President William Gates III
Ian Hilliard
of my very pro-Microsoft colleagues proclaimed that I should stop trying to
get the company to use Linux because Linux only has a couple of more years
before it is banned. Here is the theory why;
Bill Gates is currently spending large amounts of money on charity so that
he gets a good image in the eyes of the American voter. The reason that he
is leaving Microsoft in two years is that he is going to run for president
when George W. Bush's term comes to an end. He will get in, because $30B
for 'pork barrelling' plus the support of the right-wing media will pretty
well guarantee it.
Within the first term of Bill Gates's presidenticy, there will be some
computer security crisis. The response to the crisis will be to enact a law
that requires that all computers have some service that is only offered by
Microsoft.
This is where I brought up the article that I had read in IEEE Spectrum,
where the TCP/IP stack will be modified so that web pages can only be read
after being given the OK by a server at Microsoft. I guess that the system
will have to be extended so that servers will only serve pages to validated
clients. It is quite possible that this technology will be licensed to
Apple and Sun, but no open-source OS will be permitted the use of this
technology.
The theory then is that any country that does not accept the use of this
technology is pandering to terrorists. This leaves the country open to
attack. Such countries will need to be taken over by the 'right minded'
countries of the world to protect themselves from themselves. After that,
the Internet will only show what is officially sanctioned by the government
of the USA.
The theory does sound a little bit 'out there', but it is none the less
interesting. More interesting is that this was from someone that is very
pro-Microsoft and this person didn't see anything wrong with justice and
freedom being so obviously perverted.
Ian
Erik Funkenbusch
> The theory does sound a little bit 'out there', but it is none the less
> interesting. More interesting is that this was from someone that is very
> pro-Microsoft and this person didn't see anything wrong with justice and
> freedom being so obviously perverted.
Not only is it "out there", it doesn't make sense either.
First, Bill Gates would never run for president. We saw what happened with
Ross Perot, and Perot has 1000x more charisma than Gates.
Second, Why be president when you can quietly pull strings from a less
position? That's what happened with Bush and it's what happened with
Reagan.
Third, no such law would be enforcable.
Ian Hilliard
Firstly, while it is not my theory, it is clear that Gates enjoys the
limelight. He seems to go out of his way to get honorary degrees and get
into the press, as if he had actually done something good for the world.
Secondly, George W. Bush has the charisma of a dead blow fly, but it is
amazing what a bunch of top-notch keepers and some good spin doctoring can
do. If Gates gets nominated for one of the major parties, probably
Republican, then he has a very good chance.
Thirdly, an equally obnoxious act called DMCA is being enforced, little by
little. This act doesn't even have the full force of the president pushing
behind it.
Ian
The Ghost In The Machine
<nos...@hilliardtech.com>
wrote
on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 23:19:48 +0200
<ced5$44dcf468$544a537b$12...@news.hispeed.ch>:
> I was sitting having my lunch in the canteen at work the other day, when one
> of my very pro-Microsoft colleagues proclaimed that I should stop trying to
> get the company to use Linux because Linux only has a couple of more years
> before it is banned. Here is the theory why;
>
> Bill Gates is currently spending large amounts of money on charity so that
> he gets a good image in the eyes of the American voter. The reason that he
> is leaving Microsoft in two years is that he is going to run for president
> when George W. Bush's term comes to an end. He will get in, because $30B
> for 'pork barrelling' plus the support of the right-wing media will pretty
> well guarantee it.
>
> Within the first term of Bill Gates's presidenticy, there will be some
> computer security crisis. The response to the crisis will be to enact a law
> that requires that all computers have some service that is only offered by
> Microsoft.
That won't fly very well, even within the Republican Party.
>
> This is where I brought up the article that I had read in IEEE Spectrum,
> where the TCP/IP stack will be modified so that web pages can only be read
> after being given the OK by a server at Microsoft.
gaah...choke...glug...glug....glug....
> I guess that the system
> will have to be extended so that servers will only serve pages to validated
> clients. It is quite possible that this technology will be licensed to
> Apple and Sun, but no open-source OS will be permitted the use of this
> technology.
