I know this is borderline OT, but here's something nifty I just came across:
This looks like an interesting way to test Napster's convictions. The Offspring - supporters of Napster/MP3 in principle, are looking at making a profit off of Napster by selling Napster merchandise on their own site. Now we'll see if it (Napster) is about the customers or about the profits - won't we?
You said Napster. Heh, heh-heh.. SoCal punk outfit The Offspring (http://www.offspring.com/) have begun selling unauthorized Napster merchandise on the band's Web site, for which they will keep 100 percent of the profits. Napster does not produce or market merchandise of its own. A source close to the band explained the maneuver, saying "It isn't about making money. In typical Offspring fashion, they think it's funny to f--- with people. They think Napster's cool and want to see how cool they [really] are."
We've seen this sort of thing before. Something keeps changing, and a whole industry has sprung up to keep everyone up to date - the anti-virus market. Why has StarOffice not looked at this in the same fashion? Why not distribute new M$ file format descriptions as we would virus signature files? If a format description were encoded in a way that would allow an already deployed parser to interpret a new file without too much trouble.. [grind-grind, the squeak of turning wheels]
M$ claims that the next format they use will be a derivative of XML - this is too true, I'm sure, the format will certainly be a derivative of XML in some form. But this got me thinking. Why not look at M$ formats as already being XML-like. There's got to be a description of a particular version, that can be expressed separately from the parsing logic that actually does the reading.
There once was a poster on slashdot Who posted Haikus and would not stop We laughed, then we flamed 'Cause the gimick got lame And hoped for a 'bitchslap' or some-such
The 'High Priority Bonus' pretty much covers what's wrong with NT. In and of itself NT isn't bad, but all of it's 'conveniences' defeat an otherwise decent security model. That coupled with global sharing of files, drives and peripherals... Running as Administrator, the 98/95 open file system available to all users.
I guess the authors found it hard to write a paragraph outlining sheer idiocy..:) The article is about technical problems, for the most part, while most of the problems with NT result from poor administration and ignorance.
The article is a bit self-agrandizing, but putting the most common holes out where everyone can see them is not a bad thing.
Now, Network Admins have no excuse but to fix things, rather than hoping no one 'figures out' where the holes are. The fixes for the 'ten most common' problems are not hard, and they're readily available.
Exposing security holes and avenues of attack to public review does make it a bit more possible that a cracker will learn something new, but the dangerous guys already know about all of this. Hiding this sort of information is like installing a car alarm - you'll keep the amateurs away, and you'll give the pros a chuckle while they make off with your goods.
If there is some unique set of conditions that make YOUR system vulnerable, and these conditions are very obscure and virtually impossible to 'guess', AND expensive to fix - by all means, keep them a secret as long as you can - but be ready when the hammer hits.
The problems outlined in the article are common-place, and in most cases common-sense. What 'advantage' does a cracker get from knowing that easily guessed passwords are a weakness? What does he gain from an Admin being educated to remove sample CGI scripts and default accounts off of commercial products??
How much harder is MPEG-4 on the decoding hardware when compared to MPEG-3?
I ask because I have a satellite TV decoder that uses MPEG-3, and in high-action sequences, I get to see a lot of jaggy blocks, since the decoder can't keep up with the data...
It doesn't happen too often, but at the worst times. You're paying attention to the action and all of a sudden *POOF*, the most intense area of the screen get's ugly and blocky for a sec or two.
The article makes two good points against counter-attack:
1. Hitting an innocent bystander - since attacks usually come from hijacked and spoofed locations/addresses.
2. Retaliation against an illegal attack by the same means is also illegal - vigilanteism doesn't solve the problem, it reduces it to a pissing contest.
The suggestion (mine as well as that of respected experts:) ) is to log everything, look into it to try to identify the culprit conclusively, prove fiscal loss and/or denial of service - a.k.a resource theft; and then take the nice report to the authorities.
If we retaliate against a script kiddie, we'll either hit Grandma Smith who gladly gave her AOL password to an 'AOL representative' online, or we DOS the punk - so what?
If we get the law involved, we get him effectively killed in the computer industry - and even have him pulled off the lecture circuit a'la Mitnik.
What sort of assurance can we demand from the marketter in exchange for this sort of personal information?
