Discussion:
Computer Hacking
Add Reply
claviger
2017-07-20 14:41:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around? Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?

Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.

What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton? What
new information did hackers reveal during the election? Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it. She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of. Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-21 00:09:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around? Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
Ever since Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. They were computer hackers.
Very few people then bothered to hack IBMs because they were too lazy to
learn machine code.
Post by claviger
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
The US government has been aware of the problem and combating it since 1951.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Silly. Simple laziness. Hillary could have gotten her job done securely by
using 5 different phones and 5 different computers and spending 3 hours a
day at 5 different facilities. Not counting travel time which is when
she'd have to eat lunch. it can be done, but it is a hassle and people
tend to burn out.
Post by claviger
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
Not just 365 days. Do you think there is a holiday for hackers in a leap
year? Many of the hacks are done automatically by bots so the hacker
doesn't even have to be there or use his own computer.
Post by claviger
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Only the Wikileaks about the Democrats. Nothing was released about the
Republicans.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
False. The term is tip the scale or put your thumb on the scale.
All you need is one tenth of a percent, maybe 1,000 people even.
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton? What
Not just the information. Also getting Comey to call Hillary a criminal.
That lost all the college-educated women.
Post by claviger
new information did hackers reveal during the election? Clinton ran the
New? Is anything really new? Not NEW, FALSE. It's called disinformation.
The Russians are experts, with 100 years of experience.
Pizzagate?
Post by claviger
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it. She also
How so? Be specific.
I didn't like her campaign because I thought she should have selected
Bernie Sanders as her VP.

I don't know if you ever heard of a Democrat named John Fitzgerald
Kennedy, but his rival for the nomination was a Texan named Lyndon Jonson.
Kennedy won the nomination and then took his father's advise and picked
LBJ as his running mate. Just that decision alone may have secured Texas
and other states in the South and assured his win.
Post by claviger
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of. Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
Sure, there were always millions of Clinton haters, which is why she
only won by a mere 3 million votes.
For extra credit, when was the first BUG found in a computer?
I'll give you a hint. It was just a couple of years before I was born.

http://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?id=NMAH-92-13130
bigdog
2017-07-21 11:51:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-22 00:46:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
So you'll support Trump and Putin no matter what crimes they commit.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
claviger
2017-07-22 16:57:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
So you'll support Trump and Putin no matter what crimes they commit.
So you'll support Obama and Clinton no matter how many lies they tell and
campaign promisees they break.
mainframetech
2017-07-23 22:38:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
So you'll support Trump and Putin no matter what crimes they commit.
So you'll support Obama and Clinton no matter how many lies they tell and
campaign promisees they break.
Have you added up the count of the promises broken by Trump?
Particularly that he wouldn't allow ANY changes to Social Security,
Medicare or MEDICAID. That one got dropped quickly when it came time to
make a bill for wealthcare.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-24 17:32:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
So you'll support Trump and Putin no matter what crimes they commit.
So you'll support Obama and Clinton no matter how many lies they tell and
campaign promisees they break.
Have you added up the count of the promises broken by Trump?
Particularly that he wouldn't allow ANY changes to Social Security,
Medicare or MEDICAID. That one got dropped quickly when it came time to
make a bill for wealthcare.
Chris
How's that wall coming?
mainframetech
2017-07-22 21:19:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.

Chris
bigdog
2017-07-23 13:21:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
mainframetech
2017-07-24 14:19:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!

Chris
bigdog
2017-07-24 23:21:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak. They have been
engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump. The
other is a commercial. I cracked up yesterday when Joy Reid referred to
herself as a journalist. If she's a journalist, I'm a Chinese aviator.
MSNBC doesn't hire journalists. They have no use for them. Their talking
heads are nothing but shills for the Democrat Party. That includes their
turncoat Republicans like Michael Steele and Judas Scarborough. CNN is
pretty much as bad.
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-25 19:24:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak. They have been
engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump. The
other is a commercial. I cracked up yesterday when Joy Reid referred to
herself as a journalist. If she's a journalist, I'm a Chinese aviator.
MSNBC doesn't hire journalists. They have no use for them. Their talking
heads are nothing but shills for the Democrat Party. That includes their
turncoat Republicans like Michael Steele and Judas Scarborough. CNN is
pretty much as bad.
You are just confirming your rightwing bias. The country had divided into
2 camps. Obviously different news outlets appeal to different factions.
mainframetech
2017-07-25 23:19:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964. I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.

We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.

Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
wouldn't know about that.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak.
Now we have your opinion, but I'm also speaking of the PBS channels
too, and many of the foreign news channels as well. They agreed with the
general news coming out from everywhere except FOX. FOX was smart in that
they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
Post by bigdog
They have been
engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump.
Sad that you forget so easily that Trump was attacking the news media
BWEFORE he became prez, along with everyone else he could think of. And
that's usually not too wise, but wisdom is not Trump's forte.
Post by bigdog
The
other is a commercial. I cracked up yesterday when Joy Reid referred to
herself as a journalist. If she's a journalist, I'm a Chinese aviator.
MSNBC doesn't hire journalists. They have no use for them. Their talking
heads are nothing but shills for the Democrat Party. That includes their
turncoat Republicans like Michael Steele and Judas Scarborough. CNN is
pretty much as bad.
Oooo! The nasty names! So typically Republican! So you think
Hannity is somehow better than Joy Reid? Or some of the other talking
heads on FOX? There's really no difference how they do the job, only in
what they choose to talk about.

Chris
bigdog
2017-07-27 03:03:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964.
You were a dinosaur when I got in the field.
Post by mainframetech
I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
Post by mainframetech
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
Post by mainframetech
Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
wouldn't know about that.
Actually I trained on one of those first generation computers with card
compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
of computing done in the Dark Ages.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak.
Now we have your opinion, but I'm also speaking of the PBS channels
too, and many of the foreign news channels as well.
Another liberal propaganda machine.
Post by mainframetech
They agreed with the
general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
Surprise, surprise.
Post by mainframetech
FOX was smart in that
they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
like that to tell me the truth about anything?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They have been
engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump.
Sad that you forget so easily that Trump was attacking the news media
BWEFORE he became prez, along with everyone else he could think of. And
that's usually not too wise, but wisdom is not Trump's forte.
Of course he was. He was that rare Republican who was willing to fight
back when the media attacked him. The typical Republican politician curls
up into a fetal position when people in the media say nasty things about
them. One of the things that appealed to Trump voters is that he was
willing to take on his attackers. All these so called smart political
pundits were openly laughing at the prospect of Trump even being nominated
much less elected and they were all forced to eat crow and they didn't
like the taste of it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The
other is a commercial. I cracked up yesterday when Joy Reid referred to
herself as a journalist. If she's a journalist, I'm a Chinese aviator.
MSNBC doesn't hire journalists. They have no use for them. Their talking
heads are nothing but shills for the Democrat Party. That includes their
turncoat Republicans like Michael Steele and Judas Scarborough. CNN is
pretty much as bad.
Oooo! The nasty names! So typically Republican! So you think
Hannity is somehow better than Joy Reid?
By a wide margin. For one, he makes no pretense about being a journalist.
He is a commentator. If Hannity referred to himself as a journalist I
would mock him too.
Post by mainframetech
Or some of the other talking
heads on FOX? There's really no difference how they do the job, only in
what they choose to talk about.
Yes, FOX does have their advocates too but they don't go around pretending
to be journalists. True journalists report facts, not their opinions. I
see very little journalism being practiced anywhere including FOX.
mainframetech
2017-07-28 23:47:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964.
You were a dinosaur when I got in the field.
A dinosaur that lasted until the 2000's...:)
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
wouldn't know about that.
Actually I trained on one of those first generation computers with card
compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
of computing done in the Dark Ages.
So you worked on a 705 or similar computer? What model? EAM
equipment? Wiring boards?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak.
Now we have your opinion, but I'm also speaking of the PBS channels
too, and many of the foreign news channels as well.
Another liberal propaganda machine.
The BBC?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They agreed with the
general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
Surprise, surprise.
Post by mainframetech
FOX was smart in that
they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
like that to tell me the truth about anything?
That an individual here and there was unhappy with Trump would be
expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
were that way. Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
and now we know he can't. Of course, his foolish attacks on everyone
around him including the media is mistake. He can't get along with
anyone.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They have been
engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump.
Sad that you forget so easily that Trump was attacking the news media
BEFORE he became prez, along with everyone else he could think of. And
that's usually not too wise, but wisdom is not Trump's forte.
Of course he was. He was that rare Republican who was willing to fight
back when the media attacked him. The typical Republican politician curls
up into a fetal position when people in the media say nasty things about
them.
My experience watching the major channels is that most Republicans fight
back continuously, and you can't stop them from talking and hogging the
channel.
Post by bigdog
One of the things that appealed to Trump voters is that he was
willing to take on his attackers. All these so called smart political
pundits were openly laughing at the prospect of Trump even being nominated
much less elected and they were all forced to eat crow and they didn't
like the taste of it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The
other is a commercial. I cracked up yesterday when Joy Reid referred to
herself as a journalist. If she's a journalist, I'm a Chinese aviator.
MSNBC doesn't hire journalists. They have no use for them. Their talking
heads are nothing but shills for the Democrat Party. That includes their
turncoat Republicans like Michael Steele and Judas Scarborough. CNN is
pretty much as bad.
Oooo! The nasty names! So typically Republican! So you think
Hannity is somehow better than Joy Reid?
By a wide margin. For one, he makes no pretense about being a journalist.
He is a commentator. If Hannity referred to himself as a journalist I
would mock him too.
Post by mainframetech
Or some of the other talking
heads on FOX? There's really no difference how they do the job, only in
what they choose to talk about.
Yes, FOX does have their advocates too but they don't go around pretending
to be journalists. True journalists report facts, not their opinions. I
see very little journalism being practiced anywhere including FOX.
Well, time will tell if you are onto the truth...:)

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-07-29 13:24:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964.
You were a dinosaur when I got in the field.
A dinosaur that lasted until the 2000's...:)
When I was a little kid I would visit my father's office in Boston and
actually WALKING around inside his computer.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
wouldn't know about that.
Actually I trained on one of those first generation computers with card
compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
of computing done in the Dark Ages.
So you worked on a 705 or similar computer? What model? EAM
equipment? Wiring boards?
Tubes.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak.
Now we have your opinion, but I'm also speaking of the PBS channels
too, and many of the foreign news channels as well.
Another liberal propaganda machine.
The BBC?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They agreed with the
general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
Surprise, surprise.
Post by mainframetech
FOX was smart in that
they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
like that to tell me the truth about anything?
That an individual here and there was unhappy with Trump would be
expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
were that way. Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
and now we know he can't. Of course, his foolish attacks on everyone
around him including the media is mistake. He can't get along with
anyone.
You guys are so dense. The most attacks come from MSNBC.
Do you even know what the MS stands for?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They have been
engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump.
Sad that you forget so easily that Trump was attacking the news media
BEFORE he became prez, along with everyone else he could think of. And
that's usually not too wise, but wisdom is not Trump's forte.
Of course he was. He was that rare Republican who was willing to fight
back when the media attacked him. The typical Republican politician curls
up into a fetal position when people in the media say nasty things about
them.
My experience watching the major channels is that most Republicans fight
back continuously, and you can't stop them from talking and hogging the
channel.
Post by bigdog
One of the things that appealed to Trump voters is that he was
willing to take on his attackers. All these so called smart political
pundits were openly laughing at the prospect of Trump even being nominated
much less elected and they were all forced to eat crow and they didn't
like the taste of it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The
other is a commercial. I cracked up yesterday when Joy Reid referred to
herself as a journalist. If she's a journalist, I'm a Chinese aviator.
MSNBC doesn't hire journalists. They have no use for them. Their talking
heads are nothing but shills for the Democrat Party. That includes their
turncoat Republicans like Michael Steele and Judas Scarborough. CNN is
pretty much as bad.
Oooo! The nasty names! So typically Republican! So you think
Hannity is somehow better than Joy Reid?
By a wide margin. For one, he makes no pretense about being a journalist.
He is a commentator. If Hannity referred to himself as a journalist I
would mock him too.
Post by mainframetech
Or some of the other talking
heads on FOX? There's really no difference how they do the job, only in
what they choose to talk about.
Yes, FOX does have their advocates too but they don't go around pretending
to be journalists. True journalists report facts, not their opinions. I
see very little journalism being practiced anywhere including FOX.
Well, time will tell if you are onto the truth...:)
Chris
bigdog
2017-07-29 18:10:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964.
You were a dinosaur when I got in the field.
A dinosaur that lasted until the 2000's...:)
So did I and I was a dinosaur when I retired. Distributive processing was
taking over from Big Iron when I got out.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
Patching and hacking are two different acts. Patching is a perfectly
legitimate and authorized action. Hacking is maliciously accessing and/or
destroying someone else's data without their permission.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
wouldn't know about that.
Actually I trained on one of those first generation computers with card
compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
of computing done in the Dark Ages.
So you worked on a 705 or similar computer? What model? EAM
equipment? Wiring boards?
All I remember was it was a Univac. Can't remember the number.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak.
Now we have your opinion, but I'm also speaking of the PBS channels
too, and many of the foreign news channels as well.
Another liberal propaganda machine.
The BBC?
Can't speak to the BBC but since it is government funded my guess is they
are very liberal just as PBS is.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They agreed with the
general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
Surprise, surprise.
Post by mainframetech
FOX was smart in that
they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
like that to tell me the truth about anything?
That an individual here and there was unhappy with Trump would be
expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
were that way.
Here and there? Are you serious? The networks and cable news outlets are
infested with such people.
Post by mainframetech
Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
and now we know he can't.
Bullshit. The attacks began the night of the election and have continued
24/7 ever since. Good luck finding any of these liberal propaganda
machines having said one positive thing about Trump. EVER!!!
Post by mainframetech
Of course, his foolish attacks on everyone
around him including the media is mistake. He can't get along with
anyone.
His "foolish attacks" got him elected much to the surprise and dismay of a
those liberal commentators who were so smug before the election and so
devastated afterward. Since I couldn't possibly watch everyone's election
night coverage I was pleasantly surprised to see that all the network and
cable news coverage has been posted on YouTube and one of the things I do
for laughs is replay them and watch those liberal talking heads starting
out the evening brimming with confidence and arrogance and then slowly
melting down as the reality of the situation started sinking in. It really
hit them hard when one of them reported midway through the evening that
the NYT had calculated based on the returns up to that point that there
was a 91% chance that Trump was going to win.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They have been
engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump.
Sad that you forget so easily that Trump was attacking the news media
BEFORE he became prez, along with everyone else he could think of. And
that's usually not too wise, but wisdom is not Trump's forte.
Of course he was. He was that rare Republican who was willing to fight
back when the media attacked him. The typical Republican politician curls
up into a fetal position when people in the media say nasty things about
them.
My experience watching the major channels is that most Republicans fight
back continuously, and you can't stop them from talking and hogging the
channel.
Nonsense. It's the reason the Republicans caved to Obama on the budget
because they were afraid that if the government shut down, the media would
blame them. That would have been the case and they didn't want to fight
that battle.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
One of the things that appealed to Trump voters is that he was
willing to take on his attackers. All these so called smart political
pundits were openly laughing at the prospect of Trump even being nominated
much less elected and they were all forced to eat crow and they didn't
like the taste of it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The
other is a commercial. I cracked up yesterday when Joy Reid referred to
herself as a journalist. If she's a journalist, I'm a Chinese aviator.
MSNBC doesn't hire journalists. They have no use for them. Their talking
heads are nothing but shills for the Democrat Party. That includes their
turncoat Republicans like Michael Steele and Judas Scarborough. CNN is
pretty much as bad.
Oooo! The nasty names! So typically Republican! So you think
Hannity is somehow better than Joy Reid?
By a wide margin. For one, he makes no pretense about being a journalist.
He is a commentator. If Hannity referred to himself as a journalist I
would mock him too.
Post by mainframetech
Or some of the other talking
heads on FOX? There's really no difference how they do the job, only in
what they choose to talk about.
Yes, FOX does have their advocates too but they don't go around pretending
to be journalists. True journalists report facts, not their opinions. I
see very little journalism being practiced anywhere including FOX.
Well, time will tell if you are onto the truth...:)
There is no need to wait.
mainframetech
2017-07-31 01:20:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964.
You were a dinosaur when I got in the field.
A dinosaur that lasted until the 2000's...:)
So did I and I was a dinosaur when I retired. Distributive processing was
taking over from Big Iron when I got out.
I installed distributed processing 20 years before I quit. Sounds like
your company was behind the times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
Patching and hacking are two different acts. Patching is a perfectly
legitimate and authorized action. Hacking is maliciously accessing and/or
destroying someone else's data without their permission.
WRONG! Here's a better definition of 'hacking':

"Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer
software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be
outside of the creator's original objective. Those individuals who engage
in computer hacking activities are typically referred to as
“hackers.”


You will find black hat hackers and white hat hackers. And before
your time, we 'hacked' programs using 'patching' among other tools. I've
on a number of occasions hacked a program through the console while the
program was loaded, which is a second form of hacking.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
wouldn't know about that.
Actually I trained on one of those first generation computers with card
compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
of computing done in the Dark Ages.
So you worked on a 705 or similar computer? What model? EAM
equipment? Wiring boards?
All I remember was it was a Univac. Can't remember the number.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak.
Now we have your opinion, but I'm also speaking of the PBS channels
too, and many of the foreign news channels as well.
Another liberal propaganda machine.
The BBC?
Can't speak to the BBC but since it is government funded my guess is they
are very liberal just as PBS is.
You mean they reflected the attitudes of the people they served?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They agreed with the
general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
Surprise, surprise.
Post by mainframetech
FOX was smart in that
they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
like that to tell me the truth about anything?
That an individual here and there was unhappy with Trump would be
expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
were that way.
Here and there? Are you serious? The networks and cable news outlets are
infested with such people.
Then you feel that many, many people were unhappy with Trump. I see.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
and now we know he can't.
Bullshit. The attacks began the night of the election and have continued
24/7 ever since. Good luck finding any of these liberal propaganda
machines having said one positive thing about Trump. EVER!!!
Wow! Those pat phrases just spill out like water. "liberal propaganda
Post by bigdog
machines". Give the brainwashing a rest. How easily you forget that Trump during the last half of the campaign insulted the media all over the place when he thought he was going to lose. And he kept it up after he became prez. And then he complains about their treatment of him. Never mind that he does wacky things just to get attention, and then complains when he gets it!
If you think Trump is being honest about his not having anything
illegal or damaging to himself that he's hiding, send him an email telling
him to come clean with everything and await the clearing of his name by
Mueller. So far, the whole Trump family and others have been lying about
Russian in meetings and such, and probably more to come. Get it all out
and stop the drip...drip...drip.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course, his foolish attacks on everyone
around him including the media is mistake. He can't get along with
anyone.
His "foolish attacks" got him elected much to the surprise and dismay of a
those liberal commentators who were so smug before the election and so
devastated afterward. Since I couldn't possibly watch everyone's election
night coverage I was pleasantly surprised to see that all the network and
cable news coverage has been posted on YouTube and one of the things I do
for laughs is replay them and watch those liberal talking heads starting
out the evening brimming with confidence and arrogance and then slowly
melting down as the reality of the situation started sinking in. It really
hit them hard when one of them reported midway through the evening that
the NYT had calculated based on the returns up to that point that there
was a 91% chance that Trump was going to win.
Now now. The election is over, as the conservatives say to the
democrats, don't try to relive it...:)
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They have been
engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump.
Sad that you forget so easily that Trump was attacking the news media
BEFORE he became prez, along with everyone else he could think of. And
that's usually not too wise, but wisdom is not Trump's forte.
Of course he was. He was that rare Republican who was willing to fight
back when the media attacked him. The typical Republican politician curls
up into a fetal position when people in the media say nasty things about
them.
My experience watching the major channels is that most Republicans fight
back continuously, and you can't stop them from talking and hogging the
channel.
Nonsense. It's the reason the Republicans caved to Obama on the budget
because they were afraid that if the government shut down, the media would
blame them. That would have been the case and they didn't want to fight
that battle.
Since they were the cause of the one case of the gov't being stopped, I
can understand there sensitivity.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
One of the things that appealed to Trump voters is that he was
willing to take on his attackers. All these so called smart political
pundits were openly laughing at the prospect of Trump even being nominated
much less elected and they were all forced to eat crow and they didn't
like the taste of it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The
other is a commercial. I cracked up yesterday when Joy Reid referred to
herself as a journalist. If she's a journalist, I'm a Chinese aviator.
MSNBC doesn't hire journalists. They have no use for them. Their talking
heads are nothing but shills for the Democrat Party. That includes their
turncoat Republicans like Michael Steele and Judas Scarborough. CNN is
pretty much as bad.
Oooo! The nasty names! So typically Republican! So you think
Hannity is somehow better than Joy Reid?
By a wide margin. For one, he makes no pretense about being a journalist.
He is a commentator. If Hannity referred to himself as a journalist I
would mock him too.
Post by mainframetech
Or some of the other talking
heads on FOX? There's really no difference how they do the job, only in
what they choose to talk about.
Yes, FOX does have their advocates too but they don't go around pretending
to be journalists. True journalists report facts, not their opinions. I
see very little journalism being practiced anywhere including FOX.
Well, time will tell if you are onto the truth...:)
There is no need to wait.
Oh? Mueller is ready with his prosecutions?

Chris
bigdog
2017-07-31 20:42:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964.
You were a dinosaur when I got in the field.
A dinosaur that lasted until the 2000's...:)
So did I and I was a dinosaur when I retired. Distributive processing was
taking over from Big Iron when I got out.
I installed distributed processing 20 years before I quit. Sounds like
your company was behind the times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
Patching and hacking are two different acts. Patching is a perfectly
legitimate and authorized action. Hacking is maliciously accessing and/or
destroying someone else's data without their permission.
"Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer
software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be
outside of the creator's original objective. Those individuals who engage
in computer hacking activities are typically referred to as
“hackers.”
In all my years in the business I never once heard anyone describe a
programmer who modified an existing programmer as a hacker. Almost all
programs get modified as requirements change over time. Even the word
hacking has malicious connotations. That's why it isn't used in connection
with normal program maintenance.
Post by mainframetech
You will find black hat hackers and white hat hackers. And before
your time, we 'hacked' programs using 'patching' among other tools. I've
on a number of occasions hacked a program through the console while the
program was loaded, which is a second form of hacking.
Patching is a term I did hear frequently although primarily in regards to
system software. I rarely if ever heard it used regarding application
software.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
wouldn't know about that.
Actually I trained on one of those first generation computers with card
compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
of computing done in the Dark Ages.
So you worked on a 705 or similar computer? What model? EAM
equipment? Wiring boards?
All I remember was it was a Univac. Can't remember the number.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak.
Now we have your opinion, but I'm also speaking of the PBS channels
too, and many of the foreign news channels as well.
Another liberal propaganda machine.
The BBC?
Can't speak to the BBC but since it is government funded my guess is they
are very liberal just as PBS is.
You mean they reflected the attitudes of the people they served?
No, they reflect the attitudes of an organization that is living off the
government tit.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They agreed with the
general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
Surprise, surprise.
Post by mainframetech
FOX was smart in that
they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
like that to tell me the truth about anything?
That an individual here and there was unhappy with Trump would be
expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
were that way.
Here and there? Are you serious? The networks and cable news outlets are
infested with such people.
Then you feel that many, many people were unhappy with Trump. I see.
In the liberal infested mainstream media that is certainly true.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
and now we know he can't.
Bullshit. The attacks began the night of the election and have continued
24/7 ever since. Good luck finding any of these liberal propaganda
machines having said one positive thing about Trump. EVER!!!
Wow! Those pat phrases just spill out like water. "liberal propaganda
Post by bigdog
machines". Give the brainwashing a rest. How easily you forget that Trump during the last half of the campaign insulted the media all over the place when he thought he was going to lose. And he kept it up after he became prez. And then he complains about their treatment of him. Never mind that he does wacky things just to get attention, and then complains when he gets it!
So you admit the mainstream media has it in for Trump.
Post by mainframetech
If you think Trump is being honest about his not having anything
illegal or damaging to himself that he's hiding, send him an email telling
him to come clean with everything and await the clearing of his name by
Mueller. So far, the whole Trump family and others have been lying about
Russian in meetings and such, and probably more to come. Get it all out
and stop the drip...drip...drip.
Why should he deny committing a crime for which no one has produced any
evidence? There is a story about a young protégé of LBJ's who
was making his first run at public office and his campaign was not going
well so he turned to his mentor for advice. LBJ suggested he accuse his
opponent of having sex with his pig. The protégé said he
couldn't say that because it wasn't true. LBJ replied, "Make him deny it".
That's what this whole Russia nothing burger is all about.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course, his foolish attacks on everyone
around him including the media is mistake. He can't get along with
anyone.
His "foolish attacks" got him elected much to the surprise and dismay of a
those liberal commentators who were so smug before the election and so
devastated afterward. Since I couldn't possibly watch everyone's election
night coverage I was pleasantly surprised to see that all the network and
cable news coverage has been posted on YouTube and one of the things I do
for laughs is replay them and watch those liberal talking heads starting
out the evening brimming with confidence and arrogance and then slowly
melting down as the reality of the situation started sinking in. It really
hit them hard when one of them reported midway through the evening that
the NYT had calculated based on the returns up to that point that there
was a 91% chance that Trump was going to win.
Now now. The election is over, as the conservatives say to the
democrats, don't try to relive it...:)
The Democrats aren't trying to relive it. They are trying to undo it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They have been
engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump.
Sad that you forget so easily that Trump was attacking the news media
BEFORE he became prez, along with everyone else he could think of. And
that's usually not too wise, but wisdom is not Trump's forte.
Of course he was. He was that rare Republican who was willing to fight
back when the media attacked him. The typical Republican politician curls
up into a fetal position when people in the media say nasty things about
them.
My experience watching the major channels is that most Republicans fight
back continuously, and you can't stop them from talking and hogging the
channel.
Nonsense. It's the reason the Republicans caved to Obama on the budget
because they were afraid that if the government shut down, the media would
blame them. That would have been the case and they didn't want to fight
that battle.
Since they were the cause of the one case of the gov't being stopped, I
can understand there sensitivity.
One the government shuts down because two opposing factions can't reach a
budget agreement, why is one more to blame than the other? Whenever there
has been a government shutdown, the Democrats were equally responsible yet
they never get any of the blame. That's because the media is largely in
the tank for them.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
One of the things that appealed to Trump voters is that he was
willing to take on his attackers. All these so called smart political
pundits were openly laughing at the prospect of Trump even being nominated
much less elected and they were all forced to eat crow and they didn't
like the taste of it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The
other is a commercial. I cracked up yesterday when Joy Reid referred to
herself as a journalist. If she's a journalist, I'm a Chinese aviator.
MSNBC doesn't hire journalists. They have no use for them. Their talking
heads are nothing but shills for the Democrat Party. That includes their
turncoat Republicans like Michael Steele and Judas Scarborough. CNN is
pretty much as bad.
Oooo! The nasty names! So typically Republican! So you think
Hannity is somehow better than Joy Reid?
By a wide margin. For one, he makes no pretense about being a journalist.
He is a commentator. If Hannity referred to himself as a journalist I
would mock him too.
Post by mainframetech
Or some of the other talking
heads on FOX? There's really no difference how they do the job, only in
what they choose to talk about.
Yes, FOX does have their advocates too but they don't go around pretending
to be journalists. True journalists report facts, not their opinions. I
see very little journalism being practiced anywhere including FOX.
Well, time will tell if you are onto the truth...:)
There is no need to wait.
Oh? Mueller is ready with his prosecutions?
Mueller is running a dog and pony show.
mainframetech
2017-08-01 15:16:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964.
You were a dinosaur when I got in the field.
A dinosaur that lasted until the 2000's...:)
So did I and I was a dinosaur when I retired. Distributive processing was
taking over from Big Iron when I got out.
I installed distributed processing 20 years before I quit. Sounds like
your company was behind the times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
Patching and hacking are two different acts. Patching is a perfectly
legitimate and authorized action. Hacking is maliciously accessing and/or
destroying someone else's data without their permission.
"Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer
software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be
outside of the creator's original objective. Those individuals who engage
in computer hacking activities are typically referred to as
“hackers.”
In all my years in the business I never once heard anyone describe a
programmer who modified an existing programmer as a hacker. Almost all
programs get modified as requirements change over time. Even the word
hacking has malicious connotations. That's why it isn't used in connection
with normal program maintenance.
You come into programming late and you act like only you have the right
answers. Well, you don't, and actually, you seem to have very few for a
job that you say you did. Note: You probably worked in the mainstream
big corporation programming dept. and saw little of the real world.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will find black hat hackers and white hat hackers. And before
your time, we 'hacked' programs using 'patching' among other tools. I've
on a number of occasions hacked a program through the console while the
program was loaded, which is a second form of hacking.
Patching is a term I did hear frequently although primarily in regards to
system software. I rarely if ever heard it used regarding application
software.
I'm sure you never got close to the systems programming area. But in
the old days of first generation and EAM equipment, there were many ways
to accomplish a task, and we knew what there was to know about the
machines we had available. As well, in the 360 era we did some of that
stuff too. For instance I had to patch a 3705 Communications Network
unit, which had it's own assembler language, different from the 360
assembler. We used 'Superzap' a patching program distributed by IBM, but
written by a private person and submitted to them:

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/zosbasics/com.ibm.zos.zdatamgmt/zsysprogc_utilities_SPZAP.htm

You'll note in the program description that it speaks of 'patching'.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
wouldn't know about that.
Actually I trained on one of those first generation computers with card
compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
of computing done in the Dark Ages.
So you worked on a 705 or similar computer? What model? EAM
equipment? Wiring boards?
All I remember was it was a Univac. Can't remember the number.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak.
Now we have your opinion, but I'm also speaking of the PBS channels
too, and many of the foreign news channels as well.
Another liberal propaganda machine.
The BBC?
Can't speak to the BBC but since it is government funded my guess is they
are very liberal just as PBS is.
You mean they reflected the attitudes of the people they served?
No, they reflect the attitudes of an organization that is living off the
government tit.
I guess that you've missed all the ads and announcements about all the
PBS programming and channels that are losing gov't funding. They are on
funding drives every quester now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They agreed with the
general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
Surprise, surprise.
Post by mainframetech
FOX was smart in that
they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
like that to tell me the truth about anything?
That an individual here and there was unhappy with Trump would be
expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
were that way.
Here and there? Are you serious? The networks and cable news outlets are
infested with such people.
Then you feel that many, many people were unhappy with Trump. I see.
In the liberal infested mainstream media that is certainly true.
Ah, the buzzwords...:)
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
and now we know he can't.
Bullshit. The attacks began the night of the election and have continued
24/7 ever since. Good luck finding any of these liberal propaganda
machines having said one positive thing about Trump. EVER!!!
Wow! Those pat phrases just spill out like water. "liberal propaganda
Post by bigdog
machines". Give the brainwashing a rest. How easily you forget that Trump during the last half of the campaign insulted the media all over the place when he thought he was going to lose. And he kept it up after he became prez. And then he complains about their treatment of him. Never mind that he does wacky things just to get attention, and then complains when he gets it!
So you admit the mainstream media has it in for Trump.
No, I believe a few hosts do, not the industry altogether. They tell
the truth, but that's going to make Trump look dumb because he is. He
walked into a job he had no clue how to do, and in a government with no
clue how it works or how to get anything done with it. And on top of
that, he hired many people that also had no clue how to get things done.


