Southern Bread Blog

I’m a network administrator by trade so I deal with online security issues pretty much daily. After reading Brian Krebs recent post on tips for safe online holiday shopping I figured I’d tweak his list a bit and post it here. I didn’t agree on a couple of points, but most of his tips are good ones. So here goes.

1. Shop with a credit card, not a debit card. The procedures for dealing with fraudulent credit card activities are much more entrenched(and easier to deal with) since credit cards have been around for years. Debit cards are still a relatively new thing, and since they are tied to your actual checking account can be a mess to sort out if checks have bounced or payments have been missed. Credit cards still offer a layer of protection that debit cards don’t.

2. Use Firefox. This could have been number one on the list. I suggest all home users use Firefox at all times, instead of Internet Explorer. And, with online shopping, it’s even more important. The fact is, Internet Explorer remains the single biggest target for viruses and spyware in existence. To get Firefox just go to http://www.mozilla.org and download it.

3. Look for the padlock symbol. The presence of this symbol: in your browser’s address bar means that the purchase you are about to make is encrypted as it travels across the internet.

4. Avoid prices that are way out of line. What I mean is, if the price seems to be way higher or lower than market price then move on. What you will find is that most of the time these low prices are accompanied by ridiculously high shipping rates to compensate. Extremely low prices are a sign that all is not right with this vendor.

5. Don’t rush. Take your time when making a purchase from an online vendor that you’ve never dealt with before. Step through each page and read all the fine print during checkout.

6. Use different passwords. If you are making a purchase from a new vendor and they require “registration” or that you set up an account with them, don’t use a common password. Use a different password for each account. I know it’s a pain, but you can write them down and keep them in a desk drawer or something to make it easier. Having the same password on all of your website accounts is a major security risk for you.

7. Use one-time use e-credit cards if you can. I use these all the time through paypal. Basically, you can generate credit card numbers that are tied to your paypal account. These numbers are only valid for one transaction. That way, if someone hacks your account at that particular site all they will get is a useless card number. Paypal offers these numbers as do many banks.

8. Check seller ratings. If you are dealing with a vendor that you’ve never heard of before, consider looking them up on a rating service such as bizrate.com or pricegrabber.com.

Hope these help. Shop safe and keep your radar up. If something seems fishy just close your browser and don’t go back to the site.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/the_gulf/article6934261.ece

I mean, seriously, who’s surprised that Dubai is now mired in a debt they can’t pay off? Funny how building the worlds tallest building, man-made islands you can see from space, the world’s largest mall and an indoor ski resort will do that to you.

Government Debt, Exhibit A:

It’s the day of the Iron Bowl, when all Alabamians lose their collective minds. War Eagle!

The media is buzzing with the so-called “climategate” scandal. If you haven’t heard about this you can catch up on it here and here. The long and short of it is that some hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia have been disclosed to the public and reveal the smoking gun that global warming skeptics have been looking for. In these emails are conversations amongst climate researchers on how to skew data to show warming and how to suppress that information through document destruction. But that’s not the worst part, in my opinion. The major cause of concern in the emails is the glaring attempt to exclude climate change skeptics from the peer-review process at the highest levels.

For instance:

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

–James Delingpole, UK Telegraph

It struck me when I first read this section of the article that this is the exact thing that the intelligent design camp has been saying for years now. Michael Behe even documented his peer-review nightmare here. Intelligent design scientists have been systematically shut out of the peer-review process by being disallowed from the big journals, such as Nature, for years. Michael Behe isn’t the only one. If you haven’t heard of the whole “Sternberg” affair, go and check it out here. The idea that the peer-review system is some type of open process is just a total myth. Robert Higgs wrote about this back in 2007 for Nature:

Journalists, politicians and advocacy groups refer to “peer-reviewed research” and “scientific consensus” as the authoritative last words on controversial matters involving the natural sciences, from climate change to stem-cell research and genetically engineered foods. But many people have an unrealistic view of how the scientific community actually works.