I don't really like the idea of a digital image of my credit card, or myself for that matter, to be in the hands of a retailer. If a CC slip can be compromised, so can my likeness, and a jpeg of me can be sent to a retailer by people other than myself... They might paste my picture on a false testimonial, making it look more genuine, and possibly making me a suspect in false advertising.
We're being asked to provide identifying characteristics to a retailer before they will trust us - but how do we trust them to:
a) not abuse this identification b) protect the confidentiality of this information c) actually deliver the product
We've heard plenty of horror stories about fly-by-night operations that accept many orders, and many payments, and then close up shop without delivering the goods. It's easier to disappear on the net than it is in the real world.
It seems like a place that does this sort of 'integrity checking' could be trying to accomplish two things:
First, they try to appear more credible by showing 'innitiative' in excessive security. Frankly, I like the LISTSERV email handshake method of establishing trust - maybe a third party approach... Retailer verifies with your CC company that you are a customer, the CC company verifies with you that you want to deal with that retailer - pass some PIN or transaction digest in a full circle and you're set. Tedious, but you're not exposed. Digital certificates exist specifically to address this problem, and only small (less trustworthy?) dealers can not afford to use them.
Second, they could just be scarfing the net for people's identification, for use or sale. How valuable is a pic of your CC? Is it both sides? There's the burried issue of asking for an 'image' of my signature... How about your driver's license, with address, physical descrip, DONOR status... All this is valuable info to someone.
We use a mouse by moving it around, right? So if one is buttonless than won't moving it be clicking it? Won't clicking it make it move?
Will I have to worry about making sure that my fingers are in the 'correct' position, forcing me to not only look on the screen for the pointer, but also at the mouse for finger postion??
Another case of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should", I think.
Wireless and optical is cool, but pressure sensitive, with 'strokable zones'?
I remember Robotech from grade school. I remember actually sprinting from school, across the parking lot, down the street and into the living room, since it came on at 3pm, just as school let out.
I used to be able to make it before the beginning credits ended.
Robotech was the single intelligent 'cartoon' on TV back then, and things have just gotten worse since.
Should we totally alter a foreign planet and bring it away from its natural state?
Why the hell not?
It's there. Nobody is using it for anything. It's of little use to us as it is.
Humans are the first living being (we know of) that have managed to transcend evolution. Before us, organisms adapted to their environment - WE have the ability to adapt our environments to ourselves.
There are many benefits, and few disadvantages, to terraforming Mars. The only CON I can think of is some (arguably misguided) philosophical obligation to maintain some sort of natural purity... Bah!
PRO: A new human habitat. PRO: Opportunity to learn how to unfsck our own planet. PRO: Another driver for technological advancement.
That as long as we know that Al Gore invented the Internet.;)
I agree, there are so many people who helped bring the Internet to it's present state, that it's almost impossible to know them all, and where exactly their contributions fit.
For example, without Von Neumann and Dijkstra, Cerf would have had nothing to work with but a string and some cans. The name Shannon comes to mind, and some freak named Tesla as well.
And while giving credit where credit is due, let's mention Eve, without whom Adam would never have had the impetus to KNOW things.:) The Internet is the work of the devil, there we have it.:)
nothing any larger than the largest elephants could live in our world today
Keep in mind that before the train conquered the Wild Wild West, some people proclaimed that man would not be able to breathe at the amazing speeds (of 30 MPH) that the train promissed. After all, it was kind of hard to breathe regularly on a galloping horse, so going even faster would be impossible.
The folks involved in the Manhattan Project were fearful that their first test blast might ignite the Earth's atmosphere, killing everyone instantly. These were scientists, mathematicians and physicists - but they had no experience and were forced to speculate.
At one time, the world was flat, and then suddenly became round when Magellan's ship didn't fall of the edge of it in his circumnavigation attempt. The Moon is just fossilized green cheese, and there's still a face on Mars - a sure sign of intelligent life there, but not much here.
Nice try, but it's turtles all the way down, and evolution is still illegal in Kansas.:)
I tried, I really, really tried. I gave an honest College try, and attempted to work my way through the 'Interesting Theories' link.
What a bunch of BULL.
Remember the 'Religious Right' pages that sprouted all over the net like mushrooms after a rainstorm, as soon as South Park - Bigger, Longer and Uncut came out? That's exactly how the 'IT' article reads.
