu dengan menggunakan kentongan. Cara memukul dan frekuensi pukulan kentongan sangat efektif dalam menyampaikan informasi kepada masyarakat di lingkunagn tertentu. Sebagai contoh dengan frekuensi pukulan tertentu, kentongan dapat menyampaikan informasi tentang tindak pencurian, bencana alam, adanya pengumuman dll. Dengan kode-kode pukulan kentongan tersebut informasi yang ingin disampaikan oleh sender dapat dipahami dan dimengerti oleh receiver dan kemudian receiver melakukan respon dengan suatu tindakan tertentu. Namun komunikasi ini juga sangat rentan terganggu oleh noise yang menyebabkan ketidakjelasan tentang kode yang disampaikan. Hal ini tentu sangat menganggu relevansi informasi yang ingin disampaikan sender kepada receiver.

Dalam bentuk yang lebih maju, digunakan kode morse dalam melakukan komunikasi. Kode morse pertama kali di ciptakan sejak tahun 1800-an oleh F.B. Morse berkebangsaan Amerika. Istilah lain dari kode morse adalah Telegrafie atau disebut juga dengan istilah kata sandi morse. Kode morse biasanya digunakan pada komunikasi maritim, perhubungan darat/laut, angkatan bersenjata dan amatir radio. Pada Zaman Perang dunia I & II Kode morse sangat dibutuhkan pada setiap Negara karena, kegunaannya untuk dinas rahasia Negara, karena lebih singkat, lebih cepat dan masih dapat diterima sinyal pancarannya yang sangat lemah sekalipun. Disinilah kelebihan dari kode morse itu, namun kelemahannya bahwa orang beranggapan bahwa untuk belajar kode morse sangat sulit dan membutuhkan waktu yang tidak sedikit.

Dalam perkembangannya, tentu dapat diciptakan kode-kode komunikasi lain yang lebih kompleks seperti bahasa pemrogaman dan networking. Kode-kode tersebut diciptakan agar komputer bisa membaca perintah yang diberikan kepadanya. Menurut pendapat saya setiap orang bisa menciptakan kode-kode tertentu dalam berkomunikasi asalkan sebelumnya telah terjadi kesepakatan antara sender dan receiver terhadap kode-kode yang dikirimkan sehingga informasi yang diberikan dapat dimengerti secara efektif oleh receiver. Hakekat dasar komunikasi adalah sampainya informasi dengan baik kepada receiver dan kemudian receiver dapat memberikan feedback atas informasi tersebut. Kemudian hal yang perlu diperhatikan adalah adanya noise (gangguan) pada komunikasi. Hal ini dapat menyebabkan kesalahan intepretasi antara kedua belah pihak sehingga terjadi miskomunikasi. Untuk itu perlu dibuat suatu mekanisme yang dapat melaporkan adanya error dalam komunikasi.

Sebagai contoh kode dalam komunikasi internal adalah sebagai berikut:

1-1 : Hubungi per telepon
1-4 : Ingin bicara diudara (langsung)
3-3 : Penerimaan sangat jelek/orang gila
3-3L : Kecelakaan korban luka
3-3M : Kecelakaan korban material
3-3K : Kecelakaan korban meninggal
3-3KA : Kecelakaan kereta api
3-4-K : Kecelakaan, korban meninggal, pelaku melarikandiri
4-4 : Penerimaan kurang jelas
5-5 : Penerimaan baik/sehat
8-4 : Tes pesawat/penerimaannya
8-6 : Dimengerti
8-7 : Disampaikan
8-8 : Ingin berjumpa langsung
10-2 : Posisi/keberadaan
10-8 : Menuju
2-8-5 : Pemerkosaan
3-3-8 : Pembunuhan
3-6-3 : Pencurian
3-6-5 : Perampokan
8-1-0 : Pembunuhan
8-1-1 : Hidup
8-1-2 : Berita agar diulangi (kurang jelas)
8-1-3 : Selamat bertugas
8-1-4 : Laporan/pembicaraan terlalu cepat
8-1-5 : Cuaca
8-1-6 : Jam/waktu
8-1-9 : Situasi

Kode-kode tersebut hanya dimengerti oleh suatu komunitas tertentu yang telah menyepakati kode-kode tersebut. Hal ini efektif untuk menyampaikan informasi yang bersifat rahasia karena orang diluar komunitas tersebut tidak akan mengetahui isi informasi yang disampaikan. Gangguan dalam komunikasi mungkin terjadi apabila tarjadi kesalahan dalam penulisan angka dan karakter sehingga akan menyebabkan kesalahan intepretasi oleh receiver. Jadi untuk informasi dengan menggunakan kode, ketelitian merupakan hal yang penting karena kesalahan satu karakter akan menyebabkan terjadinya bias dalam pemahaman informasi yang disampaikan yang akan berdampak buruk bagi pengguna informasi tersebut.

Sedikit tambahan dari gw :

Police Letters Alphabet





Thanks to:
- Arek2 Laboratorium Jaringan Telekomunikasi
- Delta_Echo_Whisky_India

Why Google Chrome Frame won't help

So Google just announced a new open source project: Chrome Frame.

Google Chrome Frame is an early-stage open source plug-in that seamlessly brings Google Chrome's open web technologies and speedy JavaScript engine to Internet Explorer. With Google Chrome Frame, you can:
  • Start using open web technologies - like the HTML5 canvas tag - right away, even technologies that aren't yet supported in Internet Explorer 6, 7, or 8.
  • Take advantage of JavaScript performance improvements to make your apps faster and more responsive.


Just to clarify: I don't think it hurts anything, and I applaud Google's intentions to rid us all of supporting such a piece of shit like IE. It looks like a cool piece of technology and the most creative effort I've seen since the Mozilla ActiveX control.

But it'll do jack shit to get around supporting IE in all of its broken glory.

I'll ignore the current requirement of adding a meta tag to a page in order to trigger the plugin, and also the fact that this extremely young and experimental project doesn't have things like deployment tools for IT departments to use. They just announced this, and want feedback from developers at this point so they can continue working on it.