And here he is hiring and firing every other week trying to get out of
the Muller piano which he knows is going to fall on him soon.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you think Trump is being honest about his not having anything
illegal or damaging to himself that he's hiding, send him an email telling
him to come clean with everything and await the clearing of his name by
Mueller. So far, the whole Trump family and others have been lying about
Russian in meetings and such, and probably more to come. Get it all out
and stop the drip...drip...drip.
Why should he deny committing a crime for which no one has produced any
evidence? There is a story about a young protégé of LBJ's who
was making his first run at public office and his campaign was not going
well so he turned to his mentor for advice. LBJ suggested he accuse his
opponent of having sex with his pig. The protégé said he
couldn't say that because it wasn't true. LBJ replied, "Make him deny it".
That's what this whole Russia nothing burger is all about.
I think you've forgotten again that I've given you a list of the
crimes committed so far by Trump and family that we publicly know about.
But Mueller will not let out the story until the end of his investigation,
so there is almost sure to be a ton of guilty evidence in his hands.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course, his foolish attacks on everyone
around him including the media is mistake. He can't get along with
anyone.
His "foolish attacks" got him elected much to the surprise and dismay of a
those liberal commentators who were so smug before the election and so
devastated afterward. Since I couldn't possibly watch everyone's election
night coverage I was pleasantly surprised to see that all the network and
cable news coverage has been posted on YouTube and one of the things I do
for laughs is replay them and watch those liberal talking heads starting
out the evening brimming with confidence and arrogance and then slowly
melting down as the reality of the situation started sinking in. It really
hit them hard when one of them reported midway through the evening that
the NYT had calculated based on the returns up to that point that there
was a 91% chance that Trump was going to win.
Now now. The election is over, as the conservatives say to the
democrats, don't try to relive it...:)
The Democrats aren't trying to relive it. They are trying to undo it.
LOL! Well, if you had not been brainwashed by Trump, you'd be trying
to undo it too.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They have been
engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump.
Sad that you forget so easily that Trump was attacking the news media
BEFORE he became prez, along with everyone else he could think of. And
that's usually not too wise, but wisdom is not Trump's forte.
Of course he was. He was that rare Republican who was willing to fight
back when the media attacked him. The typical Republican politician curls
up into a fetal position when people in the media say nasty things about
them.
My experience watching the major channels is that most Republicans fight
back continuously, and you can't stop them from talking and hogging the
channel.
Nonsense. It's the reason the Republicans caved to Obama on the budget
because they were afraid that if the government shut down, the media would
blame them. That would have been the case and they didn't want to fight
that battle.
Since they were the cause of the one case of the gov't being stopped, I
can understand there sensitivity.
One the government shuts down because two opposing factions can't reach a
budget agreement, why is one more to blame than the other? Whenever there
has been a government shutdown, the Democrats were equally responsible yet
they never get any of the blame. That's because the media is largely in
the tank for them.
It's simply amazing how your convenient memory works! You've forgotten
again that the Republicans stated clearly that they were going to shut
down the gov't if they didn't get something they wanted. It was a clear
blackmail attempt.

"The last government shutdown was in October, 2013, and was widely blamed
on conservative Republicans in the House, with a major assist from Senator
Ted Cruz, who demanded that Obamacare had to be defunded, a ludicrous
strategy given that Barack Obama was President. Congress failed to pass
the necessary legislation, and the government closed for two weeks before
Republicans came back to the table."

From: http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/the-white-house-seems-excited-to-shut-down-the-government
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
One of the things that appealed to Trump voters is that he was
willing to take on his attackers. All these so called smart political
pundits were openly laughing at the prospect of Trump even being nominated
much less elected and they were all forced to eat crow and they didn't
like the taste of it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The
other is a commercial. I cracked up yesterday when Joy Reid referred to
herself as a journalist. If she's a journalist, I'm a Chinese aviator.
MSNBC doesn't hire journalists. They have no use for them. Their talking
heads are nothing but shills for the Democrat Party. That includes their
turncoat Republicans like Michael Steele and Judas Scarborough. CNN is
pretty much as bad.
Oooo! The nasty names! So typically Republican! So you think
Hannity is somehow better than Joy Reid?
By a wide margin. For one, he makes no pretense about being a journalist.
He is a commentator. If Hannity referred to himself as a journalist I
would mock him too.
Post by mainframetech
Or some of the other talking
heads on FOX? There's really no difference how they do the job, only in
what they choose to talk about.
Yes, FOX does have their advocates too but they don't go around pretending
to be journalists. True journalists report facts, not their opinions. I
see very little journalism being practiced anywhere including FOX.
Well, time will tell if you are onto the truth...:)
There is no need to wait.
Oh? Mueller is ready with his prosecutions?
Mueller is running a dog and pony show.
Oh? You see him on the TV? Showing his dogs and ponies? I don't
think so, and you're spreading manure once again.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-02 03:41:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964.
You were a dinosaur when I got in the field.
A dinosaur that lasted until the 2000's...:)
So did I and I was a dinosaur when I retired. Distributive processing was
taking over from Big Iron when I got out.
I installed distributed processing 20 years before I quit. Sounds like
your company was behind the times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
Patching and hacking are two different acts. Patching is a perfectly
legitimate and authorized action. Hacking is maliciously accessing and/or
destroying someone else's data without their permission.
"Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer
software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be
outside of the creator's original objective. Those individuals who engage
in computer hacking activities are typically referred to as
“hackers.”
In all my years in the business I never once heard anyone describe a
programmer who modified an existing programmer as a hacker. Almost all
programs get modified as requirements change over time. Even the word
hacking has malicious connotations. That's why it isn't used in connection
with normal program maintenance.
You come into programming late and you act like only you have the right
answers. Well, you don't, and actually, you seem to have very few for a
job that you say you did. Note: You probably worked in the mainstream
big corporation programming dept. and saw little of the real world.
Actually the field has changed so much in the years since we both retired
that neither one of us has the answers. The way things were done when you
got into the business were largely obsolete by the time I got into the
business, and when I got out in the early 2000s, my skill set was largely
becoming obsolete.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will find black hat hackers and white hat hackers. And before
your time, we 'hacked' programs using 'patching' among other tools. I've
on a number of occasions hacked a program through the console while the
program was loaded, which is a second form of hacking.
Patching is a term I did hear frequently although primarily in regards to
system software. I rarely if ever heard it used regarding application
software.
I'm sure you never got close to the systems programming area.
Actually I did spend time in systems programming but due to budget cuts
was sent back to applications programming where I spent the rest of my
career.
Post by mainframetech
But in
the old days of first generation and EAM equipment, there were many ways
to accomplish a task, and we knew what there was to know about the
machines we had available.
That's nice. You knew that stuff because you needed to know it just as the
early pioneers of personal computing had to be geeks in order to function.
They couldn't just buy a new computer with lots of apps preloaded. They
had to get into the nuts and bolts. When I got into the field one had to
be able to navigate their way through a core dump. That quickly became a
lost art I by the time I got out I had forgotten how to do it. It just
wasn't necessary any more.
Post by mainframetech
As well, in the 360 era we did some of that
stuff too. For instance I had to patch a 3705 Communications Network
unit, which had it's own assembler language, different from the 360
assembler. We used 'Superzap' a patching program distributed by IBM, but
Again, interesting but irrelevant. By the time I got into the field the
360 had been replace by the 370. Assembler code was no longer being used.
We had a few subroutines still in use that had been coded in Assembler
which I had to modify but Assembler was fast becoming the Latin of
programming languages. It was helpful to understand it to give you a clue
as to what was happening internally just as learning Latin can be useful
in understanding English derivatives.
Post by mainframetech
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/zosbasics/com.ibm.zos.zdatamgmt/zsysprogc_utilities_SPZAP.htm
You'll note in the program description that it speaks of 'patching'.
Anyplace when it talks about hacking which was the starting point of this
discussion?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
wouldn't know about that.
Actually I trained on one of those first generation computers with card
compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
of computing done in the Dark Ages.
So you worked on a 705 or similar computer? What model? EAM
equipment? Wiring boards?
All I remember was it was a Univac. Can't remember the number.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak.
Now we have your opinion, but I'm also speaking of the PBS channels
too, and many of the foreign news channels as well.
Another liberal propaganda machine.
The BBC?
Can't speak to the BBC but since it is government funded my guess is they
are very liberal just as PBS is.
You mean they reflected the attitudes of the people they served?
No, they reflect the attitudes of an organization that is living off the
government tit.
I guess that you've missed all the ads and announcements about all the
PBS programming and channels that are losing gov't funding. They are on
funding drives every quester now.
Its about time. PBS served a function when there were only three major
networks and there was no platform for niche programming that didn't have
the broad appeal needed to be part of the network lineup. Now we have
hundreds of cable channels, mostly niche programming which makes PBS
obsolete. Sesame Street could easily find a home on a cable outlet. So
could just about every program offered on PBS. About the only thing PBS
airs that couldn't transfer to cable are its pledge drives. Unfortunately,
PBS has their lobbyists and Congress will continue to feed the dinosaur ad
infinitum.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They agreed with the
general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
Surprise, surprise.
Post by mainframetech
FOX was smart in that
they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
like that to tell me the truth about anything?
That an individual here and there was unhappy with Trump would be
expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
were that way.
Here and there? Are you serious? The networks and cable news outlets are
infested with such people.
Then you feel that many, many people were unhappy with Trump. I see.
In the liberal infested mainstream media that is certainly true.
Ah, the buzzwords...:)
Buzzwords can be quite apropos.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
and now we know he can't.
Bullshit. The attacks began the night of the election and have continued
24/7 ever since. Good luck finding any of these liberal propaganda
machines having said one positive thing about Trump. EVER!!!
Wow! Those pat phrases just spill out like water. "liberal propaganda
Post by bigdog
machines". Give the brainwashing a rest. How easily you forget that Trump during the last half of the campaign insulted the media all over the place when he thought he was going to lose. And he kept it up after he became prez. And then he complains about their treatment of him. Never mind that he does wacky things just to get attention, and then complains when he gets it!
So you admit the mainstream media has it in for Trump.
No, I believe a few hosts do, not the industry altogether.
You must not watch much CNN, MSNBC, or the network news programs because a
majority of their programming is compromised of hit pieces about Trump.
The network news programs do cover other subjects but with the cable news
programs, the anti-Trump stories dominate their live programming. If you
and I were to make a bet in which you and I watched CNN or MSNBC for 12
straight hours and you gave me $1 for every they ran an anti-Trump story
and I gave you $5 every time they ran a story about something else, at the
end of the 12 hours, I have no doubt I would be way ahead.
Post by mainframetech
They tell the truth,
Now that's funny.
Post by mainframetech
but that's going to make Trump look dumb because he is.
Right he's dumb and all those talking heads who laughed about his
prospects for even being nominated much less elected are so smart. Who's
laughing now? Trump outsmarted all of them which is one more reason they
hate him. He showed the country they weren't nearly as smart as they
pretended to be.
Post by mainframetech
He walked into a job he had no clue how to do,
The position is often called Chief Executive and nobody in recent times if
ever came to the White House with more executive experience than Trump.
He's running the executive branch the way he would run a business. He
gives his people a mission and if they fail to accomplish it he holds them
accountable.
Post by mainframetech
and in a government with no
clue how it works or how to get anything done with it. And on top of
that, he hired many people that also had no clue how to get things done.
Liberals just never learn. They underestimated Trump as a candidate and
now are underestimating him as a president. They made the same mistakes
with Reagan. Then never thought he could get elected either and then were
amazed when he succeeded in doing many of the things he set out to do
despite having a hostile Congress for most of his tenure.
Post by mainframetech
And here he is hiring and firing every other week trying to get out of
the Muller piano which he knows is going to fall on him soon.
Just what evidence has Mueller produced. Oh, I forgot. You're the guy who
doesn't put much faith in evidence. You prefer assumptions.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you think Trump is being honest about his not having anything
illegal or damaging to himself that he's hiding, send him an email telling
him to come clean with everything and await the clearing of his name by
Mueller. So far, the whole Trump family and others have been lying about
Russian in meetings and such, and probably more to come. Get it all out
and stop the drip...drip...drip.
Why should he deny committing a crime for which no one has produced any
evidence? There is a story about a young protégé of LBJ's who
was making his first run at public office and his campaign was not going
well so he turned to his mentor for advice. LBJ suggested he accuse his
opponent of having sex with his pig. The protégé said he
couldn't say that because it wasn't true. LBJ replied, "Make him deny it".
That's what this whole Russia nothing burger is all about.
I think you've forgotten again that I've given you a list of the
crimes committed so far by Trump and family that we publicly know about.
Yes, you are good at making up shit for which you have no evidence.
Post by mainframetech
But Mueller will not let out the story until the end of his investigation,
so there is almost sure to be a ton of guilty evidence in his hands.
Keep assuming. It's what you do best. It's kind of like when I buy a
lottery ticket. I don't look at the winning numbers right away. That way I
can go on believing I might actually win for a while. As soon as I look at
the winning numbers, reality sets in. I'm not sure why they call them
winning numbers. For almost all us who play, they are the losing numbers.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course, his foolish attacks on everyone
around him including the media is mistake. He can't get along with
anyone.
His "foolish attacks" got him elected much to the surprise and dismay of a
those liberal commentators who were so smug before the election and so
devastated afterward. Since I couldn't possibly watch everyone's election
night coverage I was pleasantly surprised to see that all the network and
cable news coverage has been posted on YouTube and one of the things I do
for laughs is replay them and watch those liberal talking heads starting
out the evening brimming with confidence and arrogance and then slowly
melting down as the reality of the situation started sinking in. It really
hit them hard when one of them reported midway through the evening that
the NYT had calculated based on the returns up to that point that there
was a 91% chance that Trump was going to win.
Now now. The election is over, as the conservatives say to the
democrats, don't try to relive it...:)
The Democrats aren't trying to relive it. They are trying to undo it.
LOL! Well, if you had not been brainwashed by Trump, you'd be trying
to undo it too.
It's one more case of Democrat hypocrisy. When Clinton was impeached they
were screaming bloody murder that the Republicans were trying to stage a
coup de tat against a duly elected President. Now the shoe is on the other
foot and they are more than happy to talk about impeachment but you won't
hear any of them calling it a coup de tat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They have been
engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump.
Sad that you forget so easily that Trump was attacking the news media
BEFORE he became prez, along with everyone else he could think of. And
that's usually not too wise, but wisdom is not Trump's forte.
Of course he was. He was that rare Republican who was willing to fight
back when the media attacked him. The typical Republican politician curls
up into a fetal position when people in the media say nasty things about
them.
My experience watching the major channels is that most Republicans fight
back continuously, and you can't stop them from talking and hogging the
channel.
Nonsense. It's the reason the Republicans caved to Obama on the budget
because they were afraid that if the government shut down, the media would
blame them. That would have been the case and they didn't want to fight
that battle.
Since they were the cause of the one case of the gov't being stopped, I
can understand there sensitivity.
One the government shuts down because two opposing factions can't reach a
budget agreement, why is one more to blame than the other? Whenever there
has been a government shutdown, the Democrats were equally responsible yet
they never get any of the blame. That's because the media is largely in
the tank for them.
It's simply amazing how your convenient memory works! You've forgotten
again that the Republicans stated clearly that they were going to shut
down the gov't if they didn't get something they wanted. It was a clear
blackmail attempt.
"The last government shutdown was in October, 2013, and was widely blamed
on conservative Republicans in the House, with a major assist from Senator
Ted Cruz, who demanded that Obamacare had to be defunded, a ludicrous
strategy given that Barack Obama was President. Congress failed to pass
the necessary legislation, and the government closed for two weeks before
Republicans came back to the table."
From: http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/the-white-house-seems-excited-to-shut-down-the-government
You didn't have to cite a news story to tell me the media blamed the
Republicans for the shutdown. I already knew that. The truth is if the
Democrats had agreed to what the Republicans wanted there wouldn't have
been a shutdown but of course the media won't blame them. It's because the
Republicans wouldn't accept what the Democrats wanted that the government
was shutdown. It was all the Republicans fault that the two sides couldn't
reach a budget deal. It's always the Republicans who are supposed to cave
in and if they don't, it's their fault if the government shuts down.

Of course it is a myth that the government ever shutdown. Essential
services continued and nobody lost their jobs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
One of the things that appealed to Trump voters is that he was
willing to take on his attackers. All these so called smart political
pundits were openly laughing at the prospect of Trump even being nominated
much less elected and they were all forced to eat crow and they didn't
like the taste of it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The
other is a commercial. I cracked up yesterday when Joy Reid referred to
herself as a journalist. If she's a journalist, I'm a Chinese aviator.
MSNBC doesn't hire journalists. They have no use for them. Their talking
heads are nothing but shills for the Democrat Party. That includes their
turncoat Republicans like Michael Steele and Judas Scarborough. CNN is
pretty much as bad.
Oooo! The nasty names! So typically Republican! So you think
Hannity is somehow better than Joy Reid?
By a wide margin. For one, he makes no pretense about being a journalist.
He is a commentator. If Hannity referred to himself as a journalist I
would mock him too.
Post by mainframetech
Or some of the other talking
heads on FOX? There's really no difference how they do the job, only in
what they choose to talk about.
Yes, FOX does have their advocates too but they don't go around pretending
to be journalists. True journalists report facts, not their opinions. I
see very little journalism being practiced anywhere including FOX.
Well, time will tell if you are onto the truth...:)
There is no need to wait.
Oh? Mueller is ready with his prosecutions?
Mueller is running a dog and pony show.
Oh? You see him on the TV? Showing his dogs and ponies? I don't
think so, and you're spreading manure once again.
They are feeding stories to their friends in the media to keep the story
going even though as Van Jones stated, Russia is a nothing burger. The
longer Mueller can go without showing his cards, the longer the media can
milk the story.
mainframetech
2017-08-03 02:25:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964.
You were a dinosaur when I got in the field.
A dinosaur that lasted until the 2000's...:)
So did I and I was a dinosaur when I retired. Distributive processing was
taking over from Big Iron when I got out.
I installed distributed processing 20 years before I quit. Sounds like
your company was behind the times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
Patching and hacking are two different acts. Patching is a perfectly
legitimate and authorized action. Hacking is maliciously accessing and/or
destroying someone else's data without their permission.
"Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer
software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be
outside of the creator's original objective. Those individuals who engage
in computer hacking activities are typically referred to as
“hackers.”
In all my years in the business I never once heard anyone describe a
programmer who modified an existing programmer as a hacker. Almost all
programs get modified as requirements change over time. Even the word
hacking has malicious connotations. That's why it isn't used in connection
with normal program maintenance.
You come into programming late and you act like only you have the right
answers. Well, you don't, and actually, you seem to have very few for a
job that you say you did. Note: You probably worked in the mainstream
big corporation programming dept. and saw little of the real world.
Actually the field has changed so much in the years since we both retired
that neither one of us has the answers. The way things were done when you
got into the business were largely obsolete by the time I got into the
business, and when I got out in the early 2000s, my skill set was largely
becoming obsolete.
Depends on what your skills were. In my case, during the 360 era, I
had reason to do patching here and there as any systems programmer had to
do at times. And that's 'systems programmer' in the older definition, not
the simple job of specifying the parameters of a system that is
automatically generated as the title became.

In the case mentioned earlier, I had to patch a 3705 comm Network
Control unit. We had a case where modems were dropping client comm lines,
and I tracked it down to the 3705. It was necessary to first find the
problem in the 3705, then interpret the assembler hex code into
understandable instructions, then patch the code on the mainframe that
would be loaded out to the 3705 when the command was given. Once the
'superzap' program was used to patch the 3705 control program on disk on
the mainframe, it would then allow for 7 times the wait time for
connection, and the problem was solved. But that's systems programming in
the older sense. the 3705 had a different instruction set than the normal
360, so it took a day to figure that out. That's an example of white hat
'hacking', where you go into a program and modify it to do what you need
it to do, differently than the original program specs.

There was no program listing or deck or file to modify, it had to be
done without such amenities, and it's called 'hacking' using 'patching' to
solve the problem.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will find black hat hackers and white hat hackers. And before
your time, we 'hacked' programs using 'patching' among other tools. I've
on a number of occasions hacked a program through the console while the
program was loaded, which is a second form of hacking.
Patching is a term I did hear frequently although primarily in regards to
system software. I rarely if ever heard it used regarding application
software.
I'm sure you never got close to the systems programming area.
Actually I did spend time in systems programming but due to budget cuts
was sent back to applications programming where I spent the rest of my
career.
Post by mainframetech
But in
the old days of first generation and EAM equipment, there were many ways
to accomplish a task, and we knew what there was to know about the
machines we had available.
That's nice. You knew that stuff because you needed to know it just as the
early pioneers of personal computing had to be geeks in order to function.
They couldn't just buy a new computer with lots of apps preloaded. They
had to get into the nuts and bolts. When I got into the field one had to
be able to navigate their way through a core dump. That quickly became a
lost art I by the time I got out I had forgotten how to do it. It just
wasn't necessary any more.
Post by mainframetech
As well, in the 360 era we did some of that
stuff too. For instance I had to patch a 3705 Communications Network
unit, which had it's own assembler language, different from the 360
assembler. We used 'Superzap' a patching program distributed by IBM, but
Again, interesting but irrelevant. By the time I got into the field the
360 had been replace by the 370. Assembler code was no longer being used.
I have news for you. We were in the 370 era and were running the
fastest online realtime system in the industry we were in. It was all
multitask re-entrant assembler language, and I made sure all my people
were conversant in that language and COBOL as well for the mundane
reporting and such. Because of that we were considered the 'Cadillac' of
our industry. And that 370 system used the 3705 I mentioned above. The
mainstream was sold a bill of goods by IBM and others to sue COBOL for
their online system, so that their dumb old COBOL programmers could work
in the online environment, but CICS was a dog and managed to sell many
large IBM mainframes to support the slow as a pig system.

A wise business decision by IBM, just like PL/1, which also sold IBM
hardware to those foolish companies that shifted over to that language.
Post by bigdog
We had a few subroutines still in use that had been coded in Assembler
which I had to modify but Assembler was fast becoming the Latin of
programming languages. It was helpful to understand it to give you a clue
as to what was happening internally just as learning Latin can be useful
in understanding English derivatives.
More news for you. What language do you think IBM uses for their
operating systems? While they have developed a 'C' compiler and can run
those programs, the IBM mainframes still use direct machine code compiled
from assembler instructions. As well, companies that write sophisticated
software like antivirus and special utility programs write in assembler
too. It's not a dead language, it's been moved upscale to the serious
programming level.

