People Are More Honest About Religion In An Online Survey Than A Telephone Survey

Most polls asking Americans about religion are done over the telephone -- where respondents are asked to answer questions posed by another real person. This brings up a question -- are the respondents telling the truth, or are they giving the questioner the answer they think they want to hear?

There is a lot of pressure put on people in this country to be a part of the dominant religion, and it is not uncommon for those who don't go along with that (and at least pose as being religious) to be pressured, denigrated, or even shunned. It would not be beyond the realm of possibility for at least some people to give the expected answer instead of the truth so they can avoid any possible repercussions.

And a May 2014 study done by Daniel Cox, Dr. Robert P. Jones, and Juhem Navarro-Rivera for the Public Religion Research Institute shows that this is indeed the case. They compared surveys done over the telephone with online surveys (where people are truly anonymous), and they found that people are more willing to give a negative response about religion (and probably more truthful) in the anonymity of an online poll instead of a telephone poll when they are talking to a person.

The charts above reflect the difference between a telephone poll and an online poll. Note that this is true of not only all adults, but every group. This means we probably should view telephone polls on religion with a jaundiced eye -- and subtract a few points from positive responses and add them to the negative responses.

Oddly enough, this is true even of those claiming no affiliation with an organized religion. One would think those people would be more willing to give a negative response to religious questions, but some of them also feel intimidated when talking to a person over the phone -- and are much more comfortable giving a truthful answer in an online poll.

Are You Really Surprised About This ?

(The cartoon above is by Stuart Carlson at Carlsontoons.com.)

For the last few weeks there has been a story that some in the press have considered important -- and which has outraged some in Congress (or at least they are acting that way). It is that China has been hacking computers in the United States, trying to learn some secrets our government would rather they didn't know. Of course, the Chinese deny that they have done any hacking.

Now Edward Snowden, the person who made public the NSA's spying on American citizens through telecommunications companies, says that the United States government has been hacking into computers of other countries -- and one of the primary targets of that hacking is China. I'm sure it won't be long before the U.S. government also denies that computer hacking.

Which brings me to my headline question -- is anyone really surprised by either of these stories? Of course the United States has been hacking into the computers of other countries (and it's probably with our friends as well as enemies) -- and China is doing the same thing. And they are not alone. You can be sure that the Russians, Israelis, English, French, Germans, and any other country with sophisticated enough technology is doing the same thing.

Countries have been spying on each other for thousands of years now. Computer hacking is just a new tool to use to do that spying, and it would take a very dim-witted person to think that any country with the technology wouldn't use that technology to help in their intelligence (spying) efforts. Countries have always used the best available technology to aid in spying on other countries -- and they will continue to do so in the future.

Is it proper or ethical? No, it is not. But spying has never been proper or ethical, and it will not stop because people are surprised or outraged. It's just the way things are -- and all we can do is try to develop and use effective counter-measures (while knowing they will never be 100% effective, just like past counter-intelligence efforts were not always successful).

Theft Of Election Foiled By Anonymous ?

On October 27th, I posted about alleged election rigging that has possibly been going on for several elections (that would flip 10% of votes from one candidate to his opponent -- enough to swing a close election). Supposedly, this was even done in the Republican primary to help Romney win, and it was done only in very large counties with lots of votes (because the manipulation of votes would be less obvious in a large county).

Evidently some people believed this was happening, or at least could be happening -- the hacker group known as Anonymous. On November 1st, I wrote that Anonymous had published a public letter warning Karl Rove not to try and steal the election through any kind of digital manipulation. They told him they would be watching, and he would be caught if he tried anything nefarious.

Did Rove try to steal the election? Possibly. The letter above is purportedly from Anonymous (and was sent to the website Wonkette). We know the Republicans had a computer system called ORCA, which they claimed was to help them get out the vote (and which failed miserably on election day). The letter claims that ORCA had a dark side, which would allow it to tap into computers in at least three states to change votes -- and that Anonymous blocked the computer portals to those states by hacking in to the GOP computer system and erecting a firewall to prevent access on election day, insuring an honest election.

Did this really happen? Did Rove and his minions set up a system to steal votes, only to have it blocked by Anonymous? I honestly don't know (being barely computer literate myself). But I believe it is possible, and if it did happen, I hope they go ahead and release the information to the world. Here is an interesting take on the situation by Nathaniel Downes over at Addicting Info:

While some might consider this a random letter, or a jump to claim responsibility, if you step back and study the letter carefully a very clear message comes out.

They cite specific numbers. They state precisely how many tunnels are there. They cite how many passwords were attempted. But, there are key words which look innocent but, to a computer engineer, are very much a trigger.

