Month: June 2009 Page 1 of 2
- (Original): http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/single.php?id=8200
- (Archived): http://www.westerfunk.net/ … common%20language/
“The former cybersecurity director at DHS had some sobering words last week about the battle for cybersecurity. ‘We lost,’ the former director, now chief executive officer of NetWitness Corp., said at the Symantec Government Symposium in Washington. ‘We lost the cyber war over the last 15 years. Our computing environment is already compromised,’ and things are likely to get worse going forward because we do not really understand security. ‘We lack any meaningful metrics or measures to say how secure a system is.’ It no longer is true that the best minds are on the side of the hackers. The dark side of cyberspace has been co-opted by organized crime, entrepreneurs of questionable integrity and, possibly, terrorists. Much of the process of illegal hacking has been mechanized to the point that it involves automation, not innovation. Part of the problem was identified by the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team director. ‘We lack a common language for discussing many of the elements of security. We need to reinvent not only how we do incident response, but how we talk about events,’ the director said at the symposium.”
I just saw this today, sent to me by a co-worker. As much as I would spend on getting yet another HDMI cable and a VGA-to-DVI converter to hook up my laptop to my flat screen, I could pay a little more and go completely wireless while still broadcasting a solid HD signal to the screen. This is the first really cool product I’ve come across that utilizes the relatively new wireless USB standard, sure to blow the bluetooth standard out of the water in capability very soon. I haven’t investigated a whole lot at this point, but I’m sure there are more wireless USB products out there, besides the standard wireless keyboard or mouse. But this is the coolest toy I’ve seen so far. Check it out!
This is outright tyranny. Just like the trillions in bailouts that clearly aren’t working (see Warren Buffett’s comments from today, who himself is a liberal Democrat), this too will be crammed down our throats, without debate, without the consent of the people for whom Congress allegedly works, without any dialog or discussion, under the assumption of an unproven theory that man is causing the Earth to warm. This is simply outrageous. And it will raise costs on everything, especially energy, to levels we likely haven’t seen … and all this at a time when our economy is in one of the worst crises since the Great Depression and on the verge of possibly getting worse for a long time to come. Simply unbelievable. Yet this is the exact kind of nonsense that was warned against before the election. Kay Granger is up in arms on this one.
There are so many reviews that have done a fine job of explaining the pros and cons of this book that I don’t feel I need to go into this for very long.
First, I’ll just say that after reading it, the picture of God’s sovereignty and reasons for ordaining that suffering be are attractive, though in my view, insufficient (see the book of Job or Romans 8 or John Piper for a better explanation). Also, the concept that God the Trinity is eternally happy in Himself (see Jonathan Edwards’ works) is refreshing. The emotional tug of the book (which made me cry at points, it really is a heart breaking story) gives great weight to its attractiveness in a culture absorbed in emotional appeal and presuppositions. Those emotional aspect of the book really caught my attention and I thought Young did a good job of making Mack’s situation enrapturing. I was really able to put myself in his shoes. And it is overwhelming considering the weight of that pain.
- (Original Article): Obama’s hit — and big miss – Camille Paglia
- (Archived Article): Obama’s hit — and big miss – Camille Paglia
It seems the “glory” and mystique of President Obama is all quickly fading. Not for all, but certainly for many. Those intellectual elites who voted for him are finally beginning to have gotten over the great historical and emotional nature of such an amazing election win. Now to the issues. Liberal commentators, even those at Salon.com and (oddly enough) MSNBC (at least in this one video), are beginning to actually start looking at issues through an intellectual grid instead of blinding emotional infatuation. Of course, with the exception of the Brian Williams of the countryside.
Camille Paglia has written a piece on Salon.com that makes some great points concerning Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo last week. She goes after several other points as well. But what really caught my attention was that her analysis of his assumptions of the three major religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) couldn’t have been better stated by many conservatives. She has a way with words. I want to quote the best parts and let you read the rest. Great article.
For most people, when the word sin is spoken, it is used either in a metaphorical sense or applied to people like Bernie Madoff, Hitler or Stalin, or used for exaggeration purposes, depending on the situation. When we consider our bad behavior or even the intentional harm we’ve caused others, we think of these things mainly in terms of mistakes, accidents or wrongs toward other people in particular … but sin? No, we’re not that bad! (Being facetious of course).
In our time, when we apply the word sin to ourselves in a serious manner, you will sometimes get a funny look. For instance, tell the average person you’re a sinner and it’s probable they will start wondering what major wrong you committed, or in other situations they will just say, “Oh, we’ve all made mistakes,” which is to say, it’s okay to sweep it under the rug, what’s past is past, no need to rehash something that can be left dead. Just move on!
All of the aforementioned situations presume a specific relationship in which the “mistake” plays out: between other people. But the question we must ask that is of the utmost importance is, what is sin as God defines it in His Word? Man has a definition of sin many times, and particularly in our society it is just a mistake or accident or it is very grave, depending on how you use it. But is man’s definition of sin Biblical? Is the relationship of offenses simply limited to other people? Paul lays out clearly what sin is in the book of Romans. Of course sins are committed against other people. But is that where it stops and is that the heart of what sin really is?