The application was based primarily on claims from Steele, a person who himself had said he was "desperate that Trump not get elected and passionate that Trump not be president".
The DOJ official interviewing Steele was Mr. Ohr.
The Ohrs were being paid by the DNC and Clinton campaign to try to discredit Trump.
This information was not revealed to the Court when DOJ sought the FISA warrant.
Which is these facts do you call "horse shit" and why?
> Linux kernel, instead of a lightweight microkernel.
I think you mean "a single lightweight Linux kernel instead of a daemons and a microkernel". Running the same functionality in many separate processes isn't lightweight.
If, instead of either compiling or loading the modules a device needs, Android ran the "do everything" kernel that Redhat ships, that would include more functionality than needed, and be heavier than needed. The lightweight way to go is to load only the functionality the device requires - and a thousand messages and process switches per second aren't required. That's extra weight. You can argue that security or some other goal is worth the extra weight, but microkernels do a lot of extra work. Nothing lightweight about it.
Are you trying to say "hardware", that only hardware is technology? Because Google / Alphabet creates a lot of new technology - new speech to text technology, self-driving car tech, etc mostly created in software.
> My standard is how they get their revenues. Making tech - like chips (Intel) makes them a tech company. Using tech to say get revenues from say advertising (Google, Yahoo! & facebook) makes them not tech.
Advertising is a *payment method*. You can pay for YouTube by watching ads or by Visa. What generates the revenue is the cool stuff Google provides such as YouTube videos and Google maps. Slashdot and Google maps aren't in the same business, just because they both offer the same payment method. Ads are just the method of payment for the maps and videos, or articles and discussion.
> If you want to be pedantic about it I'm pretty sure number of digits in your bank account is the biggest correlation with wealth.
If you want to be pedantic about it I'm pretty sure number of digits in your bank account is the biggest correlation with THE ABSOLUTE VALUE of wealth (it's often negative).
Plenty of people have five digits in their bank account and six digits of debt.
If you were only going to look at one account, I'd guess the best correlation may be the 401k / IRA balance. The amount of home equity is a big factor, but that wouldn't be represented in an account balance.
I can imagine one person having a brain fart and doing something stupid. One person doesn't decide the pricing and change it at a whom, though. This had to be multiple executives agreeing this pricing discrimination sounded like a good idea.
Who the heck in running Tinder? I wonder how many of them have graduated high school, because this is a pretty obvious screw up. I notice the various bios of their CEO don't list any other jobs he's ever had. Looks a bit like this may be his first job.
In the 1930s some people wanted to break up the car companies, saying the same company couldn't both manufacture cars and own the dealerships.
You can imagine if Microsoft in 1998 made not just the OS, but also the PCs and owned the stores that sold them. Some people would want a new law saying Microsoft couldn't own the stores too. The thing is, laws ALWAYS have unintended consequences.
To make long story short, in the 1930s some people wanted to break up the car companies, saying the same company couldn't both manufacture cars and own the dealerships.
You can imagine if Microsoft in 1998 made not just the OS, but also the PCs and owned the stores that sold them. Some people would want a new law saying Microsoft couldn't own the stores too. The thing is, laws ALWAYS have unintended consequences.
If it were backed by dollars, meaning that for ever T there was a USD in reserve, that would NOT mean there is always someone willing to pay 1USD for it, and never anyone willing to pay more. The THEORETICAL value is always 1USD, if the company is telling the truth.
Mutual funds frequently trade a bit below or about above the value of their holdings. Over time, they'll always tend toward near that value as long as buyers trust the company.
This reminds me of the Human Genome Project. After a few years of trying to get funding for a fifteen year project to sequence the entire human genome, the Reagan administration allocated $3 billion to get started. It was "finished" 13 years later. Now this iPhone doohickey does it in seconds or minutes.
The Constitution lists which things the federal government can do. It then says that all other powers are reserved to the states and the people. It actually says that last part THREE TIMES, just to be certain nobody can miss it.
It then says that on these listed subjects that the federal government is allowed to legislate, federal law is the supreme law of the land, anything in state law notwithstanding:
-- This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. --
Either regulating nationwide ISPs regarding NN is NOT an enumerated power, in which case the FCC has no authority at all and can't do anything, or the feds have the power and the states do not. The Constitution does not allow for dueling laws, with some states having valid laws that contradict federal law.