Google Chrome Frame will do jack shit, because the stick-in-the-mud companies that can't part with IE6 won't install a browser in a plugin. If the companies didn't have ignorant, self-defeating, head-up-their-fucking-ass rules about what level of corporate hell they'll ban you to for trying to install something on your machine, they would simply let you install the browser itself. None of the companies currently threatening their employees with fines or even firing will consider for a second adding an entire browser via a plugin. Employees might try to install it on their own in order to try to hide the fact that they get more work done when not using a complete piece of shit, but that will just prompt more companies to learn how to block people from installing browser plugins.

One of the reasons even the more laid back companies would probably let people install a whole other browser before installing a browser in a plugin: support. If you have employees using web applications that take advantage of Chrome Frame and they hit a bug either in the web application itself or something more severe like a browser crash (or maybe the always entertaining BSOD), that will fucking suck to figure out what happened. And if you installed Chrome Frame without their knowing, then call up support with a "my browser fucking crashed on me again" that turns out to stem from Google's crap code, your employer will fuck you. Shit, once they finally upgrade to IE8 they'll have enough of a problem with browser engines.

We instead need to find out what products companies use that require IE and either get the distributer to stop that shit, or provide alternatives. This will take a fucking long time, so I expect we'll also need to educate some of these dumbasses who think that they'll stay more secure by using an ancient fucking version of the least secure browser in existence, so they'll at least let one of the better choices onto the machines. Then employees will still have IE6 for the ten-year old shit software that requires it, and something else to use that actually works with the rest of the world.

Left brain, Right brain, and the other half of the story

In my head, this post and yesterday's post on risk and opportunity are deeply connected, but logically they needed to be split apart.

The theory of the left-brain / right-brain split is that the left hemisphere of our brain handles linear, logical processing (cold logic) while the right hemisphere is more emotional, intuitive, and holistic (evaluating the whole picture instead of considering things one component at a time). Naturally, some people are more left-brain dominant while others are more right-brain dominant. This divide is discussed quite a bit elsewhere -- I recommend starting with the TED talk by Jill Bolte Taylor, a neuroanatomist whose left hemisphere was damaged by a stroke, causing her to become right-brain dominant.

I'm actually somewhat skeptical that the left-brain / right-brain split is as real as people assume, however it seems to be metaphorically correct, so for my non-surgical purposes, it's "good enough".

To me, one of the most interesting aspects of this right/left divide is that many people seem to identify strongly with one side or the other, and actually despise the other half of their brain (see here for a few examples, and even Jill Taylor seems to be doing it to some extent). This seems kind of dumb. My theory is that both halves of our brain are useful, and that for maximum benefit and happiness, we should learn how to use each half to its maximum potential.

This is where I link in to yesterday's post on Risk and Opportunity. My suggestion was to simultaneously seek big, exciting opportunities ("dream big"), while carefully avoiding unacceptable risks ("don't be stupid"). In my mind, that is the right/left divide.

The left-brain ability to carefully double-check logic and evaluate the risks is very important because it helps to protect us from bad decisions. When we imagine the kind of person who believes things that are obviously false, falls for scams, ends up joining a cult, etc, we probably picture a stereotypically right-brain person.

However, what the left brain has in cold, efficient logic, it lacks in passion and grandiosity.

When I wrote about evaluating risks and opportunities, it was as though we use a logical process when make decisions, but of course that's not actually true, nor should it be. Our actual decision making is much more emotional (and emotions are just another mental process).

The right-brain utility is in integrating millions of facts (more than the left brain can logically combine) and producing a unified output. However, that output is in the form of an intuition, "gut feeling", or just plain excitement, which can sometimes be difficult to communicate or justify ("it seems like a good idea" isn't always convincing). Nevertheless, these intuitions are crucial for making big conceptual leaps, and ultimately providing direction and meaning in our lives.

So to reformulate yesterday's advice, I think we do best when using our right-brain skills to discover opportunity and excitement, while also engaging our left-brain abilities to avoid disasters, find tactical advantages, and rationalize our actions to the world. Left and Right are both stuck in the same skull, but not by accident -- they actually need each other. (the same could probably be said for politics, but that would be another post)

Coincidentally, I just saw another good TED talk that mentions these right-brain/left-brain issues in the context of managing and incentivizing creative people. It's worth watching.

Terorisme, Sebenarnya Perang Melawan Siapa?

Labels:

Istilah terorisme telah mengglobal dan dibicarakan oleh hampir seluruh kalangan. Bahkan istilah atau kata terorisme telah dipergunakan oleh Amerika sebagai instrumen kebijakan standar untuk memukul atau menindas lawan-lawannya dari kalangan Islam. Perang melawan terorisme telah menjadi teror baru bagi masyarakat, khususnya kaum Muslimin yang berdakwah dan bercita-cita menjalankan syariat secara kaaffah. Lalu apakah pengertian sebenarnya dari istilah terorisme ini? Siapakah teroris yang sebenarnya?




Definisi Terorisme


Masalah pertama dan utama dalam perdebatan seputar "terorisme" adalah masalah definisi. Tidak ada satu definisi pun yang disepakati oleh semua pihak. Terorisme akhirnya menjadi istilah multitafsir, setiap pihak memahaminya menurut definisi masing-masing, dan sebagai akibatnya aksi dan respon terhadap terorisme pun beragam.

Sebenarnya, istilah terorisme bukan suatu hal yang kompleks, bahkan secara bahasa istilah ini tidak mampu memberikan arti secara menyeluruh. Lalu kenapa orang lambat sekali dalam menempatkan definisi istilah ini?

Dari fakta yang ada, terdapat sebuah kedengkian di balik semua ini, karenanya dibutuhkan definisi yang menyeluruh termasuk variasi komponen-komponennya dan batasan-batasan yang diperlukan dari aspek yang berlawanan dengan komponen tersebut. Dalam fikiran banyak orang sekarang ini justru membutuhkan banyak kalangan untuk mendefinisikan istilah ini supaya tidak menjatuhkan hukuman pada orang yang tidak bersalah atas sejumlah tindak kejahatan dan sejumlah kebenaran yang disimpangkan.

