Messages

476

General Software Discussion / Re: Chrome’s insane password security strategy

« on: August 23, 2013, 02:30 PM »

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. You don't have to assume anything. Significantly more detailed information about how Google Sync works is available on Google's website and the settings themselves make it more than clear. The first time you sign into your Google account using Chrome the settings are chosen by Google, meaning sync everything. If you've already signed in and unselected any of the options, those items will not be synced to the next computer you use.

Google's warning is absolutely true for most people because the settings are hidden and once you've logged in there are no obvious warnings about that. That's dishonest and wrong (some would go so far as to say evil) but still completely different than what you're claiming - by your own admission based almost entirely on assumptions.

No, people shouldn't sign into Chrome because Google refuses to take security or user choice seriously. If you have to rely on FUD to justify it you're not paying enough attention.

-Vurbal (August 23, 2013, 08:15 AM)

Not sure what button I pushed to justify this outburst, but your arguments are neither consistent nor correct.

-xtabber (August 23, 2013, 01:24 PM)

I apologize for using a snarkier tone than I intended.

On the one hand, you complain about Google being dishonest and say that people shouldn't sign in to Chrome. On the other hand, you complain that I don't understand that sync can be turned off and that my arguments about using Chrome are therefore false.

No, I said your facts were inaccurate and supplied a correction. Specifically this fact (emphasis mine)

Of course, you can use Chrome without ever signing in, but as soon as you do, you have no control over what is spread around through the sync function.

-xtabber (August 22, 2013, 10:10 PM)

It's impossible to reach rational conclusions based on wildly inaccurate facts. I made no assumption about whether this was the basis of your opinion or not. That statement implies, intentionally or not, it's something others should factor into their decision. That muddies the waters and confuses the real issues - the same issues you yourself mention.

477

Living Room / Re: German Government Warns Key Entities Not To Use Windows 8

« on: August 23, 2013, 01:41 PM »

Did/does Windows 7 support TPM? Yes. The BitLocker drive encryption is dependent on it. The more important question here I think, is does you hardware have a TPM chip?

-Stoic Joker (August 23, 2013, 01:12 PM)

It uses TPM by default but can also be configured to operate without it. There have also been no assertions that it can't be turned off other than in Windows 8, although it's equally possible that the German government would be worried purely because they don't have the keys this time around.

Honestly I'm more than just a bit skeptical about the articles claims about what TPM is capable of. Seems more like they're lumping several different (and somewhat unrelated) technologies into one story with just a bit of straw. The phrase "jumping at shadows" comes to mind... *Shrug*

I'm not prepared to make any claims as to the validity of anything absent the sort of information we don't have about the German government's reasoning. However if the keys are pregenerated and hardwired into the chips that's something I wouldn't trust no matter who does or doesn't have access to them.

Remember there was a time when hardware based viruses were discovered and folks yelled for an encrypted/protected boot sector ... Now they have one ... and they're mad about it. I really just don't get that part.

If a chain of trust has links which are intentionally obfuscated the default assumption is, or should be, that they're potential vulnerabilities. If those links happen to be in the control of organizations with an established pattern of both failing to be trustworthy and lying to cover it up, there's no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt and every reason not to.

478

Living Room / Re: Ballmer Stepping Down

« on: August 23, 2013, 01:10 PM »

Just because hype and fashion won doesn't mean he was wrong about that one 

-rgdot (August 23, 2013, 11:55 AM)

Actually it does. The people he said it doesn't appeal to are using it for exactly what he said they wouldn't. It took me less than half an hour using an iOS device to see that coming and I've never bought an Apple product in my life. Nor do I plan to.

Also he got the basics wrong. The virtual keyboard on a multitouch smartphone, even the earlier cruder ones, are a lot less clumsy than the physical keyboards on the Windows Mobile devices he was bragging about. That's without even getting into the multitude of other problems in Microsoft's earlier mobile operating systems.

479

Living Room / Re: German Government Warns Key Entities Not To Use Windows 8

« on: August 23, 2013, 01:03 PM »

After some additional reading this is my (only slightly) more educated assessment.

