Ramblings

Warning - extreme nerdism ahead.

So I'm in the market for a new laptop soon. I've mentioned this before. I want to spend around $1500, but honestly I'm pretty flexible on price. For the most part, I've boiled it down to 3 choices - Dell Studio XPS 13, Macbook Pro 13", or wait a bit longer for the mobile Nehalem chips to start shipping in new laptops.

The two laptops I'm considering now have really similar hardware - probable identical CPUs (P9500) and GPUs (NVidia 9400M), and what I think are Samsung-controlled SSDs. Anyway, I configured both to be 4GB RAM with the 256GB SSDs - I would have done this comparison with the 128GB SSDs but Dell's out of stock of those as of right now. Both are retail prices with my federal employee discount.

	Mac	Dell	Notes
Price	$2,161.00	$1,759	$400 price difference, before any coupons I might find from Slickdeals/Fatwallet.
Battery Life	7 hours	4 hours	This is just a guesstimate based on reviews and how I personally use my laptop. And it looks like I'd literally have to buy a spare battery for the Dell to compare. I cringe at the extra hassle that a sealed battery would bring though. Will it last 4 years or will I have to take it to some Apple Store hundreds of miles from where I live?
Touchpad	Multitouch with one button	Ordinary with 2 buttons	I turn off tap-to-click since I don't like to accidentally click on stuff. Also, I very frequently use the right click and the simulated middle click (both buttons together) in ordinary use. I also don't know what gestures are available for the multitouch (scroll, I assume at a minimum), and whether they're enough to make up for the LACK OF RIGHT MOUSE BUTTON.
OS	OS X	Ubuntu	90% of my time on my computer is spent using software available on both platforms - websites, music, movies, email, chat. I wonder how easy it is to tinker in OS X though. How much effort is it to get a web server with database up and running? Is the user experience as configurable as conky, compiz, and Cairo-dock? Will I have to spend time chasing down video/audio codecs, or is it as easy as Medibuntu? I may have to sit down with a Mac for a few hours figuring this stuff out.

I'm guessing this will mostly have to wait until I get back to the U.S. when I can really work out the details of my preferences. One thing that really bugs me about Apple though is their lack of transparency. I'm not 100% sure that the processor in the MBP is a P9500, because Apple doesn't find it necessary to post that information. What about the 2.4GHz CPU? What model is that? Can I change out a hard drive without voiding the warranty? $2160 is a bit much to spend before finding out these things.

Maybe I'll try to get a bootleg OS X installed on my current computer to figure these things out.

 

The Waxman-Markey bill has passed Congress. I don't like that it doesn't have auctioned permits (or that it lets agribusiness off the hook, but that's a whole other post for another day).

Here's a proposal - auction more stuff. Think about where it currently works. Google auctions every advertising spot each time a page with Google-served ads appears. Icelandic fishers are incredibly efficient because of tradeable fishing permits. So let's expand this idea onto other realms where it should work:

All pollution should fall under a cap and trade scheme with auctioned, tradeable permits. Let the EPA set the maximum total pollution output for each regulated pollutant in say, each regulatory district, and then let the industrial markets decide how much they want to produce of sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, ozone, PCBs, mercury, etc. With all the revenue, return it all to the residents of those districts on a per-person dividend (see Alaska's oil dividend). The market forces should regulate pollutants, compensate Americans financially for environmental damage done where they live, and even encourage polluters to move operations to less environmentally sensitive areas.

Event organizers should auction its tickets instead of letting scalpers profit from their inefficient prices. Let everyone bid a maximum price for each section/seat type up until 14 days before the event, and then price the tickets in each section to the highest price where the tickets would be sold out. In the current state of affairs, fans have their time wasted while organizers run the risk of not filling seats and/or leaving potential profits on the table (to be claimed by scalpers). Airlines already do this with seats on airplanes. There's been a lot of research into this, and a lot of it could probably be applied to event seating.