And as to having lost any programming abilities, I still program in
Visual Basic 6.0 and Visual C++ on my PC for fun. I experiment with HTML
and similar languages to keep up my knowledge of what's happening these
days.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/zosbasics/com.ibm.zos.zdatamgmt/zsysprogc_utilities_SPZAP.htm
You'll note in the program description that it speaks of 'patching'.
Anyplace when it talks about hacking which was the starting point of this
discussion?
Of course. Use Google or go here:

https://www.lifewire.com/hackers-good-or-bad-3481592
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
wouldn't know about that.
Actually I trained on one of those first generation computers with card
compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
of computing done in the Dark Ages.
So you worked on a 705 or similar computer? What model? EAM
equipment? Wiring boards?
All I remember was it was a Univac. Can't remember the number.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak.
Now we have your opinion, but I'm also speaking of the PBS channels
too, and many of the foreign news channels as well.
Another liberal propaganda machine.
The BBC?
Can't speak to the BBC but since it is government funded my guess is they
are very liberal just as PBS is.
You mean they reflected the attitudes of the people they served?
No, they reflect the attitudes of an organization that is living off the
government tit.
I guess that you've missed all the ads and announcements about all the
PBS programming and channels that are losing gov't funding. They are on
funding drives every quester now.
Its about time. PBS served a function when there were only three major
networks and there was no platform for niche programming that didn't have
the broad appeal needed to be part of the network lineup. Now we have
hundreds of cable channels, mostly niche programming which makes PBS
obsolete. Sesame Street could easily find a home on a cable outlet. So
could just about every program offered on PBS. About the only thing PBS
airs that couldn't transfer to cable are its pledge drives. Unfortunately,
PBS has their lobbyists and Congress will continue to feed the dinosaur ad
infinitum.
PBS is not obsolete, that's the standard line from conservatives,
because the last thing they want is for PBS to continue to uncover their
games on the public. PBS supports many necessary investigational programs
like Frontline, Nova, etc.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They agreed with the
general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
Surprise, surprise.
Post by mainframetech
FOX was smart in that
they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
like that to tell me the truth about anything?
That an individual here and there was unhappy with Trump would be
expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
were that way.
Here and there? Are you serious? The networks and cable news outlets are
infested with such people.
Then you feel that many, many people were unhappy with Trump. I see.
In the liberal infested mainstream media that is certainly true.
Ah, the buzzwords...:)
Buzzwords can be quite apropos.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
and now we know he can't.
Bullshit. The attacks began the night of the election and have continued
24/7 ever since. Good luck finding any of these liberal propaganda
machines having said one positive thing about Trump. EVER!!!
Wow! Those pat phrases just spill out like water. "liberal propaganda
Post by bigdog
machines". Give the brainwashing a rest. How easily you forget that Trump during the last half of the campaign insulted the media all over the place when he thought he was going to lose. And he kept it up after he became prez. And then he complains about their treatment of him. Never mind that he does wacky things just to get attention, and then complains when he gets it!
So you admit the mainstream media has it in for Trump.
No, I believe a few hosts do, not the industry altogether.
You must not watch much CNN, MSNBC, or the network news programs because a
majority of their programming is compromised of hit pieces about Trump.
The network news programs do cover other subjects but with the cable news
programs, the anti-Trump stories dominate their live programming. If you
and I were to make a bet in which you and I watched CNN or MSNBC for 12
straight hours and you gave me $1 for every they ran an anti-Trump story
and I gave you $5 every time they ran a story about something else, at the
end of the 12 hours, I have no doubt I would be way ahead.
Post by mainframetech
They tell the truth,
Now that's funny.
Post by mainframetech
but that's going to make Trump look dumb because he is.
Right he's dumb and all those talking heads who laughed about his
prospects for even being nominated much less elected are so smart. Who's
laughing now? Trump outsmarted all of them which is one more reason they
hate him. He showed the country they weren't nearly as smart as they
pretended to be.
Trump didn't win the election because he was smart or wise, he won
because he said things people liked and that gave them hope, though some
of them now are realizing it was a pig in a poke. He said he would
protect their healthcare, by making sure that SS, Medicare and Medicaid
wouldn't be touched! Thn he was out on the tube demanding of the Senate
that they pass the healthcare bill that would take healthcare away form
many millions of people, some of whom would die form that loss. And those
people were mainly his voters!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He walked into a job he had no clue how to do,
The position is often called Chief Executive and nobody in recent times if
ever came to the White House with more executive experience than Trump.
He's running the executive branch the way he would run a business. He
gives his people a mission and if they fail to accomplish it he holds them
accountable.
Trump was a failure as a business manager. I know that. No manager
berates their employee publicly, you do it privately, but Trump does it in
public, like with Sessions. No manager talks openly with the adversary
companies, like having Russians into the oval office where they could
leave all kinds of spy devices, and then give away your own companies
secrets to the adversaries.


Trump has been bankrupted 6 times, go see if you can find any
billionaire that was bankrupted once. Trump is a bad business manager
based on the proof, not fake news, the proof. His efforts in the White
House certainly show his lack of management skills.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and in a government with no
clue how it works or how to get anything done with it. And on top of
that, he hired many people that also had no clue how to get things done.
Liberals just never learn. They underestimated Trump as a candidate and
now are underestimating him as a president. They made the same mistakes
with Reagan. Then never thought he could get elected either and then were
amazed when he succeeded in doing many of the things he set out to do
despite having a hostile Congress for most of his tenure.
Please note that getting elected and managing the gov't of the USA are
completely different skills. Getting elected was mostly a lucky thing
because Trump's promises were believed. But now he has to do the job, and
he can't find his ass with both hands and a rear view mirror! He is
constantly making mistakes and hanging himself on some new foolish
comment, and I'm sure Mueller is rubbing his hands together with glee.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And here he is hiring and firing every other week trying to get out of
the Mueller piano which he knows is going to fall on him soon.
Just what evidence has Mueller produced. Oh, I forgot. You're the guy who
doesn't put much faith in evidence. You prefer assumptions.
Can it. You mean you don't understand the rules of the game for these
investigations? Mueller is using the FBI for much of his investigative
work, as well as lawyers with specific backgrounds, for instance, he has
hired the best lawyer on the East coast familiar with finance and money
laundering crimes.

Everything they learn is kept totally secret until the final report. And
it looks like the Mueller organization is doing much better than the W.H.
people at avoiding leaks.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you think Trump is being honest about his not having anything
illegal or damaging to himself that he's hiding, send him an email telling
him to come clean with everything and await the clearing of his name by
Mueller. So far, the whole Trump family and others have been lying about
Russian in meetings and such, and probably more to come. Get it all out
and stop the drip...drip...drip.
Why should he deny committing a crime for which no one has produced any
evidence? There is a story about a young protégé of LBJ's who
was making his first run at public office and his campaign was not going
well so he turned to his mentor for advice. LBJ suggested he accuse his
opponent of having sex with his pig. The protégé said he
couldn't say that because it wasn't true. LBJ replied, "Make him deny it".
That's what this whole Russia nothing burger is all about.
I think you've forgotten again that I've given you a list of the
crimes committed so far by Trump and family that we publicly know about.
Yes, you are good at making up shit for which you have no evidence.
Post by mainframetech
But Mueller will not let out the story until the end of his investigation,
so there is almost sure to be a ton of guilty evidence in his hands.
Keep assuming. It's what you do best. It's kind of like when I buy a
lottery ticket. I don't look at the winning numbers right away. That way I
can go on believing I might actually win for a while. As soon as I look at
the winning numbers, reality sets in. I'm not sure why they call them
winning numbers. For almost all us who play, they are the losing numbers.
WRONG again! As you well know, I've listed a number of crimes that are
already known publicly, and I'm sure that Mueller will have them on his
list. But he will have much more to go with those.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course, his foolish attacks on everyone
around him including the media is mistake. He can't get along with
anyone.
His "foolish attacks" got him elected much to the surprise and dismay of a
those liberal commentators who were so smug before the election and so
devastated afterward. Since I couldn't possibly watch everyone's election
night coverage I was pleasantly surprised to see that all the network and
cable news coverage has been posted on YouTube and one of the things I do
for laughs is replay them and watch those liberal talking heads starting
out the evening brimming with confidence and arrogance and then slowly
melting down as the reality of the situation started sinking in. It really
hit them hard when one of them reported midway through the evening that
the NYT had calculated based on the returns up to that point that there
was a 91% chance that Trump was going to win.
Now now. The election is over, as the conservatives say to the
democrats, don't try to relive it...:)
The Democrats aren't trying to relive it. They are trying to undo it.
LOL! Well, if you had not been brainwashed by Trump, you'd be trying
to undo it too.
It's one more case of Democrat hypocrisy. When Clinton was impeached they
were screaming bloody murder that the Republicans were trying to stage a
coup de tat against a duly elected President. Now the shoe is on the other
foot and they are more than happy to talk about impeachment but you won't
hear any of them calling it a coup de tat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They have been
engaged in a non-stop vendetta against Trump since they night they were
forced to report he was President-elect. They never take a days off. Tune
in to any live program on MSNBC or CNN and it is a virtual certainty you
will see one of two things. One is an attack piece on Donald Trump.
Sad that you forget so easily that Trump was attacking the news media
BEFORE he became prez, along with everyone else he could think of. And
that's usually not too wise, but wisdom is not Trump's forte.
Of course he was. He was that rare Republican who was willing to fight
back when the media attacked him. The typical Republican politician curls
up into a fetal position when people in the media say nasty things about
them.
My experience watching the major channels is that most Republicans fight
back continuously, and you can't stop them from talking and hogging the
channel.
Nonsense. It's the reason the Republicans caved to Obama on the budget
because they were afraid that if the government shut down, the media would
blame them. That would have been the case and they didn't want to fight
that battle.
Since they were the cause of the one case of the gov't being stopped, I
can understand there sensitivity.
One the government shuts down because two opposing factions can't reach a
budget agreement, why is one more to blame than the other? Whenever there
has been a government shutdown, the Democrats were equally responsible yet
they never get any of the blame. That's because the media is largely in
the tank for them.
It's simply amazing how your convenient memory works! You've forgotten
again that the Republicans stated clearly that they were going to shut
down the gov't if they didn't get something they wanted. It was a clear
blackmail attempt.
"The last government shutdown was in October, 2013, and was widely blamed
on conservative Republicans in the House, with a major assist from Senator
Ted Cruz, who demanded that Obamacare had to be defunded, a ludicrous
strategy given that Barack Obama was President. Congress failed to pass
the necessary legislation, and the government closed for two weeks before
Republicans came back to the table."
From: http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/the-white-house-seems-excited-to-shut-down-the-government
You didn't have to cite a news story to tell me the media blamed the
Republicans for the shutdown. I already knew that. The truth is if the
Democrats had agreed to what the Republicans wanted there wouldn't have
been a shutdown but of course the media won't blame them. It's because the
Republicans wouldn't accept what the Democrats wanted that the government
was shutdown. It was all the Republicans fault that the two sides couldn't
reach a budget deal. It's always the Republicans who are supposed to cave
in and if they don't, it's their fault if the government shuts down.
Of course it is a myth that the government ever shutdown. Essential
services continued and nobody lost their jobs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
One of the things that appealed to Trump voters is that he was
willing to take on his attackers. All these so called smart political
pundits were openly laughing at the prospect of Trump even being nominated
much less elected and they were all forced to eat crow and they didn't
like the taste of it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The
other is a commercial. I cracked up yesterday when Joy Reid referred to
herself as a journalist. If she's a journalist, I'm a Chinese aviator.
MSNBC doesn't hire journalists. They have no use for them. Their talking
heads are nothing but shills for the Democrat Party. That includes their
turncoat Republicans like Michael Steele and Judas Scarborough. CNN is
pretty much as bad.
Oooo! The nasty names! So typically Republican! So you think
Hannity is somehow better than Joy Reid?
By a wide margin. For one, he makes no pretense about being a journalist.
He is a commentator. If Hannity referred to himself as a journalist I
would mock him too.
Post by mainframetech
Or some of the other talking
heads on FOX? There's really no difference how they do the job, only in
what they choose to talk about.
Yes, FOX does have their advocates too but they don't go around pretending
to be journalists. True journalists report facts, not their opinions. I
see very little journalism being practiced anywhere including FOX.
Well, time will tell if you are onto the truth...:)
There is no need to wait.
Oh? Mueller is ready with his prosecutions?
Mueller is running a dog and pony show.
Oh? You see him on the TV? Showing his dogs and ponies? I don't
think so, and you're spreading manure once again.
They are feeding stories to their friends in the media to keep the story
going even though as Van Jones stated, Russia is a nothing burger. The
longer Mueller can go without showing his cards, the longer the media can
milk the story.
Unfortunately, every day something comes out and is backed up by proof,
like today the story of Trump having dictated Trump Jr.'s phony reason to
go to meeting with the Russians. Trump said he knew nothing about the
meeting, but turns out he was the one that supplied the phony reason for
Jr. to use with the questioning. Now we have him lying to congress.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-04 01:35:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964.
You were a dinosaur when I got in the field.
A dinosaur that lasted until the 2000's...:)
So did I and I was a dinosaur when I retired. Distributive processing was
taking over from Big Iron when I got out.
I installed distributed processing 20 years before I quit. Sounds like
your company was behind the times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
Patching and hacking are two different acts. Patching is a perfectly
legitimate and authorized action. Hacking is maliciously accessing and/or
destroying someone else's data without their permission.
"Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer
software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be
outside of the creator's original objective. Those individuals who engage
in computer hacking activities are typically referred to as
“hackers.”
In all my years in the business I never once heard anyone describe a
programmer who modified an existing programmer as a hacker. Almost all
programs get modified as requirements change over time. Even the word
hacking has malicious connotations. That's why it isn't used in connection
with normal program maintenance.
You come into programming late and you act like only you have the right
answers. Well, you don't, and actually, you seem to have very few for a
job that you say you did. Note: You probably worked in the mainstream
big corporation programming dept. and saw little of the real world.
Actually the field has changed so much in the years since we both retired
that neither one of us has the answers. The way things were done when you
got into the business were largely obsolete by the time I got into the
business, and when I got out in the early 2000s, my skill set was largely
becoming obsolete.
Depends on what your skills were. In my case, during the 360 era, I
had reason to do patching here and there as any systems programmer had to
do at times. And that's 'systems programmer' in the older definition, not
the simple job of specifying the parameters of a system that is
automatically generated as the title became.
In the case mentioned earlier, I had to patch a 3705 comm Network
Control unit. We had a case where modems were dropping client comm lines,
and I tracked it down to the 3705. It was necessary to first find the
problem in the 3705, then interpret the assembler hex code into
understandable instructions, then patch the code on the mainframe that
would be loaded out to the 3705 when the command was given. Once the
'superzap' program was used to patch the 3705 control program on disk on
the mainframe, it would then allow for 7 times the wait time for
connection, and the problem was solved. But that's systems programming in
the older sense. the 3705 had a different instruction set than the normal
360, so it took a day to figure that out. That's an example of white hat
'hacking', where you go into a program and modify it to do what you need
it to do, differently than the original program specs.
There was no program listing or deck or file to modify, it had to be
done without such amenities, and it's called 'hacking' using 'patching' to
solve the problem.
That was then. Progress is learning to do things more easily and more
efficiently. I learned Assembler and I had an understanding of how it
related to machine code but I never once had a need to patch machine code
and rarely had to work with an Assembler program. The only Assembler
programs I wrote from scratch were done at school. Times change and so do
the required skill sets.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will find black hat hackers and white hat hackers. And before
your time, we 'hacked' programs using 'patching' among other tools. I've
on a number of occasions hacked a program through the console while the
program was loaded, which is a second form of hacking.
Patching is a term I did hear frequently although primarily in regards to
system software. I rarely if ever heard it used regarding application
software.
I'm sure you never got close to the systems programming area.
Actually I did spend time in systems programming but due to budget cuts
was sent back to applications programming where I spent the rest of my
career.
Post by mainframetech
But in
the old days of first generation and EAM equipment, there were many ways
to accomplish a task, and we knew what there was to know about the
machines we had available.
That's nice. You knew that stuff because you needed to know it just as the
early pioneers of personal computing had to be geeks in order to function.
They couldn't just buy a new computer with lots of apps preloaded. They
had to get into the nuts and bolts. When I got into the field one had to
be able to navigate their way through a core dump. That quickly became a
lost art I by the time I got out I had forgotten how to do it. It just
wasn't necessary any more.
Post by mainframetech
As well, in the 360 era we did some of that
stuff too. For instance I had to patch a 3705 Communications Network
unit, which had it's own assembler language, different from the 360
assembler. We used 'Superzap' a patching program distributed by IBM, but
Again, interesting but irrelevant. By the time I got into the field the
360 had been replace by the 370. Assembler code was no longer being used.
I have news for you. We were in the 370 era and were running the
fastest online realtime system in the industry we were in. It was all
multitask re-entrant assembler language, and I made sure all my people
were conversant in that language and COBOL as well for the mundane
reporting and such. Because of that we were considered the 'Cadillac' of
our industry. And that 370 system used the 3705 I mentioned above. The
mainstream was sold a bill of goods by IBM and others to sue COBOL for
their online system, so that their dumb old COBOL programmers could work
in the online environment, but CICS was a dog and managed to sell many
large IBM mainframes to support the slow as a pig system.
A wise business decision by IBM, just like PL/1, which also sold IBM
hardware to those foolish companies that shifted over to that language.
I imagine Assembler code programs would run more efficiently but languages
such as COBOL and PL/1 were much easier to program in and application
software could be developed much more quickly. As mainframes became faster
and more powerful there simply wasn't a need to continue to code the way
things were done in the Stone Age. Again, that's progress.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
We had a few subroutines still in use that had been coded in Assembler
which I had to modify but Assembler was fast becoming the Latin of
programming languages. It was helpful to understand it to give you a clue
as to what was happening internally just as learning Latin can be useful
in understanding English derivatives.
More news for you. What language do you think IBM uses for their
operating systems? While they have developed a 'C' compiler and can run
those programs, the IBM mainframes still use direct machine code compiled
from assembler instructions. As well, companies that write sophisticated
software like antivirus and special utility programs write in assembler
too. It's not a dead language, it's been moved upscale to the serious
programming level.
I don't doubt that in some circles Assembler language is still used just
as Latin is still spoken by the College of Cardinals but neither is
commonplace. Schools aren't turning out Assembler programmers. That's not
where the demand is.
Post by mainframetech
And as to having lost any programming abilities, I still program in
Visual Basic 6.0 and Visual C++ on my PC for fun. I experiment with HTML
and similar languages to keep up my knowledge of what's happening these
days.
That's nice. I have had no need nor desire to program anything more
sophisticated than my coffee machine since I retired. Whatever software I
need I can buy off the shelf or download from a website.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/zosbasics/com.ibm.zos.zdatamgmt/zsysprogc_utilities_SPZAP.htm
You'll note in the program description that it speaks of 'patching'.
Anyplace when it talks about hacking which was the starting point of this
discussion?
https://www.lifewire.com/hackers-good-or-bad-3481592
As the article noted, most people think of the term hacker in the negative
connotation. What the article referred to as white hat hacking was more
commonly called patching in my day and I would bet that even today inside
of companies this authorized hacking is referred to by some other term.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
wouldn't know about that.
Actually I trained on one of those first generation computers with card
compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
of computing done in the Dark Ages.
So you worked on a 705 or similar computer? What model? EAM
equipment? Wiring boards?
All I remember was it was a Univac. Can't remember the number.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak.
Now we have your opinion, but I'm also speaking of the PBS channels
too, and many of the foreign news channels as well.
Another liberal propaganda machine.
The BBC?
Can't speak to the BBC but since it is government funded my guess is they
are very liberal just as PBS is.
You mean they reflected the attitudes of the people they served?
No, they reflect the attitudes of an organization that is living off the
government tit.
I guess that you've missed all the ads and announcements about all the
PBS programming and channels that are losing gov't funding. They are on
funding drives every quester now.
Its about time. PBS served a function when there were only three major
networks and there was no platform for niche programming that didn't have
the broad appeal needed to be part of the network lineup. Now we have
hundreds of cable channels, mostly niche programming which makes PBS
obsolete. Sesame Street could easily find a home on a cable outlet. So
could just about every program offered on PBS. About the only thing PBS
airs that couldn't transfer to cable are its pledge drives. Unfortunately,
PBS has their lobbyists and Congress will continue to feed the dinosaur ad
infinitum.
PBS is not obsolete, that's the standard line from conservatives,
because the last thing they want is for PBS to continue to uncover their
games on the public.
I guess that's your way of acknowledging that PBS is shill for liberal
causes.
Post by mainframetech
PBS supports many necessary investigational programs
like Frontline, Nova, etc.
You mean lthose programs that exposed the fraudulent JFK conspiracy
theories? Those too have found homes on cable channels such as The History
Channel and Discovery.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They agreed with the
general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
Surprise, surprise.
Post by mainframetech
FOX was smart in that
they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
like that to tell me the truth about anything?
That an individual here and there was unhappy with Trump would be
expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
were that way.
Here and there? Are you serious? The networks and cable news outlets are
infested with such people.
Then you feel that many, many people were unhappy with Trump. I see.
In the liberal infested mainstream media that is certainly true.
Ah, the buzzwords...:)
Buzzwords can be quite apropos.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
and now we know he can't.
Bullshit. The attacks began the night of the election and have continued
24/7 ever since. Good luck finding any of these liberal propaganda
machines having said one positive thing about Trump. EVER!!!
Wow! Those pat phrases just spill out like water. "liberal propaganda
Post by bigdog
machines". Give the brainwashing a rest. How easily you forget that Trump during the last half of the campaign insulted the media all over the place when he thought he was going to lose. And he kept it up after he became prez. And then he complains about their treatment of him. Never mind that he does wacky things just to get attention, and then complains when he gets it!
So you admit the mainstream media has it in for Trump.
No, I believe a few hosts do, not the industry altogether.
You must not watch much CNN, MSNBC, or the network news programs because a
majority of their programming is compromised of hit pieces about Trump.
The network news programs do cover other subjects but with the cable news
programs, the anti-Trump stories dominate their live programming. If you
and I were to make a bet in which you and I watched CNN or MSNBC for 12
straight hours and you gave me $1 for every they ran an anti-Trump story
and I gave you $5 every time they ran a story about something else, at the
end of the 12 hours, I have no doubt I would be way ahead.
Post by mainframetech
They tell the truth,
Now that's funny.
Post by mainframetech
but that's going to make Trump look dumb because he is.
Right he's dumb and all those talking heads who laughed about his
prospects for even being nominated much less elected are so smart. Who's
laughing now? Trump outsmarted all of them which is one more reason they
hate him. He showed the country they weren't nearly as smart as they
pretended to be.
Trump didn't win the election because he was smart or wise, he won
because he said things people liked and that gave them hope, though some
of them now are realizing it was a pig in a poke.
That reminds me of the story of two friends walking in the woods when the
came across a bear. The one said, "Do you think we can outrun him?" to
which the other said, "I don't need to outrun the bear. I just need to
outrun you." Trump didn't need to be smart. He just needed to be smarter
than Hillary. He clearly was.
Post by mainframetech
He said he would
protect their healthcare, by making sure that SS, Medicare and Medicaid
wouldn't be touched! Thn he was out on the tube demanding of the Senate
that they pass the healthcare bill that would take healthcare away form
many millions of people, some of whom would die form that loss. And those
people were mainly his voters!
Nothing Trump has proposed would affect SS. Any enhancements to Medicare
that were the result of Obamacare can be kept in whatever replacement
Congress is able to agree upon. So until Congress finally acts and Trump
signs the bill, he has done nothing to undermine Medicare and there is no
indication that would happen. Politicians in both parties know cutting
benefits to seniors is the third rail of politics so there is almost no
chance that is going to happen. He campaigned on a plan to discontinue
Medicaid grants to states so it simply isn't true that he said Medicaid
wouldn't be touched.

"As a reminder, President Trump campaigned on a seven-part health plan.
With the following changes, he vowed to make health care great again.

1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare
2. Allow selling of health plans across state lines as long as health plans
follow state guidelines
3. Allow individuals to deduct health insurance premiums on their tax
returns
4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSA)
5. Require price transparency across the healthcare system
6. Discontinue federal grants to states for Medicaid
7. Allow expansion into free markets, including purchasing cheaper drugs
overseas, to decrease the cost of prescription medications"

Note item 6.