It is claimed that the federal government has the power under the Interstate Commerce Clause:
-- To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; --
The federal rules apply companies *selling interstate* ISP services, so it sounds a lot like "commerce... among the several states". The wording of thay clause *is* broad, but obviously it's intended to cover a limited number of things, so perhaps whenever something is questionable it should be interpreted fairly strictly.
Moving along, the very first sentence of Article 1 says that all law-making authority is vested in Congress, who cannot delegate it to any other branch of government. Later it says the job of the Executive branch is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". So executive branch entities such as the FCC must enforce the laws that Congress passes.
The question therefore is if Congress did in fact pass such a law and direct the FCC to enforce it. It is claimed that Congress did so with the Communications Act of 1934. Just by the title of the act alone, we can see it's going to be questionable whether, in 1934, Congress could have made any kind of law about the internet. In fact Congress made a law about the phone company (the ONE interstate phone company).
It seems likely that the feds CAN regulate ISPs in this way, subject to first amendment and other rights, and then states could not trample on federal law. It also seems rather likely that Congress has not yet passed a bill requiring ISPs to implement Network Neutrality ideas, and without such a law the FCC has nothing to enforce.
If ARM, a member of the alliance, includes it in their design, it'll be very easy for Samsung and Qualcomm to include it in their next design, if only "just in case".
The summary mentions they are competing with the Alliance for Open Media. AOM was founded by Amazon, Apple, ARM, Cisco, Facebook, Google, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix and NVIDIA. Other AOM members include AMD, Hulu, and more.
AOM members serve up over 80â... of the world's internet traffic, and decide which codec it will use. Almost all the internet traffic is handled by network based on equipment made by AOM members. AOM members design nearly 100â... of the world's CPUs. 98â... of consumer devices (computers and phones) run operating systems made by AOM members. You can't beat AOM unless AOM somehow destroys itself.
Even is just Netflix and YouTube chose to offer a codec which was playable on Android, iPhone and Windows, that would be hard to beat. And all those companies are AOM members - plus many more, including Intel, AMD, and ARM.
MPEG is going to need a RADICALLY different business model, unless they get extremely lucky and invent something far better than what all the AOM members can come up, or AOM destroys itself.
Once upon a time, if you described the concepts of hypertext to someone, they'd say "oh you mean HyperCard". After that, Hypertext Markup Language was created (HTML) and hypertext has gone way beyond HyperCard.
Today when most people read about Zero Trust they think "network access control", because NAC is a tool we currently use to implement some key Zero Trust concepts. However, just as hypertext wasn't limited to just HyperCard, Zero Trust is bigger than Network Access Control.
NAC is one of the earliest (aka most primitive) tools that one can use when implementing a Zero Trust philosophy. An important tool, but the early tools aren't the entire philosophy or concepts.
What's old is new again. UNIX had a lot of security in the 1980s that Windows is just adding now. Partly that's the Disk Operating System legacy of Windows - Microsoft started out differentiating their product by making an OS for a PERSONAL computer, the opposite of the time-SHARING mainframe systems, and it was designed to run completely from the local disk as opposed to the network operating systems of the day. It was a smart move that made them billions. Then the internet happened and turned everything back to network-based again.
Defense in depth is one part of Zero Trust. ZT has defense in depth built from the inside out, though. We start by securing the critical resource with the assumption that the attacker has control of a local computer. We then try to keep attackers out of our networks and an auxiliary measure. This is related to the principle of least privilege.*
Most crucially, perhaps, Zero Trust is about getting rid of the idea of "trusted networks" and focusing on WHO wants access to WHICH specific resource. WHERE isn't a significant consideration (or only an auxiliary control).
* Least privilege does NOT mean people don't have access to the things they need access to. It means they DO have access what they need access to, and don't have access to things they don't have any need for.
The summary sucks, so I understand why it was unclear.
A printer is a great example. This is about networking. The idea is to get away from the "security happens at the firewall" model, the idea if anything that has an internal IP address should automatically get access to every internal resource. In the firewall model, the printer can connect to your databases, and can send data out to the internet. Does that make sense to allow that?
The Zero Trust model is about WHO, a logged in user, rather an IP addresses. In other words, *logging in* to the network gets you access to the stuff you have access to. It's the idea that just because you have an internal IP address doesn't mean you should have access to every internal resource. The printer is inside the network, but it doesn't get access to the databases, or HR system, or anything else. Also the printer doesn't have access to the internet. Inside the network or not, access is allowed based on who is logged in, not just anyone with a local IP.