It's peppered with references to books published by Harvard Press, Oxford Press and whatever else - in an effort to add credibility to something that holds water like a sieve.
It's chock full of numbers that in another context might make sense, but here come out of nowhere to fit into an argument, and disappear again when they become 'inconvenient'. We all know how a liberal sprinkling of math tends to intimidate people into agreeing with the (obviously more intelligent) author. Microsoft does this a whole lot - as do tele-evangelists in their counting of statistical distribution of Deadly Sins in SP:BL&U
The ideas presented in the article are preposterous. They are a lame, ignorant attempt to answer some valid questions - but they are absolute 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'.
Read the article for amusement only. It's the pseudo-intellectual equivalent of FUD, and a great way to get the imagination of junior-high kids fired up. Nothing more.
This game was put out by Apogee. I'd tell you more, but there is an Act of Congress and a Federal Law that prevents me from speaking my mind.
Interesting, a Federal Law which limits my First Amendment Right to Free Speach. I guess it just goes to show, now more than ever: The business of America, is Business.
That's what I call it at least, the Thumper Principle.
Remember Bambi? Remember Thumper?
T: "He's (Bambi) kinda wabbly, isn't he?" M: "Thumper! What's your Father say!?" T: "'If you can't say nothin' nice, don't say nothin' at all...'"
Reminds me of a little work incident a few years back. There was a foreign engineer working with us on a software project. After a few very productive months, his manager came for a visit. Over a lunch, he asked how we liked working with his programmer. Someone had the lack of foresight to mention that the guy was a very good golfer.
A few months later, after the contract ended and the guy went back home, we heard that he'd been passed over for a raise and promotion, due to his 'unsatisfactory' performance on our project.
The sad part is, the man was a genuinely good coder, and a hard worker. We liked him, and involved him in our after work activities. He was a quick study, and learned golf very quickly, which impressed his golfing partner enough to mention the fact over lunch, instead of exhalting his programming skills.
Had we thought far enough ahead to consider that the rest of the world pays more attention to the Thumper Principle than we do here in the States, we would not have accidentally ham-strung a good man's career.
ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) communication is in military use now. I don't know how far beyond research it has gone, but it's been discussed in the likes of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics years ago.
ELF waves are acoustic, but inaudible to humans. They've been compared to geological events like magma flows and earthquakes or distant thunder. Very low signal carrying capacity, but good distance - trans-oceanic. From what I've read, they're (or at least have the potential to be) used to get the attention of, or send pre-expected messages to, remote sites and submarines on long-range, silent patrol. In effect, a set of messages is already held on a sub, and only the ID of the message is transmitted.
There's some question about the effect of ELF waves on biologicals...
Whale/dolphin modes of communication are much higher frequency, and should support signal carrying. I agree that this might be a very promising method of communication. Hopefully those with some know-how will spot this thread and illucidate the matter.:)
Write your email on a piece of paper, slip it into the bottle, and heave it in the direction you want it to go. Remember, nothing beats a station wagon of DAT tapes for bandwidth.
Carrier Seagulls? Now that the Carrier Pigeon is extinct, and considering the resources you'll have at hand, you must make due with what's available. Just don't bother the albatross, it's bad luck.
Have you considered ELF? Whales use them to communicate over thousands of miles. It should be no problem. Just stick your head under water and move some mucous(um, SNOT) around in your sinuses. The only risk is getting water up your nose, or getting blasted out of the water by a North Korean sub... But hey, that's a small price to pay for low-cost global connectivity.
The explanations of the experiment state that a pulse may travel faster than light (over a short distance) as an 'evanescent wave', but it can not carry information.
How then is it detectable? I mean, if you can tell it's arrived, didn't you just send information?
The fact that a Morse-code dot has arrived is information, isn't it? The sequence of transmissions carries data, not any single 'bit' pulse. What am I missing?
Slashdot Mirror
Nuts! It's been posted already... Shoot! :)
Well, that's what I get for trying to have a life over the weekend instead of reading slashdot.
I know this is borderline OT, but here's something nifty I just came across:
This looks like an interesting way to test Napster's convictions. The Offspring - supporters of Napster/MP3 in principle, are looking at making a profit off of Napster by selling Napster merchandise on their own site. Now we'll see if it (Napster) is about the customers or about the profits - won't we?
