So, if you're running a webserver, someone can send regular old HTTP requests to that port, but no one can send anything else to the port? How about ping? Would you let someone ping your webserver?
If that were so, then there'd be no way to manipulate people to political or cultural actions. History proves otherwise.
No, it doesn't. History proves that many people allow themselves to be manipulated. There's a difference.
Good propaganda, from Common Sense to Mein Kampf
Many people have read and rejected both.
to the spinning of Gulf War I to the big lie that George W. Bush has a legitimate claim on the presidency
You don't seem to believe it...
And right now, some Madison Avenue sucker-of-Satan's-cock is filing you under the "anti-advertising" demographic.
I'm not "anti-advertising". I simply see making a purchase as a way of acquiring a needed commodity. When I need a bottle of rubbing alcohol or a bar of soap, I go down to the store and pick up some. I don't buy stuff because I've been told to. I have never in my life made a purchase not based on need. Now, when I make a necessary purchase, I may choose a certain *brand* because of advertising (as in, "What kind of soap should I buy? What kinds are there? Well, the only two I've ever heard of are Ivory and Dial. I guess I'll pick one of those.") This is *not* the same as someone tricking me into thinking I need soap when I really don't.
"He says he's too smart and willful to be manipulated. So we'll do a campaign that plays on that, like those 'Image is nothing' Sprite ads but about twenty IQ points higher, play like we're giving him straight facts to make a logical decision (but of course we spin them our way) but put it in a framework that congratulates him on his logic for making the `right choice', which of course is us..."
I think you're giving them way too much credit. I think that most people are not so foolish as to believe the "facts" they see on TV. Sure, they'll try to get me to remember their brand name (that's their job, after all) but they can't somehow force me to "need" their product.
For example, I don't smoke. I have never smoked. When I see an ad for cigarettes, no matter how nicely done it may be, I don't suddenly get a craving for cigarettes. I don't drive down to the store to buy a pack. They can make the name "Camel" memorable, but they can't make me a smoker.
*I* used it. And I use jstar (in *NIX environments) and Qedit (Win/DOS environments) now. Why? Because the control key navigation combos are so efficient. Your hands never have to leave the alpha area of the keyboard. Plus, I'd have to break an 18+ year habit to become efficient with vi!
In my mind, the greatness of WS was the command key navigation that allows one to keep his or her hands efficiently placed on the alpha area of the keyboard. Plus, I like the story about the 4 month development time in assembly...<grin>
My dad used WordStar when I was a kid, and he taught me to use it (I could write little stories in it, or whatever). Then, when I started learning to program, I used Qedit, which defaulted to WordStar-like command keys. Now, I use jstar under Linux and OpenBSD. I think I may still have the original WordStar binary around here somewhere.... Ahh, memories.
I've tried MOD, but just didn't find it useful from a musical standpoint. It's difficult, for example, to record the piano part from a concerto. MIDI is much more suited to this sort of task. Plus, when you've spent a lot of money on a high-end syntesizers, the 8 bit samples used in a MOD file just don't cut it!
However, for the low-end market, there's a solution quite like MOD now. It comes in the form of the DLS (DownLoadable Sounds) standard. This is a basic PCM sample/patch standard that allows distribution of samples and patches that should sound the same on any compliant device. In combination with regular MIDI files, the level of musical and synth control is much higher than with MOD. The difference has been that there hasn't been a "scene" developing around DLS yet.
I mostly agree with you. But, people have a will. There is no such thing as "manipulating" people to buy a product. You can suggest, but they have to actually make the decision. Go on, try to sell me something. I can refuse to buy anything you're selling because I have a will.
As the article points out, this effectively ends the monopoly the spy agencies had on this high-end imagery.
That's rich. You can bet that anytime the NSA, CIA, or DoD lets anybody see or use a technology, it's because it's out of date and has been replaced with something much more powerful.
Heh. Way back in the day, I was working in a test lab and doing benchmarks. We began referring to the ATI Graphics Wonder as the "Graphics Blunder" because the driver brought down the test machines every five minutes or so.
Theo,
If you get the chance to read this, I'd just like to make a comment or two. First, we are fully aware of the human resource restraints for security audits; however, would it be possible to have third parties audit their own code? I want to see GNUstep security tested and we're working on getting it running well under OBSD anyway right at the moment? Would you trust us to do it ourselves? Would you still have to look at it first?
I don't even know where to start. First of all, RMS can't be rolling over in his grave because HE'S NOT DEAD! Second, if someone chooses to make their work available to others that's not called stealing--it's called a GIFT. Third, the license was clear; if the other developers didn't like the idea, they didn't have to write the code.
Now, before anyone else says it, I'll say it myself: IHBT, IHL, HAND. C'est la vie.
This is what always gets me about Internet FUD spread by politicians. The whole "Cyber-terrorism" thing. I mean, really. How many reports have you seen of dangerous third-world terrorists bringing down nuclear plants or starting WWIII by cracking web servers? What you see is a bunch of immature dorks replacing index.html with a document that states, "1 0w|/| j0o". Then the sysadmins restore from a tape backup and life goes on.
The only way they can be sure of the security of any product is to audit it themselves. This is probably what they do. They very well might be using BSD or Linux or WhizbangOS or whatever but it's probably been modified heavily and gone over many times by their security staff.
Slashdot Mirror
Godsday. Why does that sound like some corny "Christian rock" band?
