ndmckinney|net

News sources are reporting that Dutch car maker Spkyer will now be the new owner of Saab. This comes after a previous deal to sell to Swedish car maker Koenigsegg failed due to financing issues.

[From GM to sell Saab to Dutch carmaker Spyker - washingtonpost.com]

The European Commission details the new, compulsory “Choice Screen” browser selection update to Microsoft Windows. From the Press Release:

What is the Choice Screen and how can people get it?

Microsoft has agreed with the European Commission to offer Microsoft Windows users a Choice Screen giving them an easy choice about which web browser they want to use.

The Choice Screen will be provided to those European Windows users (currently more than 100 million) who have Microsoft’s web browser Internet Explorer set as their default web browser.

Until now, Microsoft has provided its web browser together with its Windows software, whilst the main competing web browsers generally have to be downloaded from the internet. This means that often other browsers do not get installed on consumers’ computers.

The Choice Screen will take the form of a Windows update. The update will be installed automatically for users who have opted for automatic installation of updates via Windows Update so they will not have to do anything to get access.

The Choice Screen will be available from mid-March 2010.

This would have been more effective if mandated before Microsoft launched Windows 7, but I guess it’s better late than never.

[From EUROPA - Press Releases - Antitrust: Commission decision on Microsoft's new web browser Choice Screen - user's guide]

The BBC has a wonderfully reflective obituary for Harry Patch, the last British veteran of World War I.

Earlier this morning, while listening to a story about the use of social media in Iran, a thought occurred to me: would governments have a need for their own botnets?

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that governments have any such networks nor are actively creating them.  I am not suggesting, either, some massive international conspiracy.  Rather, I am curious if this technique would be useful for states.

Cyberspace will be, by all accounts, the next major battlefront in international warfare.  Given that there are few, if any, casualties on the battlefield, cyber-attacks will likely be more commonplace.  States who are merely hostile towards one another and not engaged in active combat may utilize cyber-attacks against one another, such as the recent war between Georgia and Russia.

In their current incarnation, botnets provide malicious individuals or organizations the means to tap into a supermassive computer network.  Malware infects the personal computers of unsuspecting individuals, allowing for   The most common use of a botnet is to conduct distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, but other uses are possible.

Governments of sufficient size, such as the United States, would likely not need a botnet.  These governments have more that sufficient resources and talent to conduct more sophisticated forms of attack. Furthermore, the political and social risks of being caught operating such a network would be too great.

On the other hand, smaller governments, especially governments that are much more restrictive or even totalitarian, would have every incentive to create such networks.  These governments have limited resources at their disposal, insufficient resources to dedicate to cyber-warfare, and a growing need to counteract the internet as a tool of political and social change.

In the end, botnets may not prove to be an effective tool.  States wishing to stifle true dissent may simply choose to disable access to the internet entirely.  A botnet may only prove useful as a tool of war between states, or between states and non-state actors (e.g., terrorist groups).  Still, it is worth considering the possibility of the botnet as a tool of warfare, if only to protect against it.

While I was in Georgetown today, I saw this on the window of an office suite. I think this qualifies as the emptiest gesture of all time.

This weekend, I saw an advertisment from the U.S. Department of State promoting their new U.S. Passport Card. The new document corresponds with a tightening of travel restrictions within North America. After reading about this new form of ID, I’ve compiled a simple list of pros and cons:

Pro:

1. It’s really cheap to get the new Passport Card ($45 for first-time applicants versus $100 for a regular passport).
2. It’s small and portable (it fits into your wallet).
3. It’s shiny.

Cons:

1. It’s confusing.
2. It cannot be used for international travel outside of Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) countries.
3. It cannot be used for any international air travel, even within WHTI countries.

I really can’t see the point of this card, especially if you already have a valid passport. While I’m not opposed to having an ID card issued by the federal government (after all, many other country’s national government issues ID cards), this seems like it is an unnecessary addition.

My advice for people who travel anywhere is to get a traditional passport. Even if you are only traveling by land or by sea, emergencies do come up, and the last place anyone wants to be stuck is customs limbo.

UPDATE: The Passport Card featured in this article comes directly from the State Department website.  I just got a good look at it.  The date of birth in the photo is about a month earlier than mine, but the guy looks like he’s 40.

According to media reports, a car accident in Apeldoorn has left at least two dead and at least dozen injured. NRC Handelsblad cites to eyewitness accounts that the driver of the car “‘clearly intended’ to ram the busy carrying the royal family.”

You can follow the events on Twitter, NRC Handelsblad [English], or de Volkskrant [Nederlands].

Current Temperatures From Select Cities:

Washington, DC: -2ºC (Longitude: 38.833º N)

Helsinki, Finland: -2ºC (Longitude: 60.316º N)

Svalbard, Norway: -6ºC (Longitude: 78.250º N)

I’m starting to feel left out in the cold.