Regarding a logged-in user with a malware infested PC, the network itself can't prevent ALL damage from that, but the Zero Trust model limits the damage because the malware can only access the things that specific user accesses for their job. The marketing manager can't even ping the database, so if his PC is infected only marketing material is at risk, not the database, code repos, etc.
The summary sucks, so I can see how you might get that idea. It's very much NOT talking about jump boxes, though.
It's more about until you log in to your computer (via Active Directory / LDAP), you can't access sensitive internal resources. Once you're logged in, the DBA gets access to the database, while the UI developer doesn't. It's the idea that just because you have an internal IP address doesn't mean you should have access to every internal resource.
By 1964, and probably earlier, the Supreme Court had confirmed that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution applies strongly to the 1934 act - states cannot step on the FCC's regulation. Congress gave the FCC full authority to regulate nationwide and did not allow for state and local changes.
You're thinking of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, specifically Title 2 of the 1934 Act. Title 2 created the FCC to regulate the phone company in certain ways. THE phone company, then officially named American Telephone and Telegraph, but branded as Bell. The FCC was given the authority to do specific things regarding the national monopoly phone company, which operated by telling the operator who you wanted to talk to and she's physically plug your line into their line.
Almost a hundred years later, Tom Wheeler decided "since I was given legal authority to regulate how Ma Bell plugs copper together, that must mean I can unilaterally make up new laws for the whole internet." Most lawyers would disagree.
Congress COULD pass legislation directing the FCC to enforce specific requirements designed to support listed objectives which different people associate with the general approach called "network neutrality", but they haven't chosen to do so yet.
Come to think of it, that's the very first sentence in Article 1:
SECTION 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives
The framers decided the very first thing that needed to be understood about our system of Government is that all legislative (law making) authority is held by Congress, noone else.
In my mind, there are people *elected* to make laws, after a process of debate and open amendment. To keep their jobs, lawmakers have to face the voters every two years (or six years). Those people, Constitutionally charged with making law, may need to make some law around net neutrality (though very carefully, the technical details of managing a modern carrier network are complex).
Tom Wheeler was not an elected law maker. In fact, he was neither elected NOR had any Constitutional authority to unilaterally make law. He should not have made net neutrality law as he did.
Every year, US companies spend 180 BILLION dollars advertising, and most of those ads have no real substance, they just show the product logo and colors, in a positive, feel-good situation. There is a LOT of science around advertising; they know what they are doing, and do that because it works, on humans. Whether you like it or not, seeing the same thing repeatedly affects the human brain.
When some of my friends were frequently talking about their twice-weekly poker game, I heard them several times and starting thinking about if I might like to play poker. I ended up playing poker with them, twice a week.
Later, was flying home from a business trip in Vegas and wanted something to read on the flight. I ended up with three poker books. Later I put them in my reading room (bathroom). I was always reading *something*, and that month I read about poker. While driving or whatever, I'd think about what I read - think about poker. I ended up writing a poker- playing bot, spending quite a bit of time analyzing poker as I created software that played poker.
I doubt I would have spent thousands of hours on poker had I never starting hearing about it from my friends. I wouldn't have written poker software if I had read model airplane books.
Whatever book I get, I spend several hours reading about it, and several more hours thinking about it. Whichever TV series I'm into, that's what's in my head.
As a teenager, I was into heavy metal music. I constantly had heavy metal themes pumped into my head, so a lot of my thoughts were around topics in the lyrics. Later, I started listening to Christian music. I find that when I hear a song about forgiveness, I tend to think about forgiveness. When I'm thinking about forgiveness, I'm more likely to forgive. I'm also more likely to be grateful for the forgiveness I've received, if that's what I'm thinking about because that's what I'm hearing on my way to work.
From my experience, it seems obvious that whatever I'm exposed to a lot affects what I think about. What I think about a lot tends to affect what I do.
Does that mean that if I hear you say the words "eat cheese" I'm going to immediately run to go eat cheese? Of course not? But if people are constantly offering me different kinds of cheeses, talking about which cheese goes well with what, I just might try some cheese every so often.
If my mind is on violence several hours per day, sure whatever I think about a lot is going to tend effect what I'm more likely to do.
If Linus is the king of the kernel, Greg Kroah-Hartman is the Prime Minister. He makes as many development decisions as Torvalds does, and he's ready to take over as BDFL.