Oh, perish the thought.
>
> The theory then is that any country that does not accept the use of this
> technology is pandering to terrorists. This leaves the country open to
> attack. Such countries will need to be taken over by the 'right minded'
> countries of the world to protect themselves from themselves. After that,
> the Internet will only show what is officially sanctioned by the government
> of the USA.
>
> The theory does sound a little bit 'out there', but it is none the less
> interesting.
More "out" than "there". :-) First, Gates will have to overcome the
backlash of a larger profit margin than Exxon-Mobil. Second, that
slightly whiny voice of is can't possibly be characterized as
"telegenic". Third, the jokesters will have a field day, especially
if a rock-n-roll jam session gets interrupted by a BSOD, or its XP
equivalent, a spontaneous reboot, while displaying pretty background
images.
> More interesting is that this was from someone that is very
> pro-Microsoft and this person didn't see anything wrong with justice and
> freedom being so obviously perverted.
There's a few of 'em out there. :-)
>
> Ian
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Jim
"So this is how liberty dies? To the sound of rapturous applause..."
- Queen Padme Amidala
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
If this prediction plays out, never would a truer word be spoken.
Saying that, I said the same thing when PATRIOT went through in the US and
the amendments to the UK Prevention of Terrorism Act not long after.
--
When all else fails...
Use a hammer.
Some people are like Slinkies;
They serve no particular purpose,
But they bring a smile to your face
When you push them down the stairs.
Rex Ballard
> I was sitting having my lunch in the canteen at work the other day, when one
> of my very pro-Microsoft colleagues proclaimed that I should stop trying to
> get the company to use Linux because Linux only has a couple of more years
> before it is banned. Here is the theory why;
He has the Microsoft Religeon, believes Bill Gates is God (even Bill
Gates knows better), and wants you to stop your heresy before the wrath
of Gates comes down and wreaks havoc on your company. I knew the type.
> Bill Gates is currently spending large amounts of money on charity so that
> he gets a good image in the eyes of the American voter. The reason that he
> is leaving Microsoft in two years is that he is going to run for president
> when George W. Bush's term comes to an end. He will get in, because $30B
> for 'pork barrelling' plus the support of the right-wing media will pretty
> well guarantee it.
Why on earth would Bill Gates want to be president of the United
States? There is very little real power (you are severely limited by
Congress), there is very little glamour (you usually get blamed for
everything that goes wrong and ignored for everything that goes right,
you'll either get fired after 4 years or forced to retire after 8
years, and you won't even get a pension. You won't have ANY privacy,
and even the slightest careless word or gaff or mishap will be aired in
the national press. You get no sex because your wife is too busy and
the staff and secret service won't let the interns near you (Monica got
to Clinton because they had the day off), and you are in constant
threat of some lunatic with a gun who might try to take you down before
they take him down.
Why anybody would WANT to be president, is beyond me. I look at George
W Bush, Bill Clinton, and even George W Bush, and just can't help but
wonder if they don't wish they had just quit while they were ahead.
Bill can get what he wants by funding puppets. He doesn't even have to
do it by himself. He just has to pick a candidate in the primary who
isn't very bright, has no hard core convictions of his own (other than
religeous), and is willing to let a "second seat" with strong
connections to the Intelligence community make sure that Bill's access
to Information (which can be their access to information on domestic
subjects) remains unubstructed by protecting the monopoly.
> Within the first term of Bill Gates's presidenticy, there will be some
> computer security crisis. The response to the crisis will be to enact a law
> that requires that all computers have some service that is only offered by
> Microsoft.
Actually, there would be (was) a security crisis. This made it
absolutely necessary to be able to gather information to fight the war
on terrorism. Muslim terrorists have been trying to destroy the world
trade center almost every week since the towers were dedicated in 1973.
Those who live in close proximity are all too familiar with the
weekly. Ironically, the Patriot act was drafted about 10 years later.
It was only a matter of time before a new president ignored the
warnings of the previous political appointees, and let one get through.