These phrases are (our emphasis):

We noticed these tunnels were strategically placed to allow for tunnel rats to race to the sewer servers from three different states.

Now, to a normal person a rat is just that: a furry animal or a slang term for a scoundrel. But to a computer person, a rat is something radically different, a r.a.t. hack. The Remote Administration Tool hack is a method of remotely accessing a machine as if it were local. Using such a hack, you would have full access to the machine, at a level someone physically at the machine may not have. A “sewer server” is a term used to denote a hack over a secured tunnel, known as a Secured SHell (SSH), using a form of encryption designed to make it appear to be innocent background traffic.

This is not some general discussion, making claims in order to claim. They have released clear and specific details on what exactly was done, information which the people behind Orca can verify. Even more telling, however, is the name the group used for their denial of service attack:

The Great Oz

“Oz” refers to the land in the classic movie, The Wizard of Oz; more currently, it refers to the television show Oz,which is about a prison. And the actions the group took was to attempt to hack the election into jail, locking it away. It broke, absolutely. We reported on the failures of Orca and its public face earlier. What Anonymous is claiming is that Orca’s public face was a farce, a lie. It was not to coordinate poll challengers so much as to steal the election.

The little cherry on top, however, is the hint that Anonymous not only blocked the operation, but kept copies of the code and data from Orca and are planning on leaking it to wikilinks. If and when this happens, you know AI will be there.

Are We Already At War With Iran ?

Some of you may be shocked at my title question. After all, hasn't the president done all that he can to avoid war with Iran? Hasn't he joined with the European countries to put economic pressure on Iran, in an effort to avoid attacking them? Well yes, he has done that -- but that may just be a cover for the much more aggressive actions this country has initiated.

We already know about the American rocket that killed civilians in Iran. According to the government, that rocket was meant to explode in Iraq and just went awry. And then there's the matter of the drones we have been sending over Iran. One of them was actually shot down by the Iranians, so we can't deny doing that anymore. Again, the official story is that they just got off course.

But there is another matter that is even more serious -- an intentional attack on Iranian property by the United States government. The attack tool is called "Stuxnet". It's a computer "worm" created by the United States (and Israel) to wreak havoc on the Iranian government's computers. It was first discovered when a screw-up in the program sent the worm around the world instead of just to Iran's computer system. And it's been going on for years now.

The cyber-attacks were started by the Bush administration, but President Obama made the decision to continue, and even increase, them after he took office. The attack was a unilateral one, and another example of the United State's policy of "preventative war" -- a Bush doctrine that seems to have been adopted by President Obama.

This brings up a valid question. Isn't an attack on another country's computer system an act of war? If another country were to attack our own government's computers, you can bet our government would consider it an act of war (just as surely as if they had attacked one of our ships or airplanes or military bases). And we would retaliate.

Ask yourself what the United States would do if Iran killed American citizens with a missile, sent drones over U.S. territory, or launched a cyber-attack on our nation's computer system? You know the answer. At the very least the U.S. would bomb the hell out of Iran, and it very well could lead to all-out war.

Too many Americans will deny it (because they believe the U.S. can do no wrong), but our government has already launched the first strikes against Iran. The only reason we are not already in a shooting war is that Iran is showing remarkable restraint (and good sense). Perhaps they know we are trying hard to prod them into responding, so we'll have an excuse to launch our bombers.

Steve Jobs Dies At Age 56

Apple, Inc. issued the following short statement on Wednesday:

"We are deeply saddened to announce that Steve Jobs passed away today."

"Steve's brilliance, passion and energy were the source of countless innovations that enrich and improve all of our lives. The world is immeasurably better because of Steve."

Raid On Osama More Productive Than Thought ?

If the raid on the mansion in Pakistan had resulted in nothing more than the death of Osama bin Laden, it would have been well worth it. The murderer had escaped justice for far too long. Al-Queda would still exist and mostly likely would try to retaliate against this country (or one of our allies), but it still had to be done.

But it looks like more than just the death of Osama bin Laden was accomplished in the raid by U.S. forces. It is now being reported that a veritable treasure-trove of information was also seized in the raid by the Navy Seals. Politico says that officials have told them that "special operations forces grabbed personal computers, thumb drives and electronic equipment during the lightening raid that killed bin Laden."

This material is currently being viewed and evaluated at a secret location in Afghanistan. One U.S. official said, "Hundreds of people are going through it now. It's going to be great even if only 10 percent of it is actionable."