Ah, Berzerk! I used to play that game all the time! I was only about 3 or so, and my uncle had an Atari 2600. Man, those were the days...
So, if you're running a webserver, someone can send regular old HTTP requests to that port, but no one can send anything else to the port? How about ping? Would you let someone ping your webserver?
So you've actually witnessed daemons having sex? Can I have some of what you're smoking? Forget that, what kind of port scanner are you using?
Probably far too many.
No, it doesn't. History proves that many people allow themselves to be manipulated. There's a difference.
Good propaganda, from Common Sense to Mein Kampf
Many people have read and rejected both.
to the spinning of Gulf War I to the big lie that George W. Bush has a legitimate claim on the presidency
You don't seem to believe it...
And right now, some Madison Avenue sucker-of-Satan's-cock is filing you under the "anti-advertising" demographic.
I'm not "anti-advertising". I simply see making a purchase as a way of acquiring a needed commodity. When I need a bottle of rubbing alcohol or a bar of soap, I go down to the store and pick up some. I don't buy stuff because I've been told to. I have never in my life made a purchase not based on need. Now, when I make a necessary purchase, I may choose a certain *brand* because of advertising (as in, "What kind of soap should I buy? What kinds are there? Well, the only two I've ever heard of are Ivory and Dial. I guess I'll pick one of those.") This is *not* the same as someone tricking me into thinking I need soap when I really don't.
"He says he's too smart and willful to be manipulated. So we'll do a campaign that plays on that, like those 'Image is nothing' Sprite ads but about twenty IQ points higher, play like we're giving him straight facts to make a logical decision (but of course we spin them our way) but put it in a framework that congratulates him on his logic for making the `right choice', which of course is us..."
I think you're giving them way too much credit. I think that most people are not so foolish as to believe the "facts" they see on TV. Sure, they'll try to get me to remember their brand name (that's their job, after all) but they can't somehow force me to "need" their product.
For example, I don't smoke. I have never smoked. When I see an ad for cigarettes, no matter how nicely done it may be, I don't suddenly get a craving for cigarettes. I don't drive down to the store to buy a pack. They can make the name "Camel" memorable, but they can't make me a smoker.
*I* used it. And I use jstar (in *NIX environments) and Qedit (Win/DOS environments) now. Why? Because the control key navigation combos are so efficient. Your hands never have to leave the alpha area of the keyboard. Plus, I'd have to break an 18+ year habit to become efficient with vi!
In my mind, the greatness of WS was the command key navigation that allows one to keep his or her hands efficiently placed on the alpha area of the keyboard. Plus, I like the story about the 4 month development time in assembly...<grin>
You forgot, "7. Work's your fat, lazy ass."
To me, typing is a lot faster when you can keep your hands on the alpha keys for navigation. That's why I use it.
A good idea is never out of date. And WordStar, like UNIX, sunlight, and sex, was full of goodness.
My dad used WordStar when I was a kid, and he taught me to use it (I could write little stories in it, or whatever). Then, when I started learning to program, I used Qedit, which defaulted to WordStar-like command keys. Now, I use jstar under Linux and OpenBSD. I think I may still have the original WordStar binary around here somewhere.... Ahh, memories.
However, for the low-end market, there's a solution quite like MOD now. It comes in the form of the DLS (DownLoadable Sounds) standard. This is a basic PCM sample/patch standard that allows distribution of samples and patches that should sound the same on any compliant device. In combination with regular MIDI files, the level of musical and synth control is much higher than with MOD. The difference has been that there hasn't been a "scene" developing around DLS yet.
I mostly agree with you. But, people have a will. There is no such thing as "manipulating" people to buy a product. You can suggest, but they have to actually make the decision. Go on, try to sell me something. I can refuse to buy anything you're selling because I have a will.
That's rich. You can bet that anytime the NSA, CIA, or DoD lets anybody see or use a technology, it's because it's out of date and has been replaced with something much more powerful.
Heh. Way back in the day, I was working in a test lab and doing benchmarks. We began referring to the ATI Graphics Wonder as the "Graphics Blunder" because the driver brought down the test machines every five minutes or so.
That we can take back USENET?
What would it take to get NeXTSTEP or OPENSTEP running under plex86?
Theo, If you get the chance to read this, I'd just like to make a comment or two. First, we are fully aware of the human resource restraints for security audits; however, would it be possible to have third parties audit their own code? I want to see GNUstep security tested and we're working on getting it running well under OBSD anyway right at the moment? Would you trust us to do it ourselves? Would you still have to look at it first?
Now, before anyone else says it, I'll say it myself: IHBT, IHL, HAND. C'est la vie.
That's really the question. Or rather, if it behaves well.
This is what always gets me about Internet FUD spread by politicians. The whole "Cyber-terrorism" thing. I mean, really. How many reports have you seen of dangerous third-world terrorists bringing down nuclear plants or starting WWIII by cracking web servers? What you see is a bunch of immature dorks replacing index.html with a document that states, "1 0w|/| j0o". Then the sysadmins restore from a tape backup and life goes on.
The only way they can be sure of the security of any product is to audit it themselves. This is probably what they do. They very well might be using BSD or Linux or WhizbangOS or whatever but it's probably been modified heavily and gone over many times by their security staff.
Would you consider?
Heh...probably neurotic, too. It's not a job I would want. I consume too much caffeine as it is.