Bill Clinton got hit in 1993. In 2001, two got through, when almost
no one was in the building. Most of those who died had either been
given the wrong evacuation instructions, or were going in to save the
lives of those who were still stranded (because the had been given the
wrong instructions). The fact that only 3,000 out of 50,000 workers in
the building were killed, isn't a miracle, it was some damn good damage
control.
Within hours after the 911 bombing, they dusted of the old "Patriot
Act" (which has had a number of names), and threw it in front of
congress saying this would help us fight terrorism.
> This is where I brought up the article that I had read in IEEE Spectrum,
> where the TCP/IP stack will be modified so that web pages can only be read
> after being given the OK by a server at Microsoft.
SSL, requires verification of the certificate used to authenticate
banking transactions, secured transactions, and things that you don't
want people to see, must be validated by Verisign (partially owned by
Microsoft), Thawte Group (partially owned by Verisign), RSA (partially
owned by Microsoft AND Verisign), and a few other CAs who must get
their certificates to be CAs from Microsoft, Verisign, or one of these
other companies.
Creating an unauthorized CA server was originally a violating the
patent of RSA. When the patent expired, it became a national security
issue and could even be considered an act of terrorism.
The only reason that DES got out was because it was thought to be
breakable. They didn't realize that the Walker family was selling the
keys to the USSR for almost 20 years.
I had proposed that the United States Postal Service establish it's own
CA, but this was considered a bad idea because gathering information
through a government agency such as USPS would REQUIRE a court order.
It seems that all the intelligence communities have to do with the
commercial CAs is ask them to listen up and tell them if they hear
anything interesting.
> I guess that the system
> will have to be extended so that servers will only serve pages to validated
> clients. It is quite possible that this technology will be licensed to
> Apple and Sun, but no open-source OS will be permitted the use of this
> technology.
SSL again. You don't HAVE to use SSL, but if you don't your content
can be easily monitored through any of about 20 "backbone" servers
using conventional packet sniffers. Carriers such as AT&T, MCI,
Verizon, Sprint, and GTE do it quite frequently as unpaid informants..
> The theory then is that any country that does not accept the use of this
> technology is pandering to terrorists. This leaves the country open to
> attack. Such countries will need to be taken over by the 'right minded'
> countries of the world to protect themselves from themselves. After that,
> the Internet will only show what is officially sanctioned by the government
> of the USA.
Again, you are talking history, almost ancient history. This was
actually established as a result of the 1993 bombing in about 1994. It
was a federal crime to take encryption technology such as DES and RSA
out of the country. Eventually, the list of countries on the
restricted list was reduced to those who refused to allow their wires
to be "tapped" using Microsoft owned CAs.
Remember too, that these CAs also provide the authentication for
ActiveX controls and Signed Java Applets, both of which can provide
full access to any files on the computer.
How many viruses were actually "planted" by ActiveX controls, and how
many of these viruses are actually survellance technology collecting
information on behave of an unpaid informant. In fact, if you have a
laptop or webcam equipped PC, both can be turned on without your
knowledge. In addition, remote access can be enabled without your
knowledge.
> The theory does sound a little bit 'out there', but it is none the less interesting.
That's actually why it was possible to do it. Forget conspiracy
theories. Companies like Microsoft tried to convince everyone that the
Internet was horribly insecure, and that the only way to make them safe
was to use encryption using signed certificates that were validated by
Microsoft owned companies and their partners.
SSH has the ability to create a random key which is not authenticated.
Using a secondary medium or embedding it in a huge encrypted zip file
sent via SSL will let you get the public key over to the client, and
vice versa. Then you can use these public/private key pairs which do
not require certification to communicate with your "inner circle".
Of course, if you do it too much or too often, you might find yourself
being requested to get top security clearance.
> More interesting is that this was from someone that is very
> pro-Microsoft and this person didn't see anything wrong with justice and
> freedom being so obviously perverted.
Of course not. It's already happened, people actually pay good money
to buy computers which contain this technology, and the companies that
make the computers pay Microsoft for the priviledge of including these
"big brother is watching" technologies.