• 1.x versions of TPM use encryption keys generated by the motherboard's TPM chip at the request of the OS while the keys for TPM 2.0 chips will be pre-generated (by the Trusted Platform Computing Group?) and supplied to the chip makers to hardcode into their chips.
• TPM, regardless of version, can theoretically be disabled by the motherboard's BIOS settings. Whether that option is available is, of course, up to the vendors. [1]
• TPM support can be disabled via the registry, at least through Windows 7. There's even (apparently - I can't be bothered to check) a Group Policy setting for it. The option may or may not exist in Windows 8 and setting it may or may not actually work as advertised. I suspect it is still there and, at least for the moment, still effective.
• The standards development process (within the TPCG) changed for version 2.0 and third parties, including the German government, were excluded. However it appears one of the documents shared with some of those excluded includes a statement suggesting the NSA was still involved. [2]
• The secrecy surrounding development of the standard combined with the implications of giving Chinese chip manufacturers direct access to the encryption keys and the lack of transparency in Windows code makes it impossible to know whether there might be:
  • An existing TPM 2.0 backdoor in Windows which just needs the appropriate hardware to become an active threat.
  • An existing TPM 2.0 backdoor which isn't active but could potentially be unlocked by an OS update - particularly difficult to detect for a major update like Windows 8.1.
  • A way for Microsoft to add a TPM 2.0 back door via an OS update without it being detected until it's too late.
• Because of the necessity for tight integration into the kernel, it's more or less impossible for any of those to be true of older Windows versions simply because TPM 2.0 wasn't anywhere near complete at the necessary point in time. [3]

1 With UEFI and Secure Boot even access to the BIOS settings to begin with is an open question. Except for Windows RT devices since it's disallowed by licensing requirements.

2 The NSA's involvement, in and of itself, isn't at all unusual. It's the combination of shutting out foreign governments while still including the US government that's notable.

3 On this point the German government probably has more accurate information than any non-governmental entity outside the TPCG. However that also means there's no way to confirm that there aren't errors in their analysis.


Based on all that I'd say it's a non-issue for any current hardware, regardless of what Windows version you use. For future hardware it's a big concern, and regardless of what version of Windows you have the default assumption should be that TPM 2.0 is a vulnerability simply because of where the attack points are.

Since TPM 2.0 also matches Microsoft's completely public agenda to transform Windows into a Walled Garden in the hopes of replacing their dying Windows/Office licensing revenue streams, it's reasonable to assume forcible use of TPM 2.0 is closely aligned with their interests in any case. The safest bet is to avoid both TPM 2.0 and Windows 8 completely. With most of that being purely in the control of companies who have a vested interest in TPM 2.0 adoption that leaves simply avoiding Windows 8 as the safe bet since that is in your control.

480

Living Room / Re: Ballmer Stepping Down

« on: August 23, 2013, 11:18 AM »

If we're reminiscing about Steve Ballmer's greatest hits it would be a mistake to leave out this gem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qycUOENFIBs

481

Living Room / Re: When you make your 100'th Post

« on: August 23, 2013, 10:33 AM »

- always an interesting read at any rate

-tomos (August 14, 2013, 09:44 AM)

I'll take interesting over the other adjectives people are likely to use any day of the week. 

482

Living Room / Re: Ballmer Stepping Down

« on: August 23, 2013, 10:24 AM »

While Windows 8 is a pain in the ass, Ballmer made a lot of good decisions. A pity.

-Tuxman (August 23, 2013, 10:14 AM)

Ballmer made a good corporate salesman. In fact let's give him some credit. He did a great job on that side of the business. I can't think of any good decisions he made WRT running the company.

483

Living Room / Re: Ballmer Stepping Down

« on: August 23, 2013, 10:21 AM »

Regardless of who is making the official decision about his successor, as long as Bill Gates is on the board of directors I'm betting he has a significant say in the matter if not an unofficial veto. It's no secret Steve Ballmer consulted closely with him on some key decisions like killing the Courier tablet. Unless his power has greatly diminished that's probably not a good sign. OTOH whoever they pick is unlikely to be as clueless as Ballmer so it almost has to be an improvement.