Transmission rights on every piece of wireless spectrum should be put up for auction. The length of each lease should be variable (some would last 1 year, others 2 years, and some could be like 10 or 25 years to encourage stability for those applications that would need it). These permits should be tradeable, and the federal government (including the military) should have to submit bids as well. As it stands today, wide areas of spectrum are underutilized while engineers are forced to try to maximize the use of some pretty crowded spectrum bands. I want fast, cheap, ubiquitous wireless internet. Artificially scarce spectrum is making it more difficult than it needs to be. As above, revenues raised could be used to just give cash back to ordinary Americans.

Auctionable and tradeable permits for access to ports and runways would probably make much better use of our existing transportation/logistics infrastructure. Similarly, congestion pricing for highways and parking spots would essentially be real-time auctions for scarce resources.

And that is why I cringe when people call liberals like me "socialist," since, you know, I really love markets and think they're great. And pretty much all the above ideas involving government running auctions would possibly raise enough in revenues to pay for themselves so that we could reduce taxes and other wonderful things that everyone likes.

 

I used the word "monopsony" in a conversation at work today. I hated myself immediately, but there really wasn't any other way to say what I meant without it.

It reminds me of the times my dad used the word "adsorb" or when my older sister once used "reflux" to describe orange juice splashing onto the table. Both got degrees in chemical engineering.

 

So I'm looking to get a laptop with a minimum of effort - I want to run Linux and the easiest way for me to do that is to buy a laptop whose hardware I already know is linux-friendly. Cost isn't a big concern, and I'm already working over 80 hours per week so I don't want to spend a lot of time doing research or messing with an xorg.conf file.

I know, Dell sells laptops with Ubuntu preinstalled! I just have to buy it and then upgrade to 9.04, right? (click for full size)



Oh. Never mind. I can wait.

 

Earlier this week I was being somewhat snarky towards a whiny senator, but you know, I was thinking more about what it means to uproot our lives for a chunk of time and come out to Iraq. This right here pretty much ruined my day (click for full image):


That's right - I've been hearing great things about this week's Colbert Report from Iraq, and I can't even view it from Iraq. Someone better record/download this and burn it for me. Maybe Comedy Central, perhaps?

Copyright law is ridiculous.

 

Dear Senator Grassley:

I spend a lot of time at work. I've averaged around 80 hours per week since I've gotten here in Iraq. I've worked every single day since I got here 9 months ago, usually a 12-14 hour shift. Sometimes an 18-20 hour shift. But it's ok. Government service is really just that, service. I do what I think is best for my colleagues, my employer, and my country. Sometimes I complain to friends or coworkers about unreasonable work schedules. Maybe it's not the most professional thing to do, and I recognize that I probably shouldn't do that so much.

It appears that you, on the other hand, like complaining to literally the entire world when you have to work weekends. In fact, it almost seems as if you completely lose the ability create coherently formed words and sentences.

Sincerely,
Shane
A fellow federal employee

 

I've been looking at ways to revamp my site (both the backend and the appearance), and as collateral I've been reading what I've written (and dared to publish!) from around 2004-2006.

I'm not impressed. I didn't have a very mature worldview, to say the least. Neither did I have much in the way of writing style. So I can do one of two things - a) write less, waiting for more substantive, rounded ideas to write about or b) write more - a lot more, forcing myself to engage in the deliberate practice of writing.

I'm leaning towards b) once I get the backend up and running for my "new" site. Until then, I will be putting more "work" into the act of writing - little things like rereading before I click the publish button, and coming back to what I've written maybe a month after the fact and giving myself a critical

There's something to be said for talent though, which I may not have - This economics blog written by a 20-year-old is far better than most economics blogs, regardless of author age/education level.

And for those who are wondering, I'm switching my static HTML pages of that embarrassing stuff I wrote from 2004-2006 to a Django/MySQL solution. The last redesign I did around 2007, I actually separated content from formatting in anticipation of this task. I just didn't think it would take 2 years. And if anyone knows of a reasonably doable way of migrating my blog from blogger to my own database, I'd appreciate the help.

