Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 19 Nov 2006 11:54 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>> >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >>> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> >>>> I don't want an internal modem. I want one with lights that > >>> >> >>>> flash > >>> >> >>>> for every I/O. > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>>They don't help that much you know. > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> What? Lights? Yes they help a lot. > >>> >> > > >>> >> >You're fooling yourself. Viruses can still get through, > >>> >> > >>> >> I can see when one is coming in. > >>> > > >>> >No you can't. A virus infected file is indistinguishable from one that > >>> >isn't infected to a modem. It's just a file. > >>> > >>> But I don't download files, period. I hit the off switch whenver > >>> there is unasked-for activity. > >> > >>Which you wouldn't even have to do if you used something up to date ! > > > > Exactly. Then I would vulnerable to any viral, worm or mess > > attack that has a new quirk to it. > > > > Why should I open it wide just to get infected? > > You say "exactly" then show you really did not understand what was said to > you. Just imagine. She could be freed of having to watch the modem lights so as to know when to turn off the PC and be confident of it being safe ! My Goodness Me, and she thinks that would be a bad thing apparently. Graham
From: Eeyore on 19 Nov 2006 11:55 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > >>> Anti-viral is always in catch-up mode. It is impossible for > >>> this code to protect from new kinds of attacks. The only > >>> reliable way to protect from infection is never let it near > >>> the gear. > >> > >>Which means never connecting your machine to another. The only true > >>secure computer is one that has been disassembled, locked in a box and > >>dumped in the Marianas Trench. > > > > Once upon a time, it was never running a wire outside the computer > > room, and all doors were one-way (What went in never came out.). > > It must have been hell trying to get lunch. LOL ! > >>Security is a relative, not an absolute concept... > > > > We were experts at the time and learning fast. There was another > > OS whose _primary_ goal was security. Ours wasn't. > > There are a couple of OS's which have security as the primary goal. However > there is no 100% secure, useable, system in the world. As PTP said the only > way to really secure your computer is to lock it up and bury it. Even then > there is a risk someone can retrieve it. > > Everything is a compromise, people who understand this know who to make the > compromises - others rely on voodoo and superstitions to assume their kit is > safe. You're thinking of BAH's incantantions ? Graham
From: T Wake on 19 Nov 2006 12:03 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45608C91.9C786AE3(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >>> Anti-viral is always in catch-up mode. It is impossible for >> >>> this code to protect from new kinds of attacks. The only >> >>> reliable way to protect from infection is never let it near >> >>> the gear. >> >> >> >>Which means never connecting your machine to another. The only true >> >>secure computer is one that has been disassembled, locked in a box and >> >>dumped in the Marianas Trench. >> > >> > Once upon a time, it was never running a wire outside the computer >> > room, and all doors were one-way (What went in never came out.). >> >> It must have been hell trying to get lunch. > > LOL ! > > >> >>Security is a relative, not an absolute concept... >> > >> > We were experts at the time and learning fast. There was another >> > OS whose _primary_ goal was security. Ours wasn't. >> >> There are a couple of OS's which have security as the primary goal. >> However >> there is no 100% secure, useable, system in the world. As PTP said the >> only >> way to really secure your computer is to lock it up and bury it. Even >> then >> there is a risk someone can retrieve it. >> >> Everything is a compromise, people who understand this know who to make >> the >> compromises - others rely on voodoo and superstitions to assume their kit >> is >> safe. > > You're thinking of BAH's incantantions ? :-)
From: Don Bowey on 19 Nov 2006 12:27 On 11/19/06 6:12 AM, in article ejpoot$8qk_022(a)s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com, "jmfbahciv(a)aol.com" <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > In article <456057F9.BBA34F55(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Now >>>>> a good TTY operator can "remember" what wasn't done and catch >>>>> up after the mess is dealt with. >>>> >>>> You really ought to get away from the idea of TTYs you know. >>>> >>>> Terminals have moved on somewhat. >>> >>> Just because today's computer tech now use complete systems >>> for data entry and access to another computer system does >>> not change the TTY functionality. >> >> They do a lot more than a teletype ever did though. > > When I say TTY, I'm talking about how the gear is used, > not it's capability nor capacity. > > /BAH A TTY keyboard used a current loop, typically 20 mA. When a key was pressed, the selector bars would fall into notches, mechanically encoding the opening and closing of the 20 mA. loop to generate the code pulses. When receiving, the TTY machine would mechanically decode the series of 20 mA. pulses and shift the selector bars to set-up the right character to print. This has nothing in common with a modern computer. If you wish to misuse the terminology you are free to do so, but there is no way you can rationally support it, technically. SED is STILL, sort of a technical Board (I think), so it would be nice of you to at least try, Don
From: Don Bowey on 19 Nov 2006 12:30
On 11/19/06 6:56 AM, in article 32e4a$45607088$4fe77d5$25668(a)DIALUPUSA.NET, "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <455F631B.49B507AF(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> It seems to have begun with some terminals which labelled >>>>> their RS232 ports with the logo "com". >>>> >>>> Oh, I see. I never considered series nor parallel ports as >>>> "comm ports". >>> >>> A parallel port isn't a COM port though. Just the serial ones. >> >> >> Unless you get a modem that can deal with parallel ports. > > I have a numeric keyboard and software that uses the > parallel port to key data into a PC. > And that relates to a modem in what manner? Don |