I would have provided the link to the full article but for some reason the
website would not allow me to copy and past it. If you are interested, it
is on verywell.com. You'll have to search their site for the article.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He walked into a job he had no clue how to do,
The position is often called Chief Executive and nobody in recent times if
ever came to the White House with more executive experience than Trump.
He's running the executive branch the way he would run a business. He
gives his people a mission and if they fail to accomplish it he holds them
accountable.
Trump was a failure as a business manager. I know that. No manager
berates their employee publicly, you do it privately, but Trump does it in
public, like with Sessions. No manager talks openly with the adversary
companies, like having Russians into the oval office where they could
leave all kinds of spy devices, and then give away your own companies
secrets to the adversaries.
It is laughable to say Trump is a failure as a business manager. Like all
people in business, he has had setbacks but his successes have far
outweighed the losses. People who go to work for Trump know his style hand
what is demanded of them. If they do their jobs well they are rewarded
handsomely. He has many people in his organization who are very loyal to
him. As an example, Omarosa Manigault who was fired by Trump during the
first season of the Apprentice found other employment within his
organization and was brought back for several Celebrity Apprentice
contests. She campaigned enthusiastically for him in 2016. She now works
for him within the White House. Sounds like she doesn't think he is such a
terrible boss.
Post by mainframetech
Trump has been bankrupted 6 times, go see if you can find any
billionaire that was bankrupted once.
Trump has had companies that go bankrupt. He has never filed for personal
bankruptcy. Since he is a multi-billionaire, he must be doing something
right.
Post by mainframetech
Trump is a bad business manager
based on the proof, not fake news, the proof.
I wish I could have failed as well as he has.
Post by mainframetech
His efforts in the White
House certainly show his lack of management skills.
You people all thought he was a buffoon as a candidate too. How did that
pan out?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and in a government with no
clue how it works or how to get anything done with it. And on top of
that, he hired many people that also had no clue how to get things done.
Liberals just never learn. They underestimated Trump as a candidate and
now are underestimating him as a president. They made the same mistakes
with Reagan. Then never thought he could get elected either and then were
amazed when he succeeded in doing many of the things he set out to do
despite having a hostile Congress for most of his tenure.
Please note that getting elected and managing the gov't of the USA are
completely different skills. Getting elected was mostly a lucky thing
because Trump's promises were believed.
Gee, I guess no candidate ever got elected by making promises he couldn't
keep. Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like
your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan".
Post by mainframetech
But now he has to do the job, and
he can't find his ass with both hands and a rear view mirror! He is
constantly making mistakes and hanging himself on some new foolish
comment, and I'm sure Mueller is rubbing his hands together with glee.
How many times during the campaign did the liberal media claim Trump had
made a fatal blunder. Yet he somehow managed to engineer arguably the
greatest upset in the history of presidential politics, rivaled only by
Truman's upset of Dewey in 1948. Things didn't go very smoothly for Reagan
his first two years either but in 1984 he managed to win 49 of 50 states.
Liberals fooled themselves into believing Trump wasn't a formidable
candidate and now they are saying the same things about him as president.
They never learn.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And here he is hiring and firing every other week trying to get out of
the Mueller piano which he knows is going to fall on him soon.
Just what evidence has Mueller produced. Oh, I forgot. You're the guy who
doesn't put much faith in evidence. You prefer assumptions.
Can it. You mean you don't understand the rules of the game for these
investigations? Mueller is using the FBI for much of his investigative
work, as well as lawyers with specific backgrounds,
Like being contributors for Hillary's campaign.
Post by mainframetech
for instance, he has
hired the best lawyer on the East coast familiar with finance and money
laundering crimes.
Amazing how you disparage the integrity of the legal profession when you
are talking about the staff lawyers on the WC but now you are presenting
these guys as white knights.
Post by mainframetech
Everything they learn is kept totally secret until the final report. And
it looks like the Mueller organization is doing much better than the W.H.
people at avoiding leaks.
So you are just going to assume they have the goods on Trump.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you think Trump is being honest about his not having anything
illegal or damaging to himself that he's hiding, send him an email telling
him to come clean with everything and await the clearing of his name by
Mueller. So far, the whole Trump family and others have been lying about
Russian in meetings and such, and probably more to come. Get it all out
and stop the drip...drip...drip.
Why should he deny committing a crime for which no one has produced any
evidence? There is a story about a young protégé of LBJ's who
was making his first run at public office and his campaign was not going
well so he turned to his mentor for advice. LBJ suggested he accuse his
opponent of having sex with his pig. The protégé said he
couldn't say that because it wasn't true. LBJ replied, "Make him deny it".
That's what this whole Russia nothing burger is all about.
I think you've forgotten again that I've given you a list of the
crimes committed so far by Trump and family that we publicly know about.
Yes, you are good at making up shit for which you have no evidence.
Post by mainframetech
But Mueller will not let out the story until the end of his investigation,
so there is almost sure to be a ton of guilty evidence in his hands.
Keep assuming. It's what you do best. It's kind of like when I buy a
lottery ticket. I don't look at the winning numbers right away. That way I
can go on believing I might actually win for a while. As soon as I look at
the winning numbers, reality sets in. I'm not sure why they call them
winning numbers. For almost all us who play, they are the losing numbers.
WRONG again! As you well know, I've listed a number of crimes that are
already known publicly, and I'm sure that Mueller will have them on his
list. But he will have much more to go with those.
So far nobody including the liberal media has presented a scrap of
evidence that Donald Trump has committed any crime. It's all innuendo.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-04 22:06:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964.
You were a dinosaur when I got in the field.
A dinosaur that lasted until the 2000's...:)
So did I and I was a dinosaur when I retired. Distributive processing was
taking over from Big Iron when I got out.
I installed distributed processing 20 years before I quit. Sounds like
your company was behind the times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
Patching and hacking are two different acts. Patching is a perfectly
legitimate and authorized action. Hacking is maliciously accessing and/or
destroying someone else's data without their permission.
"Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer
software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be
outside of the creator's original objective. Those individuals who engage
in computer hacking activities are typically referred to as
“hackers.”
In all my years in the business I never once heard anyone describe a
programmer who modified an existing programmer as a hacker. Almost all
programs get modified as requirements change over time. Even the word
hacking has malicious connotations. That's why it isn't used in connection
with normal program maintenance.
You come into programming late and you act like only you have the right
answers. Well, you don't, and actually, you seem to have very few for a
job that you say you did. Note: You probably worked in the mainstream
big corporation programming dept. and saw little of the real world.
Actually the field has changed so much in the years since we both retired
that neither one of us has the answers. The way things were done when you
got into the business were largely obsolete by the time I got into the
business, and when I got out in the early 2000s, my skill set was largely
becoming obsolete.
Depends on what your skills were. In my case, during the 360 era, I
had reason to do patching here and there as any systems programmer had to
do at times. And that's 'systems programmer' in the older definition, not
the simple job of specifying the parameters of a system that is
automatically generated as the title became.
In the case mentioned earlier, I had to patch a 3705 comm Network
Control unit. We had a case where modems were dropping client comm lines,
and I tracked it down to the 3705. It was necessary to first find the
problem in the 3705, then interpret the assembler hex code into
understandable instructions, then patch the code on the mainframe that
would be loaded out to the 3705 when the command was given. Once the
'superzap' program was used to patch the 3705 control program on disk on
the mainframe, it would then allow for 7 times the wait time for
connection, and the problem was solved. But that's systems programming in
the older sense. the 3705 had a different instruction set than the normal
360, so it took a day to figure that out. That's an example of white hat
'hacking', where you go into a program and modify it to do what you need
it to do, differently than the original program specs.
There was no program listing or deck or file to modify, it had to be
done without such amenities, and it's called 'hacking' using 'patching' to
solve the problem.
That was then. Progress is learning to do things more easily and more
efficiently. I learned Assembler and I had an understanding of how it
related to machine code but I never once had a need to patch machine code
and rarely had to work with an Assembler program. The only Assembler
programs I wrote from scratch were done at school. Times change and so do
the required skill sets.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will find black hat hackers and white hat hackers. And before
your time, we 'hacked' programs using 'patching' among other tools. I've
on a number of occasions hacked a program through the console while the
program was loaded, which is a second form of hacking.
Patching is a term I did hear frequently although primarily in regards to
system software. I rarely if ever heard it used regarding application
software.
I'm sure you never got close to the systems programming area.
Actually I did spend time in systems programming but due to budget cuts
was sent back to applications programming where I spent the rest of my
career.
Post by mainframetech
But in
the old days of first generation and EAM equipment, there were many ways
to accomplish a task, and we knew what there was to know about the
machines we had available.
That's nice. You knew that stuff because you needed to know it just as the
early pioneers of personal computing had to be geeks in order to function.
They couldn't just buy a new computer with lots of apps preloaded. They
had to get into the nuts and bolts. When I got into the field one had to
be able to navigate their way through a core dump. That quickly became a
lost art I by the time I got out I had forgotten how to do it. It just
wasn't necessary any more.
Post by mainframetech
As well, in the 360 era we did some of that
stuff too. For instance I had to patch a 3705 Communications Network
unit, which had it's own assembler language, different from the 360
assembler. We used 'Superzap' a patching program distributed by IBM, but
Again, interesting but irrelevant. By the time I got into the field the
360 had been replace by the 370. Assembler code was no longer being used.
I have news for you. We were in the 370 era and were running the
fastest online realtime system in the industry we were in. It was all
multitask re-entrant assembler language, and I made sure all my people
were conversant in that language and COBOL as well for the mundane
reporting and such. Because of that we were considered the 'Cadillac' of
our industry. And that 370 system used the 3705 I mentioned above. The
mainstream was sold a bill of goods by IBM and others to sue COBOL for
their online system, so that their dumb old COBOL programmers could work
in the online environment, but CICS was a dog and managed to sell many
large IBM mainframes to support the slow as a pig system.
A wise business decision by IBM, just like PL/1, which also sold IBM
hardware to those foolish companies that shifted over to that language.
I imagine Assembler code programs would run more efficiently but languages
such as COBOL and PL/1 were much easier to program in and application
software could be developed much more quickly. As mainframes became faster
and more powerful there simply wasn't a need to continue to code the way
things were done in the Stone Age. Again, that's progress.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
We had a few subroutines still in use that had been coded in Assembler
which I had to modify but Assembler was fast becoming the Latin of
programming languages. It was helpful to understand it to give you a clue
as to what was happening internally just as learning Latin can be useful
in understanding English derivatives.
More news for you. What language do you think IBM uses for their
operating systems? While they have developed a 'C' compiler and can run
those programs, the IBM mainframes still use direct machine code compiled
from assembler instructions. As well, companies that write sophisticated
software like antivirus and special utility programs write in assembler
too. It's not a dead language, it's been moved upscale to the serious
programming level.
I don't doubt that in some circles Assembler language is still used just
as Latin is still spoken by the College of Cardinals but neither is
commonplace. Schools aren't turning out Assembler programmers. That's not
where the demand is.
Post by mainframetech
And as to having lost any programming abilities, I still program in
Visual Basic 6.0 and Visual C++ on my PC for fun. I experiment with HTML
and similar languages to keep up my knowledge of what's happening these
days.
That's nice. I have had no need nor desire to program anything more
sophisticated than my coffee machine since I retired. Whatever software I
need I can buy off the shelf or download from a website.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/zosbasics/com.ibm.zos.zdatamgmt/zsysprogc_utilities_SPZAP.htm
You'll note in the program description that it speaks of 'patching'.
Anyplace when it talks about hacking which was the starting point of this
discussion?
https://www.lifewire.com/hackers-good-or-bad-3481592
As the article noted, most people think of the term hacker in the negative
connotation. What the article referred to as white hat hacking was more
commonly called patching in my day and I would bet that even today inside
of companies this authorized hacking is referred to by some other term.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
wouldn't know about that.
Actually I trained on one of those first generation computers with card
compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
of computing done in the Dark Ages.
So you worked on a 705 or similar computer? What model? EAM
equipment? Wiring boards?
All I remember was it was a Univac. Can't remember the number.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak.
Now we have your opinion, but I'm also speaking of the PBS channels
too, and many of the foreign news channels as well.
Another liberal propaganda machine.
The BBC?
Can't speak to the BBC but since it is government funded my guess is they
are very liberal just as PBS is.
You mean they reflected the attitudes of the people they served?
No, they reflect the attitudes of an organization that is living off the
government tit.
I guess that you've missed all the ads and announcements about all the
PBS programming and channels that are losing gov't funding. They are on
funding drives every quester now.
Its about time. PBS served a function when there were only three major
networks and there was no platform for niche programming that didn't have
the broad appeal needed to be part of the network lineup. Now we have
hundreds of cable channels, mostly niche programming which makes PBS
obsolete. Sesame Street could easily find a home on a cable outlet. So
could just about every program offered on PBS. About the only thing PBS
airs that couldn't transfer to cable are its pledge drives. Unfortunately,
PBS has their lobbyists and Congress will continue to feed the dinosaur ad
infinitum.
PBS is not obsolete, that's the standard line from conservatives,
because the last thing they want is for PBS to continue to uncover their
games on the public.
I guess that's your way of acknowledging that PBS is shill for liberal
causes.
Post by mainframetech
PBS supports many necessary investigational programs
like Frontline, Nova, etc.
You mean lthose programs that exposed the fraudulent JFK conspiracy
theories? Those too have found homes on cable channels such as The History
Channel and Discovery.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They agreed with the
general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
Surprise, surprise.
Post by mainframetech
FOX was smart in that
they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
like that to tell me the truth about anything?
That an individual here and there was unhappy with Trump would be
expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
were that way.
Here and there? Are you serious? The networks and cable news outlets are
infested with such people.
Then you feel that many, many people were unhappy with Trump. I see.
In the liberal infested mainstream media that is certainly true.
Ah, the buzzwords...:)
Buzzwords can be quite apropos.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
and now we know he can't.
Bullshit. The attacks began the night of the election and have continued
24/7 ever since. Good luck finding any of these liberal propaganda
machines having said one positive thing about Trump. EVER!!!
Wow! Those pat phrases just spill out like water. "liberal propaganda
Post by bigdog
machines". Give the brainwashing a rest. How easily you forget that Trump during the last half of the campaign insulted the media all over the place when he thought he was going to lose. And he kept it up after he became prez. And then he complains about their treatment of him. Never mind that he does wacky things just to get attention, and then complains when he gets it!
So you admit the mainstream media has it in for Trump.
No, I believe a few hosts do, not the industry altogether.
You must not watch much CNN, MSNBC, or the network news programs because a
majority of their programming is compromised of hit pieces about Trump.
The network news programs do cover other subjects but with the cable news
programs, the anti-Trump stories dominate their live programming. If you
and I were to make a bet in which you and I watched CNN or MSNBC for 12
straight hours and you gave me $1 for every they ran an anti-Trump story
and I gave you $5 every time they ran a story about something else, at the
end of the 12 hours, I have no doubt I would be way ahead.
Post by mainframetech
They tell the truth,
Now that's funny.
Post by mainframetech
but that's going to make Trump look dumb because he is.
Right he's dumb and all those talking heads who laughed about his
prospects for even being nominated much less elected are so smart. Who's
laughing now? Trump outsmarted all of them which is one more reason they
hate him. He showed the country they weren't nearly as smart as they
pretended to be.
Trump didn't win the election because he was smart or wise, he won
because he said things people liked and that gave them hope, though some
of them now are realizing it was a pig in a poke.
That reminds me of the story of two friends walking in the woods when the
came across a bear. The one said, "Do you think we can outrun him?" to
which the other said, "I don't need to outrun the bear. I just need to
outrun you." Trump didn't need to be smart. He just needed to be smarter
than Hillary. He clearly was.
Wrong. He didn't win the most votes.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He said he would
protect their healthcare, by making sure that SS, Medicare and Medicaid
wouldn't be touched! Thn he was out on the tube demanding of the Senate
that they pass the healthcare bill that would take healthcare away form
many millions of people, some of whom would die form that loss. And those
people were mainly his voters!
Nothing Trump has proposed would affect SS. Any enhancements to Medicare
that were the result of Obamacare can be kept in whatever replacement
Congress is able to agree upon. So until Congress finally acts and Trump
signs the bill, he has done nothing to undermine Medicare and there is no
indication that would happen. Politicians in both parties know cutting
benefits to seniors is the third rail of politics so there is almost no
chance that is going to happen. He campaigned on a plan to discontinue
Medicaid grants to states so it simply isn't true that he said Medicaid
wouldn't be touched.
"As a reminder, President Trump campaigned on a seven-part health plan.
With the following changes, he vowed to make health care great again.
1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare
2. Allow selling of health plans across state lines as long as health plans
follow state guidelines
3. Allow individuals to deduct health insurance premiums on their tax
returns
4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSA)
5. Require price transparency across the healthcare system
6. Discontinue federal grants to states for Medicaid
7. Allow expansion into free markets, including purchasing cheaper drugs
overseas, to decrease the cost of prescription medications"
Note item 6.
I would have provided the link to the full article but for some reason the
website would not allow me to copy and past it. If you are interested, it
is on verywell.com. You'll have to search their site for the article.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He walked into a job he had no clue how to do,
The position is often called Chief Executive and nobody in recent times if
ever came to the White House with more executive experience than Trump.
He's running the executive branch the way he would run a business. He
gives his people a mission and if they fail to accomplish it he holds them
accountable.
Trump was a failure as a business manager. I know that. No manager
berates their employee publicly, you do it privately, but Trump does it in
public, like with Sessions. No manager talks openly with the adversary
companies, like having Russians into the oval office where they could
leave all kinds of spy devices, and then give away your own companies
secrets to the adversaries.
It is laughable to say Trump is a failure as a business manager. Like all
people in business, he has had setbacks but his successes have far
outweighed the losses. People who go to work for Trump know his style hand
what is demanded of them. If they do their jobs well they are rewarded
handsomely. He has many people in his organization who are very loyal to
him. As an example, Omarosa Manigault who was fired by Trump during the
first season of the Apprentice found other employment within his
organization and was brought back for several Celebrity Apprentice
contests. She campaigned enthusiastically for him in 2016. She now works
for him within the White House. Sounds like she doesn't think he is such a
terrible boss.
Post by mainframetech
Trump has been bankrupted 6 times, go see if you can find any
billionaire that was bankrupted once.
Trump has had companies that go bankrupt. He has never filed for personal
bankruptcy. Since he is a multi-billionaire, he must be doing something
right.
Wrong. He's just a rich crook.
Like Madoff.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Trump is a bad business manager
based on the proof, not fake news, the proof.
I wish I could have failed as well as he has.
Post by mainframetech
His efforts in the White
House certainly show his lack of management skills.
You people all thought he was a buffoon as a candidate too. How did that
pan out?
So you don't care what happens to our country?
Is that because it's not YOUR country?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and in a government with no
clue how it works or how to get anything done with it. And on top of
that, he hired many people that also had no clue how to get things done.
Liberals just never learn. They underestimated Trump as a candidate and
now are underestimating him as a president. They made the same mistakes
with Reagan. Then never thought he could get elected either and then were
amazed when he succeeded in doing many of the things he set out to do
despite having a hostile Congress for most of his tenure.
Please note that getting elected and managing the gov't of the USA are
completely different skills. Getting elected was mostly a lucky thing
because Trump's promises were believed.
Gee, I guess no candidate ever got elected by making promises he couldn't
keep. Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like
your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan".
How is Trump's wall coming?
I like his high tech solution.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But now he has to do the job, and
he can't find his ass with both hands and a rear view mirror! He is
constantly making mistakes and hanging himself on some new foolish
comment, and I'm sure Mueller is rubbing his hands together with glee.
How many times during the campaign did the liberal media claim Trump had
made a fatal blunder. Yet he somehow managed to engineer arguably the
greatest upset in the history of presidential politics, rivaled only by
Truman's upset of Dewey in 1948. Things didn't go very smoothly for Reagan.
Not the greatest upset. Barely won.
Post by bigdog
his first two years either but in 1984 he managed to win 49 of 50 states.
Liberals fooled themselves into believing Trump wasn't a formidable
candidate and now they are saying the same things about him as president.
They never learn.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And here he is hiring and firing every other week trying to get out of
the Mueller piano which he knows is going to fall on him soon.
Just what evidence has Mueller produced. Oh, I forgot. You're the guy who
doesn't put much faith in evidence. You prefer assumptions.
Can it. You mean you don't understand the rules of the game for these
investigations? Mueller is using the FBI for much of his investigative
work, as well as lawyers with specific backgrounds,
Like being contributors for Hillary's campaign.
Post by mainframetech
for instance, he has
hired the best lawyer on the East coast familiar with finance and money
laundering crimes.
Amazing how you disparage the integrity of the legal profession when you
are talking about the staff lawyers on the WC but now you are presenting
these guys as white knights.
Post by mainframetech
Everything they learn is kept totally secret until the final report. And
it looks like the Mueller organization is doing much better than the W.H.
people at avoiding leaks.
So you are just going to assume they have the goods on Trump.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you think Trump is being honest about his not having anything
illegal or damaging to himself that he's hiding, send him an email telling
him to come clean with everything and await the clearing of his name by
Mueller. So far, the whole Trump family and others have been lying about
Russian in meetings and such, and probably more to come. Get it all out
and stop the drip...drip...drip.
Why should he deny committing a crime for which no one has produced any
evidence? There is a story about a young protégé of LBJ's who
was making his first run at public office and his campaign was not going
well so he turned to his mentor for advice. LBJ suggested he accuse his
opponent of having sex with his pig. The protégé said he
couldn't say that because it wasn't true. LBJ replied, "Make him deny it".
That's what this whole Russia nothing burger is all about.
I think you've forgotten again that I've given you a list of the
crimes committed so far by Trump and family that we publicly know about.
Yes, you are good at making up shit for which you have no evidence.
Post by mainframetech
But Mueller will not let out the story until the end of his investigation,
so there is almost sure to be a ton of guilty evidence in his hands.
Keep assuming. It's what you do best. It's kind of like when I buy a
lottery ticket. I don't look at the winning numbers right away. That way I
can go on believing I might actually win for a while. As soon as I look at
the winning numbers, reality sets in. I'm not sure why they call them
winning numbers. For almost all us who play, they are the losing numbers.
WRONG again! As you well know, I've listed a number of crimes that are
already known publicly, and I'm sure that Mueller will have them on his
list. But he will have much more to go with those.
So far nobody including the liberal media has presented a scrap of
evidence that Donald Trump has committed any crime. It's all innuendo.
Tons of evidence, from his own words.
mainframetech
2017-08-05 02:45:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964.
You were a dinosaur when I got in the field.
A dinosaur that lasted until the 2000's...:)
So did I and I was a dinosaur when I retired. Distributive processing was
taking over from Big Iron when I got out.
I installed distributed processing 20 years before I quit. Sounds like
your company was behind the times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
Patching and hacking are two different acts. Patching is a perfectly
legitimate and authorized action. Hacking is maliciously accessing and/or
destroying someone else's data without their permission.
"Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer
software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be
outside of the creator's original objective. Those individuals who engage
in computer hacking activities are typically referred to as
“hackers.”
In all my years in the business I never once heard anyone describe a
programmer who modified an existing programmer as a hacker. Almost all
programs get modified as requirements change over time. Even the word
hacking has malicious connotations. That's why it isn't used in connection
with normal program maintenance.
You come into programming late and you act like only you have the right
answers. Well, you don't, and actually, you seem to have very few for a
job that you say you did. Note: You probably worked in the mainstream
big corporation programming dept. and saw little of the real world.
Actually the field has changed so much in the years since we both retired
that neither one of us has the answers. The way things were done when you
got into the business were largely obsolete by the time I got into the
business, and when I got out in the early 2000s, my skill set was largely
becoming obsolete.
Depends on what your skills were. In my case, during the 360 era, I
had reason to do patching here and there as any systems programmer had to
do at times. And that's 'systems programmer' in the older definition, not
the simple job of specifying the parameters of a system that is
automatically generated as the title became.
In the case mentioned earlier, I had to patch a 3705 comm Network
Control unit. We had a case where modems were dropping client comm lines,
and I tracked it down to the 3705. It was necessary to first find the
problem in the 3705, then interpret the assembler hex code into
understandable instructions, then patch the code on the mainframe that
would be loaded out to the 3705 when the command was given. Once the
'superzap' program was used to patch the 3705 control program on disk on
the mainframe, it would then allow for 7 times the wait time for
connection, and the problem was solved. But that's systems programming in
the older sense. the 3705 had a different instruction set than the normal
360, so it took a day to figure that out. That's an example of white hat
'hacking', where you go into a program and modify it to do what you need
it to do, differently than the original program specs.
There was no program listing or deck or file to modify, it had to be
done without such amenities, and it's called 'hacking' using 'patching' to
solve the problem.
That was then. Progress is learning to do things more easily and more
efficiently. I learned Assembler and I had an understanding of how it
related to machine code but I never once had a need to patch machine code
and rarely had to work with an Assembler program. The only Assembler
programs I wrote from scratch were done at school. Times change and so do
the required skill sets.
Wow! Do I have news for you again! The IBM Network Control Unit
continues to do the job it originally did, though it would be a newer
replacement. And there will still be code in that box that will handle
comm needs through the box, and you can be sure that IBM is not going to
publish the source code for the box. If problems arise the fixes will
have to be done directly to the programming that goes in that box. If IBM
were informed and decided to do a fix for the problem, it would take a
month or more and in the meantime you need to get the problem fixed.
General applications programming never had systems hardware/software
problems so you would never have seen those types of situations.

And the place where assembler is demanded is in the online realtime
world, which was usurped by IBM and their stupid CICS. Those companies
that had good responsive systems were always in assembler with multi-task
re-entrant code. You can't get decent re-entrant code in the other
languages. 'C' has some of the features, but not all.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will find black hat hackers and white hat hackers. And before
your time, we 'hacked' programs using 'patching' among other tools. I've
on a number of occasions hacked a program through the console while the
program was loaded, which is a second form of hacking.
Patching is a term I did hear frequently although primarily in regards to
system software. I rarely if ever heard it used regarding application
software.
I'm sure you never got close to the systems programming area.
Actually I did spend time in systems programming but due to budget cuts
was sent back to applications programming where I spent the rest of my
career.
Post by mainframetech
But in
the old days of first generation and EAM equipment, there were many ways
to accomplish a task, and we knew what there was to know about the
machines we had available.
That's nice. You knew that stuff because you needed to know it just as the
early pioneers of personal computing had to be geeks in order to function.
They couldn't just buy a new computer with lots of apps preloaded. They
had to get into the nuts and bolts. When I got into the field one had to
be able to navigate their way through a core dump. That quickly became a
lost art I by the time I got out I had forgotten how to do it. It just
wasn't necessary any more.
Post by mainframetech
As well, in the 360 era we did some of that
stuff too. For instance I had to patch a 3705 Communications Network
unit, which had it's own assembler language, different from the 360
assembler. We used 'Superzap' a patching program distributed by IBM, but
Again, interesting but irrelevant. By the time I got into the field the
360 had been replace by the 370. Assembler code was no longer being used.
I have news for you. We were in the 370 era and were running the
fastest online realtime system in the industry we were in. It was all
multitask re-entrant assembler language, and I made sure all my people
were conversant in that language and COBOL as well for the mundane
reporting and such. Because of that we were considered the 'Cadillac' of
our industry. And that 370 system used the 3705 I mentioned above. The
mainstream was sold a bill of goods by IBM and others to use COBOL for
their online system, so that their dumb old COBOL programmers could work
in the online environment, but CICS was a dog and managed to sell many
large IBM mainframes to support the slow as a pig system.
A wise business decision by IBM, just like PL/1, which also sold IBM
hardware to those foolish companies that shifted over to that language.
I imagine Assembler code programs would run more efficiently but languages
such as COBOL and PL/1 were much easier to program in and application
software could be developed much more quickly. As mainframes became faster
and more powerful there simply wasn't a need to continue to code the way
things were done in the Stone Age. Again, that's progress.
A competent assembler programmer could produce a program doing a
certain task as fast or faster than the COBOL and PL/1 people. I know
because I did a comparison in a real setting. I had to rewrite a PL/1
program into assembler. It took me 3 days to get it written and running,
and the original took a month to get running.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
We had a few subroutines still in use that had been coded in Assembler
which I had to modify but Assembler was fast becoming the Latin of
programming languages. It was helpful to understand it to give you a clue
as to what was happening internally just as learning Latin can be useful
in understanding English derivatives.
More news for you. What language do you think IBM uses for their
operating systems? While they have developed a 'C' compiler and can run
those programs, the IBM mainframes still use direct machine code compiled
from assembler instructions. As well, companies that write sophisticated
software like antivirus and special utility programs write in assembler
too. It's not a dead language, it's been moved upscale to the serious
programming level.
I don't doubt that in some circles Assembler language is still used just
as Latin is still spoken by the College of Cardinals but neither is
commonplace. Schools aren't turning out Assembler programmers. That's not
where the demand is.
I won't argue that point. The companies have ben sold a bill of goods,
and they go with the languages they have ben convinced to use by the
consultants.


