Quote: Originally posted by not_important |
.......But this is a diversion in this thread The point is that usoft is claiming that allowing programmers access to ports is insecure. However you
need port access so the computer can do things. They solved the problem by having you purchase their DDK. Now you have port access. So what has
that achieved except money in usoft coffers and dependence on them? Thats the point - the way manipulation works these days. One dupes the public to
think you are solving their problems, whereas in fact you are stuffing your pockets. To this category I think we can add many of todays 'big issues'
propagated by the highly informed mass media: the war on terror, the war on drugs, climate change, etc. And Usoft has added a contribution: the war
on piracy.
|
I THINK MOST EVERYONE CAN AGREE ON THAT NOTE!
However, if one were of a suspicious nature, the reasoning that total access may be placing too much access in the hands of the
public or access to ports is in general an " "insecure agenda"could bring speculation as to larger level "security" issues - which in turn is NOT
challenged by the public.
Nearly every time "security" is mentioned, the public eats it up. I recently was in a hardware store and casually mentioned that since this is soil
turning season, nitrates not being available is really a drag (relying on mulch, takes a long time to nitrate anything commercial).... The reply
immediately was "Oh, that's a corporate issue dealing with the WoT".
What can anyone say in the face of such indisputable logic?
[Edited on 8-12-2009 by quicksilver] |