 

I mean, I know the financial crisis is hitting non-federal employees harder than me, but I was pretty surprised to see this warning on the payment page of my student loans:



Payment amount cannot be less than $1.00. If you would like to make a payment for less than $1.00, please pay by check.

I've heard of people taking "forever" to pay back their student loans, but I had always figured it was hyperbole.

 

So my junior year I changed majors from electrical engineering to philosophy. I noticed some profound differences in the two departments:

Old philosophy professors tended to be terrible with email. Some of them weren't the best with technology. I didn't have this problem with the older EE professors, since a lot of them actually played a role in creating the internet.

Philosophy professors knew how to speak English. Only about 3 of my professors and 1 of my TAs in Engineering (to include the math and science classes) spoke English natively. It's a bit frustrating when your professor cannot pronounce the 'V' sound and he teaches an important class on semiconductors and transistors (NOTE: Volts, Voltage, and many variables using the letter 'V' feature prominently in discussions of electronics). The only thing like that I had to worry about in philosophy was the Irish TA who raved incomprehensibly about Berkeley.

Whenever professors would mention their research projects, I would be bored by the philosophy projects and fascinated by the EE projects. I mean, really - Sartre vs. rail guns? Rawls is great and all, but robots are approximately 75 times cooler. On the other hand, it was the opposite when it came to student discussions. Philosophy students would talk about brain in a vat (this was when The Matrix was still relatively fresh on everyone's mind) and the war on drugs (guess which side the typical philosophy undergraduate fell on), while engineering nerds talked mostly about programming and video games. And by the time I left engineering, it was World of Warcraft. That game really has been out for a long time.

I've never regretted switching to philosophy, but I think I could have worked harder in engineering. Approximately 75% of my duties in my current job require understanding technology on a fairly deep level, and I've learned 3 programming languages here in Iraq. Well, realistically, 1 language (Python) and 2 half-languages (VBA is a half language and C# isn't all that different from C++). Plus I've learned way more than I ever cared about internet protocols and satellite communication while administering our personal internet connection.

 

I missed this before Memorial Day, but I think this is a pretty awesome project:

For this project I collected information from a number of sources, including the Department of Defense's Statistical Information Analysis Division, icasualties.org, MilitaryTimes.com's Honor the Fallen, Washington Post's Faces of the Fallen, the Iraq and Afghanistan Pages, and Legacy.com. I used the Google Maps and GeoNames.org geocoding services to get coordinates for each person's home of record and approximate place of death. The map includes data through March 2009. I'd like to point out the incredible time commitment the above organizations invest in maintaining this information; as I've learned, it is not an easy task. All of the data I have assembled and generated for this project will be made freely available for download in the near future.

It's a Google Earth file that visually displays hometown and place of death for as many of the Iraq/Afghanistan military deaths (for U.S./Coalition Forces). Pretty moving stuff.

 

Ezra Klein posted a critical review of Per Se over at the Internet Food Association, which attracted a bunch of responses and some criticism itself:

This whole enterprise makes me question if you know what you are talking about in your day job’s blog. I sure hope so. For the record, I read several IFA author’s primary blogs and other writings and I love you guys. But while you might be into food, you aren’t real cooks or proper critics. Stick to what you [hopefully] know.

First of all, you’re right; you’re not educated enough about food to criticize a dish like oysters and pearls (which is perfect, and not just decadent). In fact, the IFA, while amusing, is all very amateurish. Please, no more posts about Ben Miller’s kitchen efforts. He’s clearly still not a good cook.

Them's fightin' words.

First of all, anyone who reads Ezra Klein's "day job" blog probably wouldn't dare imply that Klein isn't a knowledgeable person about health policy.

Second, this attitude of "leave X to the professionals" is infuriating. The IFA carves out a specific niche. The exceedingly simple Wordpress template and the banner photograph make clear that these guys aren't doing this professionally. But more importantly, professionals are lashing out at the wrong people for the rise of the amateur content creator. Whether it's restaurant reviews, photography, or news commentary, the entrenched interests seem to be fighting a futile battle against the amateur. A chef shouldn't rail against the food bloggers if the rise of food blogging actually increases the aggregate demand for the chef's skills.