COBOL on the mainframe under CICS, and various products on the PCs,
with 'C++' being used heavily for video games and other complex tasks, and
Visual Basic 6.0 for the simpler programs and systems.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And as to having lost any programming abilities, I still program in
Visual Basic 6.0 and Visual C++ on my PC for fun. I experiment with HTML
and similar languages to keep up my knowledge of what's happening these
days.
That's nice. I have had no need nor desire to program anything more
sophisticated than my coffee machine since I retired. Whatever software I
need I can buy off the shelf or download from a website.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/zosbasics/com.ibm.zos.zdatamgmt/zsysprogc_utilities_SPZAP.htm
You'll note in the program description that it speaks of 'patching'.
Anyplace when it talks about hacking which was the starting point of this
discussion?
https://www.lifewire.com/hackers-good-or-bad-3481592
As the article noted, most people think of the term hacker in the negative
connotation. What the article referred to as white hat hacking was more
commonly called patching in my day and I would bet that even today inside
of companies this authorized hacking is referred to by some other term.
In my last company (Financial Services) we hired a group to try to
break into our banking systems. They called it hacking when they went at
it. They were 'white hat hackers'.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
wouldn't know about that.
Actually I trained on one of those first generation computers with card
compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
of computing done in the Dark Ages.
So you worked on a 705 or similar computer? What model? EAM
equipment? Wiring boards?
All I remember was it was a Univac. Can't remember the number.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak.
Now we have your opinion, but I'm also speaking of the PBS channels
too, and many of the foreign news channels as well.
Another liberal propaganda machine.
The BBC?
Can't speak to the BBC but since it is government funded my guess is they
are very liberal just as PBS is.
You mean they reflected the attitudes of the people they served?
No, they reflect the attitudes of an organization that is living off the
government tit.
I guess that you've missed all the ads and announcements about all the
PBS programming and channels that are losing gov't funding. They are on
funding drives every quester now.
Its about time. PBS served a function when there were only three major
networks and there was no platform for niche programming that didn't have
the broad appeal needed to be part of the network lineup. Now we have
hundreds of cable channels, mostly niche programming which makes PBS
obsolete. Sesame Street could easily find a home on a cable outlet. So
could just about every program offered on PBS. About the only thing PBS
airs that couldn't transfer to cable are its pledge drives. Unfortunately,
PBS has their lobbyists and Congress will continue to feed the dinosaur ad
infinitum.
PBS is not obsolete, that's the standard line from conservatives,
because the last thing they want is for PBS to continue to uncover their
games on the public.
I guess that's your way of acknowledging that PBS is shill for liberal
causes.
Nope, it's a comment on their neutral reporting, that often shows up the
games played by the Republicans on the public. Example is the recent
AHCA.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
PBS supports many necessary investigational programs
like Frontline, Nova, etc.
You mean lthose programs that exposed the fraudulent JFK conspiracy
theories? Those too have found homes on cable channels such as The History
Channel and Discovery.
Sure thing. And even they can be wrong...:)
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They agreed with the
general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
Surprise, surprise.
Post by mainframetech
FOX was smart in that
they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
like that to tell me the truth about anything?
That an individual here and there was unhappy with Trump would be
expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
were that way.
Here and there? Are you serious? The networks and cable news outlets are
infested with such people.
Then you feel that many, many people were unhappy with Trump. I see.
In the liberal infested mainstream media that is certainly true.
Ah, the buzzwords...:)
Buzzwords can be quite apropos.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
and now we know he can't.
Bullshit. The attacks began the night of the election and have continued
24/7 ever since. Good luck finding any of these liberal propaganda
machines having said one positive thing about Trump. EVER!!!
Wow! Those pat phrases just spill out like water. "liberal propaganda
Post by bigdog
machines". Give the brainwashing a rest. How easily you forget that Trump during the last half of the campaign insulted the media all over the place when he thought he was going to lose. And he kept it up after he became prez. And then he complains about their treatment of him. Never mind that he does wacky things just to get attention, and then complains when he gets it!
So you admit the mainstream media has it in for Trump.
No, I believe a few hosts do, not the industry altogether.
You must not watch much CNN, MSNBC, or the network news programs because a
majority of their programming is compromised of hit pieces about Trump.
The network news programs do cover other subjects but with the cable news
programs, the anti-Trump stories dominate their live programming. If you
and I were to make a bet in which you and I watched CNN or MSNBC for 12
straight hours and you gave me $1 for every they ran an anti-Trump story
and I gave you $5 every time they ran a story about something else, at the
end of the 12 hours, I have no doubt I would be way ahead.
Post by mainframetech
They tell the truth,
Now that's funny.
Post by mainframetech
but that's going to make Trump look dumb because he is.
Right he's dumb and all those talking heads who laughed about his
prospects for even being nominated much less elected are so smart. Who's
laughing now? Trump outsmarted all of them which is one more reason they
hate him. He showed the country they weren't nearly as smart as they
pretended to be.
Trump didn't win the election because he was smart or wise, he won
because he said things people liked and that gave them hope, though some
of them now are realizing it was a pig in a poke.
That reminds me of the story of two friends walking in the woods when the
came across a bear. The one said, "Do you think we can outrun him?" to
which the other said, "I don't need to outrun the bear. I just need to
outrun you." Trump didn't need to be smart. He just needed to be smarter
than Hillary. He clearly was.
Whatever he is better than, he's become obvious as to where his brain
stacks up against the world's leaders. Have you seen the latest leaks of
Trump's transcripts of his private chats with PM Turnbull of Australia and
his talk with the leader in Mexico? A whining child would do better.
Listen to them yourself and decide:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/trump-pena-nieto-call-transcript/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/03/mega-leak-transcripts-trumps-foreign-leader-phone-calls-emerge.html
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He said he would
protect their healthcare, by making sure that SS, Medicare and Medicaid
wouldn't be touched! Thn he was out on the tube demanding of the Senate
that they pass the healthcare bill that would take healthcare away form
many millions of people, some of whom would die form that loss. And those
people were mainly his voters!
Nothing Trump has proposed would affect SS. Any enhancements to Medicare
that were the result of Obamacare can be kept in whatever replacement
Congress is able to agree upon. So until Congress finally acts and Trump
signs the bill, he has done nothing to undermine Medicare and there is no
indication that would happen. Politicians in both parties know cutting
benefits to seniors is the third rail of politics so there is almost no
chance that is going to happen. He campaigned on a plan to discontinue
Medicaid grants to states so it simply isn't true that he said Medicaid
wouldn't be touched.
I saw the video of Trump saying that he would protect all 3 of SS.
Medicare, and Medicaid. I think you got led astray. Here's videos with
Trump saying he'll protect the 3, and also of him saying that he knows
that the Republicans want to cut those 3:






This is Trump talking, so what's your comment? Is he lying, or simply
mistaken...? :)
Post by bigdog
"As a reminder, President Trump campaigned on a seven-part health plan.
With the following changes, he vowed to make health care great again.
1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare
2. Allow selling of health plans across state lines as long as health plans
follow state guidelines
3. Allow individuals to deduct health insurance premiums on their tax
returns
4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSA)
5. Require price transparency across the healthcare system
6. Discontinue federal grants to states for Medicaid
7. Allow expansion into free markets, including purchasing cheaper drugs
overseas, to decrease the cost of prescription medications"
Note item 6.
I would have provided the link to the full article but for some reason the
website would not allow me to copy and past it. If you are interested, it
is on verywell.com. You'll have to search their site for the article.
I believe you found that list. However, it conflicts with his
statements that I linked to above. By stopping grants for Medicaid to the
states, the states will have to shut down their Medicaid because they
don't have the money to afford what the federal gov't has been paying for
all this time. If they suddenly got the bill they would go broke, so they
will have to throw people off or close Medicaid. They don't have the
ability to hold of paying their debts like the feds. I'm sure most people
didn't connect it when they saw that list. It's really what the 'death'
bill said, cut $800 Billion out of Medicaid and dump the bill on the
states. Sneaky!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He walked into a job he had no clue how to do,
The position is often called Chief Executive and nobody in recent times if
ever came to the White House with more executive experience than Trump.
He's running the executive branch the way he would run a business. He
gives his people a mission and if they fail to accomplish it he holds them
accountable.
Trump was a failure as a business manager. I know that. No manager
berates their employee publicly, you do it privately, but Trump does it in
public, like with Sessions. No manager talks openly with the adversary
companies, like having Russians into the oval office where they could
leave all kinds of spy devices, and then give away your own companies
secrets to the adversaries.
It is laughable to say Trump is a failure as a business manager. Like all
people in business, he has had setbacks but his successes have far
outweighed the losses. People who go to work for Trump know his style hand
what is demanded of them. If they do their jobs well they are rewarded
handsomely. He has many people in his organization who are very loyal to
him. As an example, Omarosa Manigault who was fired by Trump during the
first season of the Apprentice found other employment within his
organization and was brought back for several Celebrity Apprentice
contests. She campaigned enthusiastically for him in 2016. She now works
for him within the White House. Sounds like she doesn't think he is such a
terrible boss.
LOL! Or she hit on the formula for manipulating Trump! Suck up and
praise him for anything he says and does.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Trump has been bankrupted 6 times, go see if you can find any
billionaire that was bankrupted once.
Trump has had companies that go bankrupt. He has never filed for personal
bankruptcy. Since he is a multi-billionaire, he must be doing something
right.
Post by mainframetech
Trump is a bad business manager
based on the proof, not fake news, the proof.
I wish I could have failed as well as he has.
Anyone can do it that can convince suckers to send him money. Like
Trump University. He had to pay back $25 million there. It was labeled a
scam by the suckers that got took. And to help him keep his millions, he
refuses to pay people back that perform services for him or his buildings.
He puts people out of work when he closes down his failed companies. He
saves money by telling everyone to buy American, then he buys Chinese and
East European for his own products. You're welcome to the moral and
ethical failings if you want them.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
His efforts in the White
House certainly show his lack of management skills.
You people all thought he was a buffoon as a candidate too. How did that
pan out?
Welp, now he's a buffoon in the W.H.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and in a government with no
clue how it works or how to get anything done with it. And on top of
that, he hired many people that also had no clue how to get things done.
Liberals just never learn. They underestimated Trump as a candidate and
now are underestimating him as a president. They made the same mistakes
with Reagan. Then never thought he could get elected either and then were
amazed when he succeeded in doing many of the things he set out to do
despite having a hostile Congress for most of his tenure.
Please note that getting elected and managing the gov't of the USA are
completely different skills. Getting elected was mostly a lucky thing
because Trump's promises were believed.
Gee, I guess no candidate ever got elected by making promises he couldn't
keep. Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like
your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan".
Actually, those were legitimate promises when they were made. They
learned later that the plans many people had were insurance co. scams and
the quality level of Obamacare wouldn't support them. It was actually to
their advantage that the plans were discarded, since they probably
wouldn't have paid off in an accident. And when the bad plans went, the
doctors that only were listed with those plans (why were they all they
could get signed up with?) went too, unless they were signed up with
another plan that the person chose.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But now he has to do the job, and
he can't find his ass with both hands and a rear view mirror! He is
constantly making mistakes and hanging himself on some new foolish
comment, and I'm sure Mueller is rubbing his hands together with glee.
How many times during the campaign did the liberal media claim Trump had
made a fatal blunder. Yet he somehow managed to engineer arguably the
greatest upset in the history of presidential politics, rivaled only by
Truman's upset of Dewey in 1948. Things didn't go very smoothly for Reagan
his first two years either but in 1984 he managed to win 49 of 50 states.
Liberals fooled themselves into believing Trump wasn't a formidable
candidate and now they are saying the same things about him as president.
They never learn.
Time will tell. The stats are showing that some of the Trump troops
are leaving him. Not a lot yet, but some are leaving. He's down to 32%
approval and 61% disapproval.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And here he is hiring and firing every other week trying to get out of
the Mueller piano which he knows is going to fall on him soon.
Just what evidence has Mueller produced. Oh, I forgot. You're the guy who
doesn't put much faith in evidence. You prefer assumptions.
Can it. You mean you don't understand the rules of the game for these
investigations? Mueller is using the FBI for much of his investigative
work, as well as lawyers with specific backgrounds,
Like being contributors for Hillary's campaign.
So was Trump...does that mean that Trump is also a no good SOB?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
for instance, he has
hired the best lawyer on the East coast familiar with finance and money
laundering crimes.
Amazing how you disparage the integrity of the legal profession when you
are talking about the staff lawyers on the WC but now you are presenting
these guys as white knights.
People vary as to their ethics. Depends also on what they have
decided to work on.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Everything they learn is kept totally secret until the final report. And
it looks like the Mueller organization is doing much better than the W.H.
people at avoiding leaks.
So you are just going to assume they have the goods on Trump.
Knowing Trump and his history and his foolishness and his complete
disregard for protecting himself when he should be quiet, I think he and
the kiddies have learned to simply go about their business and ignore the
law and simple pay off where necessary to get out of problems. But not
this problem. It's an easy assumption to make because I've already listed
some of the crimes to you in the past that are already on the books as far
as I'm concerned.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If you think Trump is being honest about his not having anything
illegal or damaging to himself that he's hiding, send him an email telling
him to come clean with everything and await the clearing of his name by
Mueller. So far, the whole Trump family and others have been lying about
Russian in meetings and such, and probably more to come. Get it all out
and stop the drip...drip...drip.
Why should he deny committing a crime for which no one has produced any
evidence? There is a story about a young protégé of LBJ's who
was making his first run at public office and his campaign was not going
well so he turned to his mentor for advice. LBJ suggested he accuse his
opponent of having sex with his pig. The protégé said he
couldn't say that because it wasn't true. LBJ replied, "Make him deny it".
That's what this whole Russia nothing burger is all about.
I think you've forgotten again that I've given you a list of the
crimes committed so far by Trump and family that we publicly know about.
Yes, you are good at making up shit for which you have no evidence.
Post by mainframetech
But Mueller will not let out the story until the end of his investigation,
so there is almost sure to be a ton of guilty evidence in his hands.
Keep assuming. It's what you do best. It's kind of like when I buy a
lottery ticket.
I don't play the lottery. Foolish. No odds.

This thread is getting too long.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-06 04:02:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964.
You were a dinosaur when I got in the field.
A dinosaur that lasted until the 2000's...:)
So did I and I was a dinosaur when I retired. Distributive processing was
taking over from Big Iron when I got out.
I installed distributed processing 20 years before I quit. Sounds like
your company was behind the times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
Patching and hacking are two different acts. Patching is a perfectly
legitimate and authorized action. Hacking is maliciously accessing and/or
destroying someone else's data without their permission.
"Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer
software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be
outside of the creator's original objective. Those individuals who engage
in computer hacking activities are typically referred to as
“hackers.”
In all my years in the business I never once heard anyone describe a
programmer who modified an existing programmer as a hacker. Almost all
programs get modified as requirements change over time. Even the word
hacking has malicious connotations. That's why it isn't used in connection
with normal program maintenance.
You come into programming late and you act like only you have the right
answers. Well, you don't, and actually, you seem to have very few for a
job that you say you did. Note: You probably worked in the mainstream
big corporation programming dept. and saw little of the real world.
Actually the field has changed so much in the years since we both retired
that neither one of us has the answers. The way things were done when you
got into the business were largely obsolete by the time I got into the
business, and when I got out in the early 2000s, my skill set was largely
becoming obsolete.
Depends on what your skills were. In my case, during the 360 era, I
had reason to do patching here and there as any systems programmer had to
do at times. And that's 'systems programmer' in the older definition, not
the simple job of specifying the parameters of a system that is
automatically generated as the title became.
In the case mentioned earlier, I had to patch a 3705 comm Network
Control unit. We had a case where modems were dropping client comm lines,
and I tracked it down to the 3705. It was necessary to first find the
problem in the 3705, then interpret the assembler hex code into
understandable instructions, then patch the code on the mainframe that
would be loaded out to the 3705 when the command was given. Once the
'superzap' program was used to patch the 3705 control program on disk on
the mainframe, it would then allow for 7 times the wait time for
connection, and the problem was solved. But that's systems programming in
the older sense. the 3705 had a different instruction set than the normal
360, so it took a day to figure that out. That's an example of white hat
'hacking', where you go into a program and modify it to do what you need
it to do, differently than the original program specs.
There was no program listing or deck or file to modify, it had to be
done without such amenities, and it's called 'hacking' using 'patching' to
solve the problem.
That was then. Progress is learning to do things more easily and more
efficiently. I learned Assembler and I had an understanding of how it
related to machine code but I never once had a need to patch machine code
and rarely had to work with an Assembler program. The only Assembler
programs I wrote from scratch were done at school. Times change and so do
the required skill sets.
Wow! Do I have news for you again! The IBM Network Control Unit
continues to do the job it originally did, though it would be a newer
replacement. And there will still be code in that box that will handle
comm needs through the box, and you can be sure that IBM is not going to
publish the source code for the box. If problems arise the fixes will
have to be done directly to the programming that goes in that box. If IBM
were informed and decided to do a fix for the problem, it would take a
month or more and in the meantime you need to get the problem fixed.
General applications programming never had systems hardware/software
problems so you would never have seen those types of situations.
And the place where assembler is demanded is in the online realtime
world, which was usurped by IBM and their stupid CICS. Those companies
that had good responsive systems were always in assembler with multi-task
re-entrant code. You can't get decent re-entrant code in the other
languages. 'C' has some of the features, but not all.
I wasn't talking about what IBM does under the covers. I was talking about
out in the real world. I worked a good part of my career as a consultant
and as such I worked in a lot of different shops and NOBODY was coding in
Assembler.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will find black hat hackers and white hat hackers. And before
your time, we 'hacked' programs using 'patching' among other tools. I've
on a number of occasions hacked a program through the console while the
program was loaded, which is a second form of hacking.
Patching is a term I did hear frequently although primarily in regards to
system software. I rarely if ever heard it used regarding application
software.
I'm sure you never got close to the systems programming area.
Actually I did spend time in systems programming but due to budget cuts
was sent back to applications programming where I spent the rest of my
career.
Post by mainframetech
But in
the old days of first generation and EAM equipment, there were many ways
to accomplish a task, and we knew what there was to know about the
machines we had available.
That's nice. You knew that stuff because you needed to know it just as the
early pioneers of personal computing had to be geeks in order to function.
They couldn't just buy a new computer with lots of apps preloaded. They
had to get into the nuts and bolts. When I got into the field one had to
be able to navigate their way through a core dump. That quickly became a
lost art I by the time I got out I had forgotten how to do it. It just
wasn't necessary any more.
Post by mainframetech
As well, in the 360 era we did some of that
stuff too. For instance I had to patch a 3705 Communications Network
unit, which had it's own assembler language, different from the 360
assembler. We used 'Superzap' a patching program distributed by IBM, but
Again, interesting but irrelevant. By the time I got into the field the
360 had been replace by the 370. Assembler code was no longer being used.
I have news for you. We were in the 370 era and were running the
fastest online realtime system in the industry we were in. It was all
multitask re-entrant assembler language, and I made sure all my people
were conversant in that language and COBOL as well for the mundane
reporting and such. Because of that we were considered the 'Cadillac' of
our industry. And that 370 system used the 3705 I mentioned above. The
mainstream was sold a bill of goods by IBM and others to use COBOL for
their online system, so that their dumb old COBOL programmers could work
in the online environment, but CICS was a dog and managed to sell many
large IBM mainframes to support the slow as a pig system.
A wise business decision by IBM, just like PL/1, which also sold IBM
hardware to those foolish companies that shifted over to that language.
I imagine Assembler code programs would run more efficiently but languages
such as COBOL and PL/1 were much easier to program in and application
software could be developed much more quickly. As mainframes became faster
and more powerful there simply wasn't a need to continue to code the way
things were done in the Stone Age. Again, that's progress.
A competent assembler programmer could produce a program doing a
certain task as fast or faster than the COBOL and PL/1 people. I know
because I did a comparison in a real setting. I had to rewrite a PL/1
program into assembler. It took me 3 days to get it written and running,
and the original took a month to get running.
I don't know where you were working but no place I worked was still coding
Assembler. I'm sure there were a few old timers who were still coding in
assembler just as I'm sure there are still people who are fluent in Latin
but they are few and far between. My only exposure to Assembler in the 25
years I worked in the field was to modify a couple called subroutines that
had been coded in Assembler many years earlier. I felt like an
archeologist.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
We had a few subroutines still in use that had been coded in Assembler
which I had to modify but Assembler was fast becoming the Latin of
programming languages. It was helpful to understand it to give you a clue
as to what was happening internally just as learning Latin can be useful
in understanding English derivatives.
More news for you. What language do you think IBM uses for their
operating systems? While they have developed a 'C' compiler and can run
those programs, the IBM mainframes still use direct machine code compiled
from assembler instructions. As well, companies that write sophisticated
software like antivirus and special utility programs write in assembler
too. It's not a dead language, it's been moved upscale to the serious
programming level.
I don't doubt that in some circles Assembler language is still used just
as Latin is still spoken by the College of Cardinals but neither is
commonplace. Schools aren't turning out Assembler programmers. That's not
where the demand is.
I won't argue that point. The companies have ben sold a bill of goods,
and they go with the languages they have ben convinced to use by the
consultants.
COBOL on the mainframe under CICS, and various products on the PCs,
with 'C++' being used heavily for video games and other complex tasks, and
Visual Basic 6.0 for the simpler programs and systems.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And as to having lost any programming abilities, I still program in
Visual Basic 6.0 and Visual C++ on my PC for fun. I experiment with HTML
and similar languages to keep up my knowledge of what's happening these
days.
That's nice. I have had no need nor desire to program anything more
sophisticated than my coffee machine since I retired. Whatever software I
need I can buy off the shelf or download from a website.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/zosbasics/com.ibm.zos.zdatamgmt/zsysprogc_utilities_SPZAP.htm
You'll note in the program description that it speaks of 'patching'.
Anyplace when it talks about hacking which was the starting point of this
discussion?
https://www.lifewire.com/hackers-good-or-bad-3481592
As the article noted, most people think of the term hacker in the negative
connotation. What the article referred to as white hat hacking was more
commonly called patching in my day and I would bet that even today inside
of companies this authorized hacking is referred to by some other term.
In my last company (Financial Services) we hired a group to try to
break into our banking systems. They called it hacking when they went at
it. They were 'white hat hackers'.
IOW, they were hired to determine the vulnerability of your systems to
malicious hackers.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
wouldn't know about that.
Actually I trained on one of those first generation computers with card
compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
of computing done in the Dark Ages.
So you worked on a 705 or similar computer? What model? EAM
equipment? Wiring boards?
All I remember was it was a Univac. Can't remember the number.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak.
Now we have your opinion, but I'm also speaking of the PBS channels
too, and many of the foreign news channels as well.
Another liberal propaganda machine.
The BBC?
Can't speak to the BBC but since it is government funded my guess is they
are very liberal just as PBS is.
You mean they reflected the attitudes of the people they served?
No, they reflect the attitudes of an organization that is living off the
government tit.
I guess that you've missed all the ads and announcements about all the
PBS programming and channels that are losing gov't funding. They are on
funding drives every quester now.
Its about time. PBS served a function when there were only three major
networks and there was no platform for niche programming that didn't have
the broad appeal needed to be part of the network lineup. Now we have
hundreds of cable channels, mostly niche programming which makes PBS
obsolete. Sesame Street could easily find a home on a cable outlet. So
could just about every program offered on PBS. About the only thing PBS
airs that couldn't transfer to cable are its pledge drives. Unfortunately,
PBS has their lobbyists and Congress will continue to feed the dinosaur ad
infinitum.
PBS is not obsolete, that's the standard line from conservatives,
because the last thing they want is for PBS to continue to uncover their
games on the public.
I guess that's your way of acknowledging that PBS is shill for liberal
causes.
Nope, it's a comment on their neutral reporting,
Neutral reporting??? That's the funniest thing you have said in quite a
while and that is saying something.
Post by mainframetech
that often shows up the
games played by the Republicans on the public. Example is the recent
AHCA.
If they are neutral reporters, why don't they show up the games played by
Democrats too?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
PBS supports many necessary investigational programs
like Frontline, Nova, etc.
You mean lthose programs that exposed the fraudulent JFK conspiracy
theories? Those too have found homes on cable channels such as The History
Channel and Discovery.
Sure thing. And even they can be wrong...:)
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They agreed with the
general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
Surprise, surprise.
Post by mainframetech
FOX was smart in that
they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
like that to tell me the truth about anything?
That an individual here and there was unhappy with Trump would be
expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
were that way.
Here and there? Are you serious? The networks and cable news outlets are
infested with such people.
Then you feel that many, many people were unhappy with Trump. I see.
In the liberal infested mainstream media that is certainly true.
Ah, the buzzwords...:)
Buzzwords can be quite apropos.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
and now we know he can't.
Bullshit. The attacks began the night of the election and have continued
24/7 ever since. Good luck finding any of these liberal propaganda
machines having said one positive thing about Trump. EVER!!!
Wow! Those pat phrases just spill out like water. "liberal propaganda
Post by bigdog
machines". Give the brainwashing a rest. How easily you forget that Trump during the last half of the campaign insulted the media all over the place when he thought he was going to lose. And he kept it up after he became prez. And then he complains about their treatment of him. Never mind that he does wacky things just to get attention, and then complains when he gets it!
So you admit the mainstream media has it in for Trump.
No, I believe a few hosts do, not the industry altogether.
You must not watch much CNN, MSNBC, or the network news programs because a
majority of their programming is compromised of hit pieces about Trump.
The network news programs do cover other subjects but with the cable news
programs, the anti-Trump stories dominate their live programming. If you
and I were to make a bet in which you and I watched CNN or MSNBC for 12
straight hours and you gave me $1 for every they ran an anti-Trump story
and I gave you $5 every time they ran a story about something else, at the
end of the 12 hours, I have no doubt I would be way ahead.
Post by mainframetech
They tell the truth,
Now that's funny.
Post by mainframetech
but that's going to make Trump look dumb because he is.
Right he's dumb and all those talking heads who laughed about his
prospects for even being nominated much less elected are so smart. Who's
laughing now? Trump outsmarted all of them which is one more reason they
hate him. He showed the country they weren't nearly as smart as they
pretended to be.
Trump didn't win the election because he was smart or wise, he won
because he said things people liked and that gave them hope, though some
of them now are realizing it was a pig in a poke.
That reminds me of the story of two friends walking in the woods when the
came across a bear. The one said, "Do you think we can outrun him?" to
which the other said, "I don't need to outrun the bear. I just need to
outrun you." Trump didn't need to be smart. He just needed to be smarter
than Hillary. He clearly was.
Whatever he is better than, he's become obvious as to where his brain
stacks up against the world's leaders.
So far he has outsmarted just about everyone on the domestic front who
gave him no chance of being elected.
Post by mainframetech
Have you seen the latest leaks of
Trump's transcripts of his private chats with PM Turnbull of Australia and
his talk with the leader in Mexico? A whining child would do better.
We finally have a President who is willing to play hardball with other
countries rather than humbling himself to them the way Obama did for 8
years.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/trump-pena-nieto-call-transcript/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/03/mega-leak-transcripts-trumps-foreign-leader-phone-calls-emerge.html
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He said he would
protect their healthcare, by making sure that SS, Medicare and Medicaid
wouldn't be touched! Thn he was out on the tube demanding of the Senate
that they pass the healthcare bill that would take healthcare away form
many millions of people, some of whom would die form that loss. And those
people were mainly his voters!
Nothing Trump has proposed would affect SS. Any enhancements to Medicare
that were the result of Obamacare can be kept in whatever replacement
Congress is able to agree upon. So until Congress finally acts and Trump
signs the bill, he has done nothing to undermine Medicare and there is no
indication that would happen. Politicians in both parties know cutting
benefits to seniors is the third rail of politics so there is almost no
chance that is going to happen. He campaigned on a plan to discontinue
Medicaid grants to states so it simply isn't true that he said Medicaid
wouldn't be touched.
I saw the video of Trump saying that he would protect all 3 of SS.
Medicare, and Medicaid. I think you got led astray. Here's videos with
Trump saying he'll protect the 3, and also of him saying that he knows
http://youtu.be/uFl0K0DxZFU
http://youtu.be/3SKXQeD_nOs
This is Trump talking, so what's your comment? Is he lying, or simply
mistaken...? :)
He said he wouldn't do a big number on those programs. He didn't say he
wasn't going to touch them. As is these programs are unsustainable and the
longer we wait to address them the deeper the pain is going to be.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
"As a reminder, President Trump campaigned on a seven-part health plan.
With the following changes, he vowed to make health care great again.
1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare
2. Allow selling of health plans across state lines as long as health plans
follow state guidelines
3. Allow individuals to deduct health insurance premiums on their tax
returns
4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSA)
5. Require price transparency across the healthcare system
6. Discontinue federal grants to states for Medicaid
7. Allow expansion into free markets, including purchasing cheaper drugs
overseas, to decrease the cost of prescription medications"
Note item 6.
I would have provided the link to the full article but for some reason the
website would not allow me to copy and past it. If you are interested, it
is on verywell.com. You'll have to search their site for the article.
I believe you found that list. However, it conflicts with his
statements that I linked to above.
There is no conflict. He wants states to take over the Medicaid by
eliminating federal grants.
Post by mainframetech
By stopping grants for Medicaid to the
states, the states will have to shut down their Medicaid because they
don't have the money to afford what the federal gov't has been paying for
all this time.
The states get their funds from the same place the feds do, from the
taxpayers. Trump also intends to cut federal taxes so it will be up to the
states to raise taxes if necessary to offset the loss of federal funding.
It means decentralization of the government which would be a positive
move. Why should taxpayers send their dollars to the federal government
only to have the feds send it back to the states in the form of grants.
Why not have the taxpayers send more of their dollars directly to their
state governments and less to the feds. The reason is obvious. Power. By
controlling the purse strings the feds wield power over the states that
was not intended under the Constitution.
Post by mainframetech
If they suddenly got the bill they would go broke, so they
will have to throw people off or close Medicaid. They don't have the
ability to hold of paying their debts like the feds. I'm sure most people
didn't connect it when they saw that list. It's really what the 'death'
bill said, cut $800 Billion out of Medicaid and dump the bill on the
states. Sneaky!
Again, it's all about shifting the power to the states. If the feds cut
taxes in conjunction with cutting spending, the states can decide how much
of that revenue the taxpayers aren't sending they need to recoup.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He walked into a job he had no clue how to do,
The position is often called Chief Executive and nobody in recent times if
ever came to the White House with more executive experience than Trump.
He's running the executive branch the way he would run a business. He
gives his people a mission and if they fail to accomplish it he holds them
accountable.
Trump was a failure as a business manager. I know that. No manager
berates their employee publicly, you do it privately, but Trump does it in
public, like with Sessions. No manager talks openly with the adversary
companies, like having Russians into the oval office where they could
leave all kinds of spy devices, and then give away your own companies
secrets to the adversaries.
It is laughable to say Trump is a failure as a business manager. Like all
people in business, he has had setbacks but his successes have far
outweighed the losses. People who go to work for Trump know his style hand
what is demanded of them. If they do their jobs well they are rewarded
handsomely. He has many people in his organization who are very loyal to
him. As an example, Omarosa Manigault who was fired by Trump during the
first season of the Apprentice found other employment within his
organization and was brought back for several Celebrity Apprentice
contests. She campaigned enthusiastically for him in 2016. She now works
for him within the White House. Sounds like she doesn't think he is such a
terrible boss.
mainframetech
2017-08-07 00:22:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964.
You were a dinosaur when I got in the field.
A dinosaur that lasted until the 2000's...:)
So did I and I was a dinosaur when I retired. Distributive processing was
taking over from Big Iron when I got out.
I installed distributed processing 20 years before I quit. Sounds like
your company was behind the times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
Patching and hacking are two different acts. Patching is a perfectly
legitimate and authorized action. Hacking is maliciously accessing and/or
destroying someone else's data without their permission.
"Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer
software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be
outside of the creator's original objective. Those individuals who engage
in computer hacking activities are typically referred to as
“hackers.”
In all my years in the business I never once heard anyone describe a
programmer who modified an existing programmer as a hacker. Almost all
programs get modified as requirements change over time. Even the word
hacking has malicious connotations. That's why it isn't used in connection
with normal program maintenance.
You come into programming late and you act like only you have the right
answers. Well, you don't, and actually, you seem to have very few for a
job that you say you did. Note: You probably worked in the mainstream
big corporation programming dept. and saw little of the real world.
Actually the field has changed so much in the years since we both retired
that neither one of us has the answers. The way things were done when you
got into the business were largely obsolete by the time I got into the
business, and when I got out in the early 2000s, my skill set was largely
becoming obsolete.
Depends on what your skills were. In my case, during the 360 era, I
had reason to do patching here and there as any systems programmer had to
do at times. And that's 'systems programmer' in the older definition, not
the simple job of specifying the parameters of a system that is
automatically generated as the title became.
In the case mentioned earlier, I had to patch a 3705 comm Network
Control unit. We had a case where modems were dropping client comm lines,
and I tracked it down to the 3705. It was necessary to first find the
problem in the 3705, then interpret the assembler hex code into
understandable instructions, then patch the code on the mainframe that
would be loaded out to the 3705 when the command was given. Once the
'superzap' program was used to patch the 3705 control program on disk on
the mainframe, it would then allow for 7 times the wait time for
connection, and the problem was solved. But that's systems programming in
the older sense. the 3705 had a different instruction set than the normal
360, so it took a day to figure that out. That's an example of white hat
'hacking', where you go into a program and modify it to do what you need
it to do, differently than the original program specs.
There was no program listing or deck or file to modify, it had to be
done without such amenities, and it's called 'hacking' using 'patching' to
solve the problem.
That was then. Progress is learning to do things more easily and more
efficiently. I learned Assembler and I had an understanding of how it
related to machine code but I never once had a need to patch machine code
and rarely had to work with an Assembler program. The only Assembler
programs I wrote from scratch were done at school. Times change and so do
the required skill sets.
Wow! Do I have news for you again! The IBM Network Control Unit
continues to do the job it originally did, though it would be a newer
replacement. And there will still be code in that box that will handle
comm needs through the box, and you can be sure that IBM is not going to
publish the source code for the box. If problems arise the fixes will
have to be done directly to the programming that goes in that box. If IBM
were informed and decided to do a fix for the problem, it would take a
month or more and in the meantime you need to get the problem fixed.
General applications programming never had systems hardware/software
problems so you would never have seen those types of situations.
And the place where assembler is demanded is in the online realtime
world, which was usurped by IBM and their stupid CICS. Those companies
that had good responsive systems were always in assembler with multi-task
re-entrant code. You can't get decent re-entrant code in the other
languages. 'C' has some of the features, but not all.
I wasn't talking about what IBM does under the covers. I was talking about
out in the real world. I worked a good part of my career as a consultant
and as such I worked in a lot of different shops and NOBODY was coding in
Assembler.
You seem to have forgotten again that I mentioned many companies aside
from IBM that use assembler, like the antivirus and utility companies, all
right out there with products that require assembler. It looks like your
consulting career was only with the less knowledgeable places. My shop
(for instance) never needed a consultant since we had the best of the
assembler whizzes available.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will find black hat hackers and white hat hackers. And before
your time, we 'hacked' programs using 'patching' among other tools. I've
on a number of occasions hacked a program through the console while the
program was loaded, which is a second form of hacking.
Patching is a term I did hear frequently although primarily in regards to
system software. I rarely if ever heard it used regarding application
software.
I'm sure you never got close to the systems programming area.
Actually I did spend time in systems programming but due to budget cuts
was sent back to applications programming where I spent the rest of my
career.
Post by mainframetech
But in
the old days of first generation and EAM equipment, there were many ways
to accomplish a task, and we knew what there was to know about the
machines we had available.
That's nice. You knew that stuff because you needed to know it just as the
early pioneers of personal computing had to be geeks in order to function.
They couldn't just buy a new computer with lots of apps preloaded. They
had to get into the nuts and bolts. When I got into the field one had to
be able to navigate their way through a core dump. That quickly became a
lost art I by the time I got out I had forgotten how to do it. It just
wasn't necessary any more.
Post by mainframetech
As well, in the 360 era we did some of that
stuff too. For instance I had to patch a 3705 Communications Network
unit, which had it's own assembler language, different from the 360
assembler. We used 'Superzap' a patching program distributed by IBM, but
Again, interesting but irrelevant. By the time I got into the field the
360 had been replace by the 370. Assembler code was no longer being used.
I have news for you. We were in the 370 era and were running the
fastest online realtime system in the industry we were in. It was all
multitask re-entrant assembler language, and I made sure all my people
were conversant in that language and COBOL as well for the mundane
reporting and such. Because of that we were considered the 'Cadillac' of
our industry. And that 370 system used the 3705 I mentioned above. The
mainstream was sold a bill of goods by IBM and others to use COBOL for
their online system, so that their dumb old COBOL programmers could work
in the online environment, but CICS was a dog and managed to sell many
large IBM mainframes to support the slow as a pig system.
A wise business decision by IBM, just like PL/1, which also sold IBM
hardware to those foolish companies that shifted over to that language.
I imagine Assembler code programs would run more efficiently but languages
such as COBOL and PL/1 were much easier to program in and application
software could be developed much more quickly. As mainframes became faster
and more powerful there simply wasn't a need to continue to code the way
things were done in the Stone Age. Again, that's progress.
A competent assembler programmer could produce a program doing a
certain task as fast or faster than the COBOL and PL/1 people. I know
because I did a comparison in a real setting. I had to rewrite a PL/1
program into assembler. It took me 3 days to get it written and running,
and the original took a month to get running.
I don't know where you were working but no place I worked was still coding
Assembler. I'm sure there were a few old timers who were still coding in
assembler just as I'm sure there are still people who are fluent in Latin
but they are few and far between. My only exposure to Assembler in the 25
years I worked in the field was to modify a couple called subroutines that
had been coded in Assembler many years earlier. I felt like an
archeologist.
Then you were working in more mainstream places. A number of
consultants and supposed gurus in the field sold the programming directors
and managers on using CICS so that their mundane COBOL programmers could
pretend to be online programmers. Sadly, they sold a bill of goods.
CICS still requires knowledge of realtime online systems to do properly.
So what happened was that many suckers put up CICS systems and had to buy
much more IBM hardware to support the pig. A few installations had the
knowledge to do the more intelligent work using assembler and saved on the
hardware and on the customer satisfaction. I can't tell you how many
customer service calls I've made where they couldn't get information from
their system in any timely manner. And when I ask if it's CICS, they
often say yes.