I suspect this is probably more about damage control over the surveillance leaks, especially the new leak from the Germans about Windows 8 and TPM, than the business problems anyway.
 

484

Living Room / Re: German Government Warns Key Entities Not To Use Windows 8

« on: August 23, 2013, 09:46 AM »

It certainly changes my plans to show people how to make Windows 8 more user friendly. Leaving it as-is would seem to make this a self correcting problem. Good thing I was starting with Windows 7 anyway.

-Vurbal (August 23, 2013, 07:53 AM)

Bingo. If it was *just* a stupid interface, whatever. But if there's TPM junk in there, then it has active reasons not to adopt it.

Does anyone know for sure if Win7 had the same module, or if Win8 is the first one?

-TaoPhoenix (August 23, 2013, 08:49 AM)

If I understand correctly, and assuming both the German government and the folks who reported on the leaked document do as well, the backdoor is only in TPM 2.0. It appears Windows XP, Vista, and 7 all have implementations of TPM 1.x, the latest version being 1.2.

Reading between the lines a little, and knowing just enough about TPM in Windows 7 / Server 2008 to make a barely educated guess, it seems like the difference isn't so much in what version is supported (I think it's mostly a driver issue) as whether it's enabled by default and whether it is ultimately under the user or administrator's control.

I would definitely be concerned about Windows 7, though, since that's the first version where the old monolithic OS was separated into smaller, semi-independent parts. Theoretically that makes major alterations to the kernel of the type which might be necessary for backporting TPM 2.0 more likely than for previous versions. OTOH it's not nearly as much of a modular design as Windows 8 so I wouldn't bet on it.

485

General Software Discussion / Re: Chrome’s insane password security strategy

« on: August 23, 2013, 08:15 AM »

Google's description of how Chrome sync works has the following warning:

Don't sign in to Chrome if you're using a public or untrusted computer. When you set up Chrome with your Google Account, a copy of your data is stored on the computer you're using and can be accessed by other people using the same computer. To remove your data, delete the user you are signed in as.

If you take Google at their word, this indicates that signing out still leaves the synced information stored locally.

Of course, you can use Chrome without ever signing in, but as soon as you do, you have no control over what is spread around through the sync function.  As I said, I use Android devices and I also have ported my home and business phone numbers to Google Voice to keep them when I dumped the landlines they were attached to.  This means I need to sign into my Google accounts regularly. I just don't use Chrome to do so, because I don't want whatever is cached locally from other sessions to be synced to those Google accounts.

-xtabber (August 22, 2013, 10:10 PM)

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. You don't have to assume anything. Significantly more detailed information about how Google Sync works is available on Google's website and the settings themselves make it more than clear. The first time you sign into your Google account using Chrome the settings are chosen by Google, meaning sync everything. If you've already signed in and unselected any of the options, those items will not be synced to the next computer you use.

Google's warning is absolutely true for most people because the settings are hidden and once you've logged in there are no obvious warnings about that. That's dishonest and wrong (some would go so far as to say evil) but still completely different than what you're claiming - by your own admission based almost entirely on assumptions.

No, people shouldn't sign into Chrome because Google refuses to take security or user choice seriously. If you have to rely on FUD to justify it you're not paying enough attention.

486

Living Room / Re: German Government Warns Key Entities Not To Use Windows 8

« on: August 23, 2013, 07:53 AM »

I've followed the Trusted Computing angle for years now, though they managed to keep it out of the limelight for quite a while now!
(Remember, we're already discussing Windows 8.1 Blue!)

This is just becoming another reason to box in users still on XP.

-TaoPhoenix (August 23, 2013, 07:40 AM)

It certainly changes my plans to show people how to make Windows 8 more user friendly. Leaving it as-is would seem to make this a self correcting problem. Good thing I was starting with Windows 7 anyway.