The internet allows like-minded people to seek each other out. Imagine a scenario where first time parents share lessons learned and funny anecdotes on a website. Maybe even some amateur baby pictures, complete with bad lighting and poor focus. Now imagine that some PhD-wielding childcare expert showed up and started commenting on the whole unscientific nature of the whole affair - saying stuff like "you are clearly not familiar enough with the scientific literature on child development to be talking about childcare techniques anyway; it's clear that you should stick with your day job." The "amateur" parents would probably tell him to fuck off.

In any case, I honestly trust Ezra Klein's review more than I would Frank Bruni. For one, I am not a professional food critic or a very rich person. If a dish requires enough "education about food" to fully appreciate, and is part of a $275 9-course dinner, it probably isn't for me.

In any case, the professional food writers who I do enjoy reading most are Michael Ruhlman and Mark Bittman, in large part because they know what they're talking about but aren't at all condescending about it. And besides, if you're going to do condescending, do it right.

 

Media hypes a study showing a negative correlation between Facebook usage and GPA.
Professor notices and posts comment on Twitter, at her blog, and at Facebook.
Other professors begin commenting, culminating in a joint paper published in a peer-reviewed journal saying that the evidence is weak at best, and that besides correlation is not causation.

I'm going to go out on a limb saying that the guys who published the first study didn't really anticipate Facebook and Twitter being used to organize a critical review to be published in a peer-reviewed journal within 20 days. They say one counterexample is enough to disprove a hypothesis - this might have been a bit much.

 

I am familiar with John Cornyn, U.S. Senator from Texas. I was not aware that a man named John Comyn ever existed. Reminds me of a cheesy joke one of my roommates used to tell about being named Thornas.

 

I've gotten through some torture memos, and this one stands out to me:

http://72.3.233.244/pdfs/safefree/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf

I am not an interrogator, but if I were a federally employed interrogator, I'd be embarrassed for my profession. As it stands, I'm embarrassed by my country.

NOTE: I originally typed this in advance, to be published a day after typing it. Since that time I've read these memos from President Obama, DNI Adm. Blair, and CIA Director Panetta - I think they're basically right. I don't mean to say that interrogators aren't good people - I work with Army interrogators and consider several to be good personal friends. But my point still stands - I think this is an embarrassment to the Human Intelligence community, and we as a country should turn our back on the techniques while remaining faithful to the HUMINT guys who serve our nation.

Obama:

To the Men and Women of CIA:

I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the work you are doing for the country. Your work has informed every President dating back to President Truman and it protects our people. I have come to rely on your service and I believe strongly that it is vital to the security of our country. Given the threats, challenges, and opportunities facing America, the CIA remains as critical today as it has ever been to our Nation’s security. While necessity requires that the country may not know all of your names or the work that you do, all of us enjoy the freedom that you have helped secure.

I also wanted to share with you a decision that I made last night. Later today, the Department of Justice will release certain memos issued by the Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005. I did not make this decision lightly. As you may know, the release is part of an ongoing court case. I have fought for the principle that the United States must carry out covert activities and hold information that is classified for the purposes of national security and will do so again in the future. But the release of these memos is required by our commitment to the rule of law.

Much of the information contained in the memos has been in the public domain, and the previous Administration has acknowledged portions of the program – and some of the practices – associated with them. My judgment on this is a matter of record. I have prohibited the use of these interrogation techniques, and I reject the false choice between our security and our ideals.

In releasing these memos, the men and women of the CIA have assurances from both myself, and from Attorney General Holder, that we will protect all who acted reasonably and relied upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that their actions were lawful. The Attorney General has assured me that these individuals will not be prosecuted and that the Government will stand by them.

The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. They need to be fully confident that as they defend the Nation, I will defend them. We will protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security.

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. The national greatness that you so courageously and capably uphold is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence.