That is great! Osama was the top person in al-Queda, and it is very likely that he would have had information on the entire network of terrorists operating under the al-Queda label. And if so, this could be the thing that breaks the back of that terrorist organization.

We in the general public probably won't know what information is there -- perhaps for several years. The authorities will want to use this information in every possible way before releasing any of it, and that is just what they should do. I hope it is valuable and means the end of al-Queda (and I find it hard to believe it would only be computer games and downloaded movies -- after all, this is al-Queda's top dog).

But even if there is enough information there to virtually eliminate al-Queda, it will not mean the end to terrorism. Although al-Queda was the worst terrorist organization, they were far from the only one. It would still be a huge step though, and it would put all the other terrorist organizations on notice that they could be next. And that's a good thing.

Electronic Recycling - Doing It Right ?

Like it or not, the modern society could not exist without electronics.   They are a critical aspect in government, business and can be found in nearly every home in developed nations (and their use grows every day in the rest of the world).   But with technology growing and innovating faster each year, electronic devices do not have a long life.   This has resulted in a vast and fast-growing supply of e-waste -- electronics that are outdated or broken.

At first, this e-waste was just dumped into landfills (and that still happens far too often).   But it has been learned that the e-waste contains many items that are dangerous to both humans and the environment -- things like mercury, americium, sulphur, cadmium, PCBs, beryllium, lead, and polyvinyl chloride.   It is believed that 70% of heavy metals in U.S. landfills has come from discarded electronics.

When the dangers became known, the electronics companies at first just shipped this waste to third-world countries for disposal or recycling.   But the lack of environmental and work safety laws just meant the danger was transferred these countries and their inhabitants.   Currently, electronics companies are supposed to recycle the elements contained in their old products in a safe way.   This poses questions like: are they doing it right, and which companies are the best at safely recycling their old products?

The Electronics Takeback Coalition has decided to answer those questions for consumers.   They have issued a report card for electronics companies in four areas (computers, televisions, printers, and game consoles), giving each company a grade ranging from A to F (just like school report cards).   They used the following criteria to determine the grades:

* How extensive are the company takeback programs?
* Are the products recycled responsibly?
* What are the companies doing to promote reuse and closed loop recycling?
* What are company positions on government recycling policies?
* How transparent are companies in reporting recycling details?

Here are the report cards in the four electronic areas (note that no company in any area earned an A):

COMPUTERS
Dell (B)
Asus (B-)
Apple (C+)
HP (C-)
Toshiba (C-)
Acer (D)
Lenovo (D-)

TELEVISIONS
Samsung (B-)
LG (C+)
Best Buy (C+)
Wal-Mart (C+)
Sharp (C)
Mitsubishi (D+)
Panasonic (D+)
Vizio (D)
Sony (D)
Funai (F)
Hitachi (F)
JVC (F)
Philips (F)
Sanyo (F)
Target (F)
RCA/Thomson (F)

PRINTERS
HP (C-)
Brother (F)
Epson (F)
Lexmark (F)
Kodak (F)
Canon (F)

GAME CONSOLES
Sony (D)
Microsoft (D-)
Nintendo (D-)

India Reveals New $35 Computer

A couple of years ago the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) announced they had developed a prototype for a $100 laptop computer. Nicholas Negroponte, of the MIT Media Lab, created a nonprofit organization called One Laptop Per Child that was dedicated to getting these new cheaper computers into the hands of poor children (and put them on a more even level with the rest of the world).

But there were a couple of problems with that vision -- as wonderful as it was. First, it turned out that the computers actually cost closer to $200 than the originally estimated $100. Second, even the $100 price would have put the computers out of range of affordability for most of the world's poor children. The organization depended on donations or governments to purchase the computers and give them to poor children (usually through school systems). So far, this has only had limited success.

Now it looks like the government of India has done even better. They claim to have developed the prototype of a computer that will only cost $35 (see picture above). The computer was developed by students in IT colleges in India.

The new computer is a touch-screen tablet computer that operates off solar power (so it can be used even in homes and communities with electric power). It uses a Linux operating system and has no hard drive (using a memory card instead). And it has the capability to do word processing, web browsing and video conferencing.

The government says it is now looking for a company to manufacture the new low-cost computer. They also hope to get the price down to $20 or even less in the near future. If they can get the computer mass-produced at a price of $35 or less, this would be a real boon to poor children. It would make it much cheaper and easier for school systems to get the computers into the hands of their students. Even more important, that would lower the price enough so even the poor could save up enough to purchase the computer.

I hope they can get this done. It could be a giant step forward for much of the world's population.

Will Netbooks Soon Be Relics ?