487

Living Room / Re: German Government Warns Key Entities Not To Use Windows 8

« on: August 23, 2013, 06:30 AM »

Uh... Yeah. No comment from me. Enjoy.

http://www.testoster...ot-to-use-windo.html

According to leaked internal documents from the German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) that Die Zeit obtained, IT experts figured out that Windows 8, the touch-screen enabled, super-duper, but sales-challenged Microsoft operating system is outright dangerous for data security. It allows Microsoft to control the computer remotely through a built-in backdoor. Keys to that backdoor are likely accessible to the NSA – and in an unintended ironic twist, perhaps even to the Chinese.

The backdoor is called “Trusted Computing,” developed and promoted by the Trusted Computing Group, founded a decade ago by the all-American tech companies AMD, Cisco, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, and Wave Systems. Its core element is a chip, the Trusted Platform Module (TPM), and an operating system designed for it, such as Windows 8. Trusted Computing Group has developed the specifications of how the chip and operating systems work together.

...

Original German article:

http://www.zeit.de/d...indows-8-nsa/seite-1

-Renegade (August 23, 2013, 01:34 AM)

I'd be willing to bet this is one of the big revelations I've been talking about that explains why companies who outside the Internet infrastructure industry spent so much money lobbying for CISPA. Just from memory I know Intel, Cisco, Microsoft, and IBM each spent more than a billion dollars on it prior to this year and this year's spending dwarfed that. IBM, in particular, sent 200 executives to Washington when CISPA was being debated.

The hidden purpose for CISPA, in case anyone didn't already know, was providing immunity for giving the government access to customer data. Like I've been saying. This is why all the spooks and faux regulators in Congress are so panicked about their secrets getting out.

488

General Software Discussion / Re: Chrome’s insane password security strategy

« on: August 22, 2013, 02:22 PM »

Chrome has another gigantic security hole baked in: if you sign in to your Google account, it automatically syncs with Google's servers and caches account information on whatever computer you signed in from.

I won't install Chrome on any of my PCs and will only run it from inside a VM. 

I use Android devices extensively, so I am automatically signed in to my Google accounts at all times, but I use Chrome as little as possible for browsing on those devices and always make sure that I have password saving disabled in any browser I use .  There are plenty of good Android browsers that offer much better privacy options.

-xtabber (August 22, 2013, 10:05 AM)

I don't think this is the case.  You have to actually sign into the browser.  Which I don't do.

-wraith808 (August 22, 2013, 12:09 PM)

There are also options to selectively sync or not sync at all. And the data is encrypted before it leaves your computer. Actually the copies on Google's servers are probably a lot more secure than the ones on your computer.

The bigger problem IIRC is the default setting to sign you in automatically every time you open Chrome. In fact I don't even recall if that's a setting you can change and I think you also have to go to the Settings page to sign out even though the Sign In link is on every blank tab you open. That's just dishonest.

489

General Software Discussion / Re: Chrome’s insane password security strategy

« on: August 22, 2013, 02:02 PM »

On the whole I'm not all that bothered about Chrome's lack of password security primarily because I think even the significantly better security in Firefox is insufficent. I mean it's reasonably good all the way up until you use it and from then until you close it not so much.

-Vurbal (August 21, 2013, 02:51 PM)

Which is why anybody who uses Firefox' Master Password feature should at least be using the Master Password+ addon to at least give you auto-logout/lock capability, (but most of all to stop multiple simultaneous "Enter Master Password" prompts).

-4wd (August 21, 2013, 10:42 PM)

No disagreement there but that's no excuse for such a glaring oversight. I can understand not automatically having it time out. I don't condone it but I know most users don't appreciate the risks enough to put up with the slight inconvenience. Not even offering it as a basic option is indefensible.

Honestly I'd not only include it, I'd have it enabled automatically. Most people who want to turn it off would search for instructions rather than just opening the options to look for themselves. They'd at least be exposed to a bunch of information about why they should leave it on.

490

LaunchBar Commander / Re: LATEST LaunchBar Commander VERSION INFO THREAD - v1.136.01 BETA - Aug 18, 2013

« on: August 22, 2013, 01:34 PM »

Here goes with the feature requests. Actually the first one isn't really a feature request. It's actually just a suggestion to update the included NirCmd to the latest version which has the option to launch with elevated privileges.

