Mat: Just a note about your tag. The dark ages were dark due to a lack of light. There are several proposed reasons for the long winters and dark skies, but the evidence is very firm, the dark ages were dark, cold, and damp in Europe.
There was scant light for growing food, severe famines, and rampant diseases. The dark ages were dark because man was not the master of his environment. The next catastrophe will tell if we have done any better. Check records on growth rings for trees during the periods from 11,000 to the late 13,000's. The records of ice accumulation during the period known as the "dark ages" tell quite a story as well. These were not a people givin to philosophy, or deep thought. They were struggling to survive and largly failing. They called it dark becuase they had heard thet the sun used to shine. The rebirth, was just that. Not to pour cold water on a 14th century philosopher, just because they were all pompus and thick, he just happened to be wrong as well as thick and pompus. By the by, Michner didn't coin the phrase, he borrowed it from Chaucer. Chaucer wrote in Middle English, so Michner thought he would get away with it, and largely did. Oddly enough, Chaucer was paraprasing a monk from just a hundred or two hundred years before and screwed it up, so I suppose Michner can be forgiven. Happens my wife has a degree in Middle English and spotted it. Since Chaucer "borrowed" a lot of what he wrote, who should point fingers? Just a nerd note from left field. Doug --- Mat Branyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Granted the government might not be all too bright, I think they > would > filter your email more than that, to make sure you were stating > that > think the president should be bombed, not talking about a movie. > China > does this, and the government reports that thier people are quite > happy. > > P.S. If you dont hear from me in a week, assume the worst. > > --mat || An age is called Dark not because the light fails to > shine, but > because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space" > > > On Tue, 2002-12-24 at 19:17, Doug wrote: > > I second that notion. > > > > Abbott Mujica wrote: > > > > >excuse my french... fuck bush... what an ass! why? its pointless > since thats what people dont want.. do you want someone hiding in > your bushes monitoring your house because in an email you said that > that movie was "The Bomb" jesus christ! there is no need for that > junk > > > > > >On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 07:16:02 -0600 > > >John Hebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>December 20, 2002 > > >>White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet > > >>By JOHN MARKOFF and JOHN SCHWARTZ > > >> > > >> > > >>he Bush administration is planning to propose requiring > Internet service > > >>providers to help build a centralized system to enable broad > monitoring of > > >>the Internet and, potentially, surveillance of its users. > > >> > > >>The proposal is part of a final version of a report, "The > National Strategy > > >>to Secure Cyberspace," set for release early next year, > according to several > > >>people who have been briefed on the report. It is a component > of the effort > > >>to increase national security after the Sept. 11 attacks. > > >> > > >>The President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board is > preparing the > > >>report, and it is intended to create public and private > cooperation to > > >>regulate and defend the national computer networks, not only > from everyday > > >>hazards like viruses but also from terrorist attack. Ultimately > the report > > >>is intended to provide an Internet strategy for the new > Department of > > >>Homeland Security. > > >> > > >>Such a proposal, which would be subject to Congressional and > regulatory > > >>approval, would be a technical challenge because the Internet > has thousands > > >>of independent service providers, from garage operations to > giant > > >>corporations like American Online, AT&T, Microsoft and > Worldcom. > > >> > > >>The report does not detail specific operational requirements, > locations for > > >>the centralized system or costs, people who were briefed on the > document > > >>said. > > >> > > >>While the proposal is meant to gauge the overall state of the > worldwide > > >>network, some officials of Internet companies who have been > briefed on the > > >>proposal say they worry that such a system could be used to > cross the > > >>indistinct border between broad monitoring and wiretap. > > >> > > >>Stewart Baker, a Washington lawyer who represents some of the > nation's > > >>largest Internet providers, said, "Internet service providers > are concerned > > >>about the privacy implications of this as well as liability," > since > > >>providing access to live feeds of network activity could be > interpreted as a > > >>wiretap or as the "pen register" and "trap and trace" systems > used on phones > > >>without a judicial order. > > >> > > >>Mr. Baker said the issue would need to be resolved before the > proposal could > > >>move forward. > > >> > > >>Tiffany Olson, the deputy chief of staff for the President's > Critical > > >>Infrastructure Protection Board, said yesterday that the > proposal, which > > >>includes a national network operations center, was still in > flux. She said > > >>the proposed methods did not necessarily require gathering data > that would > > >>allow monitoring at an individual user level. > > >> > > >>But the need for a large-scale operations center is real, Ms. > Olson said, > > >>because Internet service providers and security companies and > other online > > >>companies only have a view of the part of the Internet that is > under their > > >>control. > > >> > > >>"We don't have anybody that is able to look at the entire > picture," she > > >>said. "When something is happening, we don't know it's > happening until it's > > >>too late." > > >> > > >>The government report was first released in draft form in > September, and > > >>described the monitoring center, but it suggested it would > likely be > > >>controlled by industry. The current draft sets the stage for > the government > > >>to have a leadership role. > > >> > > >>The new proposal is labeled in the report as an "early-warning > center" that > > >>the board says is required to offer early detection of > Internet-based > > >>attacks as well as defense against viruses and worms. > > >> > > >>But Internet service providers argue that its data-monitoring > functions > > >>could be used to track the activities of individuals using the > network. > > >> > > >>An official with a major data services company who has been > briefed on > > >>several aspects of the government's plans said it was hard to > see how such > > >>capabilities could be provided to government without the > potential for > > >>real-time monitoring, even of individuals. > > >> > > >>"Part of monitoring the Internet and doing real-time analysis > is to be able > > >>to track incidents while they are occurring," the official > said. > > >> > > >>The official compared the system to Carnivore, the Internet > wiretap system > > >>used by the F.B.I., saying: "Am I analogizing this to > Carnivore? Absolutely. > > >>But in fact, it's 10 times worse. Carnivore was working on much > smaller > > >>feeds and could not scale. This is looking at the whole > Internet." > > >> > > >>One former federal Internet security official cautioned against > drawing > > >>conclusions from the information that is available so far about > the Securing > > >>Cyberspace report's conclusions. > > >> > > >>Michael Vatis, the founding director of the National Critical > Infrastructure > > >>Protection Center and now the director of the Institute for > Security > > >>Technology Studies at Dartmouth, said it was common for > proposals to be cast > > >>in the worst possible light before anything is actually known > about the > > >>technology that will be used or the legal framework within > which it will > > >>function. > > >> > > >>"You get a firestorm created before anybody knows what, > concretely, is being > > >>proposed," Mr. Vatis said. > > >> > > >>A technology that is deployed without the proper legal controls > "could be > > >>used to violate privacy," he said, and should be considered > carefully. > > >> > > >>But at the other end of the spectrum of reaction, Mr. Vatis > warned, "You end > > >>up without technology that could be very useful to combat > terrorism, > > >>information warfare or some other harmful act." > > >> > > >> > === message truncated === ===== Warmest Regards, Doug Riddle http://www.dougriddle.com http://fossile-project.sourceforge.net/ http://www.libranet.com -- "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the Peoples' Liberty Teeth." - George Washington -- __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