Terorisme menurut Badan Intelijen Pertahanan Amerika Serikat adalah �Tindak kekerasan apapun atau tindakan paksaan oleh seseorang untuk tujuan apapun selain apa yang diperbolehkan dalam hukum perang yang meliputi penculikan, pembunuhan, peledakan pesawat, pembajakan pesawat, pelemparan bom ke pasar, toko, dan tempat-tempat hiburan atau yang sejenisnya, tanpa menghiraukan apa pun motivasi mereka.�

Oxford�s Advanced Learner�s Dictionary, 1995 mendefinisikan Terorisme adalah Penggunaan tindak kekerasan untuk tujuan politis atau untuk memaksa sebuah pemerintahan untuk melakukan sesuatu (yang mereka tuntut), khususnya untuk menciptakan ketakutan dalam sebuah masyarakat.

Badan intelejen Amerika CIA mendefinisikan Terorisme Internasional sebagai terorisme yang dilakukan dengan dukungan suatu pemerintahan atau organisasi asing dan atau diarahkan untuk melawan nasional, institusi, atau pemerintahan asing.

Dalam Oxford Dictionary disebutkan : Terrorist : noun person using esp organized violence to secure political ends. (perorangan tertentu yang mempergunakan kekerasan yang terorganisir dalam rangka meraih tujuan politis).

Dalam Encarta Dictionary disebutkan : Terrorism : Violence or the threat of violence carried out for political purposes. (Kekerasan atau ancaman kekerasan yang dilakukan demi tujuan politis).

Terrorist : Somebody using violence for political purposes : somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassanition, to intimidate, often for political purposes. (Seseorang yang menggunakan kekerasan untuk tujuan politis: seseorang yang menggunakan kekerasan, atau ancaman kekerasan, terkhusus lagi pengeboman, penculikan dan pembunuhan, biasanya untuk tujuan politis).

Dr. F. Budi Hardiman dalam artikel berjudul "Terorisme: Paradigma dan Definisi" menulis: "Teror adalah fenomena yang cukup tua dalam sejarah. Menakut-nakuti, mengancam, memberi kejutan, kekerasan, atau mem�bunuh dengan maksud menyebarkan rasa takut adalah taktik-taktik yang sudah melekat dalam perjuangan kekua�saan, jauh sebelum hal-hal itu dinamai �teror� atau �terorisme�.

Istilah �terorisme� sendiri pada 1970-an dikenakan pada beragam fenomena: dari bom yang meletus di tempat-tempat publik sampai dengan kemiskinan dan kelaparan. Beberapa pemerintah bahkan menstigma musuh-musuhnya sebagai �teroris� dan aksi-aksi mereka disebut �terorisme�. Istilah �terorisme� jelas berko�notasi peyoratif, seperti juga istilah �genosida� atau �tirani�. Karena itu istilah ini juga rentan dipolitisasi. Kekaburan definisi membuka peluang penyalahgunaan. Namun pendefinisian juga tak lepas dari keputusan politis."

Mengutip dari Juliet Lodge dalam The Threat of Terrorism (Westview Press, Colorado, 1988), �teror� itu sendiri sesungguhnya merupakan pengalaman subjektif, karena setiap orang memiliki �ambang ketakutannya� masing-masing. Ada orang yang bertahan, meski lama dianiaya. Ada yang cepat panik hanya karena ketidaktahuan. Di dalam dimensi subjektif inilah terdapat peluang untuk �kesewenangan� stigmatisasi atas pelaku terorisme.


Amerika Memanfaatkan Terorisme Untuk Melawan Islam

Noam Chomsky, ahli linguistik terkemuka dari Massachussetts Institute of Technology, AS, telah menyebutkan kebijakan Amerika dan Barat terhadap Dunia Islam dengan isu "terorisme" ini sudah begitu kuat terasa sejak awal 1990�an. Tahun 1991, ia menulis buku "Pirates and Emperor: International Terrorism in The Real World."

Dalam artikelnya yang dimuat oleh harian The Jakarta Post (3 Agustus 1993), dan dimuat ulang terjemahannya oleh harian Republika dengan judul "Amerika Memanfaatkan Terorisme Sebagai Instrumen Kebijakan", ia menulis bahwa Amerika memanfaatkan terorisme sebagai instrumen kebijakan standar untuk memukul atau menindas lawan-lawannya dari kalangan Islam.

Jadi, kebijakan Amerika dan Barat untuk memerangi dunia Islam dengan menggunakan isu "perang melawan terorisme internasional" sudah digulirkan sejak awal 1990-an, jauh sebelum kemunculan Taliban, apalagi Al-Qaeda, tragedi WTC maupun berbagai pemboman di sejumlah kawasan di dunia Islam.

Demikianlah, perang melawan terorisme yang digalang oleh Amerika, Barat dan antek-anteknya, sejatinya adalah perang malawan Islam dan kaum Muslimin. Targetnya adalah umat Islam, sampai kepada titik mengganti kurikulum pendidikan agama agar sesuai dengan nilai-nilai dan keinginan Barat. Upaya apapun untuk mengkaburkan hakekat ini, justru kontra produktif dan menguntungkan mereka-mereka yang membenci Islam.


Bagaimana Dengan Islam ?

Dalam Islam, istilah terorisme sendiri tidak pernah dikenal. Jikapun dicari padanan kata terorisme, maka yang dikenal adalah istilah Al Irhab, yang menurut Imam Ibnu Manzhur dalam ensiklopedi bahasanya mengatakan: Rohiba-Yarhabu-Rohbatan wa Ruhban wa Rohaban : Khoofa (takut). Rohiba al-Syai-a Rohban wa Rohbatan : Khoofahu (takut kepadanya).

Bisa difahami bahwa kata Al-Irhab (teror) berarti (menimbulkan) rasa takut. Irhabi (teroris) artinya orang yang membuat orang lain ketakutan, orang yang menakut-nakuti orang lain. Dus, setiap orang yang membuat orang yang ia inginkan berada dalam keadaan ketakutan adalah seorang teroris. Ia telah meneror mereka, dan sifat "teror" melekat pada dirinya, baik ia disebut sebagai seorang teroris maupun tidak; baik ia mengakui dirinya seorang teroris maupun tidak.