Taken from Good Morning Silicon Valley
You said Napster. Heh, heh-heh.. SoCal punk outfit The Offspring (http://www.offspring.com/) have begun selling unauthorized Napster merchandise on the band's Web site, for which they will keep 100 percent of the profits. Napster does not produce or market merchandise of its own. A source close to the band explained the maneuver, saying "It isn't about making money. In typical Offspring fashion, they think it's funny to f--- with people. They think Napster's cool and want to see how cool they [really] are."
We've seen this sort of thing before. Something keeps changing, and a whole industry has sprung up to keep everyone up to date - the anti-virus market. Why has StarOffice not looked at this in the same fashion? Why not distribute new M$ file format descriptions as we would virus signature files? If a format description were encoded in a way that would allow an already deployed parser to interpret a new file without too much trouble.. [grind-grind, the squeak of turning wheels]
M$ claims that the next format they use will be a derivative of XML - this is too true, I'm sure, the format will certainly be a derivative of XML in some form. But this got me thinking. Why not look at M$ formats as already being XML-like. There's got to be a description of a particular version, that can be expressed separately from the parsing logic that actually does the reading.
Relevant? Perhaps.
Irritating in structure!
Good exercise though
Haikus add no worth
A crafty form of trolling
Author lacks humour
There once was a poster on slashdot
Who posted Haikus and would not stop
We laughed, then we flamed
'Cause the gimick got lame
And hoped for a 'bitchslap' or some-such
;)
The 'High Priority Bonus' pretty much covers what's wrong with NT. In and of itself NT isn't bad, but all of it's 'conveniences' defeat an otherwise decent security model. That coupled with global sharing of files, drives and peripherals... Running as Administrator, the 98/95 open file system available to all users.
:) The article is about technical problems, for the most part, while most of the problems with NT result from poor administration and ignorance.
I guess the authors found it hard to write a paragraph outlining sheer idiocy..
The article is a bit self-agrandizing, but putting the most common holes out where everyone can see them is not a bad thing.
Now, Network Admins have no excuse but to fix things, rather than hoping no one 'figures out' where the holes are. The fixes for the 'ten most common' problems are not hard, and they're readily available.
Exposing security holes and avenues of attack to public review does make it a bit more possible that a cracker will learn something new, but the dangerous guys already know about all of this. Hiding this sort of information is like installing a car alarm - you'll keep the amateurs away, and you'll give the pros a chuckle while they make off with your goods.
If there is some unique set of conditions that make YOUR system vulnerable, and these conditions are very obscure and virtually impossible to 'guess', AND expensive to fix - by all means, keep them a secret as long as you can - but be ready when the hammer hits.
The problems outlined in the article are common-place, and in most cases common-sense. What 'advantage' does a cracker get from knowing that easily guessed passwords are a weakness? What does he gain from an Admin being educated to remove sample CGI scripts and default accounts off of commercial products??
How much harder is MPEG-4 on the decoding hardware when compared to MPEG-3?
I ask because I have a satellite TV decoder that uses MPEG-3, and in high-action sequences, I get to see a lot of jaggy blocks, since the decoder can't keep up with the data...
It doesn't happen too often, but at the worst times. You're paying attention to the action and all of a sudden *POOF*, the most intense area of the screen get's ugly and blocky for a sec or two.
The article makes two good points against counter-attack:
:) ) is to log everything, look into it to try to identify the culprit conclusively, prove fiscal loss and/or denial of service - a.k.a resource theft; and then take the nice report to the authorities.
1. Hitting an innocent bystander - since attacks usually come from hijacked and spoofed locations/addresses.
2. Retaliation against an illegal attack by the same means is also illegal - vigilanteism doesn't solve the problem, it reduces it to a pissing contest.
The suggestion (mine as well as that of respected experts
If we retaliate against a script kiddie, we'll either hit Grandma Smith who gladly gave her AOL password to an 'AOL representative' online, or we DOS the punk - so what?
If we get the law involved, we get him effectively killed in the computer industry - and even have him pulled off the lecture circuit a'la Mitnik.
170th post!!
What sort of assurance can we demand from the marketter in exchange for this sort of personal information?