Slashdot Mirror
The memo says a few interesting things:
The application was based primarily on claims from Steele, a person who himself had said he was "desperate that Trump not get elected and passionate that Trump not be president".
The DOJ official interviewing Steele was Mr. Ohr.
The Ohrs were being paid by the DNC and Clinton campaign to try to discredit Trump.
This information was not revealed to the Court when DOJ sought the FISA warrant.
Which is these facts do you call "horse shit" and why?
> Linux kernel, instead of a lightweight microkernel.
I think you mean "a single lightweight Linux kernel instead of a daemons and a microkernel". Running the same functionality in many separate processes isn't lightweight.
If, instead of either compiling or loading the modules a device needs, Android ran the "do everything" kernel that Redhat ships, that would include more functionality than needed, and be heavier than needed. The lightweight way to go is to load only the functionality the device requires - and a thousand messages and process switches per second aren't required. That's extra weight. You can argue that security or some other goal is worth the extra weight, but microkernels do a lot of extra work. Nothing lightweight about it.
It's been said the definition of insanity, is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. That it crazy.
Are you trying to say "hardware", that only hardware is technology? Because Google / Alphabet creates a lot of new technology - new speech to text technology, self-driving car tech, etc mostly created in software.
> My standard is how they get their revenues. Making tech - like chips (Intel) makes them a tech company. Using tech to say get revenues from say advertising (Google, Yahoo! & facebook) makes them not tech.
Advertising is a *payment method*. You can pay for YouTube by watching ads or by Visa. What generates the revenue is the cool stuff Google provides such as YouTube videos and Google maps. Slashdot and Google maps aren't in the same business, just because they both offer the same payment method. Ads are just the method of payment for the maps and videos, or articles and discussion.
> If you want to be pedantic about it I'm pretty sure number of digits in your bank account is the biggest correlation with wealth.
If you want to be pedantic about it I'm pretty sure number of digits in your bank account is the biggest correlation with THE ABSOLUTE VALUE of wealth (it's often negative).
Plenty of people have five digits in their bank account and six digits of debt.
If you were only going to look at one account, I'd guess the best correlation may be the 401k / IRA balance. The amount of home equity is a big factor, but that wouldn't be represented in an account balance.
I can imagine one person having a brain fart and doing something stupid. One person doesn't decide the pricing and change it at a whom, though. This had to be multiple executives agreeing this pricing discrimination sounded like a good idea.
Who the heck in running Tinder? I wonder how many of them have graduated high school, because this is a pretty obvious screw up. I notice the various bios of their CEO don't list any other jobs he's ever had. Looks a bit like this may be his first job.
In the 1930s some people wanted to break up the car companies, saying the same company couldn't both manufacture cars and own the dealerships.
You can imagine if Microsoft in 1998 made not just the OS, but also the PCs and owned the stores that sold them. Some people would want a new law saying Microsoft couldn't own the stores too. The thing is, laws ALWAYS have unintended consequences.
To make long story short, in the 1930s some people wanted to break up the car companies, saying the same company couldn't both manufacture cars and own the dealerships.
You can imagine if Microsoft in 1998 made not just the OS, but also the PCs and owned the stores that sold them. Some people would want a new law saying Microsoft couldn't own the stores too. The thing is, laws ALWAYS have unintended consequences.
If it were backed by dollars, meaning that for ever T there was a USD in reserve, that would NOT mean there is always someone willing to pay 1USD for it, and never anyone willing to pay more. The THEORETICAL value is always 1USD, if the company is telling the truth.
Mutual funds frequently trade a bit below or about above the value of their holdings. Over time, they'll always tend toward near that value as long as buyers trust the company.
This reminds me of the Human Genome Project. After a few years of trying to get funding for a fifteen year project to sequence the entire human genome, the Reagan administration allocated $3 billion to get started. It was "finished" 13 years later. Now this iPhone doohickey does it in seconds or minutes.
The Constitution lists which things the federal government can do. It then says that all other powers are reserved to the states and the people. It actually says that last part THREE TIMES, just to be certain nobody can miss it.
It then says that on these listed subjects that the federal government is allowed to legislate, federal law is the supreme law of the land, anything in state law notwithstanding:
--
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
--
Either regulating nationwide ISPs regarding NN is NOT an enumerated power, in which case the FCC has no authority at all and can't do anything, or the feds have the power and the states do not. The Constitution does not allow for dueling laws, with some states having valid laws that contradict federal law.