My only real feature request is FARR integration. You've already mentioned the idea of using FARR alias files in LBC but there are a lot of things FARR does that would exponentially increase LBC's featureset and user friendliness. This might be more of a FARR feature request since interfacing with FARR is already covered by the existing plugin architecture. It might even require additions to it.

Using FARR as a backend you could let users create command nodes based on searches. Ideally it would probably go something like this. There could be variations on the current Command and Folder/FileContents nodes where the user can either enter the appropriate FARR command directly or launch FARR to create, test, or fine tune it. You could combine multiple commands in a single node, sort alphabetically, and whatever else might be LBC specific.

Farr could also be used to launch programs which would be generally beneficial IMO because there are some things LBC can't seem to launch with the same command line FARR has no trouble with. The Control Panel aliases from FARR are a perfect example. If I use one of those command lines for a LBC command node it doesn't launch on my computer. I'm assuming there's an issue with SysWOW64 redirection because if I don't include the path (ie control.exe vs %windir%\system32\control.exe) it works fine.

At least having an option to launch with FARR would also have the advantage of allowing me to change the command for launching an item on the fly to add or edit switches. Either using FARR directly or copying elements of its search results display could also add the ability to launch with elevated privileges. In fact just generally speaking it would be an upgrade in filesystem integration.

Here's what could really be groundbreaking in any number of ways - both for LBC and FARR. You could share alias files online by simply attaching them to posts here. Other users download them and LBC could present a list of programs it recognizes based on the aliases. Ideally that would mean they should be as universal as possible since the location could be wildly different from one computer to another. Fortunately that suits FARR's featureset perfectly.

Now let's say somebody downloads LBC to try it out. Instead of having to find all their software manually or rely on simply mirroring the Start Menu they LBC/FARR could be able to identify their programs automatically in less time than it takes to learn the basics of the program now. You add an online help feature to type a question into which FARR then uses for a web search.

The default option could be to search the LBC and FARR forums specifically and maybe have some preconfigured searches worded to generate results for alias files or other common topics. Assuming they're getting automatic updates you could even fine tune the searches over time. It would be sort of like a living help system which also has the benefit of leveraging this community.

So let's say a user wants to figure out how to add Open Office to their launchbar. They open the online help dialog, check the box to search for aliases and type in Open Office. LBC sends the appropriate command to FARR to perform the search and then results are listed there. If there aren't any results (or maybe if there are) it returns a link to the forum so they can come and ask for help.

There would definitely be some challenges to address - besides the obvious development questions I mean. It might make sense for LBC to use a different configuration for FARR. With LBC you already have a pretty good idea of the sorts of things people need to find and they might want files to be ignored for LBC that they might want to find normally. It might also make sense to add a special set of toolbar buttons to FARR when it's launched in a LBC help context.

Challenges aside, though, I think the power of FARR could make LBC just as easy to use as it is powerful - and also a lot more powerful.

491

Developer's Corner / Re: Free Online Educational Offering: Major or Minor in Computer Science at Saylor

« on: August 22, 2013, 07:38 AM »

But how receptive will the HR department at a potential employer really be regarding the authenticity of the acquired sheep skin?

-Stoic Joker (August 22, 2013, 06:32 AM)

That's the sad reality in most tech fields. Before anybody knowledgeable enough to judge your qualifications even gets to see your resume it has to make it through the HR screening process. That's why otherwise worthless certifications are such a big deal.

OTOH I'm guessing it might pass muster for a lot of them for more or less the same reason. Unless/until they become well known enough for that to be a red flag (like the University of Phoenix for example) it may just slip by unnoticed.

492

LaunchBar Commander / Re: LATEST LaunchBar Commander VERSION INFO THREAD - v1.136.01 BETA - Aug 18, 2013

« on: August 21, 2013, 04:32 PM »

I've been using the beta for a couple days now without any problems.

I have a lot of (partly conflicting) ideas for feature requests. After 2 days straight sitting at my computer without sleep I'm guessing none of them would be particularly coherent right now. I'll try to remember some times when they are.