Dalam Islam, tidak diperbolehkan untuk melanggar kesucian kehidupan seseorang, baik secara lisan, fisik, maupun finansial, tanpa ijin atau hak dari Sang Pencipta, Allah SWT. Setiap Muslim memiliki kesucian jiwa, harta, dan kehormatan, sebagaimana Sabda Rasulullah SAW :

�Barangsiapa membantu orang untuk membunuh kaum Muslimin bahkan dengan sebuah ucapan atau kurma, maka dia kafir.�

Kalau demikian adanya, maka apa namanya ketika tentara Amerika datang dari jauh ke Irak untuk membunuh dan menawan kaum Muslimin, seraya mengklaim bahwa mereka memerangi teroris, yang diartikan (menurut) mereka dengan menghancurkan masjid-masjid, menawan para Muslimah, menginjak-injak Al-Qur�an sebagaimana mereka melakukannya juga di negeri-negeri kaum Muslimin lainnya ? Tindakan inilah yang merupakan akar permasalahan terorisme yang hingga saat ini terus berlanjut.

Amerika, The Real Terrorist

Ungkapan di atas adalah fakta yang tidak terbantahkan. Terlalu banyak dan panjang catatan peristiwa sejarah Amerika yang dapat membuktikan bahwa Amerika adalah teroris sejati. Amerika dengan dukungan sekutunya NATO, berhasil menekan PBB untuk mengembargo Irak, pasca Perang Teluk Kedua (1991). Kaum Muslimin menjadi korban, tidak kurang 1,5 juta orang meninggal. Belum lagi mereka yang cacat dibombardir tentara Multinasional dalam Perang Teluk Kedua ini.

Setelah lebih dari 12 tahun embargo, tahun 2003 Amerika dengan sekutu-sekutunya menginvasi Irak, menggulingkan pemerintahan, dan membentuk pemerintahan boneka. Dalam aksinya ini, Amerika telah membunuh ribuan kaum Muslimin, baik anak-anak, orang tua, maupun wanita. Semuanya demi kepentingan Amerika dan sekutunya. Apakah aksi-aksi brutal ini bukan sebuah bentuk teror, bahkan puncak dari teror ? Dus, Amerika dan sekutunya adalah teroris bahkan teroris sejati? Sayangnya media massa menyebut warga Irak yang mempertahankan negaranya dari agresi Amerika itulah yang teroris, fundamentalis, ataupun pemberontak.

Contoh serupa terjadi di negeri-negeri kaum Muslimin lainnya, seperti Afghanistan, dan Pakistan. Bahkan contoh kasus negeri Muslim Palestina yang dijajah sejak tahun 1948 oleh Israel atas restu Amerika dan sekutunya, lebih menunjukkan lagi bahwa Amerika benar-benar teroris sejati. Serangkaian teror yang dilakukan agresor Israel atas kaum Muslimin Palestina tidak pernah mendapatkan sanksi. Tentu saja karena Israel dibesarkan dan dibela oleh Amerika. Setiap tahun, Amerika memberikan bantuan ekonomi kepada Israel tak kurang dari 3 miliar dolar USA. Ini belum terhitung bantuan militer yang dipergunakan untuk melakukan politik terornya kepada bangsa muslim Palestina yang tak bersenjata.

Jadi, semuanya sangat tergantung kepada definisi teror dan terorisme yang saat ini didominasi oleh definisi yang dibuat Amerika dan sekutu-sekutunya. Seandainya mereka membuat definisi standar "teror dan terorisme" yang dapat diterima semua pihak, mereka (Amerika) adalah pihak pertama dan teratas yang menempati daftar teror dan terorisme.

Jika definisi teror adalah membunuh rakyat sipil yang tak berdosa; anak-anak, wanita dan orang tua, maka mereka adalah teroris paling pertama, teratas dan terjahat yang dikenal oleh sejarah umat manusia. Mereka telah membantai jutaan rakyat sipil tak berdosa di seluruh dunia; Jepang, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestina, Chechnya, Indonesia dan banyak negara lainnya.

Jika definisi teror adalah membom tempat-tempat dan kepentingan-kepentingan umum, mereka adalah pihak yang pertama, teratas dan terjahat yang mengajarkan, memulai dan menekuni hal itu.

Jika definisi teror adalah menebarkan ketakutan demi meraih kepentingan politik, maka merekalah yang pertama, teratas dan terjahat yang melakukan hal itu di seluruh penjuru dunia.

Jika definisi teror adalah pembunuhan misterius terhadap lawan politik, maka mereka adalah pihak pertama, teratas dan terjahat yang melakukan hal itu.

Jika definisi mendukung teroris adalah membiayai, melatih dan memberi perlindungan kepada para pelaku kejahatan, maka mereka adalah pihak yang pertama, teratas dan terjahat yang melakukan hal itu. Mereka bisa berada di balik berbagai kudeta di seluruh penjuru dunia. Aliansi Utara di Afghanistan, John Garang di Sudan, Israel di bumi Islam Palestina, Serbia dan Kroasia di bekas negara Yugoslavia, dan banyak contoh lainnya merupakan bukti konkrit tak terbantahkan bahwa The Real Terrorist adalah Amerika dan sekutu-sekutunya!


Terorisme, Perang Melawan Siapa?

Kini menjadi jelas siapa sebenarnya teroris sejati. Amerika bersama sekutunya telah melakukan teror kepada Islam dan kaum Muslimin sejak lama, diketahui bahkan direstui oleh dunia internasional. Ini sungguh tidak adil. Dunia diam saja dengan jumlah korban yang mencapai ratusan ribu dari umat Islam, namun berteriak-teriak lantang dan dipublikasikan luas jika dari pihak Amerika dan sekutunya yang terbunuh.

Sekilas realita teror dan terorisme ini cukup memberi contoh bentuk teror yang hari ini wujud di pentas dunia. Perang terhadap terorisme yang dikampanyekan oleh dunia internasional hari ini, di bawah arahan Amerika, tanpa memberi definisi dan batasan yang jelas terhadap "teror dan terorisme" telah menjadi alat efektif kekuatan pembenci Islam, untuk memerangi Islam dan kaum Muslimin. Melalui kampanye media massa dan elektronik internasional, "teror dan terorisme" telah didistorsikan dan dikaburkan sedemikian rupa; definisi, batasan, substansi, tujuan dan bentuk kongkritnya.