It is claimed that the federal government has the power under the Interstate Commerce Clause:
--
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
--
The federal rules apply companies *selling interstate* ISP services, so it sounds a lot like "commerce ... among the several states". The wording of thay clause *is* broad, but obviously it's intended to cover a limited number of things, so perhaps whenever something is questionable it should be interpreted fairly strictly.
Moving along, the very first sentence of Article 1 says that all law-making authority is vested in Congress, who cannot delegate it to any other branch of government. Later it says the job of the Executive branch is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". So executive branch entities such as the FCC must enforce the laws that Congress passes.
The question therefore is if Congress did in fact pass such a law and direct the FCC to enforce it. It is claimed that Congress did so with the Communications Act of 1934. Just by the title of the act alone, we can see it's going to be questionable whether, in 1934, Congress could have made any kind of law about the internet. In fact Congress made a law about the phone company (the ONE interstate phone company).
It seems likely that the feds CAN regulate ISPs in this way, subject to first amendment and other rights, and then states could not trample on federal law. It also seems rather likely that Congress has not yet passed a bill requiring ISPs to implement Network Neutrality ideas, and without such a law the FCC has nothing to enforce.
If ARM, a member of the alliance, includes it in their design, it'll be very easy for Samsung and Qualcomm to include it in their next design, if only "just in case".
The summary mentions they are competing with the Alliance for Open Media. AOM was founded by Amazon, Apple, ARM, Cisco, Facebook, Google, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix and NVIDIA. Other AOM members include AMD, Hulu, and more.
AOM members serve up over 80â... of the world's internet traffic, and decide which codec it will use. Almost all the internet traffic is handled by network based on equipment made by AOM members. AOM members design nearly 100â... of the world's CPUs. 98â... of consumer devices (computers and phones) run operating systems made by AOM members. You can't beat AOM unless AOM somehow destroys itself.
Even is just Netflix and YouTube chose to offer a codec which was playable on Android, iPhone and Windows, that would be hard to beat. And all those companies are AOM members - plus many more, including Intel, AMD, and ARM.
MPEG is going to need a RADICALLY different business model, unless they get extremely lucky and invent something far better than what all the AOM members can come up, or AOM destroys itself.
Once upon a time, if you described the concepts of hypertext to someone, they'd say "oh you mean HyperCard". After that, Hypertext Markup Language was created (HTML) and hypertext has gone way beyond HyperCard.
Today when most people read about Zero Trust they think "network access control", because NAC is a tool we currently use to implement some key Zero Trust concepts. However, just as hypertext wasn't limited to just HyperCard, Zero Trust is bigger than Network Access Control.
NAC is one of the earliest (aka most primitive) tools that one can use when implementing a Zero Trust philosophy. An important tool, but the early tools aren't the entire philosophy or concepts.
What's old is new again. UNIX had a lot of security in the 1980s that Windows is just adding now. Partly that's the Disk Operating System legacy of Windows - Microsoft started out differentiating their product by making an OS for a PERSONAL computer, the opposite of the time-SHARING mainframe systems, and it was designed to run completely from the local disk as opposed to the network operating systems of the day. It was a smart move that made them billions. Then the internet happened and turned everything back to network-based again.
That's a great question.
Defense in depth is one part of Zero Trust. ZT has defense in depth built from the inside out, though. We start by securing the critical resource with the assumption that the attacker has control of a local computer. We then try to keep attackers out of our networks and an auxiliary measure. This is related to the principle of least privilege.*
Most crucially, perhaps, Zero Trust is about getting rid of the idea of "trusted networks" and focusing on WHO wants access to WHICH specific resource. WHERE isn't a significant consideration (or only an auxiliary control).
* Least privilege does NOT mean people don't have access to the things they need access to. It means they DO have access what they need access to, and don't have access to things they don't have any need for.
The summary sucks, so I understand why it was unclear.
A printer is a great example. This is about networking. The idea is to get away from the "security happens at the firewall" model, the idea if anything that has an internal IP address should automatically get access to every internal resource. In the firewall model, the printer can connect to your databases, and can send data out to the internet. Does that make sense to allow that?
The Zero Trust model is about WHO, a logged in user, rather an IP addresses. In other words, *logging in* to the network gets you access to the stuff you have access to. It's the idea that just because you have an internal IP address doesn't mean you should have access to every internal resource. The printer is inside the network, but it doesn't get access to the databases, or HR system, or anything else. Also the printer doesn't have access to the internet. Inside the network or not, access is allowed based on who is logged in, not just anyone with a local IP.
