CRM News: Best of ECT News: Is CRM Feasible on Open Source?

Debian Linux Tutorial - Guide On How To Install Linux Software for Servers and Network Installation and Set Up for Beginners with Instructions On How To Configure A Home Server

MSNBC - Missing: A Laptop of DEA Informants A store near me sells used computers, including laptops by the hundreds, mostly obtained at government auctions. Some of these systems are in "mint" condition, but all are new enough and fast enough to be still usable systems. Laptops in particular are available to government workers advanced in rank. Some have to "justify" their need for a laptop, others just get them because they hold down a specific job. At my last contracting position, laptops were reported missing from the main headquarters building (I won't say which one) on a regular basis. While the security on the building was fairly tight, it was a matter if YOU qualified to get in or out of the building, they didn't care much what you were carrying. So I had the impression of laptops leaking through the federal bureaucracy like a sieve, being stolen, not by common criminals, but by the bureaucrats themselves, or by contract workers. Why would someone need to take a database such as this home with them? Why would you trust this data to a laptop rather than securing it on a server? The selling point of laptops is NOT as a storage device, laptop hard drives being among the most vulnerable to damage from being dropped or even bumped at the wrong time. My guess is that this story does not present the exception, but the rule when it comes to handling data, both sensitive and otherwise.

The Connection Excellent article. Short response to it: If I were more a partisan than an American I'd feel tickled pink about this. I'm so tired of arm-chair version of Sherlock Holmes who attempt to draw inferences from headlines alone. Bush family in the Oil business? Then Iraq must be about oil! The fact is these infantile theories of cause and effect are easy to foist on the American voter, especially one who doesn't spend a whole lot of time doing their own research. "Well, if Move-On put it on their web page then it's good enough for me." And Ben and Jerry's DOES say we are spending too many Oreo cookies on the military. Maybe it's time to go get ice cream! But there are other speculations that don't come so easy. That doesn't make them any less likely to be true. My wondering always goes quickly to motive, and past performance. Sadaam had plenty of motivation against th US. He DID threaten the US, Bush Sr. and anyone else who got in his way. That WAS his way. And it won't be surprising to see (eventually) a flood of evidence that he was either behind or at least involved with several plots against the US. What if this all could have been prevented by going on to Baghdad in the first Iraqi war? Will we get a Mea Culpa from those involved in that decision? More importantly will we get at least an apology from those like Al Gore and John Kerry who are attempting to make so much political hay over the issue? One or both of them might actually be in high office by then, and it would at least be refreshing for those of us who are not convinced yet to hear just exactly what would they be doing differently. In Sherlock Holmes stories almost all of his inferential leaps are correct, even when he later admits to guessing. In the real world it is hardly ever so. Time to stop guessing and start planning, and if you don't like the plan that's in operation now, present an alternative! No hand waving, details please.

"Armchair Provocateur" by Peter BergenCounterpoint

Q&A with Laurie Mylroie on Bush vs. the Beltway on National Review OnlineIbid

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United StatesPossibly interesting testimony. Also todays C-Span Washington Journal: Here.

Chomsky Backpedals on "Silent Genocide" in Afghanistan: "In December, Noam Chomsky continued to spin his 2001 claim that U.S. military action in Afghanistan constituted a 'silent genocide' that would result in millions of deaths in that country. Chomsky wants to engage in Clinton-esque parsing of his words, so lets revisit what Chomsky said prior to the U.S. initiation of hostilities against Afghanistan."

The New York Times Critiques it's own coverage of Iraq: "Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all." Recommendation to New York Times. When a reporter screws up badly, you fire them (remember?) and even in that case (you DO remember don't you?) higher ups "resigned to persue other interest". So, if indeed, you think you contributed to the Iraqi war, which you now think should have never been started, then SURELY this is an appropriate time to fire someone. If on the other hand this is just leftist politics as usual, no one will be fired, demoted or even reprimanded. And I'd guess in about a year you will be claiming clairvoyance for those earlier article when WMD are found, in abundance. Your mission right now as is the case with so many others, and as is so transparent, is to defeat George Bush. Accuracy in reporting is the last thing on your mind.

Yahoo! News - Tests Confirm Sarin Gas in Baghdad Bomb

USATODAY.com - Santa Fe rethinking doggie seat belt proposal Amessage from the road to hell department.

WEES Radio 107.9 FM

Pew Survey Finds Moderates, Liberals Dominate News Outlets They had to take a survey to figure this out?

CRM Daily: NewsFactor Network - Marketing Automation - Gmail Free, But for a Price Someone needs to start a new list of clueless people and organizations that are buying this concept of a privacy issue with Google's new Gmail. Let's get this straight: Unless you encrypt your e-mail it's not private, or secure. How many times have you heard that FTP is not secure? If you work with computer networks AT ALL, the answer is: A LOT. Thats because FTP sends your password from the client to the server in un-encrypted form. New version of FTP correct this by encrypting the password. Similarly, secure web transaction involved the entire page, and everything you type into a form on that page being encrypted. As everyone SHOULD know by now, things zipping to and fro on the internet are subject to snooping. The bits and bytes pass thought a lot of equipment owned by many different people and theoretically, any one of them could be siphoning off traffic for good or evil purposes. That means, TA DA: nobodies e-mail is secure or private. Unless, that is, you take measures to make it so, namely encrypting it. How many people encrypt their email? I don't. I don't even digitally sign mine (although I have in the past just to play with the concept). But at least one air-headed state congressperson from California (of all places) wants to pass a law against Gmail. Duh. And it seems several technical publication (who should know better) seem to not have all their fact straight either. Oddly enough the publication mentioned here is in California too. Coincidence? I think not. Ban California!

Test post by mail

This is a test of the post by mail system. Had this been an actual post, it would be a lot more interesting. Or something.

Yahoo! News - A bit of perspective, please: "It is said that the images from Abu Ghraib blur the moral difference between America and Saddam Hussein. This reflects the moral obtuseness of those who say such things. Moral obtuseness, of course, is an art form for many in Europe, who consistently ignore the crimes of terrorists. Such people, in the words of Raymond Aron, are 'merciless toward the failings of the democracies but ready to tolerate the worst crimes, as long as they are committed in the name of the proper doctrine.'"

CNN.com - Microsoft strikes back - Mar 31, 2004 HA! (it's a spoof)

The New York Times > Technology > Google Moves Toward a Direct Confrontation With Microsoft: "Google's software, which is expected to be introduced soon, according to several people with knowledge of the company's plans, is the clearest indication to date that the company, based in Mountain View, Calif., hopes to extend its search business to compete directly with Microsoft's control of desktop computing."

The New York Times > Health > U.S. Speeding Up Approval Steps for AIDS DrugsAs Andrew Sullivan points out, Bush has done more for AIDs research in 3 years than Clinton did in 8, but the left won't give him credit.

LinuxWorld Exclusive: Linus Torvalds Makes Startling Admission, Discloses *Real* Fathers of Linux (LinuxWorld)