The peer-review process is not, contrary to popular belief, a nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny. Any editor of a peer-reviewed journal who desires to reject or accept a submission can easily do so by choosing appropriate referees.

Unfortunately, personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and irresponsibility are as much part of the scientific world as any other. Peer review cannot ensure that research is correct in its procedures and conclusions. A part of the work in every discipline—from the physical sciences to economics—consists of correcting previous mistakes.
At any given time, “scientific consensus” may exist about various matters. Over time, however, new interpretations, tests or observations may demolish that consensus. For instance, in the mid-1970s, an apparent scientific consensus existed that our planet was about to enter another Ice Age. Drastic proposals, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over polar icecaps to melt them. and damming the Bering Strait to prevent icy waters from entering the Pacific, were put forth by reputable scientists and seriously considered by the US government.

The truth is that scientific research at the upper echelons occurs within a fairly small world. Leading researchers attend the same conferences, belong to the same societies, review one another’s work for funding organizations, and so forth. If you do not belong to this tight fraternity, it becomes extremely difficult to gain a hearing for your work, to publish in a “top” journal, to acquire a government grant, to receive an invitation to participate in a scientific conference, or even to place your grad students in decent positions.

“Scientific consensus” often emerges because the members of this exclusive club, and those who support them, have too much invested in the reigning ideas to let go. In this context, it behooves bright young scientists not to rock the boat by challenging anything fundamental or dear to the hearts of those who constitute review committees of funders or journals. The terms “peer review” and “scientific consensus” often serve to suggest a process of disinterested neutrality and saintly pursuit of truth. Like every other human endeavour, however, science is conducted by people with the full range of human emotions and motives.

Good rules of thumb for the non-scientist might be the following: government-funded research that is used to justify that government’s policy should be suspect, whether or not it’s peer-reviewed; and the research of scientists who appear at press conferences in the company of politicians or activists whose agendas they are there to support should be suspect, whether or not the work upholds the consensus opinion.

–Bob Higgs, The Beacon

While I think that it’s great that global warming is in it’s death throws, I think the bigger lesson here is that whenever we hear the words “scientific consensus” it should immediately trigger our skeptic reflex. Science is an ongoing process of revolution and paradigm shift. It always has been. Today’s solid theory is tommorrows waste basket liner. Consensus in world of science is worth about as much as it is in the economics profession. That is to say, not much.

I don’t do facebook, even though almost every friend and family member I know does. The reason? Well, at first it was for the same reason that I have never seen the movie Titanic. My rebellious streak. But, now days it’s mostly because I’m pretty sure I don’t want to plaster my personal info all over the web. I don’t really want everybody in the world knowing what’s going on in my personal life minute by minute. I mean, I understand the appeal and all but I just don’t like the exposure that comes with those social networking sites. For every friend and nice guy on there you’re gonna find ten creeps and wierdos.

But, it’s not just creeps and wierdos you have to worry about now. It’s the cops too:

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse student Adam Bauer has nearly 400 friends on Facebook. He got an offer for a new one about a month ago. “She was a good-looking girl. I usually don’t accept friends I don’t know, but I randomly accepted this one for some reason,” the 19-year-old said.

He thinks that led to his invitation to come down to the La Crosse police station, where an officer laid out photos from Facebook of Bauer holding a beer — and then ticketed him for underage drinking.

The police report said Bauer admitted drinking, which he denies. But he did plead no contest in municipal court Wednesday and will pay a $227 fine.

He was among at least eight people who said Wednesday they had been cited for underage drinking based on photos on social networking sites.

“I just can’t believe it. I feel like I’m in a science fiction movie, like they are always watching. When does it end?” Bauer said after court Wednesday.

Social networking sites are among many new tools law enforcement has adopted to find underage drinkers, said La Crosse police officer Al Iverson, who works in alcohol compliance and education.

“Law enforcement has to evolve with technology,” Iverson said. “It has to happen. It is a necessity —not just for underage drinking.”

Social networking sites are used to catch sexual predators as well, he noted.