The terrible thing is that the people that sold all these companies on
making dumb COBOL programmers become online programmers didn't realize
that assembler can be taught and even enjoyed by programmers in an
installation. I did it for years. My people knew all any one could ask
of them, and when the company was sold, they all found high level
assembler jobs at top salary. Assembler can be done quickly, and can be
documented well. And when the dust settles, COBOL and CICS still can't
allow a truly re-entrant or refreshable program to be written and applied.
Those that were sold on that method wouldn't even know what those 2 words
meant. I know, because I came into a shop where they even had assembler
and 2 consultants had been pretending that they had written re-entrant
code for the company for years. They were unhappy with me when I proved
they had written serially reusable code instead.


The kind of junk you find in CICS which can't handle more than that.
The way they try to say they get around it is that they bring in more than
one copy of the code in question and let multiple transactions get
executed simultaneously. Of course, that requires much more memory, and
IBM just smiles...and holds out their hand for a check.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
We had a few subroutines still in use that had been coded in Assembler
which I had to modify but Assembler was fast becoming the Latin of
programming languages. It was helpful to understand it to give you a clue
as to what was happening internally just as learning Latin can be useful
in understanding English derivatives.
More news for you. What language do you think IBM uses for their
operating systems? While they have developed a 'C' compiler and can run
those programs, the IBM mainframes still use direct machine code compiled
from assembler instructions. As well, companies that write sophisticated
software like antivirus and special utility programs write in assembler
too. It's not a dead language, it's been moved upscale to the serious
programming level.
I don't doubt that in some circles Assembler language is still used just
as Latin is still spoken by the College of Cardinals but neither is
commonplace. Schools aren't turning out Assembler programmers. That's not
where the demand is.
I won't argue that point. The companies have ben sold a bill of goods,
and they go with the languages they have ben convinced to use by the
consultants.
COBOL on the mainframe under CICS, and various products on the PCs,
with 'C++' being used heavily for video games and other complex tasks, and
Visual Basic 6.0 for the simpler programs and systems.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And as to having lost any programming abilities, I still program in
Visual Basic 6.0 and Visual C++ on my PC for fun. I experiment with HTML
and similar languages to keep up my knowledge of what's happening these
days.
That's nice. I have had no need nor desire to program anything more
sophisticated than my coffee machine since I retired. Whatever software I
need I can buy off the shelf or download from a website.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/zosbasics/com.ibm.zos.zdatamgmt/zsysprogc_utilities_SPZAP.htm
You'll note in the program description that it speaks of 'patching'.
Anyplace when it talks about hacking which was the starting point of this
discussion?
https://www.lifewire.com/hackers-good-or-bad-3481592
As the article noted, most people think of the term hacker in the negative
connotation. What the article referred to as white hat hacking was more
commonly called patching in my day and I would bet that even today inside
of companies this authorized hacking is referred to by some other term.
In my last company (Financial Services) we hired a group to try to
break into our banking systems. They called it hacking when they went at
it. They were 'white hat hackers'.
IOW, they were hired to determine the vulnerability of your systems to
malicious hackers.
Of course. A standard method of testing systems vulnerability.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
wouldn't know about that.
Actually I trained on one of those first generation computers with card
compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
of computing done in the Dark Ages.
So you worked on a 705 or similar computer? What model? EAM
equipment? Wiring boards?
All I remember was it was a Univac. Can't remember the number.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak.
Now we have your opinion, but I'm also speaking of the PBS channels
too, and many of the foreign news channels as well.
Another liberal propaganda machine.
The BBC?
Can't speak to the BBC but since it is government funded my guess is they
are very liberal just as PBS is.
You mean they reflected the attitudes of the people they served?
No, they reflect the attitudes of an organization that is living off the
government tit.
I guess that you've missed all the ads and announcements about all the
PBS programming and channels that are losing gov't funding. They are on
funding drives every quester now.
Its about time. PBS served a function when there were only three major
networks and there was no platform for niche programming that didn't have
the broad appeal needed to be part of the network lineup. Now we have
hundreds of cable channels, mostly niche programming which makes PBS
obsolete. Sesame Street could easily find a home on a cable outlet. So
could just about every program offered on PBS. About the only thing PBS
airs that couldn't transfer to cable are its pledge drives. Unfortunately,
PBS has their lobbyists and Congress will continue to feed the dinosaur ad
infinitum.
PBS is not obsolete, that's the standard line from conservatives,
because the last thing they want is for PBS to continue to uncover their
games on the public.
I guess that's your way of acknowledging that PBS is shill for liberal
causes.
Nope, it's a comment on their neutral reporting,
Neutral reporting??? That's the funniest thing you have said in quite a
while and that is saying something.
Well, I must admit that they got sold a bill of goods when they put out
a Frontline program called "The Vaccine War". It sucked up completely to
the drug industry. The other side wasn't even mentioned in any meaningful
way.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
that often shows up the
games played by the Republicans on the public. Example is the recent
AHCA.
If they are neutral reporters, why don't they show up the games played by
Democrats too?
There are actually less game played by democrats. Here's a statement
provong it:

"PolitiFact rated 32% of Republican claims as “false” or
“pants on fire,” compared to 11% of Democratic claims
– a 3 to 1 margin. Conversely, Politifact rated 22% of Democratic
claims as “entirely true” compared to 11% of Republican
claims – a 2 to 1 margin.

A majority of Democratic statements (54%) were rated as mostly or entirely
true, compared to only 18% of Republican statements. Conversely, a
majority of Republican statements (52%) were rated as mostly or entirely
false, compared to only 24% of Democratic statements."

From: https://www.mediaite.com/online/politifact-says-republicans-lie-three-times-more-often-than-democrats-according-to-new-study/

and:

"Fifty-two percent of Republican claims reviewed by the Tampa Bay Times
fact-checking operation were rated "mostly false," “false”
or “pants on fire,” versus just 24 percent of Democratic
statements, according to George Mason University's Center for Media and
Public Affairs. By the same token, 54 percent of Democratic statements
were rated as "mostly true" or "true," compared to just 18 percent of
Republican statements."

From: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/study-politifact-says-republicans-lie-more-164943

Do you suppose those figures also apply to the Republican LNs vs. the
democratic CTs?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
PBS supports many necessary investigational programs
like Frontline, Nova, etc.
You mean lthose programs that exposed the fraudulent JFK conspiracy
theories? Those too have found homes on cable channels such as The History
Channel and Discovery.
Sure thing. And even they can be wrong...:)
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They agreed with the
general news coming out from everywhere except FOX.
Surprise, surprise.
Post by mainframetech
FOX was smart in that
they had a guaranteed audience, and they listened to that fake news and
believed every word, just like some folks believed the WCR.
I guess I'm supposed to believe that electronic and print media centers
which have engaged in a vendetta against Trump since the night he was
elected to fairly and accurately report the news. I'm supposed to believe
in a network that was talking about impeaching Trump before he had even
been declared the winner of the election. Right. Why would I expect people
like that to tell me the truth about anything?
That an individual here and there was unhappy with Trump would be
expected given who Trump is and his history, but not many of the media
were that way.
Here and there? Are you serious? The networks and cable news outlets are
infested with such people.
Then you feel that many, many people were unhappy with Trump. I see.
In the liberal infested mainstream media that is certainly true.
Ah, the buzzwords...:)
Buzzwords can be quite apropos.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Most were waiting to see how Trump would handle the job,
and now we know he can't.
Bullshit. The attacks began the night of the election and have continued
24/7 ever since. Good luck finding any of these liberal propaganda
machines having said one positive thing about Trump. EVER!!!
Wow! Those pat phrases just spill out like water. "liberal propaganda
Post by bigdog
machines". Give the brainwashing a rest. How easily you forget that Trump during the last half of the campaign insulted the media all over the place when he thought he was going to lose. And he kept it up after he became prez. And then he complains about their treatment of him. Never mind that he does wacky things just to get attention, and then complains when he gets it!
So you admit the mainstream media has it in for Trump.
No, I believe a few hosts do, not the industry altogether.
You must not watch much CNN, MSNBC, or the network news programs because a
majority of their programming is compromised of hit pieces about Trump.
The network news programs do cover other subjects but with the cable news
programs, the anti-Trump stories dominate their live programming. If you
and I were to make a bet in which you and I watched CNN or MSNBC for 12
straight hours and you gave me $1 for every they ran an anti-Trump story
and I gave you $5 every time they ran a story about something else, at the
end of the 12 hours, I have no doubt I would be way ahead.
Post by mainframetech
They tell the truth,
Now that's funny.
Post by mainframetech
but that's going to make Trump look dumb because he is.
Right he's dumb and all those talking heads who laughed about his
prospects for even being nominated much less elected are so smart. Who's
laughing now? Trump outsmarted all of them which is one more reason they
hate him. He showed the country they weren't nearly as smart as they
pretended to be.
Trump didn't win the election because he was smart or wise, he won
because he said things people liked and that gave them hope, though some
of them now are realizing it was a pig in a poke.
That reminds me of the story of two friends walking in the woods when the
came across a bear. The one said, "Do you think we can outrun him?" to
which the other said, "I don't need to outrun the bear. I just need to
outrun you." Trump didn't need to be smart. He just needed to be smarter
than Hillary. He clearly was.
Whatever he is better than, he's become obvious as to where his brain
stacks up against the world's leaders.
So far he has outsmarted just about everyone on the domestic front who
gave him no chance of being elected.
Post by mainframetech
Have you seen the latest leaks of
Trump's transcripts of his private chats with PM Turnbull of Australia and
his talk with the leader in Mexico? A whining child would do better.
We finally have a President who is willing to play hardball with other
countries rather than humbling himself to them the way Obama did for 8
years.
So you don't think Trump is playing softball with the Russians and
Putin?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/trump-pena-nieto-call-transcript/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/03/mega-leak-transcripts-trumps-foreign-leader-phone-calls-emerge.html
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He said he would
protect their healthcare, by making sure that SS, Medicare and Medicaid
wouldn't be touched! Then he was out on the tube demanding of the Senate
that they pass the healthcare bill that would take healthcare away from
many millions of people, some of whom would die form that loss. And those
people were mainly his voters!
Nothing Trump has proposed would affect SS. Any enhancements to Medicare
that were the result of Obamacare can be kept in whatever replacement
Congress is able to agree upon. So until Congress finally acts and Trump
signs the bill, he has done nothing to undermine Medicare and there is no
indication that would happen. Politicians in both parties know cutting
benefits to seniors is the third rail of politics so there is almost no
chance that is going to happen. He campaigned on a plan to discontinue
Medicaid grants to states so it simply isn't true that he said Medicaid
wouldn't be touched.
I saw the video of Trump saying that he would protect all 3 of SS.
Medicare, and Medicaid. I think you got led astray. Here's videos with
Trump saying he'll protect the 3, and also of him saying that he knows
http://youtu.be/uFl0K0DxZFU
http://youtu.be/3SKXQeD_nOs
This is Trump talking, so what's your comment? Is he lying, or simply
mistaken...? :)
He said he wouldn't do a big number on those programs. He didn't say he
wasn't going to touch them. As is these programs are unsustainable and the
longer we wait to address them the deeper the pain is going to be.
He clearly said he would protect them and NOT TOUCH them, here's the
video of him saying exactly that:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/10/trump-promises-not-to-cut-medicaid-newday.cnn