Regarding a logged-in user with a malware infested PC, the network itself can't prevent ALL damage from that, but the Zero Trust model limits the damage because the malware can only access the things that specific user accesses for their job. The marketing manager can't even ping the database, so if his PC is infected only marketing material is at risk, not the database, code repos, etc.
The summary sucks, so I can see how you might get that idea. It's very much NOT talking about jump boxes, though.
It's more about until you log in to your computer (via Active Directory / LDAP), you can't access sensitive internal resources. Once you're logged in, the DBA gets access to the database, while the UI developer doesn't. It's the idea that just because you have an internal IP address doesn't mean you should have access to every internal resource.
By 1964, and probably earlier, the Supreme Court had confirmed that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution applies strongly to the 1934 act - states cannot step on the FCC's regulation. Congress gave the FCC full authority to regulate nationwide and did not allow for state and local changes.
You're thinking of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, specifically Title 2 of the 1934 Act. Title 2 created the FCC to regulate the phone company in certain ways. THE phone company, then officially named American Telephone and Telegraph, but branded as Bell. The FCC was given the authority to do specific things regarding the national monopoly phone company, which operated by telling the operator who you wanted to talk to and she's physically plug your line into their line.
Almost a hundred years later, Tom Wheeler decided "since I was given legal authority to regulate how Ma Bell plugs copper together, that must mean I can unilaterally make up new laws for the whole internet." Most lawyers would disagree.
Congress COULD pass legislation directing the FCC to enforce specific requirements designed to support listed objectives which different people associate with the general approach called "network neutrality", but they haven't chosen to do so yet.
Come to think of it, that's the very first sentence in Article 1:
SECTION 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives
The framers decided the very first thing that needed to be understood about our system of Government is that all legislative (law making) authority is held by Congress, noone else.
In my mind, there are people *elected* to make laws, after a process of debate and open amendment. To keep their jobs, lawmakers have to face the voters every two years (or six years). Those people, Constitutionally charged with making law, may need to make some law around net neutrality (though very carefully, the technical details of managing a modern carrier network are complex).
Tom Wheeler was not an elected law maker. In fact, he was neither elected NOR had any Constitutional authority to unilaterally make law. He should not have made net neutrality law as he did.
Every year, US companies spend 180 BILLION dollars advertising, and most of those ads have no real substance, they just show the product logo and colors, in a positive, feel-good situation. There is a LOT of science around advertising; they know what they are doing, and do that because it works, on humans. Whether you like it or not, seeing the same thing repeatedly affects the human brain.
Here's my experience.
When some of my friends were frequently talking about their twice-weekly poker game, I heard them several times and starting thinking about if I might like to play poker. I ended up playing poker with them, twice a week.
Later, was flying home from a business trip in Vegas and wanted something to read on the flight. I ended up with three poker books. Later I put them in my reading room (bathroom). I was always reading *something*, and that month I read about poker. While driving or whatever, I'd think about what I read - think about poker. I ended up writing a poker- playing bot, spending quite a bit of time analyzing poker as I created software that played poker.
I doubt I would have spent thousands of hours on poker had I never starting hearing about it from my friends. I wouldn't have written poker software if I had read model airplane books.
Whatever book I get, I spend several hours reading about it, and several more hours thinking about it. Whichever TV series I'm into, that's what's in my head.
As a teenager, I was into heavy metal music. I constantly had heavy metal themes pumped into my head, so a lot of my thoughts were around topics in the lyrics.
Later, I started listening to Christian music. I find that when I hear a song about forgiveness, I tend to think about forgiveness. When I'm thinking about forgiveness, I'm more likely to forgive. I'm also more likely to be grateful for the forgiveness I've received, if that's what I'm thinking about because that's what I'm hearing on my way to work.
From my experience, it seems obvious that whatever I'm exposed to a lot affects what I think about. What I think about a lot tends to affect what I do.
Does that mean that if I hear you say the words "eat cheese" I'm going to immediately run to go eat cheese? Of course not? But if people are constantly offering me different kinds of cheeses, talking about which cheese goes well with what, I just might try some cheese every so often.
If my mind is on violence several hours per day, sure whatever I think about a lot is going to tend effect what I'm more likely to do.
If Linus is the king of the kernel, Greg Kroah-Hartman is the Prime Minister. He makes as many development decisions as Torvalds does, and he's ready to take over as BDFL.