Adapun jika definisi teror dan terorisme distandarisasi, maka mereka yang akan menjadi pihak yang paling pertama, teratas dan terjahat yang terkena definisi tersebut. Oleh karenanya, mereka enggan memberikan definisi teror dan terosrime. Satu-satunya hal yang bisa dipahami seluruh umat manusia di dunia saat ini, bahwa "teror dan terorisme" versi hukum internasional (PBB yang mewakili kepentingan Amerika dan negara-negara adidaya lainnya) adalah Islam dan umat Islam, terutama umat Islam yang ingin hidup di dunia ini dengan merdeka penuh, bertauhid dan membela orang bertauhid, serta ingin menjalankan Islam secara kaafah.

Wallahu�alam bis Showab!.


By: M. Fachry
Arrahmah.Com International Jihad Analys

Ar Rahmah Media Network
http://www.arrahmah.com
The State of Islamic Media
� 2009 Ar Rahmah Media Network




Evaluating risk and opportunity (as a human)

Our lives are full of decisions that force us to balance risk and opportunity: should you take that new job, buy that house, invest in that company, swallow that pill, jump off that cliff, etc. How do we decide which risks are smart, and which are dumb? Once we've made our choices, are we willing to accept the consequences?

I think the most common technique is to ask ourselves, "What is the most likely outcome?", and if that outcome is good, then we do it (to the extent that people actually reason through decisions at all). That works well enough for many decisions -- for example, you might believe that the most likely outcome of going to school is that you can get a better job later on, and therefore choose that path. That's the reasoning most people use when going to school, getting a job, buying a house, or making most other "normal" decisions. Since it focuses on the "expected" outcome, people using it often ignore the possible bad outcomes, and when something bad does happen, they may feel bitter or cheated ("I have a degree, now where's my job!?"). For example, most people buying houses a couple of years ago weren't considering the possibility that their new house would lose 20% of its value, and that they would end up owing more than the house was worth.

When advising on startups, I often tell people that they should start with the assumption that the startup will fail and all of their equity will become worthless. Many people have a hard time accepting that fact, and say that they would be unable to stay motivated if they believed such a thing. It seems unfortunate that these people feel the need to lie to themselves in order to stay motivated, but recently I realized that I'm just using a different method of evaluating risks and opportunities.

Instead of asking, "What's the most likely outcome?", I like to ask "What's the worst that could happen?" and "Could it be awesome?". Essentially, instead of evaluating the median outcome, I like to look at the 0.01 percentile and 95th percentile outcomes. In the case of a startup, the worst case outcome is generally that you will lose your entire investment (but learn a lot), and the best case is that you make a large pile of money, create something cool, and learn a lot. (see "Why I'd rather be wrong" for more on this)

Thinking about the best-case outcomes is easy and people do it a lot, which is part of the reason it's often disrespected ("dreamer" isn't usually a compliment). However, too many people ignore the worst case scenario because thinking about bad things is uncomfortable. This is a mistake. This is why we see people killing themselves over investment losses (part of the reason, anyway). They were not planning for the worst case. Thinking about the worst case not only protects us from making dumb mistakes, it also provides an emotional buffer. If I'm comfortable with the worst-case outcome, then I can move without fear and focus my attention on the opportunity.

Considering only the best and worst case outcomes is not perfect of course -- lottery tickets have an acceptable worst case (you lose a $1) and a great best case (you win millions), yet they are generally a bad deal. Ideally we would also consider the "expected value" of our decisions, but in practice that's impossible for most real decisions because the world is too complicated and math is hard. If the expected value is available (as it is for lottery tickets), then use it (and don't buy lottery tickets), but otherwise we need some heuristics. Here are some of mine:

  • Will I learn a lot from the experience? (failure can be very educational)
  • Will it make my life more interesting? (a predictable life is a boring life)
  • Is it good for the world? (even if I don't benefit, maybe someone else will)
These things all raise the expected value (in my mind at least), so if they are mostly true, and I'm excited about the best-case outcome, and I'm comfortable with the worst-case outcome, then it's probably a good gamble. (note: I should also point out that when considering the worst-case scenario, it's important to also think about the impact on others. For example, even if you're ok with dying, that outcome may cause unacceptable harm to other people in your life.)

I've been told that I'm extremely cynical. I've also been told that I'm unreasonably optimistic. Upon reflection, I think I'm ok with being a cynical optimist :)

By the way, here's why I chose the 0.01 percentile outcome when evaluating the worst case: Last year there were 37,261 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States. The population of the United States is 304,059,724, so my odds of getting killed in a car accident is very roughly 1/10,000 per year (of course many of those people were teenagers and alcoholics, so my odds are probably a little better than that, but as a rough estimate it's good). Using this logic, I can largely ignore obscure 1/1,000,000 risks, which are too numerous and difficult to protect against anyway.

Also see The other half of the story

10 reasons Websites get Hacked

Labels:

Below you will find list of top 10 web vulnerabilities classified by OWASP, here is also description of the problem and some examples.

I will just give you the list in case you missed it before, i will not comment on any of these as there is already hot discussion about this matter on several sites/forums.

So here it starts:

1. Cross site scripting (XSS)

The problem: The �most prevalent and pernicious� Web application security vulnerability, XSS flaws happen when an application sends user data to a Web browser without first validating or encoding the content. This lets hackers execute malicious scripts in a browser, letting them hijack user sessions, deface Web sites, insert hostile content and conduct phishing and malware attacks.

Attacks are usually executed with JavaScript, letting hackers manipulate any aspect of a page. In a worst-case scenario, a hacker could steal information and impersonate a user on a bank�s Web site, according to Snyder.

Real-world example: PayPal was targeted last year when attackers redirected PayPal visitors to a page warning users their accounts had been compromised. Victims were redirected to a phishing site and prompted to enter PayPal login information, Social Security numbers and credit card details. PayPal said it closed the vulnerability in June 2006.

