Only 99.7%?

Great. There’s apparently a major security flaw in Android phones:

“The reality is, you’re carrying around a desktop computer in your pocket — but there’s no security like there is on computers,” explained Dave Aitel, president of security firm Immunity Inc. and a former computer scientist for the National Security Agency.

And no smartphone comes with antivirus software, experts noted.

Android-based smartphones use security tokens to grant access to only certain bits of information on the phone, Aitel explained, such as the Calendar or Google Reader. The token for Gmail is encrypted; all other tokens are unencrypted, he said — and they’re incredibly easy to steal.

“The tokens are essentially keys that only unlock part of the house,” Aitel told FoxNews.com. And because they’re passed to Google servers unencrypted, a cybersnoop could easily swipe one while a consumer is surfing the web in Starbucks.

My biggest concern about my Droid is the fact that it backs up to the cloud, and doesn’t offer a way to store data locally, as I did with my Palm device and Palm desktop. Google’s going to have to make a major effort to straighten this out, with Verizon and others.

[Update a few minutes later]

Apparently, they’ve already fixed this particular problem on the server side, but I suspect this will be an ongoing issue.

From Climate Alarmist

…to skeptic:

At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

Follow the real money.

On War

A book review, of an old book:

On War is shaped by Clausewitz’s encounter with the history and ideas of his times; it is also shaped by his experience in one of the first truly modern bureaucracies. (One of the achievements of Frederick the Great that so impressed contemporaries was the meticulous organization of the Prussian army and state.) The relationship of individual genius and vision to bureaucratic routine is a serious strategic problem in the modern world. The virtues that make a great military commander are, as Clausewitz notes, intensely personal: imagination and moral courage being perhaps the rarest and most valuable. These are perhaps the worst qualities for an aspiring bureaucrat to have.

There are desk generals and battle generals, and the unequal struggle between them is a recurring problem — and not just in military organizations. Desk generals excel in the arts of bureaucratic warfare, stick close to the conventional wisdom in all ways, and were brilliantly described in two unforgettable Gilbert and Sullivan songs: Modern Major General and The First Lord’s Song. In times of peace these timeserving mediocrities rise inexorably to the top; wars usually begin with a painful shakeout while the beribboned and bemedaled lunkheads demonstrate their hopeless incapacity at the true military art. Then and only then do the unclubbable and unconventional officers whose only virtue is their ability to somehow win battles gradually edge to the fore and the Grants and the Shermans elbow past the Popes and the McClellans.

In terms of space, NASA has been at peace since the late sixties, and hasn’t had the necessary crisis to bring forth the war-fighting generals, though the current budget crunch may make it happen. We’re starting to see some signs of it (e.g., Phil McAlister). The problem remains, though, that space isn’t important. Until it is, we won’t take it seriously.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!