–KJ Lang, Lacrosse Tribune

[HT David Kramer @ LRC]

It’s that last sentence that really chaps my hide. You see, that’s how it always starts. We begin to give up liberties and freedoms to our police overlords to protect us from legitimate moral crimes like sexual abuse. They then take those newly forfeited liberties and use them for other things that have nothing to do with the original intent. I don’t think children should drink alcohol. But I also don’t think that a 19 year old drinking a beer in his dorm is any of the state’s business, regardless of what the “law” says. We can send that same young man over to the middle-east to blow the heads off Arabs but we won’t let him drink a beer.

This is just another example of how, when it comes to giving up liberty, you can’t just look at whats “acceptable” right now. You have to think years down the line and consider what the authorities are going to do with that power you hand them. Because they always find ways to abuse it. Always.

I just got back from the EPS conference last night. We had a great time and learned a lot. It was held in New Orleans, LA and hosted by the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. I had never been there so it was a neat experience to see the campus. It looks like a nice place.

All in all, I would say that the speakers were excellent. We only had one bad lecture and it was from Doug Geivett. I don’t want to desparage Dr. Geivett as an apologist in any way, but his particular talk was on the verge of horrible. It was rambling, way off-topic and, most disturbingly, exposed a severe lack of understanding of economics. His basic premise(when he finally got to it) was that when the country is made up of traditional families, that somehow makes our economic outlook better. He attributed this to “long term vision” that is natural in a traditional family(i.e., mom, dad, kids, no divorce, etc.). This is woefully simplistic and just shows a non-familiarity with basic economics.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m all for mom, dad, kids, no divorce, etc. I think that’s the ideal situation that all families should strive for. My beef is with saying that this is a driving factor in economic stability. He actually blamed the housing bubble/recession on a lack of family values. If that was the case then think about this. The 1920′s – 1940′s was probably the era of the most widespread traditional family values the country has ever seen. And yet we had the Great Depression. It doesn’t matter what type of families dominate the landscape. If the government comes in and rapes the economy then it’s going to cause economic problems. Bad ones.

Anyway, I was just disappointed to see such a lack of economic understanding in the upper ranks of Christian Philosophy and Apologetics circles. It would do Biola/Talbot a lot of good to hook up with The Mises Institute and bring some basic economics into their catalog.

I’m at the EPS(Evangelical Philosophical Society) conference today, Friday and Saturday so I’ll do sparse blogging. JP Moreland kicked off the conference tonight with a good keynote address that was very thought provoking. He talked about the need for Christians to properly claim our positions as knowledge instead of simply beliefs. The other speaker we heard tonight was Dr. Craig Keener from Palmer Theological Seminary. His talk on the historical reliability of the Gospels was fantastic. He has an excellent personal story as well. Check him out.

One disturbing trend that goes mostly un-talked about is the way police have been empowered to such an extent that they see themselves as above the law. Exhibits A-ZZZZ can be seen on William Grigg’s blog Pro Libertate. The latest glaring example of police malfeasons comes from Arkansas, where a cop tazed a 10 year-old girl for throwing a tantrum after her mother called the police on her:

OZARK, Ark. — Ozark Police Chief Jim Noggle says one of his officers used a Taser on a 10-year-old girl who was combative when the officer tried to get the girl into a patrol car to be taken to a youth shelter.

Noggle said Tuesday that officer Dustin Bradshaw went to the girl’s home after her mother called police woman called police.

According to a report filed by Bradshaw on Thursday, the officer found the girl on the floor of the house screaming and crying. She refused to follow her mother’s instructions and the mother told Bradshaw to use his Taser.

Bradshaw carried the girl to the living room and told her she was going to jail, according to the report. The girl was violently kicking, the report said, and struck Bradshaw in the groin with her legs and feet. The report said Bradshaw administered a “very, very brief” stun with the Taser, put the girl in handcuffs and carried her to his patrol car. She was taken to the Western Arkansas Youth Shelter in Cecil.