493

General Software Discussion / Re: Chrome’s insane password security strategy

« on: August 21, 2013, 02:51 PM »

On the whole I'm not all that bothered about Chrome's lack of password security primarily because I think even the significantly better security in Firefox is insufficent. I mean it's reasonably good all the way up until you use it and from then until you close it not so much. While that's fine for keeping your roommate from accessing your passwords if that's all you're worried about either you're not worried enough about online security or you really need a different roommate.

Personally I use KeePass. Besides storing passwords it also makes for a reasonably secure file container for a few small files I like to keep on my thumb drive which also has KeePass on it. It's also a much better generic solution since it's not limited to entering passwords in browsers and has pretty good functionality for sending information to other programs.

Besides, even if Chrome had a password encryption scheme it would automatically be suspect as long as the NSA has Google at least halfway under their thumb. Which seems to justify my general policy of not trusting anybody to provide me with both cloud services and any type of sensitive information beyond the scope of those services.

494

Living Room / Re: Why you should record video of the everyday people in your life

« on: August 21, 2013, 01:52 PM »

I really should record a lot more video since my visual memory is practically non-existent. I can just barely conjure up an image of my wife or kids. My mom not so much and my dad who died when I was 16 not at all really. I could describe them in mind numbing detail but no pictures. Mostly it's  because my working memory drops almost everything before it's in my head long enough to get to short term memory.

And the only sensory information my brain routinely blocks out is human voices. Except when I'm on the phone or really involved in a conversation I have to concentrate so hard on listening that the focus required to remember is pretty much impossible.

495

General Software Discussion / Re: Replacing the Control Panel

« on: August 21, 2013, 01:42 PM »

It asked for elevated privileges nicely (via a UAC prompt), opened the Windows Features window, put "Please wait..." in the rectangular area below the descriptive bit of text at the top, and I did as it suggested.

-oblivion (August 21, 2013, 12:48 PM)

Great! I asked about the Please wait... text because when it doesn't work in Windows 7 the Please wait... message doesn't show up either - or sometimes it flashes on the screen for just a split second. As long as you see that it should be working.

496

General Software Discussion / Re: Replacing the Control Panel

« on: August 21, 2013, 12:28 PM »

I am not sure what should happened when I run explorer.exe shell:::{67718415-c450-4f3c-bf8a-b487642dc39b} but I used DOPUS as my explorer replacement and it opens my Desktop (I am running Windows XP SP 3).

-dluby (August 21, 2013, 09:42 AM)

In Vista, it opened the add/remove windows features applet and then sat for ages trying to populate it. I gave up waiting, so I don't know if it would have got there eventually. I can confirm that it doesn't work right in XP -- I have a suspicion that this may only work correctly in at least Vista and possibly Win7.

-oblivion (August 21, 2013, 10:32 AM)

Just to make sure we're on the same page, how did you try launching it in Vista? Run dialog, Command prompt, launchbar, etc...? Was any text , like 'Please wait' maybe, displayed over the empty list? Could you open the applet normally from the Control Panel and then try launching it via command again and let me know any differences you notice? Also do you get a UAC prompt in either case? You can also try launching it with the following command line:

[Select]

%windir%\System32\OptionalFeatures.exe

497

General Software Discussion / Re: Replacing the Control Panel

« on: August 21, 2013, 12:10 PM »

I am not sure what should happened when I run explorer.exe shell:::{67718415-c450-4f3c-bf8a-b487642dc39b} but I used DOPUS as my explorer replacement and it opens my Desktop (I am running Windows XP SP 3).

-dluby (August 21, 2013, 09:42 AM)

GUIDs change from one version of Windows to the next. It's been so long since I used XP I had to Google it myself. I'm pretty sure this is right:

[Select]

%windir%\system32\sysocmgr.exe /i:%windir%\inf\sysoc.inf

498

Living Room / Re: Internet freedoms restrained - SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/CETA/PrECISE-related updates

« on: August 21, 2013, 12:00 PM »

Anyone think the figures in the shadows give a crap about how many people die when they force a violent revolution? They won't be on the front lines.

-Renegade (August 21, 2013, 07:26 AM)

It's very unlikely to come to that. When the dust settles they'll probably wish it had. Military might is still fundamentally a financial proposition.