Here's the punch line. Bill Gates told a reporter in a technical
magazine (Byte?), that he would do exactly that, and that once he had
that capability he could control the flow of information.
Without spelling it out, it was very clear that he wanted to be capable
of sending bank statement information to the IRS, sending insider
trading indicators to the SEC, sending accounting irregularities to
both, and sending politically damaging information about undesirable
candidates to desirable candidates.
Bill Gates announced that he was out to achieve "World Domination". He
had a plan that spanned 20 years, which he announced in 1984 (Microsoft
had just passed Lotus as the largest software company in terms of
annual revenues). He has had almost no resistance. He outlined the
plan. And he has executed that plan with only a few minor delays,
mostly as a result of Open Source technology (The Internet caught him
by surprise, as did the DOJ, and the explosion of support for Linux and
other OSS technologies).
> Ian
Keep in mind Ian Hilliard, that OSS, particularly Linux, Firefox, and
OpenOffice threaten to completely unravel that entire operation and
infrastructure. These technologies have the ability to keep secrets by
not having any secrets. In the hands of terrorists, Linux means their
PCs can't be monitored, their communicatons can't be monitored, and
their microphones and webcams can't be monitored.
Meanwhile, we have grandmothers losing their 401K and Annuities because
hackers can use the same back doors to "keep an ear and eye" on
terrorists, to find out how much grandma has in her various banking
accounts, and which kinds of "pitches" she is most likely to fall for.
All thanks to Windows, IE, Outlook, and Office.
Jim
<applause mode="rapturous">Ladies and gentlemen, meet the TFH Brigade's
brand new Poster Boy!</applause>
It got a bit farfetched in the middle there, Rex, but all in all, a very
entertaining rant!
Rex Ballard
Actually, when it was really entertaining, was back in 1984 and Bill
said he was going to do this. There was even a discussion in one of
the net.flame type groups (one of those that was never archived for
historical purposes and is therefore not in Google).
The irony is that about the only person who actually took him seriously
was Richard Stallman, who was writing the GNU manifesto at the time.
In many ways, the manifesto is a response to this thread.
Even I thought Bill was ready for a major dose of thorazine when I read
that one. I did check it out (I used to have every copy of Byte
printed since 1980, but I had to throw it out about 5 years ago, after
spending almost $12,000 to store them for 10 years.
Anyone know where I can get the FIRST 15 years of Byte on CD?
I have from 1990 to 2000. Appearantly McGraw-Hill still owns the older
issues.
Sinister Midget
If he waits 2 years to start running for president, he stands zero
chance. It'll be too late. If he starts trying to run now, he stands
zero chance. He has too much opposition and too little experience to
get much of the country or either party behind him.
He /could/ position himself for a run in the 2012 election or later. Or
he might work up a following for a run for the House or Senate (most
likely the latter). But I don't think he'd work out for those either.
As was shown when he got on the witness stand during the earlier
trials, he blows up under pressure. Nothing can sink a shot at the
political arena in the US faster than coming across as a hothead.
Ask Bob Dole, who is one of the easiest-going guys you'll find. He was
creamed by Bush's father because he started looking mean during a
debate and cemented that image when he reacted to some things later on.
Ask Howard Dean, who came across as unbalanced and angry in some
interviews between Iowa and New Hampshire in the last election, seemed
even meaner after New hampshire, and went on to get wiped out fairly
early.
It doesn't take a lot to get Gates to turn angry.
He might want to have some political influence. He can have that by
backing particular people with a lot of money. But he doesn't have much
chance himself in politics unless he can learn to control himself, and
then only after sufficient time passes.
More likely he wants to get as close as he can to sainthood. To that
end he'll spend all of the money he can to buy whatever and whomever it
takes. As a nice little by-product, his spending reputation helps keep
the M$ trough filled, and he eats from that as long as it lasts.
--
A fool and his money are soon using Windows.
billwg
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:ghevq3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>
> There's a few of 'em out there. :-)
>
think that fussing with computer stuff would appeal to Gates more than
fussing with the world if he were the POTUS!