How to protect users: Use a whitelist to validate all incoming data, which rejects any data that�s not specified on the whitelist as being good. This approach is the opposite of blacklisting, which rejects only inputs known to be bad. Additionally, use appropriate encoding of all output data. �Validation allows the detection of attacks, and encoding prevents any successful script injection from running in the browser,� OWASP says.


2. Injection flaws

The problem: When user-supplied data is sent to interpreters as part of a command or query, hackers trick the interpreter � which interprets text-based commands � into executing unintended commands. �Injection flaws allow attackers to create, read, update, or delete any arbitrary data available to the application,� OWASP writes. �In the worst-case scenario, these flaws allow an attacker to completely compromise the application and the underlying systems, even bypassing deeply nested firewalled environments.�

Real-world example: Russian hackers broke into a Rhode Island government Web site to steal credit card data in January 2006. Hackers claimed the SQL injection attack stole 53,000 credit card numbers, while the hosting service provider claims it was only 4,113.

How to protect users: Avoid using interpreters if possible. �If you must invoke an interpreter, the key method to avoid injections is the use of safe APIs, such as strongly typed parameterized queries and object relational mapping libraries,� OWASP writes.


3. Malicious file execution

The problem: Hackers can perform remote code execution, remote installation of rootkits, or completely compromise a system. Any type of Web application is vulnerable if it accepts filenames or files from users. The vulnerability may be most common with PHP, a widely used scripting language for Web development.

Real-world example: A teenage programmer discovered in 2002 that Guess.com was vulnerable to attacks that could steal more than 200,000 customer records from the Guess database, including names, credit card numbers and expiration dates. Guess agreed to upgrade its information security the next year after being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission.

How to protect users: Don�t use input supplied by users in any filename for server-based resources, such as images and script inclusions. Set firewall rules to prevent new connections to external Web sites and internal systems.


4. Insecure direct object reference

The problem: Attackers manipulate direct object references to gain unauthorized access to other objects. It happens when URLs or form parameters contain references to objects such as files, directories, database records or keys.

Banking Web sites commonly use a customer account number as the primary key, and may expose account numbers in the Web interface.

�References to database keys are frequently exposed,� OWASP writes. �An attacker can attack these parameters simply by guessing or searching for another valid key. Often, these are sequential in nature.�

Real-world example: An Australian Taxation Office site was hacked in 2000 by a user who changed a tax ID present in a URL to access details on 17,000 companies. The hacker e-mailed the 17,000 businesses to notify them of the security breach.

How to protect users: Use an index, indirect reference map or another indirect method to avoid exposure of direct object references. If you can�t avoid direct references, authorize Web site visitors before using them


5. Cross site request forgery

The problem: �Simple and devastating,� this attack takes control of victim�s browser when it is logged onto a Web site, and sends malicious requests to the Web application. Web sites are extremely vulnerable, partly because they tend to authorize requests based on session cookies or �remember me� functionality. Banks are potential targets.

�Ninety-nine percent of the applications on the Internet are susceptible to cross site request forgery,� Williams says. �Has there been an actual exploit where someone�s lost money? Probably the banks don�t even know. To the bank, all it looks like is a legitimate transaction from a logged-in user.�

Real-world example: A hacker known as Samy gained more than a million �friends� on MySpace.com with a worm in late 2005, automatically including the message �Samy is my hero� in thousands of MySpace pages. The attack itself may not have been that harmful, but it was said to demonstrate the power of combining cross site scripting with cross site request forgery. Another example that came to light one year ago exposed a Google vulnerability allowing outside sites to change a Google user�s language preferences.

How to protect users: Don�t rely on credentials or tokens automatically submitted by browsers. �The only solution is to use a custom token that the browser will not �remember,�� OWASP writes.


6. Information leakage and improper error handling

The problem: Error messages that applications generate and display to users are useful to hackers when they violate privacy or unintentionally leak information about the program�s configuration and internal workings.

�Web applications will often leak information about their internal state through detailed or debug error messages. Often, this information can be leveraged to launch or even automate more powerful attacks,� OWASP says.

Real-world example: Information leakage goes well beyond error handling, applying also to breaches occurring when confidential data is left in plain sight. The ChoicePoint debacle in early 2005 thus falls somewhere in this category. The records of 163,000 consumers were compromised after criminals pretending to be legitimate ChoicePoint customers sought details about individuals listed in the company�s database of personal information. ChoicePoint subsequently limited its sales of information products containing sensitive data.

How to protect users: Use a testing tool such as OWASP�S WebScarab Project to see what errors your application generates. �Applications that have not been tested in this way will almost certainly generate unexpected error output,� OWASP writes.


7. Broken authentication and session management

The problem: User and administrative accounts can be hijacked when applications fail to protect credentials and session tokens from beginning to end. Watch out for privacy violations and the undermining of authorization and accountability controls.

�Flaws in the main authentication mechanism are not uncommon, but weaknesses are more often introduced through ancillary authentication functions such as logout, password management, timeout, remember me, secret question and account update,� OWASP writes.

Real-world example: Microsoft had to eliminate a vulnerability in Hotmail that could have let malicious JavaScript programmers steal user passwords in 2002. Revealed by a networking products reseller, the flaw was vulnerable to e-mails containing Trojans that altered the Hotmail user interface, forcing users to repeatedly reenter their passwords and unwittingly send them to hackers.

How to protect users: Communication and credential storage has to be secure. The SSL protocol for transmitting private documents should be the only option for authenticated parts of the application, and credentials should be stored in hashed or encrypted form.

Another tip: get rid of custom cookies used for authentication or session management.


8. Insecure cryptographic storage

The problem: Many Web developers fail to encrypt sensitive data in storage, even though cryptography is a key part of most Web applications. Even when encryption is present, it�s often poorly designed, using inappropriate ciphers.

�These flaws can lead to disclosure of sensitive data and compliance violations,� OWASP writes.