I don't really like the idea of a digital image of my credit card, or myself for that matter, to be in the hands of a retailer. If a CC slip can be compromised, so can my likeness, and a jpeg of me can be sent to a retailer by people other than myself... They might paste my picture on a false testimonial, making it look more genuine, and possibly making me a suspect in false advertising.
We're being asked to provide identifying characteristics to a retailer before they will trust us - but how do we trust them to:
a) not abuse this identification
b) protect the confidentiality of this information
c) actually deliver the product
We've heard plenty of horror stories about fly-by-night operations that accept many orders, and many payments, and then close up shop without delivering the goods. It's easier to disappear on the net than it is in the real world.
It seems like a place that does this sort of 'integrity checking' could be trying to accomplish two things:
First, they try to appear more credible by showing 'innitiative' in excessive security. Frankly, I like the LISTSERV email handshake method of establishing trust - maybe a third party approach... Retailer verifies with your CC company that you are a customer, the CC company verifies with you that you want to deal with that retailer - pass some PIN or transaction digest in a full circle and you're set. Tedious, but you're not exposed. Digital certificates exist specifically to address this problem, and only small (less trustworthy?) dealers can not afford to use them.
Second, they could just be scarfing the net for people's identification, for use or sale. How valuable is a pic of your CC? Is it both sides? There's the burried issue of asking for an 'image' of my signature... How about your driver's license, with address, physical descrip, DONOR status... All this is valuable info to someone.
We use a mouse by moving it around, right? So if one is buttonless than won't moving it be clicking it? Won't clicking it make it move?
Will I have to worry about making sure that my fingers are in the 'correct' position, forcing me to not only look on the screen for the pointer, but also at the mouse for finger postion??
Another case of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should", I think.
Wireless and optical is cool, but pressure sensitive, with 'strokable zones'?
My goodness, thank you so much...
I remember Robotech from grade school. I remember actually sprinting from school, across the parking lot, down the street and into the living room, since it came on at 3pm, just as school let out.
I used to be able to make it before the beginning credits ended.
Robotech was the single intelligent 'cartoon' on TV back then, and things have just gotten worse since.
Should we totally alter a foreign planet and bring it away from its natural state?
Why the hell not?
It's there. Nobody is using it for anything. It's of little use to us as it is.
Humans are the first living being (we know of) that have managed to transcend evolution. Before us, organisms adapted to their environment - WE have the ability to adapt our environments to ourselves.
There are many benefits, and few disadvantages, to terraforming Mars. The only CON I can think of is some (arguably misguided) philosophical obligation to maintain some sort of natural purity... Bah!
PRO: A new human habitat.
PRO: Opportunity to learn how to unfsck our own planet.
PRO: Another driver for technological advancement.
That as long as we know that Al Gore invented the Internet. ;)
:) The Internet is the work of the devil, there we have it. :)
I agree, there are so many people who helped bring the Internet to it's present state, that it's almost impossible to know them all, and where exactly their contributions fit.
For example, without Von Neumann and Dijkstra, Cerf would have had nothing to work with but a string and some cans. The name Shannon comes to mind, and some freak named Tesla as well.
And while giving credit where credit is due, let's mention Eve, without whom Adam would never have had the impetus to KNOW things.
Check out the rest of the 'Interesting Theories' site, www.bearfabrique.org.
Good for a few snickers, several belly-laughs and more than the USRDA of disbelieving head-shakes. It makes a strong case for Prozac and Lithium.
nothing any larger than the largest elephants could live in our world today
:)
Keep in mind that before the train conquered the Wild Wild West, some people proclaimed that man would not be able to breathe at the amazing speeds (of 30 MPH) that the train promissed. After all, it was kind of hard to breathe regularly on a galloping horse, so going even faster would be impossible.
The folks involved in the Manhattan Project were fearful that their first test blast might ignite the Earth's atmosphere, killing everyone instantly. These were scientists, mathematicians and physicists - but they had no experience and were forced to speculate.
At one time, the world was flat, and then suddenly became round when Magellan's ship didn't fall of the edge of it in his circumnavigation attempt. The Moon is just fossilized green cheese, and there's still a face on Mars - a sure sign of intelligent life there, but not much here.
Nice try, but it's turtles all the way down, and evolution is still illegal in Kansas.
I tried, I really, really tried. I gave an honest College try, and attempted to work my way through the 'Interesting Theories' link.
What a bunch of BULL.