In the last couple of years, the small portable computers known as Netbooks have been the rage. Although they don't have the memory of their larger cousins, the Laptops, they are smaller, lighter and significantly cheaper. This has made them the computer of choice for those who want to take a computer with them whenever they're away from home.

But the age of the Netbook may soon be coming to an end. The first blow came with Apple's introduction of it's new tablet computer -- the iPad (which will be available to buy in just a few days). This by itself would probably not have run Netbooks off the market. Although the new iPad is much less expensive than Apple's laptops, it is still fairly pricey -- it retails for between $499 and $699. You can buy a Netbook for less (around $300).

But now a couple of computer companies from Taiwan have decided to enter the tablet computer market. Sources say Acer and AsusTek are both in the process of developing their own version of the tablet computer. They plan to introduce these at a computer show in June, and have them on the market by Fall of this year. What makes this a serious threat to Netbooks is the fact that they will sell for under $400 (and they will use PC software).

Topoly Research Institute expects the sales of tablet PCs could top 50 million units worldwide by 2012, topping the sales of Netbooks.

(The picture above is of Apple's iPad tablet computer.)

Stupid Is As Murdoch Does

I've always thought that Rupert Murdoch (pictured), as rich as he is, was not the brightest bulb on the tree. Now it looks like he's out to prove that by limiting access to the online sites of his news organizations like the Wall Street Journal and New York Post in America, and the Times and Sun in the U.K.

He had already announced that his sites would begin charging for readers to access their websites. He had hoped to start that by June of 2010, but it now looks like that may be delayed. Now he wants to ban Google and other search engines from listing stories from his sites.

He says he thinks it is illegal for search engines to use his headlines or paragraphs, and he wants to ban the practice altogether. Obviously, he doesn't understand the value of search engines. They are not stealing his content, but instead are sending him a ton of readers. Evidently, he wants his sites to virtually disappear from the internet.

Personally, I wish him success in his insane venture. I hope he does start charging for visits to his sites. I also hope he gets his sites removed from all the search engines. Doing both of these two things would ensure that his internet sites will fail (and there will be less access to his right-wing slant on the news).

There are two things that are pretty much assured. Free access to news on the internet is going to continue (and probably expand), and search engines will continue to direct much of the internet traffic.

If Murdoch doesn't want to participate on the internet, I doubt he'll even be missed.

The Slashes Weren't Necessary

Did you ever wonder why it was necessary to enter the two slashes (//) in front of an internet url (address)? Well, that was the idea of Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who is generally regarded as the creator of the world wide web back in 1989.

Berners-Lee, who started the web so scientists could communicate among themselves, now admits the double slashes were probably a mistake. He has apologized, saying he could have designed urls without the slashes.

Berners-Lee said, "There you go, it seemed like a good idea at the time."

It may have seemed like a good idea in 1989, but it has irritated a lot of people since then. At least he realizes his goof and has apologized. I guess we should just be happy he came up with the url's, slashes and all.

I am a little confused though. I thought Al Gore invented the internet. :-)

White House Aides Misuse Their Computers

When the Bush administration took over the White House in 2001, the Republican National Committee provided White House aides with laptop computers. According to the RNC, this was so the aides would not use the government computers for campaign purposes, which they recognized would be inappropriate.

I'll give the RNC the benefit of the doubt and say if that was their ultimate purpose, then it was appropriate and laudable. But after years of lies and coverups by the Bush administration, it should come as no surprise to anyone that these computers have been misused.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California) has discovered that many of the aides have used the computers to conduct official government business. This is a clear violation of the Presidential Records Act, which requires the preservation and disclosure of government records. Instead, the Bush administration has used these computers to hide many of its government records.

Waxman also believes the computers were used to hide White House communications with convicted lobbist, Jack Abramoff. By keeping Abramoff communications off the government computers, they thought they could hide his White House ties.

These same computers were also used to hide the White House involvement in the politically-motivated firing of U.S. Attorneys. And they were used to pressure the General Services Administration to make decisions that would help Republican candidates in the last election.

Many Republican activists are terrified now that this computer misuse has been discovered, because they have no idea what other dark secrets may be lurking in these computer files and e-mails. Waxman is now demanding access to the computer e-mails, and since they have been used to hide government business, he should be given that access.

After watching Bush's rather cavalier disrespect for the law over the past few years, it is easy to believe that he would take a gift given him to obey the law, and use it to break the law. Is there any depth to which Bush and his henchmen will not sink to further their own ambitions?

Congressional democrats need to back Rep. Waxman on this issue. It looks like we have only seen the tip of this iceberg, and much more muck is hiding under the surface.