Real-world example: The TJX data breach that exposed 45.7 million credit and debit card numbers. A Canadian government investigation faulted TJX for failing to upgrade its data encryption system before it was targeted by electronic eavesdropping starting in July 2005.
How to protect users: Don�t invent your own cryptographic algorithms. �Only use approved public algorithms such as AES, RSA public key cryptography, and SHA-256 or better for hashing,� OWASP advises.

Furthermore, generate keys offline, and never transmit private keys over insecure channels.


9. Insecure communications

The problem: Similar to No. 8, this is a failure to encrypt network traffic when it�s necessary to protect sensitive communications. Attackers can access unprotected conversations, including transmissions of credentials and sensitive information. For this reason, PCI standards require encryption of credit card information transmitted over the Internet.

Real-world example: TJX again. Investigators believe hackers used a telescope-shaped antenna and laptop computer to steal data exchanged wirelessly between portable price-checking devices, cash registers and store computers, the Wall Street Journal reported.

�The $17.4-billion retailer's wireless network had less security than many people have on their home networks,� the Journal wrote. TJX was using the WEP encoding system, rather than the more robust WPA.

How to protect users: Use SSL on any authenticated connection or during the transmission of sensitive data, such as user credentials, credit card details, health records and other private information. SSL or a similar encryption protocol should also be applied to client, partner, staff and administrative access to online systems. Use transport layer security or protocol level encryption to protect communications between parts of your infrastructure, such as Web servers and database systems.


10. Failure to restrict URL access

The problem: Some Web pages are supposed to be restricted to a small subset of privileged users, such as administrators. Yet often there�s no real protection of these pages, and hackers can find the URLs by making educated guesses. Say a URL refers to an ID number such as �123456.� A hacker might say �I wonder what�s in 123457?� Williams says.

The attacks targeting this vulnerability are called forced browsing, �which encompasses guessing links and brute force techniques to find unprotected pages,� OWASP says.

Real-world example: A hole on the Macworld Conference & Expo Web site this year let users get �Platinum� passes worth nearly $1,700 and special access to a Steve Jobs keynote speech, all for free. The flaw was code that evaluated privileges on the client but not on the server, letting people grab free passes via JavaScript on the browser, rather than the server.

How to protect users: Don�t assume users will be unaware of hidden URLs. All URLs and business functions should be protected by an effective access control mechanism that verifies the user�s role and privileges. �Make sure this is done � every step of the way, not just once towards the beginning of any multi-step process,� OWASP advises.


Written by Jakub Maslowski | zone-h.org

Kegembiraan Ramadhan Yang Terenggut Di Jalur Gaza

Labels:

Ihab Al-Ashqar, seorang remaja Gaza berusia 14 tahun, tersenyum pahit saat menjelaskan mengapa ia tidak merasakan kegembiraan menyambut datangnya bulan suci Ramadhan.

"Semua perbatasan ditutup. Mereka (Israel) sedang membunuh kami perlahan," katanya Ihab pedih.

Sebagaimana hampir 1,6 juta orang di Gaza, Ashqar kehilangan kegembiraan bahwa Ramadhan adalah bulan istimewa bagi seluruh muslim tiap tahunnya.

Tahun ini, bulan suci Ramadhan mendatangi Gaza yang sedang dilingkupi oleh barbarisme perang Israel dan tercekik oleh pengepungan bangsa Zionis.

"Hati kami dan rumah kami disesaki duka dan kesedihan," kata Huda Al-Astal membatin.

"Hidup kami merana. Kami hampir tidak dapat bernafas."

Israel telah mengisolasi wilayah Gaza dan penduduknya dari dunia sejak Hamas terpilih untuk berkuasa pada tahun 2006, serta menutup semua perbatasan.

Israel juga menghalangi bantuan kemanusiaan yang terdiri dari barang-barang yang sangat jauh dari membahayakan seperti keju, sikat gigi, pasta gigi, sabun, dan tisu toilet.

Bahkan warga Palestina di Jalur Gaza harus rela menikmati shaumnya di bawah bayang-bayang kegelapan karena Israel terus-menerus memblokir pengiriman bahan bakar.

"Bahkan kami tidak memiliki penerangan," salah seorang ibu menggerutu.

"Kami mungkin tidak akan bisa bertahan."

Kejadian ini sungguh mengharukan seharusnya bagi kaum muslimin di negeri-negeri lainnya.

"Biasanya menjelang Ramadhan, orang-orang pergi ke pasar untuk membeli seluruh kebutuhan mereka satu bulan penuh," ujar Mohammed Farag, salah seorang pedagang.

"Namun tahun ini, kami memiliki sedikit sekali persediaan barang untuk dijual, dan orang-orang pun tidak memiliki uang untuk membelinya."

Seperti yang dialami oleh Abu Mohamed Al-Shawwa. Ia berjalan menyusuri pasar untuk mencari keperluan yang akan dibeli untuk keluarganya dengan uang seadanya.

"Harga-harga semakin membubung tinggi," katanya putus asa.

"Bahkan yang saya berikan pada keluarga saya tahun lalu, sepertinya tidak dapat saya berikan pada Ramadhan tahun ini."

Jumlah pengangguran di Jalur Gaza saat ini melebihi 60% dan Bank Dunia memperkirakan bahwa dua per tiga populasi di wilayah ini harus hidup di bawah garis kemiskinan. Lebih dari satu juta orang bertahan dengan pasokan makanan dari PBB.

Nihad Al-Helw, ibu delapan orang anak yang suaminya kehilangan pekerjaan akibat penjajahan Israel mengatakan bahwa dirinya yakin akan mendapatkan makanan untuk berbuka.

"Saya hanya berharap anak saya memperoleh satu jenis makanan saja untuk disantap."

Anaknya, We'aam, sudah mengerti bahwa ia tidak mungkin menemukan daging, ikan, dan buah dalam menu makannya.

Namun yang paling menyakitkan baginya adalah bahwa ia tidak akan mendapat lampu warna-warni yang biasa dibelikan ayahnya tiap kali Ramadhan tiba.

"Ini akan menjadi Ramadhan yang paling menyedihkan seumur hidup saya." kata We'aam sambil menangis.