If you believe other than that, you've been suckered.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
"As a reminder, President Trump campaigned on a seven-part health plan.
With the following changes, he vowed to make health care great again.
1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare
2. Allow selling of health plans across state lines
bigdog
2017-08-07 20:31:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964.
You were a dinosaur when I got in the field.
A dinosaur that lasted until the 2000's...:)
So did I and I was a dinosaur when I retired. Distributive processing was
taking over from Big Iron when I got out.
I installed distributed processing 20 years before I quit. Sounds like
your company was behind the times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
Patching and hacking are two different acts. Patching is a perfectly
legitimate and authorized action. Hacking is maliciously accessing and/or
destroying someone else's data without their permission.
"Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer
software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be
outside of the creator's original objective. Those individuals who engage
in computer hacking activities are typically referred to as
“hackers.”
In all my years in the business I never once heard anyone describe a
programmer who modified an existing programmer as a hacker. Almost all
programs get modified as requirements change over time. Even the word
hacking has malicious connotations. That's why it isn't used in connection
with normal program maintenance.
You come into programming late and you act like only you have the right
answers. Well, you don't, and actually, you seem to have very few for a
job that you say you did. Note: You probably worked in the mainstream
big corporation programming dept. and saw little of the real world.
Actually the field has changed so much in the years since we both retired
that neither one of us has the answers. The way things were done when you
got into the business were largely obsolete by the time I got into the
business, and when I got out in the early 2000s, my skill set was largely
becoming obsolete.
Depends on what your skills were. In my case, during the 360 era, I
had reason to do patching here and there as any systems programmer had to
do at times. And that's 'systems programmer' in the older definition, not
the simple job of specifying the parameters of a system that is
automatically generated as the title became.
In the case mentioned earlier, I had to patch a 3705 comm Network
Control unit. We had a case where modems were dropping client comm lines,
and I tracked it down to the 3705. It was necessary to first find the
problem in the 3705, then interpret the assembler hex code into
understandable instructions, then patch the code on the mainframe that
would be loaded out to the 3705 when the command was given. Once the
'superzap' program was used to patch the 3705 control program on disk on
the mainframe, it would then allow for 7 times the wait time for
connection, and the problem was solved. But that's systems programming in
the older sense. the 3705 had a different instruction set than the normal
360, so it took a day to figure that out. That's an example of white hat
'hacking', where you go into a program and modify it to do what you need
it to do, differently than the original program specs.
There was no program listing or deck or file to modify, it had to be
done without such amenities, and it's called 'hacking' using 'patching' to
solve the problem.
That was then. Progress is learning to do things more easily and more
efficiently. I learned Assembler and I had an understanding of how it
related to machine code but I never once had a need to patch machine code
and rarely had to work with an Assembler program. The only Assembler
programs I wrote from scratch were done at school. Times change and so do
the required skill sets.
Wow! Do I have news for you again! The IBM Network Control Unit
continues to do the job it originally did, though it would be a newer
replacement. And there will still be code in that box that will handle
comm needs through the box, and you can be sure that IBM is not going to
publish the source code for the box. If problems arise the fixes will
have to be done directly to the programming that goes in that box. If IBM
were informed and decided to do a fix for the problem, it would take a
month or more and in the meantime you need to get the problem fixed.
General applications programming never had systems hardware/software
problems so you would never have seen those types of situations.
And the place where assembler is demanded is in the online realtime
world, which was usurped by IBM and their stupid CICS. Those companies
that had good responsive systems were always in assembler with multi-task
re-entrant code. You can't get decent re-entrant code in the other
languages. 'C' has some of the features, but not all.
I wasn't talking about what IBM does under the covers. I was talking about
out in the real world. I worked a good part of my career as a consultant
and as such I worked in a lot of different shops and NOBODY was coding in
Assembler.
You seem to have forgotten again that I mentioned many companies aside
from IBM that use assembler, like the antivirus and utility companies, all
right out there with products that require assembler. It looks like your
consulting career was only with the less knowledgeable places. My shop
(for instance) never needed a consultant since we had the best of the
assembler whizzes available.
I'm not surprised you would have your pick of dinosaurs since there wasn't
much demand for assembler programmers by 1980. I got in the field in 1977
and assembler just wasn't being used in business applications. I worked
for in government and for banks, retailers, utility companies, and
conglomerates and none of them used assembler in developing applications.
What the geeks at the software companies were using I have no knowledge
of.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will find black hat hackers and white hat hackers. And before
your time, we 'hacked' programs using 'patching' among other tools. I've
on a number of occasions hacked a program through the console while the
program was loaded, which is a second form of hacking.
Patching is a term I did hear frequently although primarily in regards to
system software. I rarely if ever heard it used regarding application
software.
I'm sure you never got close to the systems programming area.
Actually I did spend time in systems programming but due to budget cuts
was sent back to applications programming where I spent the rest of my
career.
Post by mainframetech
But in
the old days of first generation and EAM equipment, there were many ways
to accomplish a task, and we knew what there was to know about the
machines we had available.
That's nice. You knew that stuff because you needed to know it just as the
early pioneers of personal computing had to be geeks in order to function.
They couldn't just buy a new computer with lots of apps preloaded. They
had to get into the nuts and bolts. When I got into the field one had to
be able to navigate their way through a core dump. That quickly became a
lost art I by the time I got out I had forgotten how to do it. It just
wasn't necessary any more.
Post by mainframetech
As well, in the 360 era we did some of that
stuff too. For instance I had to patch a 3705 Communications Network
unit, which had it's own assembler language, different from the 360
assembler. We used 'Superzap' a patching program distributed by IBM, but
Again, interesting but irrelevant. By the time I got into the field the
360 had been replace by the 370. Assembler code was no longer being used.
I have news for you. We were in the 370 era and were running the
fastest online realtime system in the industry we were in. It was all
multitask re-entrant assembler language, and I made sure all my people
were conversant in that language and COBOL as well for the mundane
reporting and such. Because of that we were considered the 'Cadillac' of
our industry. And that 370 system used the 3705 I mentioned above. The
mainstream was sold a bill of goods by IBM and others to use COBOL for
their online system, so that their dumb old COBOL programmers could work
in the online environment, but CICS was a dog and managed to sell many
large IBM mainframes to support the slow as a pig system.
A wise business decision by IBM, just like PL/1, which also sold IBM
hardware to those foolish companies that shifted over to that language.
I imagine Assembler code programs would run more efficiently but languages
such as COBOL and PL/1 were much easier to program in and application
software could be developed much more quickly. As mainframes became faster
and more powerful there simply wasn't a need to continue to code the way
things were done in the Stone Age. Again, that's progress.
A competent assembler programmer could produce a program doing a
certain task as fast or faster than the COBOL and PL/1 people. I know
because I did a comparison in a real setting. I had to rewrite a PL/1
program into assembler. It took me 3 days to get it written and running,
and the original took a month to get running.
I don't know where you were working but no place I worked was still coding
Assembler. I'm sure there were a few old timers who were still coding in
assembler just as I'm sure there are still people who are fluent in Latin
but they are few and far between. My only exposure to Assembler in the 25
years I worked in the field was to modify a couple called subroutines that
had been coded in Assembler many years earlier. I felt like an
archeologist.
Then you were working in more mainstream places. A number of
consultants and supposed gurus in the field sold the programming directors
and managers on using CICS so that their mundane COBOL programmers could
pretend to be online programmers. Sadly, they sold a bill of goods.
CICS still requires knowledge of realtime online systems to do properly.
So what happened was that many suckers put up CICS systems and had to buy
much more IBM hardware to support the pig. A few installations had the
knowledge to do the more intelligent work using assembler and saved on the
hardware and on the customer satisfaction. I can't tell you how many
customer service calls I've made where they couldn't get information from
their system in any timely manner. And when I ask if it's CICS, they
often say yes.
Sounds like you are bitter that the industry didn't continue to develop
systems the way you did it back in the 1960s. That's not the kind of
business we were in. The technology was constantly changing and the demand
for skills kept changing with it. If you didn't change with it you got
left behind.
Post by mainframetech
The terrible thing is that the people that sold all these companies on
making dumb COBOL programmers become online programmers didn't realize
that assembler can be taught and even enjoyed by programmers in an
installation.
I'm sure there are places that still teach Latin but being fluent in it
isn't a practicable skill.
Post by mainframetech
I did it for years. My people knew all any one could ask
of them, and when the company was sold, they all found high level
assembler jobs at top salary. Assembler can be done quickly, and can be
documented well. And when the dust settles, COBOL and CICS still can't
allow a truly re-entrant or refreshable program to be written and applied.
Those that were sold on that method wouldn't even know what those 2 words
meant.
Nor did they need to.
Post by mainframetech
I know, because I came into a shop where they even had assembler
and 2 consultants had been pretending that they had written re-entrant
code for the company for years. They were unhappy with me when I proved
they had written serially reusable code instead.
The kind of junk you find in CICS which can't handle more than that.
The way they try to say they get around it is that they bring in more than
one copy of the code in question and let multiple transactions get
executed simultaneously. Of course, that requires much more memory, and
IBM just smiles...and holds out their hand for a check.
I coded CICS in numerous applications as well as a number of other online
development tools and the filled our needs nicely which is to say it
filled the needs of the end user and that is really all that matters. The
end use doesn't care what goes on under the covers or what language was
used to develop it. All he wants to know is whether the system worked and
filled his business requirements.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
We had a few subroutines still in use that had been coded in Assembler
which I had to modify but Assembler was fast becoming the Latin of
programming languages. It was helpful to understand it to give you a clue
as to what was happening internally just as learning Latin can be useful
in understanding English derivatives.
More news for you. What language do you think IBM uses for their
operating systems? While they have developed a 'C' compiler and can run
those programs, the IBM mainframes still use direct machine code compiled
from assembler instructions. As well, companies that write sophisticated
software like antivirus and special utility programs write in assembler
too. It's not a dead language, it's been moved upscale to the serious
programming level.
I don't doubt that in some circles Assembler language is still used just
as Latin is still spoken by the College of Cardinals but neither is
commonplace. Schools aren't turning out Assembler programmers. That's not
where the demand is.
I won't argue that point. The companies have ben sold a bill of goods,
and they go with the languages they have ben convinced to use by the
consultants.
COBOL on the mainframe under CICS, and various products on the PCs,
with 'C++' being used heavily for video games and other complex tasks, and
Visual Basic 6.0 for the simpler programs and systems.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And as to having lost any programming abilities, I still program in
Visual Basic 6.0 and Visual C++ on my PC for fun. I experiment with HTML
and similar languages to keep up my knowledge of what's happening these
days.
That's nice. I have had no need nor desire to program anything more
sophisticated than my coffee machine since I retired. Whatever software I
need I can buy off the shelf or download from a website.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/zosbasics/com.ibm.zos.zdatamgmt/zsysprogc_utilities_SPZAP.htm
You'll note in the program description that it speaks of 'patching'.
Anyplace when it talks about hacking which was the starting point of this
discussion?
https://www.lifewire.com/hackers-good-or-bad-3481592
As the article noted, most people think of the term hacker in the negative
connotation. What the article referred to as white hat hacking was more
commonly called patching in my day and I would bet that even today inside
of companies this authorized hacking is referred to by some other term.
In my last company (Financial Services) we hired a group to try to
break into our banking systems. They called it hacking when they went at
it. They were 'white hat hackers'.
IOW, they were hired to determine the vulnerability of your systems to
malicious hackers.
Of course. A standard method of testing systems vulnerability.
Most people wouldn't consider that hacking. They were performing a service
which they were authorized to do.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
wouldn't know about that.
Actually I trained on one of those first generation computers with card
compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
of computing done in the Dark Ages.
So you worked on a 705 or similar computer? What model? EAM
equipment? Wiring boards?
All I remember was it was a Univac. Can't remember the number.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak.
Now we have your opinion, but I'm also speaking of the PBS channels
too, and many of the foreign news channels as well.
Another liberal propaganda machine.
The BBC?
Can't speak to the BBC but since it is government funded my guess is they
are very liberal just as PBS is.
You mean they reflected the attitudes of the people they served?
No, they reflect the attitudes of an organization that is living off the
government tit.
I guess that you've missed all the ads and announcements about all the
PBS programming and channels that are losing gov't funding. They are on
funding drives every quester now.
Its about time. PBS served a function when there were only three major
networks and there was no platform for niche programming that didn't have
the broad appeal needed to be part of the network lineup. Now we have
hundreds of cable channels, mostly niche programming which makes PBS
obsolete. Sesame Street could easily find a home on a cable outlet. So
could just about every program offered on PBS. About the only thing PBS
airs that couldn't transfer to cable are its pledge drives. Unfortunately,
PBS has their lobbyists and Congress will continue to feed the dinosaur ad
infinitum.
PBS is not obsolete, that's the standard line from conservatives,
because the last thing they want is for PBS to continue to uncover their
games on the public.
I guess that's your way of acknowledging that PBS is shill for liberal
causes.
Nope, it's a comment on their neutral reporting,
Neutral reporting??? That's the funniest thing you have said in quite a
while and that is saying something.
Well, I must admit that they got sold a bill of goods when they put out
a Frontline program called "The Vaccine War". It sucked up completely to
the drug industry. The other side wasn't even mentioned in any meaningful
way.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
that often shows up the
games played by the Republicans on the public. Example is the recent
AHCA.
If they are neutral reporters, why don't they show up the games played by
Democrats too?
There are actually less game played by democrats. Here's a statement
That's what the liberals pretend.
Post by mainframetech
"PolitiFact rated 32% of Republican claims as “false” or
“pants on fire,” compared to 11% of Democratic claims
– a 3 to 1 margin. Conversely, Politifact rated 22% of Democratic
claims as “entirely true” compared to 11% of Republican
claims – a 2 to 1 margin.
Who rates PolitiFact? Why would you assume any of these fact checkers are
neutral? Because they say they are?
Post by mainframetech
A majority of Democratic statements (54%) were rated as mostly or entirely
true, compared to only 18% of Republican statements. Conversely, a
majority of Republican statements (52%) were rated as mostly or entirely
false, compared to only 24% of Democratic statements."
From: https://www.mediaite.com/online/politifact-says-republicans-lie-three-times-more-often-than-democrats-according-to-new-study/
"Fifty-two percent of Republican claims reviewed by the Tampa Bay Times
fact-checking operation were rated "mostly false," “false”
or “pants on fire,” versus just 24 percent of Democratic
statements, according to George Mason University's Center for Media and
Public Affairs. By the same token, 54 percent of Democratic statements
were rated as "mostly true" or "true," compared to just 18 percent of
Republican statements."
From: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/study-politifact-says-republicans-lie-more-164943
So liberals find Democrats to be more truthful than Republicans. There's a
newsflash for you. You do know the Tampa Bay Times endorsed Hillary
Clinton, don't you. So much for their unbiased reporting.
Post by mainframetech
Do you suppose those figures also apply to the Republican LNs vs. the
democratic CTs?
I don't think any of those people even give a shit about the JFK
assassination any more. It's history as far as they are concerned. I also
don't think one's political leanings determine their views on the question
of conspiracy. Vincent Bugliosi was a liberal extremist who thought George
W. Bush should have been charged with war crimes.
mainframetech
2017-08-08 16:38:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964.
You were a dinosaur when I got in the field.
A dinosaur that lasted until the 2000's...:)
So did I and I was a dinosaur when I retired. Distributive processing was
taking over from Big Iron when I got out.
I installed distributed processing 20 years before I quit. Sounds like
your company was behind the times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
Patching and hacking are two different acts. Patching is a perfectly
legitimate and authorized action. Hacking is maliciously accessing and/or
destroying someone else's data without their permission.
"Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer
software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be
outside of the creator's original objective. Those individuals who engage
in computer hacking activities are typically referred to as
“hackers.”
In all my years in the business I never once heard anyone describe a
programmer who modified an existing programmer as a hacker. Almost all
programs get modified as requirements change over time. Even the word
hacking has malicious connotations. That's why it isn't used in connection
with normal program maintenance.
You come into programming late and you act like only you have the right
answers. Well, you don't, and actually, you seem to have very few for a
job that you say you did. Note: You probably worked in the mainstream
big corporation programming dept. and saw little of the real world.
Actually the field has changed so much in the years since we both retired
that neither one of us has the answers. The way things were done when you
got into the business were largely obsolete by the time I got into the
business, and when I got out in the early 2000s, my skill set was largely
becoming obsolete.
Depends on what your skills were. In my case, during the 360 era, I
had reason to do patching here and there as any systems programmer had to
do at times. And that's 'systems programmer' in the older definition, not
the simple job of specifying the parameters of a system that is
automatically generated as the title became.
In the case mentioned earlier, I had to patch a 3705 comm Network
Control unit. We had a case where modems were dropping client comm lines,
and I tracked it down to the 3705. It was necessary to first find the
problem in the 3705, then interpret the assembler hex code into
understandable instructions, then patch the code on the mainframe that
would be loaded out to the 3705 when the command was given. Once the
'superzap' program was used to patch the 3705 control program on disk on
the mainframe, it would then allow for 7 times the wait time for
connection, and the problem was solved. But that's systems programming in
the older sense. the 3705 had a different instruction set than the normal
360, so it took a day to figure that out. That's an example of white hat
'hacking', where you go into a program and modify it to do what you need
it to do, differently than the original program specs.
There was no program listing or deck or file to modify, it had to be
done without such amenities, and it's called 'hacking' using 'patching' to
solve the problem.
That was then. Progress is learning to do things more easily and more
efficiently. I learned Assembler and I had an understanding of how it
related to machine code but I never once had a need to patch machine code
and rarely had to work with an Assembler program. The only Assembler
programs I wrote from scratch were done at school. Times change and so do
the required skill sets.
Wow! Do I have news for you again! The IBM Network Control Unit
continues to do the job it originally did, though it would be a newer
replacement. And there will still be code in that box that will handle
comm needs through the box, and you can be sure that IBM is not going to
publish the source code for the box. If problems arise the fixes will
have to be done directly to the programming that goes in that box. If IBM
were informed and decided to do a fix for the problem, it would take a
month or more and in the meantime you need to get the problem fixed.
General applications programming never had systems hardware/software
problems so you would never have seen those types of situations.
And the place where assembler is demanded is in the online realtime
world, which was usurped by IBM and their stupid CICS. Those companies
that had good responsive systems were always in assembler with multi-task
re-entrant code. You can't get decent re-entrant code in the other
languages. 'C' has some of the features, but not all.
I wasn't talking about what IBM does under the covers. I was talking about
out in the real world. I worked a good part of my career as a consultant
and as such I worked in a lot of different shops and NOBODY was coding in
Assembler.
You seem to have forgotten again that I mentioned many companies aside
from IBM that use assembler, like the antivirus and utility companies, all
right out there with products that require assembler. It looks like your
consulting career was only with the less knowledgeable places. My shop
(for instance) never needed a consultant since we had the best of the
assembler whizzes available.
I'm not surprised you would have your pick of dinosaurs since there wasn't
much demand for assembler programmers by 1980. I got in the field in 1977
and assembler just wasn't being used in business applications. I worked
for in government and for banks, retailers, utility companies, and
conglomerates and none of them used assembler in developing applications.
What the geeks at the software companies were using I have no knowledge
of.
Odd that you would say "dinosaurs" for assembler programmers. Most of
them were sought after throughout my whole career. Not for mundane
business applications, but for high level projects and software for IBM
and many other companies that wrote complex software as utilities and
Various serious applications. You might not see their ads for people
since you were looking in the business application area.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will find black hat hackers and white hat hackers. And before
your time, we 'hacked' programs using 'patching' among other tools. I've
on a number of occasions hacked a program through the console while the
program was loaded, which is a second form of hacking.
Patching is a term I did hear frequently although primarily in regards to
system software. I rarely if ever heard it used regarding application
software.
I'm sure you never got close to the systems programming area.
Actually I did spend time in systems programming but due to budget cuts
was sent back to applications programming where I spent the rest of my
career.
Post by mainframetech
But in
the old days of first generation and EAM equipment, there were many ways
to accomplish a task, and we knew what there was to know about the
machines we had available.
That's nice. You knew that stuff because you needed to know it just as the
early pioneers of personal computing had to be geeks in order to function.
They couldn't just buy a new computer with lots of apps preloaded. They
had to get into the nuts and bolts. When I got into the field one had to
be able to navigate their way through a core dump. That quickly became a
lost art I by the time I got out I had forgotten how to do it. It just
wasn't necessary any more.
Post by mainframetech
As well, in the 360 era we did some of that
stuff too. For instance I had to patch a 3705 Communications Network
unit, which had it's own assembler language, different from the 360
assembler. We used 'Superzap' a patching program distributed by IBM, but
Again, interesting but irrelevant. By the time I got into the field the
360 had been replace by the 370. Assembler code was no longer being used.
I have news for you. We were in the 370 era and were running the
fastest online realtime system in the industry we were in. It was all
multitask re-entrant assembler language, and I made sure all my people
were conversant in that language and COBOL as well for the mundane
reporting and such. Because of that we were considered the 'Cadillac' of
our industry. And that 370 system used the 3705 I mentioned above. The
mainstream was sold a bill of goods by IBM and others to use COBOL for
their online system, so that their dumb old COBOL programmers could work
in the online environment, but CICS was a dog and managed to sell many
large IBM mainframes to support the slow as a pig system.
A wise business decision by IBM, just like PL/1, which also sold IBM
hardware to those foolish companies that shifted over to that language.
I imagine Assembler code programs would run more efficiently but languages
such as COBOL and PL/1 were much easier to program in and application
software could be developed much more quickly. As mainframes became faster
and more powerful there simply wasn't a need to continue to code the way
things were done in the Stone Age. Again, that's progress.
A competent assembler programmer could produce a program doing a
certain task as fast or faster than the COBOL and PL/1 people. I know
because I did a comparison in a real setting. I had to rewrite a PL/1
program into assembler. It took me 3 days to get it written and running,
and the original took a month to get running.
I don't know where you were working but no place I worked was still coding
Assembler. I'm sure there were a few old timers who were still coding in
assembler just as I'm sure there are still people who are fluent in Latin
but they are few and far between. My only exposure to Assembler in the 25
years I worked in the field was to modify a couple called subroutines that
had been coded in Assembler many years earlier. I felt like an
archeologist.
Then you were working in more mainstream places. A number of
consultants and supposed gurus in the field sold the programming directors
and managers on using CICS so that their mundane COBOL programmers could
pretend to be online programmers. Sadly, they sold a bill of goods.
CICS still requires knowledge of realtime online systems to do properly.
So what happened was that many suckers put up CICS systems and had to buy
much more IBM hardware to support the pig. A few installations had the
knowledge to do the more intelligent work using assembler and saved on the
hardware and on the customer satisfaction. I can't tell you how many
customer service calls I've made where they couldn't get information from
their system in any timely manner. And when I ask if it's CICS, they
often say yes.
Sounds like you are bitter that the industry didn't continue to develop
systems the way you did it back in the 1960s. That's not the kind of
business we were in. The technology was constantly changing and the demand
for skills kept changing with it. If you didn't change with it you got
left behind.
I have to let you know, that the "industry" kept assembler in demand
all through my career. But it wasn't wanted for the simple business
applications, it was mainly for intelligent realtime online applications
where service to customers was primary. My final place of business was a
CICS shop, but also had an online system in assembler. I used CICS at
times when a problem arose and someone had to figure it out. I even
backslid and used COBOL at times also when the problem program was on that
language. But right to the end I was needed as a systems programmer, even
though I had reached the level of Senior VP of company operations. They
came to me when a problem couldn't be figured out, and the salary was
commensurate with the abilities. And all around the "industry" assembler
was still in demand, but for a smaller number of experts in that area.