–General, AP

Ask yourself why the crap a police officer is even intervening in a dispute such as this. And, it’s clear that the reason the cop tazed the young girl was because she had kicked him. He tazed her purely out of anger. And he’s allowed to do this because the state has blessed him with the un-checked right to carry a weapon. And when we are in his presence, we are supposed to forfit our own weapons to him. Think about that for a moment. What happens when you give one group of people complete physical dominance over another group? That’s called slavery.

Mr. Grigg points out further details about this story on his post at Lew Rockwell about it:

Officer Dustin Bradshaw of the Ozark, Arkansas Police Department “had no choice” but to shoot a 10-year-old girl with a Taser and then arrest her, insisted Chief Jim Noggle.

The girl’s parents are currently separated. When the emotionally troubled child had a tantrum, the mother, Kelly Hamlert, called the police. Bradshaw’s official report claims that Hamlert told him to electro-torture the child if he “needed” to.

Some might recall that, just a few years ago, a Florida man named Douglas Dycus was charged with felony child abuse and domestic battery when he used a home-made electric stun gun to deal with a misbehaving 14-year-old boy. One would think that a similar criminal charge would be filed against someone who electro-tortured a 10-year-old girl, albeit by proxy.

One would think so. And one would be wrong — because when the state’s armed enforcers subject a small child to such torture, that’s not “child abuse,” but rather a law enforcement decision.

Savor, if you find its flavor palatable, this official admission that the fully-grown, armed “men” employed as Ozark’s “Finest” can be threatened by 10-year-old girls.

“If you can’t pick the kid up and take her to your car, handcuff her, then I don’t think you need to be an officer,” commented Anthony Medlock, the girl’s father. That assumes, of course, that arresting and handcuffing a 10-year-old girl is an appropriate reaction to a temper tantrum. Medlock doesn’t think this is the case, complaining that Bradshaw treated his child “like a dog.”

Officer Bradshaw of Ozark, Arkansas handled this problem with the same professional restraint displayed by Officer Joey Williams of the Hot Springs, Arkansas P.D.; Williams was caught on video strangling a 12-year-old girl during an ant-skateboarding crackdown.

–William Grigg, LRC

The days when policemen were helpful friends to the community is over. Ask yourself, when was the last time a policemen actually helped you with a problem? I can’t remember one. But, I can remember plenty of times I’ve been harassed with speeding tickets for going 10 mph over the limit, or told to get the ____ out of the way when a cop needed to get by me in a crowd. The police have been granted so much power by the state that they have become a problem in and of themselves instead of a solution to a problem.

I remember when my house got robbed about 10 years ago. The policeman basically said there was nothing they could do from the get go to get any of my stuff back or track down the people who did it. He basically just wasted my time for an hour filling out a report that would get stuffed in a file cabinet and never looked at again. It’s about time we looked at just what benefit all this police power is giving us. Or is it all just creating a new, bigger problem than the crime it is supposed to be fixing. I think that’s the case.

Check out this video and ask yourself exactly what gives this cop the right to body slam a teenager and choke a teenage girl for skateboarding on the sidewalk:

It doesn’t matter if you think that skateboarding on the sidewalk is a nuisance. If you think that somehow these kids “deserved” this treatment then what you are, in effect, saying is that it’s ok for brutal force to be employed by the state to stop behaviour that you don’t like. Well, guess what. Maybe somebody doesn’t like some of your behaviour. Are you ready to submit to a body slam, choking and tazing?

Here’s Schiff making more sense on the education treadmill. Big Education is ripping off millions of young people every year. They’ve successfully duped millions of American parents into thinking that their kids are going to be complete losers if they only have a high school diploma. And the kids have either bought into that same idea, or else they don’t care and just want to go along with the system so they can avoid responsibility for longer. And from all that the education establishment is raking in billions and pumping out graduates with masters degrees who end up flipping burgers at McDonalds and praying they can find a job before the first student loan payment comes due.

Just to keep things in perspective a bit, the healthcare bill that passed the house costs more than the total GDP of 177 countries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29

Call me skeptical for thinking it’s a good idea to pass a bill that costs more than the entire GDP of Australia and Mexico.