It is a core American value that we are a Nation of laws, and the CIA protects and upholds that principle under extraordinarily difficult circumstances every day. My Administration will always act in accordance with the law, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again.

Thank you for your service, and God bless the work that you do.

Sincerely,
Barack Obama

Blair:

The Department of Justice released today four previous Office of Legal Counsel opinions which concluded certain harsh interrogation techniques used by CIA officers on suspected al Qa’ida terrorists were legal. The opinions spell out in graphic detail techniques used in questioning high value detainees suspected of involvement in, and plans for, terrorist activity against the United States and its allies.

As the leader of the Intelligence Community, I am trying to put these issues into perspective. We cannot undo the events of the past; we must understand them and use this understanding as we move into the future.

It is important to remember the context of these past events. All of us remember the horror of 9/11. For months afterwards we did not have a clear understanding of the enemy we were dealing with, and our every effort was focused on preventing further attacks that would kill more Americans. It was during these months that the CIA was struggling to obtain critical information from captured al Qa’ida leaders, and requested permission to use harsher interrogation methods. The OLC memos make clear that senior legal officials judged the harsher methods to be legal.

Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing. As the President has made clear, and as both CIA Director Panetta and I have stated, we will not use those techniques in the future. But we will absolutely defend those who relied on these memos and those guidelines.

As a young Navy officer during the Vietnam years, I experienced public scorn for those of us who served in the Armed Forces during an unpopular war. Challenging and debating the wisdom and policies linked to wars and warfighting is important and legitimate; however disrespect for those who serve honorably within legal guidelines is not. I remember well the pain of those of us who served our country even when the policies we were carrying out were unpopular or could be second-guessed.

We in the Intelligence Community should not be subjected to similar pain. Let the debate focus on the law and our national security. Let us be thankful that we have public servants who seek to do the difficult work of protecting our country under the explicit assurance that their actions are both necessary and legal.

There will almost certainly be more public attention about the actions of intelligence agencies in the past. What we must do is make it absolutely clear to the American people that our ethos is to act legally, in as transparent a manner as we can, and in a way that they would be proud of if we could tell them the full story.

Panetta:

This afternoon, the Department of Justice is releasing a series of opinions that its Office of Legal Counsel provided CIA between 2002 and 2005. They guided CIA’s detention and interrogation program, which ended this past January. Over the life of that initiative, CIA repeatedly sought and repeatedly received written assurances from the Department of Justice that its practices were fully consistent with the laws and legal obligations of the United States. Those operations were also approved by the President and the National Security Council principals, and were briefed to the Congressional leadership.

As this information is revealed, it is important to understand the context in which these operations occurred. In the wake of September 11th, the President turned to CIA—as Presidents have done so often in our history—and entrusted our officers with the most critical of tasks: to disrupt the terrorist network that struck our country and prevent further attacks. CIA responded, as duty requires.

Although this Administration has now put into place new policies that CIA is implementing, the fact remains that CIA’s detention and interrogation effort was authorized and approved by our government. For that reason, as I have continued to make clear, I will strongly oppose any effort to investigate or punish those who followed the guidance of the Department of Justice.

The President and the Attorney General have also made clear that there will be no investigation or prosecution of CIA personnel who operated within the legal system. In addition, the Department will provide legal representation to CIA personnel subject to investigations relating to these operations.

This is not the end of the road on these issues. More requests will come—from the public, from Congress, and the Courts—and more information is sure to be released. We cannot control the debate about the past. But we can and must remain focused on our mission today and in the future. The President and the rest of our citizens are counting on all of us to help disrupt, destroy, and dismantle al Qa’ida—and to learn the plans of our other adversaries. We have an obligation to this nation and to each other to do all we can to protect America.

This is an exceptional organization of talented men and women, dedicated to our national security. It is an extraordinarily capable organization that quietly defends our country while following its laws and upholding its values. For that reason, I am proud to stand beside you as your Director. And for that reason, this President—and future Presidents—will continue to ask us to undertake the hard missions that only we can. This is an opportunity for CIA to begin a new and great chapter in our history of service to the nation.