Sumber : http://www.arrahmah.com

IE6 death push makes CNN

Web citizens trying to kill Internet Explorer 6:

'On the surface, the campaign against IE 6 may seem like a cult of disgruntled techies who are angry at Microsoft or want to gripe about people who lag behind the technological curve.

But that analysis is too simplistic, said Dan Oliver, editor of .net, a UK magazine about Web design.

"This isn't an anti-Microsoft campaign," he said. "Microsoft makes some fantastic products. The latest version of their browser is a good browser. But with regards to IE 6 ... [it] is an awful browser and no one should be using it."

He added: "Ultimately, we've kind of waited long enough. That's why there's a big movement of support for it because the geeks out there have known about this for years and have been waiting for big sites to jump on and push it forward."

In a statement to CNN, Microsoft said it also wants people to turn away from IE 6.'
I completely fucking disagree with the "The latest version of their browser is a good browser." statement, but the point that people should use it over IE6 definitely still stands.

I added a Twitter widget to the sidebar

Let me know whether or not it pisses you off.

If you know how to make it static, rather than continually cycling through things with that annoying as shit animation, please tell me.

UK government fails to follow its own advice on not using IE6

From MoD sticks with insecure browser:

'The MoD is implementing a secure desktop computing service for 300,000 users worldwide through its Defence Information Infrastructure (DII) programme, but defence minister Quentin Davies said: "DII currently uses Internet Explorer 6 and at the current time does not have a requirement to move to an updated version."

Watson expressed his dismay at the response.

"Many civil servants use web browsers as a tool of their trade," he told GC News. "They're as important as pens and paper. So to force them to use the most decrepit browser in the world is a rare form of workplace cruelty that should be stopped.

"When you consider that the government supported Get Safe Online initiative advises that companies should upgrade from IE6, you would imagine that permanent secretaries would like to practice what they preach," he added. "Why civil servants should not be given the choice to use Firefox or Chrome or Safari is beyond me. UK web workers deserve better.'"
Emphasis mine, because I fucking loved reading that part.

Okay, fuck it. Follow me on Twitter

http://twitter.com/whyiesucks

Bonus points for the first person to recognize my profile picture.

IE6 Must Die moves to Twitter petition

For those of you involved in this Twitter thing (which I almost feel compelled to join now...fuck me - I can't believe I just said that), you can now add an icon to your Twitter profile image using a service called "Twibbon" - IE6 Must Die. This came about after James Lynch (lynchjames) read Mashable's article, IE6 Must Die for the Web to Move On:

"We've sputtered on with the dead weight of IE6 since 2001, but we�re just now reaching a breaking point, and companies are starting to feel it. YouTube and Digg clearly believe that it�s not in their best interests to continue supporting the outdated browser and thus have put the word out about their plans to phase out support. More and more companies will take their lead as it becomes harder and harder to justify the cost of keeping a site running correctly in Microsoft�s old browser.

But looking forward, HTML 5 standards will enable the building of richer web applications. More and more of our lives are on the web, and our use of web apps like Facebook has skyrocketed. Google�s even announced Google Chrome OS, an operating system that will run web apps instantaneously because it is built on the browser. But projects as rich as Google Wave will not realize their full potential (or run at all) if they must cater to a browser that runs on outdated standards."
The campaign as of this post has just about 5000 supporters, which doesn't seem too shabby for a day's work. Still, let's see that number really fucking rise!

IE6 Must Die

IE6 will die a long, horrible (for us) death

Or, further evidence that PPK knows his shit.

A short while ago, PPK (of indispensable QuirksMode fame) wrote a post entitled "State of the Browsers - IE edition" which you should have read by now. If not, go fucking read it.

"Recently I held a presentation at a local Microsoft conference in the Netherlands. Slides are here. Fanatical followers will recognise most of the topics I discussed from earlier slide shows, but the last one, about the changes to the market share of IE6, 7, and 8, is new.

Basically, IE6 will continue to exist when IE7 has all but disappeared, and, contrary to what you might expect, this situation will create exciting opportunities for Microsoft�s competitors.

Besides, last week the news came that Microsoft is going to voluntarily de-bundle IE from all Windows 7 machines that will be sold in Europe, and I continue to have my doubts about that affair.

So it�s time for a special State of the Browsers IE edition."
Make sure you read the entire thing, don't just skim the fucking thing and come back here.

Now, what he wrote should make complete sense, even if you didn't want to hear much of it. Who wants to admit that IE6, the shit-stained cockroach of a browser, will likely last longer than IE7?

Confirming this, a recent post on Digg looks deeper into the usage of Digg by users still stuck with IE6 and why the fuck they don't use something else. Turns out, most of them can't use something else. According to their poll, some 70% of IE6 users who participated say their job won't let them use something sane (either by direct denial or by blocking admin access).

Around the same time as the poll, it came to light that Orange UK not only instructs their employees to only use IE6, but it outright fucking threatens them with a �250 fine if they find Firefox on their work machine, even though Firefox helps them work more efficiently. This not only follows in the my-ignorant-fucking-company-won't-let-me-upgrade vein, but also the fuck-you-I'll-get-something-even-better.

The best of all (so far, I have no fucking doubt in my mind that others will continue to follow suit) comes from the United States government, where State Department workers asked Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, if they could use Firefox instead of IE. In fact, they couldn't believe they even had to bother asking in the first place:
MS. GREENBERG: Okay. Our next question comes from Jim Finkle:

Can you please let the staff use an alternative web browser called Firefox? I just � (applause) � I just moved to the State Department from the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and was surprised that State doesn't use this browser. It was approved for the entire intelligence community, so I don't understand why State can't use it. It's a much safer program. Thank you. (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, apparently, there's a lot of support for this suggestion. (Laughter.) I don't know the answer. Pat, do you know the answer? (Laughter.)

UNDER SECRETARY KENNEDY: The answer is at the moment, it's an expense question. We can --

QUESTION: It's free. (Laughter.)
Update: Tom Watson, a UK MP, has joined in, questioning various government departments of their plans (or lack thereof) to move from IE6 to something not quite so fucking old and decrepit. Side note: one government department, which has at least started thinking about the move, wins the department naming contest: NOMS.

 
Internet