Their downfall will be death by a thousand paper cuts. It won't be the corporations in China ignoring patents and copyrights. It will be the soybean farmers in Argentina and Brazil who are already free from Monsanto's grip. It won't be some other country's military that ends their thousand year Reich. The NSA is already doing their best to convince the rest of the world not to do business with our vastly more important tech sector.

Just because they have unlimited money backed by almost as limitless government thuggery it doesn't mean they have the advantage. In fact they don't. If you're the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world you can't win by outlasting your opponent. Anything less than a crushing victory is a defeat. If you're just some guy off the street all you have to do is keep getting back up.

Their real power isn't tangible assets. It's perception. As long as people believe they're invincible they are. If they can't beat down a collection of every day people scattered around the world who only know each other from places like this they suddenly don't look so invincible. They don't feel so invincible either.

When the NSA wiretapping scandal became public the government barely reacted at all and they looked tough. When Bradley Manning leaked embarrassing classified documents to the world they went on the offensive, making an example out of him as a message to the rest of us. When that didn't stem the tide they started to make an example of anybody with the nerve to cross them. After Ed Snowden outed their secret police state it turned into an act of such overwrought hystrionics professional wrestlers started taking notes.

A war isn't over until one side stops fighting. When shock and awe doesn't work you'd better be prepared to go hand to hand in the trenches. That's something this generation of power elite has never had to do. It's easy to be tough when everything is going your way. When the shit hits the fan you find out hubris, greed, and a sense of entitlement are the only things holding your side together.

The endless parade of talking heads repeating the same talking points over isn't a sign of resolve. It's pure panic. Believe me, I know the feeling all to well. It's what happens when my brain overreacts to a stressful social encounter and my fight or flight reflex kicks in. Just like all those liars in Washington it's too late for me to walk away I either shutdown or meltdown.

When I'm panicked like that I know without a doubt I'm being completely rational but nothing could be further from the truth. If it's a meltdown I just keep repeating the same argument over and over because my most basic survival instinct is in control and all other circuits are literally shut down. It's the reaction of a cornered animal. That's what you're seeing out of Washington. Guys like Mike Rogers and James Clapper know they've been caught and they know how much worse it's going to get.

If this were just politics as usual the lies would be full of loopholes and completely lacking in substance. The focus would be purely on changing the subject. What they wouldn't be doing is repeating the same lie most people saw through a month ago and fewer people believed 2 weeks ago the same day yet another leak is published definitively exposing your lie beyond a shadow of a doubt. You don't get to be Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee without knowing how to be evasive and truthy and you certainly don't rise to the top of the intelligence world unless you're an expert at keeping your damn mouth shut.

499

Living Room / Re: Internet freedoms restrained - SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/CETA/PrECISE-related updates

« on: August 21, 2013, 08:07 AM »

Whatever the country or governing political party, this form of protectionism would rather seem to indicate the actions of a puppet government, to me.

-IainB (August 21, 2013, 03:08 AM)

+1 - Me too. I just wonder when/if our corporate masters will decide to come out of the shadows.

-Stoic Joker (August 21, 2013, 06:43 AM)

They won't come out voluntarily. They just don't happen to realize they're re-enacting the American Revolution, having cast themselves as the British East India Company.

The problem with setting yourself up in an ivory tower is you can't see the mob of angry villagers until they're close enough to tear it down. The question isn't so much whether things are going to change as how bad they'll have to get before it happens. We're pretty close to as bad as I was expecting. We're not quite there yet, but definitely in the neighborhood.

500

Jibz's Tools / Re: Dina font in size 7, 6.5 or 6 ?

« on: August 21, 2013, 06:10 AM »

Thanks cranioscopical .

I am tweaking the 6 point version, and moving some of the changes to the other sizes at the moment. I think it's looking quite good, though it is very dense.

-Jibz (August 21, 2013, 01:46 AM)

On my a 1920x1080 21.5" monitor the 6pt version is crystal clear from 2+ feet away. I'm not one to be impressed by a font but that really is amazing!