You need to be fully confident that as you defend the nation, I will defend you.

Leon E. Panetta

 

There's a certain disconnect I feel from U.S. domestic affairs, now that I've been in Iraq for a while. I still haven't done my taxes (I don't have to do them while I'm in Iraq, and the IRS pays interest on any refund that I'm entitled to, so I'm not going to worry about them until I get back to the U.S.). I left when gasoline prices were ridiculously high, and there was disagreement as to whether there was a recession or not.

So I'm out of touch with ordinary Americans at this time. That's sorta to be expected. As a result, I have had to rely on the internet to fill me in on what these tea party events have been about.

My friend Evan has some thoughts on the tea parties saying that it should really been seen as being against irresponsible government spending rather than being against taxation. He mentions that the April 15 date is inconvenient for pushing this view, since April 15 has an obvious relationship to taxation. While I agree that this is a tactical error, I don't really see a way this particular event could have been organized around being primarily against spending.

For one, the "tea party" theme is affiliated with a rather significant event in American history that WAS about the taxation. Of course, the original tea parties also involved trespass and vandalism - and I'm not sure what kind of message for liberty it sent, what with all the "it's not sufficient to boycott the tea we need to make sure it isn't sold to ANYONE." The recovering libertarian in me frowns upon this elimination of consumer choice. Anyway, I had always figured that "No taxation without representation" was more a slogan for less taxation rather than for more representation.

Along the same lines of what Evan said, though - the current conservative movement is not exactly about small government. The idea of $3 trillion for Iraq doesn't faze most conservatives, but a quarter of that being spent at home riles them up. And then there's the stimulus "compromise" from a few months back where the centrists manage to increase the stimulus amount in the name of fiscal discipline, and the media let them get away with it. So it's correct to say that neither party stands for actually cutting the budget, reducing the deficit, or repaying some of that immense debt held by China.

All this comes down to, though, is that organized protest is not an effective tactic for political change. The only times I can think of where mass protests effected political change is where nonviolent resistance meets brutal injustice in a society where the powerful have a sense of morals.

If anything, ordinary partisans should avoid these media spectacles - ordinary people lend credibility to the protests, where the crazies will hog all the attention. This goes for the right and the left.

 

I wonder if in a few hundred years, kids will be playing "terrorist" in each others' backyards, the way kids today play "pirate."

I guess that thought assumes the existence of backyards, which I'm not necessarily ready to do.

 

The EFF is pissed at Obama and his DoJ. From their homepage:



Damn straight. I'm pretty angry about this situation, but I'm not going to do much better than Glenn Greenwald or even Keith Olberman. Well, Mr. President - you've taken ownership of this issue. I'll certainly take it into consideration in 2012.

UPDATE: I just took the amount I donated to the Obama campaign last winter and donated it to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

 

Grits for Breakfast discusses how Texas law treats teens, in the context of a proposed law raising the legal age for purchasing tobacco in Texas to 19. Basically he points out that under state and federal law:

15 years old - not old enough to do anything meaningful
16 years old - drive a motor vehicle without supervision, get married with parental consent, legally enter the workforce and pay taxes on your income
17 years old - enter into legally binding contracts, get married without parental consent, join the military with parental consent, drop out of school, will be tried as an adult (and face full legal culpability) in state criminal cases, watch an R-rated movie without supervision, decide who you want to have unmarried sex with.
18 years old - buy tobacco, star in porn, work as a stripper, join the military without parental consent, buy long guns, vote
21 years old - buy handguns, buy alcohol

To be clear, 17 is not the age at which Texans CAN be tried as adults - it's the age that Texans MUST be tried as adults.

In what universe does this make sense? You can be trusted with a grenade launcher 4 years before you can be trusted with a beer. And by the way, marriage seems like a far more momentous decision than which comptroller to vote for, but Texas says you can do the former at 16 and the latter at 18.