Remember the 'Religious Right' pages that sprouted all over the net like mushrooms after a rainstorm, as soon as South Park - Bigger, Longer and Uncut came out? That's exactly how the 'IT' article reads.
It's peppered with references to books published by Harvard Press, Oxford Press and whatever else - in an effort to add credibility to something that holds water like a sieve.
It's chock full of numbers that in another context might make sense, but here come out of nowhere to fit into an argument, and disappear again when they become 'inconvenient'. We all know how a liberal sprinkling of math tends to intimidate people into agreeing with the (obviously more intelligent) author. Microsoft does this a whole lot - as do tele-evangelists in their counting of statistical distribution of Deadly Sins in SP:BL&U
The ideas presented in the article are preposterous. They are a lame, ignorant attempt to answer some valid questions - but they are absolute 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'.
Read the article for amusement only. It's the pseudo-intellectual equivalent of FUD, and a great way to get the imagination of junior-high kids fired up. Nothing more.
This game was put out by Apogee. I'd tell you more, but there is an Act of Congress and a Federal Law that prevents me from speaking my mind.
Interesting, a Federal Law which limits my First Amendment Right to Free Speach. I guess it just goes to show, now more than ever: The business of America, is Business.
Oh, 310th post!
That's what I call it at least, the Thumper Principle.
Remember Bambi? Remember Thumper?
T: "He's (Bambi) kinda wabbly, isn't he?"
M: "Thumper! What's your Father say!?"
T: "'If you can't say nothin' nice, don't say nothin' at all...'"
Reminds me of a little work incident a few years back.
There was a foreign engineer working with us on a software project.
After a few very productive months, his manager came for a visit.
Over a lunch, he asked how we liked working with his programmer.
Someone had the lack of foresight to mention that the guy was a very good golfer.
A few months later, after the contract ended and the guy went back home, we heard that he'd been passed over for a raise and promotion, due to his 'unsatisfactory' performance on our project.
The sad part is, the man was a genuinely good coder, and a hard worker. We liked him, and involved him in our after work activities. He was a quick study, and learned golf very quickly, which impressed his golfing partner enough to mention the fact over lunch, instead of exhalting his programming skills.
Had we thought far enough ahead to consider that the rest of the world pays more attention to the Thumper Principle than we do here in the States, we would not have accidentally ham-strung a good man's career.
"When jabber jibbers, the jive jibes!"
:)
Wow... I think I have a new sig...
May I quote you?
Well, well...
How long until I can be legally protected from negative moderation on Slashdot?
A clarification is in order.
:)
ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) communication is in military use now. I don't know how far beyond research it has gone, but it's been discussed in the likes of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics years ago.
ELF waves are acoustic, but inaudible to humans. They've been compared to geological events like magma flows and earthquakes or distant thunder. Very low signal carrying capacity, but good distance - trans-oceanic. From what I've read, they're (or at least have the potential to be) used to get the attention of, or send pre-expected messages to, remote sites and submarines on long-range, silent patrol. In effect, a set of messages is already held on a sub, and only the ID of the message is transmitted.
There's some question about the effect of ELF waves on biologicals...
Whale/dolphin modes of communication are much higher frequency, and should support signal carrying. I agree that this might be a very promising method of communication. Hopefully those with some know-how will spot this thread and illucidate the matter.
It's proven technology.
Write your email on a piece of paper, slip it into the bottle, and heave it in the direction you want it to go. Remember, nothing beats a station wagon of DAT tapes for bandwidth.
Carrier Seagulls? Now that the Carrier Pigeon is extinct, and considering the resources you'll have at hand, you must make due with what's available. Just don't bother the albatross, it's bad luck.
Have you considered ELF? Whales use them to communicate over thousands of miles. It should be no problem. Just stick your head under water and move some mucous(um, SNOT) around in your sinuses. The only risk is getting water up your nose, or getting blasted out of the water by a North Korean sub... But hey, that's a small price to pay for low-cost global connectivity.
I'll bite..
The explanations of the experiment state that a pulse may travel faster than light (over a short distance) as an 'evanescent wave', but it can not carry information.
How then is it detectable? I mean, if you can tell it's arrived, didn't you just send information?
The fact that a Morse-code dot has arrived is information, isn't it? The sequence of transmissions carries data, not any single 'bit' pulse. What am I missing?