By this theory, 17 year olds are responsible enough to face life in prison for any crimes they commit. If kids' brains aren't developed enough to handle alcohol, I don't think they're developed enough to become strippers, either.

 

I'm a big fan of Bruce Schneier. I've been reading his blog for many years, and have even pretty much read all the back issues of his newsletter (to 1998 or so). He's got a lot of good stuff to say about security in general, and is widely respected as one of the top guys in computer security.

That being said, today on his blog he posted an essay that he wrote for the Wall Street Journal asking "Who Should be in Charge of U.S. Cybersecurity?" Schneier argues that it shouldn't be the NSA - claiming that its information security expertise is overshadowed by an unresolvable conflict of interest.

I left a comment at his blog, but I wanted to expand further.

The federal government wants to put someone in charge of cybersecurity of federal computer systems. Who to choose?

DHS - the new federal department whose mission is to protect America from harm
FBI - the law enforcement agency focused mostly on investigations and prosecutions - not preemptive enough in its mission to be a serious consideration here, and seriously constrained by its domestic focus.
NSA - the federal agency that already provides computer network defense for the most critical and most aggressively attacked computer networks in the world.

You could make a decent argument for DHS, but the NSA is absolutely the most appropriate federal organization to take a lead role in securing both government and other U.S. computer networks. The NSA beats out the DHS in the following Schneier concepts:

Security theater - While the NSA might possibly try to make themselves look good from time to time, they simply don't have the same incentive to do something ineffective just to look like they're doing something. They're secretive enough that they don't really gain from showing off. DHS (the parent organization of the TSA), on the other hand, is practically the reason why the phrase "security theater" is even in common usage today.

Security mindset - Schneier, in one of his more well-known essays from about a year ago:

Security requires a particular mindset. Security professionals -- at least the good ones -- see the world differently. They can't walk into a store without noticing how they might shoplift. They can't use a computer without wondering about the security vulnerabilities. They can't vote without trying to figure out how to vote twice. They just can't help it.

Today he suggests that the NSA's mission of exploiting technologies is a hindrance to its ability to protect technology against exploitation. He was right last year, wrong this year.

Security is a tradeoff - This, to me, is where I trust the NSA to understand far better than DHS. The NSA can trace its lineage to the guys during WWII who would rather sacrifice innocent human life than the secret that the Allies had broken Enigma. If they couldn't get a plausible cover for why they knew the location of a U-boat, they let it live, knowing that it would kill Allied sailors and even civilians.

I mentioned in my comment that I trust NSA's intentions more than I trust DHS's competence. I understand that the NSA isn't a perfect candidate for the role of lead agency for cybersecurity. But they're the best available. Who would you rather perform a surgery - a) the experienced surgeon who has been sued for malpractice several times or b) the second year medical student with no experience and who has not yet chosen a specialty. I'll choose the questionable surgeon, because he at least has a decent chance of getting it right.

In the future, I would most prefer to see reforms addressing Scheier's reservations about the NSA taking on this role, but as to who needs to take charge at least for the next 5-10 years, the NSA's information security guys should be in charge of U.S. cybersecurity.

 

In February, I took this screenshot from a facebook message conversation (please pardon the language, it was a direct quote of a man quoting a book quoting a man from decades ago):


Notice here that Facebook handles the special characters of single quote and double quote by saving it into the database with escape characters, \' and \". That's not a big deal, most websites do this similarly. But they forgot to run the inverse function when retrieving the data from the database to serve onto a webpage.

Also, This URL is way too long, and it happened in the ordinary course of facebook usage (which for me means less than 5 minutes per visit). Whose bright idea was it for your session's entire surfing history to be present in the URL? Every time you click somewhere, it just appends more random-seeming characters to the URL until presumably you exceed the limits of the user's software. I'm not going to test this, but it still seems like bad design.

If I could send a message to facebook, I'd say to it, "Well if you were a man, I'd punch you. Punch you right in the mouth. That's bush. Bush league. YOU HEAR ME? FACEBOOK! LOOK AT ME!"