Remember, assembler underlies ALL other languages, and they all
generate assembler programs.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The terrible thing is that the people that sold all these companies on
making dumb COBOL programmers become online programmers didn't realize
that assembler can be taught and even enjoyed by programmers in an
installation.
I'm sure there are places that still teach Latin but being fluent in it
isn't a practicable skill.
WRONG! Doctors and lawyers can use it, and do.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I did it for years. My people knew all any one could ask
of them, and when the company was sold, they all found high level
assembler jobs at top salary. Assembler can be done quickly, and can be
documented well. And when the dust settles, COBOL and CICS still can't
allow a truly re-entrant or refreshable program to be written and applied.
Those that were sold on that method wouldn't even know what those 2 words
meant.
Nor did they need to.
If you want efficiency and saving money, and service, you need to use
some of the base level languages, though 'C' has some validity for being
efficient. And debugging goes much faster as well. The clunkers need to
buy all kinds of software programs written in assembler that will go in
and analyze the bugs in a COBOL CICS program and recommend a fix.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I know, because I came into a shop where they even had assembler
and 2 consultants had been pretending that they had written re-entrant
code for the company for years. They were unhappy with me when I proved
they had written serially reusable code instead.
The kind of junk you find in CICS which can't handle more than that.
The way they try to say they get around it is that they bring in more than
one copy of the code in question and let multiple transactions get
executed simultaneously. Of course, that requires much more memory, and
IBM just smiles...and holds out their hand for a check.
I coded CICS in numerous applications as well as a number of other online
development tools and the filled our needs nicely which is to say it
filled the needs of the end user and that is really all that matters. The
end use doesn't care what goes on under the covers or what language was
used to develop it. All he wants to know is whether the system worked and
filled his business requirements.
Good point, when the user gets a pig that takes a long time answering a
request, they get itchy. Of course, that happens often in CICS and the
company is locked into IBM and has to get bigger iron to run the silly
thing, and pay a mint for it too!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
We had a few subroutines still in use that had been coded in Assembler
which I had to modify but Assembler was fast becoming the Latin of
programming languages. It was helpful to understand it to give you a clue
as to what was happening internally just as learning Latin can be useful
in understanding English derivatives.
More news for you. What language do you think IBM uses for their
operating systems? While they have developed a 'C' compiler and can run
those programs, the IBM mainframes still use direct machine code compiled
from assembler instructions. As well, companies that write sophisticated
software like antivirus and special utility programs write in assembler
too. It's not a dead language, it's been moved upscale to the serious
programming level.
I don't doubt that in some circles Assembler language is still used just
as Latin is still spoken by the College of Cardinals but neither is
commonplace. Schools aren't turning out Assembler programmers. That's not
where the demand is.
I won't argue that point. The companies have ben sold a bill of goods,
and they go with the languages they have ben convinced to use by the
consultants.
COBOL on the mainframe under CICS, and various products on the PCs,
with 'C++' being used heavily for video games and other complex tasks, and
Visual Basic 6.0 for the simpler programs and systems.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And as to having lost any programming abilities, I still program in
Visual Basic 6.0 and Visual C++ on my PC for fun. I experiment with HTML
and similar languages to keep up my knowledge of what's happening these
days.
That's nice. I have had no need nor desire to program anything more
sophisticated than my coffee machine since I retired. Whatever software I
need I can buy off the shelf or download from a website.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/zosbasics/com.ibm.zos.zdatamgmt/zsysprogc_utilities_SPZAP.htm
You'll note in the program description that it speaks of 'patching'.
Anyplace when it talks about hacking which was the starting point of this
discussion?
https://www.lifewire.com/hackers-good-or-bad-3481592
As the article noted, most people think of the term hacker in the negative
connotation. What the article referred to as white hat hacking was more
commonly called patching in my day and I would bet that even today inside
of companies this authorized hacking is referred to by some other term.
In my last company (Financial Services) we hired a group to try to
break into our banking systems. They called it hacking when they went at
it. They were 'white hat hackers'.
IOW, they were hired to determine the vulnerability of your systems to
malicious hackers.
Of course. A standard method of testing systems vulnerability.
Most people wouldn't consider that hacking. They were performing a service
which they were authorized to do.
Sorry, wrong again. 'Hacking' is what it was called, and it was a
necessary service for online companies.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Back then compiling was done with an 'SPS' deck. It consisted of 5
decks of cards, and you ran your assembler deck with the first 3 decks and
then the 4th deck compressed your final program, and the 5th gave you a
printout of your assembled program. In those days, even the operators
knew how to use machine code and input a program through the console of
whichever machine you were working with, and hacking was sometimes done
that way. There were occasions that I hacked a program to get a function
it did without doing all it's work. Just picking out the function you
wanted, then causing branches and other code to manipulate an existing
program to do something it normally wasn't supposed to do. But you
wouldn't know about that.
Actually I trained on one of those first generation computers with card
compilers. Then I got out in the real world and learned that was the kind
of computing done in the Dark Ages.
So you worked on a 705 or similar computer? What model? EAM
equipment? Wiring boards?
All I remember was it was a Univac. Can't remember the number.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Was the US Federal Government aware of this growing problem or
just recently found out it can be a major problem in a national election?
Anybody who didn't know that hackers can be very clever at accessing
sensitive data was fooling themselves. Hackers can be just about anyone,
from an intelligence officer to the 30-something guy living in his
parents' basement spending half his day playing video games.
Post by claviger
If the US Government did know why would any high ranking officer of the
Federal government put National Security at risk by using a private
server?
Evidently hacking is now part of international politics 365 days of the
year for governments around the world. All politicians and political
parties in the US are now at risk. Democrats and Republicans both had
issues this past election. Does anyone know what information harvested,
gathered, and gleaned by hackers made an impact on the recent election?
Impossible to quantify but my guess is very little.
Post by claviger
Democrats claim Vladimir Putin selected the winning President in the 2016
US election.
One more reason not to believe what Democrats say.
One more reason to not believe what is said here.
You've given us lots more than one reason.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What information was made public to the US electorate that convinced so
many Americans to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton?
I suspect it was largely what voters already knew about Hillary.
It was private emails of John Podesta, who was chairman of the Hillary
Clinton campaign.
It showed how the Democrat establishment rigged the nomination for Hillary
which no doubt infuriated Sanders supporters, voters she needed to defeat
Trump, many of whom she didn't get. Of course there was also the
assessment by the Sanders supporters, quite accurate, that Hillary for all
her populist rhetoric was in the pockets of the Wall Street bankers who
figured she was going to win and gave her lots of money to curry favor
with her. The best laid plans...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
What new information did hackers reveal during the election?
Very little new. What came out only confirmed what her detractors already
believed.
Post by claviger
Clinton ran the
most bizarre campaign in US history and almost got away with it.
Bizarre in this case being a euphemism for stupid. The traditional
Democrat strongholds along the Great Lakes were supposed to be her
firewall in the event Trump swept the toss up states and she took them for
granted allowing Trump to steal them from under her nose. Meanwhile she
wasted time and money trying to pick off Republican states where she had
no chance such as Arizona and Utah.
Post by claviger
She also
had a lot of baggage to carry into the national election, which most
voters were already aware of.
Yes, most voters already knew they didn't like her. They decided they
disliked Trump less.
Post by claviger
Can anyone point to some hacked revelation
that tipped the election in Trump's favor?
You mean other than Hillary was a loser?
Now that we see what Trump is as president, we can appreciate the
abilities of Hillary.
There hasn't been a day go by that I have wished Hillary had won. Even if
Trump were to shoot somebody I wouldn't wish that. Trump is president,
Hillary is not, and Neil Gorsuch is the newest member of the Supreme
Court. If Putin helped bring that about, I will be forever grateful to him
although I suspect the reality is that he had little if anything to do
with any of that. But you go right on believing the fairy tales MSNBC and
CNN are feeding you. You've always found fables to be far more interesting
than the plain boring truth.
Hate to say it, but I also listen to FOX now and then to see what the
brainwash folks are saying. It's the same old fake news often directly
from Trump. No wonder he tried to convince folks that the real media was
making up fake news. They were often reporting on HIM! And he didn't
want anyone to believe it!
Real media? You mean like MSNBC or CNN. <chuckle> Their bias oozes from
every pore and is obvious with every word they speak.
Now we have your opinion, but I'm also speaking of the PBS channels
too, and many of the foreign news channels as well.
Another liberal propaganda machine.
The BBC?
Can't speak to the BBC but since it is government funded my guess is they
are very liberal just as PBS is.
You mean they reflected the attitudes of the people they served?
No, they reflect the attitudes of an organization that is living off the
government tit.
I guess that you've missed all the ads and announcements about all the
PBS programming and channels that are losing gov't funding. They are on
funding drives every quester now.
Its about time. PBS served a function when there were only three major
networks and there was no platform for niche programming that didn't have
the broad appeal needed to be part of the network lineup. Now we have
hundreds of cable channels, mostly niche programming which makes PBS
obsolete. Sesame Street could easily find a home on a cable outlet. So
could just about every program offered on PBS. About the only thing PBS
airs that couldn't transfer to cable are its pledge drives. Unfortunately,
PBS has their lobbyists and Congress will continue to feed the dinosaur ad
infinitum.
PBS is not obsolete, that's the standard line from conservatives,
because the last thing they want is for PBS to continue to uncover their
games on the public.
I guess that's your way of acknowledging that PBS is shill for liberal
causes.
Nope, it's a comment on their neutral reporting,
Neutral reporting??? That's the funniest thing you have said in quite a
while and that is saying something.
Well, I must admit that they got sold a bill of goods when they put out
a Frontline program called "The Vaccine War". It sucked up completely to
the drug industry. The other side wasn't even mentioned in any meaningful
way.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
that often shows up the
games played by the Republicans on the public. Example is the recent
AHCA.
If they are neutral reporters, why don't they show up the games played by
Democrats too?
There are actually less game played by democrats. Here's a statement
That's what the liberals pretend.
Post by mainframetech
"PolitiFact rated 32% of Republican claims as “false” or
“pants on fire,” compared to 11% of Democratic claims
– a 3 to 1 margin. Conversely, Politifact rated 22% of Democratic
claims as “entirely true” compared to 11% of Republican
claims – a 2 to 1 margin.
Who rates PolitiFact? Why would you assume any of these fact checkers are
neutral? Because they say they are?
Ah! We've reached the point where we hear the whine "They all
lied"...:)
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
A majority of Democratic statements (54%) were rated as mostly or entirely
true, compared to only 18% of Republican statements. Conversely, a
majority of Republican statements (52%) were rated as mostly or entirely
false, compared to only 24% of Democratic statements."
From: https://www.mediaite.com/online/politifact-says-republicans-lie-three-times-more-often-than-democrats-according-to-new-study/
"Fifty-two percent of Republican claims reviewed by the Tampa Bay Times
fact-checking operation were rated "mostly false," “false”
or “pants on fire,” versus just 24 percent of Democratic
statements, according to George Mason University's Center for Media and
Public Affairs.
Chris
bigdog
2017-08-09 12:25:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964.
You were a dinosaur when I got in the field.
A dinosaur that lasted until the 2000's...:)
So did I and I was a dinosaur when I retired. Distributive processing was
taking over from Big Iron when I got out.
I installed distributed processing 20 years before I quit. Sounds like
your company was behind the times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
Patching and hacking are two different acts. Patching is a perfectly
legitimate and authorized action. Hacking is maliciously accessing and/or
destroying someone else's data without their permission.
"Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer
software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be
outside of the creator's original objective. Those individuals who engage
in computer hacking activities are typically referred to as
“hackers.”
In all my years in the business I never once heard anyone describe a
programmer who modified an existing programmer as a hacker. Almost all
programs get modified as requirements change over time. Even the word
hacking has malicious connotations. That's why it isn't used in connection
with normal program maintenance.
You come into programming late and you act like only you have the right
answers. Well, you don't, and actually, you seem to have very few for a
job that you say you did. Note: You probably worked in the mainstream
big corporation programming dept. and saw little of the real world.
Actually the field has changed so much in the years since we both retired
that neither one of us has the answers. The way things were done when you
got into the business were largely obsolete by the time I got into the
business, and when I got out in the early 2000s, my skill set was largely
becoming obsolete.
Depends on what your skills were. In my case, during the 360 era, I
had reason to do patching here and there as any systems programmer had to
do at times. And that's 'systems programmer' in the older definition, not
the simple job of specifying the parameters of a system that is
automatically generated as the title became.
In the case mentioned earlier, I had to patch a 3705 comm Network
Control unit. We had a case where modems were dropping client comm lines,
and I tracked it down to the 3705. It was necessary to first find the
problem in the 3705, then interpret the assembler hex code into
understandable instructions, then patch the code on the mainframe that
would be loaded out to the 3705 when the command was given. Once the
'superzap' program was used to patch the 3705 control program on disk on
the mainframe, it would then allow for 7 times the wait time for
connection, and the problem was solved. But that's systems programming in
the older sense. the 3705 had a different instruction set than the normal
360, so it took a day to figure that out. That's an example of white hat
'hacking', where you go into a program and modify it to do what you need
it to do, differently than the original program specs.
There was no program listing or deck or file to modify, it had to be
done without such amenities, and it's called 'hacking' using 'patching' to
solve the problem.
That was then. Progress is learning to do things more easily and more
efficiently. I learned Assembler and I had an understanding of how it
related to machine code but I never once had a need to patch machine code
and rarely had to work with an Assembler program. The only Assembler
programs I wrote from scratch were done at school. Times change and so do
the required skill sets.
Wow! Do I have news for you again! The IBM Network Control Unit
continues to do the job it originally did, though it would be a newer
replacement. And there will still be code in that box that will handle
comm needs through the box, and you can be sure that IBM is not going to
publish the source code for the box. If problems arise the fixes will
have to be done directly to the programming that goes in that box. If IBM
were informed and decided to do a fix for the problem, it would take a
month or more and in the meantime you need to get the problem fixed.
General applications programming never had systems hardware/software
problems so you would never have seen those types of situations.
And the place where assembler is demanded is in the online realtime
world, which was usurped by IBM and their stupid CICS. Those companies
that had good responsive systems were always in assembler with multi-task
re-entrant code. You can't get decent re-entrant code in the other
languages. 'C' has some of the features, but not all.
I wasn't talking about what IBM does under the covers. I was talking about
out in the real world. I worked a good part of my career as a consultant
and as such I worked in a lot of different shops and NOBODY was coding in
Assembler.
You seem to have forgotten again that I mentioned many companies aside
from IBM that use assembler, like the antivirus and utility companies, all
right out there with products that require assembler. It looks like your
consulting career was only with the less knowledgeable places. My shop
(for instance) never needed a consultant since we had the best of the
assembler whizzes available.
I'm not surprised you would have your pick of dinosaurs since there wasn't
much demand for assembler programmers by 1980. I got in the field in 1977
and assembler just wasn't being used in business applications. I worked
for in government and for banks, retailers, utility companies, and
conglomerates and none of them used assembler in developing applications.
What the geeks at the software companies were using I have no knowledge
of.
Odd that you would say "dinosaurs" for assembler programmers. Most of
them were sought after throughout my whole career. Not for mundane
business applications, but for high level projects and software for IBM
and many other companies that wrote complex software as utilities and
Various serious applications. You might not see their ads for people
since you were looking in the business application area.
Since I have no experience in developing systems software I can't speak to
how things were done in that environment. I can say that there was almost
zero demand for assembler programmers in business applications by 1980.
Companies just weren't using it anywhere that I worked and I saw no ads
looking for assembler programmers. Only a small fraction of the jobs in
the data processing field were in system software development so the
demand for those kinds of programmers had to be very low.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will find black hat hackers and white hat hackers. And before
your time, we 'hacked' programs using 'patching' among other tools. I've
on a number of occasions hacked a program through the console while the
program was loaded, which is a second form of hacking.
Patching is a term I did hear frequently although primarily in regards to
system software. I rarely if ever heard it used regarding application
software.
I'm sure you never got close to the systems programming area.
Actually I did spend time in systems programming but due to budget cuts
was sent back to applications programming where I spent the rest of my
career.
Post by mainframetech
But in
the old days of first generation and EAM equipment, there were many ways
to accomplish a task, and we knew what there was to know about the
machines we had available.
That's nice. You knew that stuff because you needed to know it just as the
early pioneers of personal computing had to be geeks in order to function.
They couldn't just buy a new computer with lots of apps preloaded. They
had to get into the nuts and bolts. When I got into the field one had to
be able to navigate their way through a core dump. That quickly became a
lost art I by the time I got out I had forgotten how to do it. It just
wasn't necessary any more.
Post by mainframetech
As well, in the 360 era we did some of that
stuff too. For instance I had to patch a 3705 Communications Network
unit, which had it's own assembler language, different from the 360
assembler. We used 'Superzap' a patching program distributed by IBM, but
Again, interesting but irrelevant. By the time I got into the field the
360 had been replace by the 370. Assembler code was no longer being used.
I have news for you. We were in the 370 era and were running the
fastest online realtime system in the industry we were in. It was all
multitask re-entrant assembler language, and I made sure all my people
were conversant in that language and COBOL as well for the mundane
reporting and such. Because of that we were considered the 'Cadillac' of
our industry. And that 370 system used the 3705 I mentioned above. The
mainstream was sold a bill of goods by IBM and others to use COBOL for
their online system, so that their dumb old COBOL programmers could work
in the online environment, but CICS was a dog and managed to sell many
large IBM mainframes to support the slow as a pig system.
A wise business decision by IBM, just like PL/1, which also sold IBM
hardware to those foolish companies that shifted over to that language.
I imagine Assembler code programs would run more efficiently but languages
such as COBOL and PL/1 were much easier to program in and application
software could be developed much more quickly. As mainframes became faster
and more powerful there simply wasn't a need to continue to code the way
things were done in the Stone Age. Again, that's progress.
A competent assembler programmer could produce a program doing a
certain task as fast or faster than the COBOL and PL/1 people. I know
because I did a comparison in a real setting. I had to rewrite a PL/1
program into assembler. It took me 3 days to get it written and running,
and the original took a month to get running.
I don't know where you were working but no place I worked was still coding
Assembler. I'm sure there were a few old timers who were still coding in
assembler just as I'm sure there are still people who are fluent in Latin
but they are few and far between. My only exposure to Assembler in the 25
years I worked in the field was to modify a couple called subroutines that
had been coded in Assembler many years earlier. I felt like an
archeologist.
Then you were working in more mainstream places. A number of
consultants and supposed gurus in the field sold the programming directors
and managers on using CICS so that their mundane COBOL programmers could
pretend to be online programmers. Sadly, they sold a bill of goods.
CICS still requires knowledge of realtime online systems to do properly.
So what happened was that many suckers put up CICS systems and had to buy
much more IBM hardware to support the pig. A few installations had the
knowledge to do the more intelligent work using assembler and saved on the
hardware and on the customer satisfaction. I can't tell you how many
customer service calls I've made where they couldn't get information from
their system in any timely manner. And when I ask if it's CICS, they
often say yes.
Sounds like you are bitter that the industry didn't continue to develop
systems the way you did it back in the 1960s. That's not the kind of
business we were in. The technology was constantly changing and the demand
for skills kept changing with it. If you didn't change with it you got
left behind.
I have to let you know, that the "industry" kept assembler in demand
all through my career. But it wasn't wanted for the simple business
applications, it was mainly for intelligent realtime online applications
where service to customers was primary. My final place of business was a
CICS shop, but also had an online system in assembler. I used CICS at
times when a problem arose and someone had to figure it out. I even
backslid and used COBOL at times also when the problem program was on that
language. But right to the end I was needed as a systems programmer, even
though I had reached the level of Senior VP of company operations. They
came to me when a problem couldn't be figured out, and the salary was
commensurate with the abilities. And all around the "industry" assembler
was still in demand, but for a smaller number of experts in that area.
Funny how we both worked in the same field yet you saw a demand for a
skill I saw zero demand for.
Post by mainframetech
Remember, assembler underlies ALL other languages, and they all
generate assembler programs.
I know that. I remember the days when you compiled a COBOL program which
generated Assembler code which in turn was converted to machine code. The
practice of printing out the assembler code was dropped when it became
evidence it was just a waste of paper since nobody paid any attention to
it. That went the way of navigating through core dumps to find problems.
That became a lost art for the most part. I learned to do that in school
but can't recall ever doing that in the field.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The terrible thing is that the people that sold all these companies on
making dumb COBOL programmers become online programmers didn't realize
that assembler can be taught and even enjoyed by programmers in an
installation.
I'm sure there are places that still teach Latin but being fluent in it
isn't a practicable skill.
WRONG! Doctors and lawyers can use it, and do.
Just to show off. The same ideas can be expressed in English.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I did it for years. My people knew all any one could ask
of them, and when the company was sold, they all found high level
assembler jobs at top salary. Assembler can be done quickly, and can be
documented well. And when the dust settles, COBOL and CICS still can't
allow a truly re-entrant or refreshable program to be written and applied.
Those that were sold on that method wouldn't even know what those 2 words
meant.
Nor did they need to.
If you want efficiency and saving money, and service, you need to use
some of the base level languages, though 'C' has some validity for being
efficient. And debugging goes much faster as well. The clunkers need to
buy all kinds of software programs written in assembler that will go in
and analyze the bugs in a COBOL CICS program and recommend a fix.
I never found that necessary when debugging a program. The error code
would tell you what the problem was and the line of code it occurred at.
From there you walked through the program to figure out what went wrong.
In the old days one might have navigated through a core dump using the
registers and displacement to find the address of the problem but that
became a lost art. I might have done it that way my first few years in the
field but I can't remember. I know by the time I retired I had forgotten
just about everything I ever learned about reading core dumps to debug
programs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I know, because I came into a shop where they even had assembler
and 2 consultants had been pretending that they had written re-entrant
code for the company for years. They were unhappy with me when I proved
they had written serially reusable code instead.
The kind of junk you find in CICS which can't handle more than that.
The way they try to say they get around it is that they bring in more than
one copy of the code in question and let multiple transactions get
executed simultaneously. Of course, that requires much more memory, and
IBM just smiles...and holds out their hand for a check.
I coded CICS in numerous applications as well as a number of other online
development tools and the filled our needs nicely which is to say it
filled the needs of the end user and that is really all that matters. The
end use doesn't care what goes on under the covers or what language was
used to develop it. All he wants to know is whether the system worked and
filled his business requirements.
Good point, when the user gets a pig that takes a long time answering a
request, they get itchy.
Slow response times were a problem when we first began developing online
applications and the running joke was you could hit the enter key and go
to to lunch before you got a response but that quickly went away as
hardware became faster and software more efficient. Response times became
almost instantaneous. Do you really think the end user notices if the
response time is a few hundred nanoseconds longer?
Post by mainframetech
Of course, that happens often in CICS and the
company is locked into IBM and has to get bigger iron to run the silly
thing, and pay a mint for it too!
Of course companies kept getting bigger and faster iron to keep up to
date. Why would they keep outdated hardware and software. I remember
starting out working on a 370 mainframe but I couldn't even tell you what
the various shops I worked at went to because it wasn't important to what
I did.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
We had a few subroutines still in use that had been coded in Assembler
which I had to modify but Assembler was fast becoming the Latin of
programming languages. It was helpful to understand it to give you a clue
as to what was happening internally just as learning Latin can be useful
in understanding English derivatives.
More news for you. What language do you think IBM uses for their
operating systems? While they have developed a 'C' compiler and can run
those programs, the IBM mainframes still use direct machine code compiled
from assembler instructions. As well, companies that write sophisticated
software like antivirus and special utility programs write in assembler
too. It's not a dead language, it's been moved upscale to the serious
programming level.
I don't doubt that in some circles Assembler language is still used just
as Latin is still spoken by the College of Cardinals but neither is
commonplace. Schools aren't turning out Assembler programmers. That's not
where the demand is.
I won't argue that point. The companies have ben sold a bill of goods,
and they go with the languages they have ben convinced to use by the
consultants.
COBOL on the mainframe under CICS, and various products on the PCs,
with 'C++' being used heavily for video games and other complex tasks, and
Visual Basic 6.0 for the simpler programs and systems.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And as to having lost any programming abilities, I still program in
Visual Basic 6.0 and Visual C++ on my PC for fun. I experiment with HTML
and similar languages to keep up my knowledge of what's happening these
days.
That's nice. I have had no need nor desire to program anything more
sophisticated than my coffee machine since I retired. Whatever software I
need I can buy off the shelf or download from a website.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/zosbasics/com.ibm.zos.zdatamgmt/zsysprogc_utilities_SPZAP.htm
You'll note in the program description that it speaks of 'patching'.
Anyplace when it talks about hacking which was the starting point of this
discussion?
https://www.lifewire.com/hackers-good-or-bad-3481592
As the article noted, most people think of the term hacker in the negative
connotation. What the article referred to as white hat hacking was more
commonly called patching in my day and I would bet that even today inside
of companies this authorized hacking is referred to by some other term.
In my last company (Financial Services) we hired a group to try to
break into our banking systems. They called it hacking when they went at
it. They were 'white hat hackers'.
IOW, they were hired to determine the vulnerability of your systems to
malicious hackers.
Of course. A standard method of testing systems vulnerability.
Most people wouldn't consider that hacking. They were performing a service
which they were authorized to do.
Sorry, wrong again. 'Hacking' is what it was called, and it was a
necessary service for online companies.
You and I must have worked in different universes because I never heard
the word hacking until it become part of the lexicon of internet
applications and the havoc that could be done through malware. I never
heard it used in regard to any sort of authorize in house testing of
system vulnerability.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-09 22:37:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
I'm not a computer guy. To me it's just a typewriter with a screen, so I
want to ask a few simple questions. How long has computer hacking been
around?
Probably as long as the internet was made available to the public.
WRONG! Long before that. Programs were changed by others by a process
called 'patching'. If one knew the layout of a card deck, one could put
in patch cards that could usurp the programs functions and introduce new
code. It was often used as a way to correct programs without having to go
through the process of compiling and preparing the program.
When I was in the business correcting programs was not called hacking. It
was called debugging. Modifying a program was known as maintenance.
Here we go again with your lack of knowledge of the programming field.
Debugging was done in a few different ways. One was testing with known
parameters, another was scanning the logic and looking for the error, and
after the problem was found, there were a few ways to correct the problem,
one was to recompile the program and link it into a object deck, then run
it with the linkage editor JCL (Job Control language) getting a new deck,
and then put the new deck into production. Another way to make
corrections to a program deck that already existed was to 'patch' the run
deck with cards punched out by the programmer. That method was also used
to 'hack' programs if the source wasn't available to change.
I've heard stories about how programming was done in the Stone Age but I
didn't enter the field until 1977 and by then things had gotten a bit more
sophisticated. Punch cards were something I worked with in school but
fortunately when I got my first job they were being phased out. I won't
say I never punched a JCL card deck but it was a skill that was quickly
forgotten for good reason. Nothing you described here could remotely be
considered hacking.
No wonder! You were wet behind the ears when I got into the field in
1964.
You were a dinosaur when I got in the field.
A dinosaur that lasted until the 2000's...:)
So did I and I was a dinosaur when I retired. Distributive processing was
taking over from Big Iron when I got out.
I installed distributed processing 20 years before I quit. Sounds like
your company was behind the times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I worked on the first generation of computers with the 705, and
then the 1401 and 1410, and many of the EAM machines, wiring them with
boards and wires.
I bet back then you were churning your own butter too.
No need. I had trainee programmers to do it for me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We 'patched' programs often with cards inserted into run decks, and
that was indeed how hacking was done in the stone age when you weren't
around. That explains why you don't know anything about it.
I seriously doubt it was called hacking. Whatever it was called it wasn't
what we think of today as hacking which is a malicious act.
It was what is today called hacking, though back then it was
'patching', but the effect was the same. You could completely override
the programming in a program and use it for your own purposes or add to it
and do all kinds of things that weren't intended.
Patching and hacking are two different acts. Patching is a perfectly
legitimate and authorized action. Hacking is maliciously accessing and/or
destroying someone else's data without their permission.
"Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer
software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be
outside of the creator's original objective. Those individuals who engage
in computer hacking activities are typically referred to as
“hackers.”
In all my years in the business I never once heard anyone describe a
programmer who modified an existing programmer as a hacker. Almost all
programs get modified as requirements change over time. Even the word
hacking has malicious connotations. That's why it isn't used in connection
with normal program maintenance.
You come into programming late and you act like only you have the right
answers. Well, you don't, and actually, you seem to have very few for a
job that you say you did. Note: You probably worked in the mainstream
big corporation programming dept. and saw little of the real world.
Actually the field has changed so much in the years since we both retired
that neither one of us has the answers. The way things were done when you
got into the business were largely obsolete by the time I got into the
business, and when I got out in the early 2000s, my skill set was largely
becoming obsolete.
Depends on what your skills were. In my case, during the 360 era, I
had reason to do patching here and there as any systems programmer had to
do at times. And that's 'systems programmer' in the older definition, not
the simple job of specifying the parameters of a system that is
automatically generated as the title became.
In the case mentioned earlier, I had to patch a 3705 comm Network
Control unit. We had a case where modems were dropping client comm lines,
and I tracked it down to the 3705. It was necessary to first find the
problem in the 3705, then interpret the assembler hex code into
understandable instructions, then patch the code on the mainframe that
would be loaded out to the 3705 when the command was given. Once the
'superzap' program was used to patch the 3705 control program on disk on
the mainframe, it would then allow for 7 times the wait time for
connection, and the problem was solved. But that's systems programming in
the older sense. the 3705 had a different instruction set than the normal
360, so it took a day to figure that out. That's an example of white hat
'hacking', where you go into a program and modify it to do what you need
it to do, differently than the original program specs.
There was no program listing or deck or file to modify, it had to be
done without such amenities, and it's called 'hacking' using 'patching' to
solve the problem.
That was then. Progress is learning to do things more easily and more
efficiently. I learned Assembler and I had an understanding of how it
related to machine code but I never once had a need to patch machine code
and rarely had to work with an Assembler program. The only Assembler
programs I wrote from scratch were done at school. Times change and so do
the required skill sets.
Wow! Do I have news for you again! The IBM Network Control Unit
continues to do the job it originally did, though it would be a newer
replacement. And there will still be code in that box that will handle
comm needs through the box, and you can be sure that IBM is not going to
publish the source code for the box. If problems arise the fixes will
have to be done directly to the programming that goes in that box. If IBM
were informed and decided to do a fix for the problem, it would take a
month or more and in the meantime you need to get the problem fixed.
General applications programming never had systems hardware/software
problems so you would never have seen those types of situations.
And the place where assembler is demanded is in the online realtime
world, which was usurped by IBM and their stupid CICS. Those companies
that had good responsive systems were always in assembler with multi-task
re-entrant code. You can't get decent re-entrant code in the other
languages. 'C' has some of the features, but not all.
I wasn't talking about what IBM does under the covers. I was talking about
out in the real world. I worked a good part of my career as a consultant
and as such I worked in a lot of different shops and NOBODY was coding in
Assembler.
You seem to have forgotten again that I mentioned many companies aside
from IBM that use assembler, like the antivirus and utility companies, all
right out there with products that require assembler. It looks like your
consulting career was only with the less knowledgeable places. My shop
(for instance) never needed a consultant since we had the best of the
assembler whizzes available.
I'm not surprised you would have your pick of dinosaurs since there wasn't
much demand for assembler programmers by 1980. I got in the field in 1977
and assembler just wasn't being used in business applications. I worked
for in government and for banks, retailers, utility companies, and
conglomerates and none of them used assembler in developing applications.
What the geeks at the software companies were using I have no knowledge
of.
Odd that you would say "dinosaurs" for assembler programmers. Most of
them were sought after throughout my whole career. Not for mundane
business applications, but for high level projects and software for IBM
and many other companies that wrote complex software as utilities and
Various serious applications. You might not see their ads for people
since you were looking in the business application area.
Since I have no experience in developing systems software I can't speak to
how things were done in that environment. I can say that there was almost
zero demand for assembler programmers in business applications by 1980.
Companies just weren't using it anywhere that I worked and I saw no ads
looking for assembler programmers. Only a small fraction of the jobs in
the data processing field were in system software development so the
demand for those kinds of programmers had to be very low.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will find black hat hackers and white hat hackers. And before
your time, we 'hacked' programs using 'patching' among other tools. I've
on a number of occasions hacked a program through the console while the
program was loaded, which is a second form of hacking.
Patching is a term I did hear frequently although primarily in regards to
system software. I rarely if ever heard it used regarding application
software.
I'm sure you never got close to the systems programming area.
Actually I did spend time in systems programming but due to budget cuts
was sent back to applications programming where I spent the rest of my
career.
Post by mainframetech
But in
the old days of first generation and EAM equipment, there were many ways
to accomplish a task, and we knew what there was to know about the
machines we had available.
That's nice. You knew that stuff because you needed to know it just as the
early pioneers of personal computing had to be geeks in order to function.
They couldn't just buy a new computer with lots of apps preloaded. They
had to get into the nuts and bolts. When I got into the field one had to
be able to navigate their way through a core dump. That quickly became a
lost art I by the time I got out I had forgotten how to do it. It just
wasn't necessary any more.
Post by mainframetech
As well, in the 360 era we did some of that
stuff too. For instance I had to patch a 3705 Communications Network
unit, which had it's own assembler language, different from the 360
assembler. We used 'Superzap' a patching program distributed by IBM, but
Again, interesting but irrelevant. By the time I got into the field the
360 had been replace by the 370. Assembler code was no longer being used.
I have news for you. We were in the 370 era and were running the
fastest online realtime system in the industry we were in. It was all
multitask re-entrant assembler language, and I made sure all my people
were conversant in that language and COBOL as well for the mundane
reporting and such. Because of that we were considered the 'Cadillac' of
our industry. And that 370 system used the 3705 I mentioned above. The
mainstream was sold a bill of goods by IBM and others to use COBOL for
their online system, so that their dumb old COBOL programmers could work
in the online environment, but CICS was a dog and managed to sell many
large IBM mainframes to support the slow as a pig system.
A wise business decision by IBM, just like PL/1, which also sold IBM
hardware to those foolish companies that shifted over to that language.
I imagine Assembler code programs would run more efficiently but languages
such as COBOL and PL/1 were much easier to program in and application
software could be developed much more quickly. As mainframes became faster
and more powerful there simply wasn't a need to continue to code the way
things were done in the Stone Age. Again, that's progress.
A competent assembler programmer could produce a program doing a
certain task as fast or faster than the COBOL and PL/1 people. I know
because I did a comparison in a real setting. I had to rewrite a PL/1
program into assembler. It took me 3 days to get it written and running,
and the original took a month to get running.
I don't know where you were working but no place I worked was still coding
Assembler. I'm sure there were a few old timers who were still coding in
assembler just as I'm sure there are still people who are fluent in Latin
but they are few and far between. My only exposure to Assembler in the 25
years I worked in the field was to modify a couple called subroutines that
had been coded in Assembler many years earlier. I felt like an
archeologist.
Then you were working in more mainstream places. A number of
consultants and supposed gurus in the field sold the programming directors
and managers on using CICS so that their mundane COBOL programmers could
pretend to be online programmers. Sadly, they sold a bill of goods.
CICS still requires knowledge of realtime online systems to do properly.
So what happened was that many suckers put up CICS systems and had to buy
much more IBM hardware to support the pig. A few installations had the
knowledge to do the more intelligent work using assembler and saved on the
hardware and on the customer satisfaction. I can't tell you how many
customer service calls I've made where they couldn't get information from
their system in any timely manner. And when I ask if it's CICS, they
often say yes.
Sounds like you are bitter that the industry didn't continue to develop
systems the way you did it back in the 1960s. That's not the kind of
business we were in. The technology was constantly changing and the demand
for skills kept changing with it. If you didn't change with it you got
left behind.
I have to let you know, that the "industry" kept assembler in demand
all through my career. But it wasn't wanted for the simple business
applications, it was mainly for intelligent realtime online applications
where service to customers was primary. My final place of business was a
CICS shop, but also had an online system in assembler. I used CICS at
times when a problem arose and someone had to figure it out. I even
backslid and used COBOL at times also when the problem program was on that
language. But right to the end I was needed as a systems programmer, even
though I had reached the level of Senior VP of company operations. They
came to me when a problem couldn't be figured out, and the salary was
commensurate with the abilities. And all around the "industry" assembler
was still in demand, but for a smaller number of experts in that area.
Funny how we both worked in the same field yet you saw a demand for a
skill I saw zero demand for.
Post by mainframetech
Remember, assembler underlies ALL other languages, and they all
generate assembler programs.
I know that. I remember the days when you compiled a COBOL program which
generated Assembler code which in turn was converted to machine code. The
practice of printing out the assembler code was dropped when it became
evidence it was just a waste of paper since nobody paid any attention to
it. That went the way of navigating through core dumps to find problems.
That became a lost art for the most part. I learned to do that in school
but can't recall ever doing that in the field.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The terrible thing is that the people that sold all these companies on
making dumb COBOL programmers become online programmers didn't realize
that assembler can be taught and even enjoyed by programmers in an
installation.
I'm sure there are places that still teach Latin but being fluent in it
isn't a practicable skill.
WRONG! Doctors and lawyers can use it, and do.
Just to show off. The same ideas can be expressed in English.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I did it for years. My people knew all any one could ask
of them, and when the company was sold, they all found high level
assembler jobs at top salary. Assembler can be done quickly, and can be
documented well. And when the dust settles, COBOL and CICS still can't
allow a truly re-entrant or refreshable program to be written and applied.
Those that were sold on that method wouldn't even know what those 2 words
meant.
Nor did they need to.
If you want efficiency and saving money, and service, you need to use
some of the base level languages, though 'C' has some validity for being
efficient. And debugging goes much faster as well. The clunkers need to
buy all kinds of software programs written in assembler that will go in
and analyze the bugs in a COBOL CICS program and recommend a fix.
I never found that necessary when debugging a program. The error code
would tell you what the problem was and the line of code it occurred at.
From there you walked through the program to figure out what went wrong.
In the old days one might have navigated through a core dump using the
registers and displacement to find the address of the problem but that
became a lost art. I might have done it that way my first few years in the
field but I can't remember. I know by the time I retired I had forgotten
just about everything I ever learned about reading core dumps to debug
programs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I know, because I came into a shop where they even had assembler
and 2 consultants had been pretending that they had written re-entrant
code for the company for years. They were unhappy with me when I proved
they had written serially reusable code instead.
The kind of junk you find in CICS which can't handle more than that.
The way they try to say they get around it is that they bring in more than
one copy of the code in question and let multiple transactions get
executed simultaneously. Of course, that requires much more memory, and
IBM just smiles...and holds out their hand for a check.
I coded CICS in numerous applications as well as a number of other online
development tools and the filled our needs nicely which is to say it
filled the needs of the end user and that is really all that matters. The
end use doesn't care what goes on under the covers or what language was
used to develop it. All he wants to know is whether the system worked and
filled his business requirements.
Good point, when the user gets a pig that takes a long time answering a
request, they get itchy.
Slow response times were a problem when we first began developing online
applications and the running joke was you could hit the enter key and go
to to lunch before you got a response but that quickly went away as
hardware became faster and software more efficient. Response times became
almost instantaneous. Do you really think the end user notices if the
response time is a few hundred nanoseconds longer?
Post by mainframetech
Of course, that happens often in CICS and the
company is locked into IBM and has to get bigger iron to run the silly
thing, and pay a mint for it too!
Of course companies kept getting bigger and faster iron to keep up to
date. Why would they keep outdated hardware and software. I remember
starting out working on a 370 mainframe but I couldn't even tell you what
the various shops I worked at went to because it wasn't important to what
I did.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
We had a few subroutines still in use that had been coded in Assembler
which I had to modify but Assembler was fast becoming the Latin of
programming languages. It was helpful to understand it to give you a clue
as to what was happening internally just as learning Latin can be useful
in understanding English derivatives.
More news for you. What language do you think IBM uses for their
operating systems? While they have developed a 'C' compiler and can run
those programs, the IBM mainframes still use direct machine code compiled
from assembler instructions. As well, companies that write sophisticated
software like antivirus and special utility programs write in assembler
too. It's not a dead language, it's been moved upscale to the serious
programming level.
I don't doubt that in some circles Assembler language is still used just
as Latin is still spoken by the College of Cardinals but neither is
commonplace. Schools aren't turning out Assembler programmers. That's not
where the demand is.
I won't argue that point. The companies have ben sold a bill of goods,
and they go with the languages they have ben convinced to use by the
consultants.
COBOL on the mainframe under CICS, and various products on the PCs,
with 'C++' being used heavily for video games and other complex tasks, and
Visual Basic 6.0 for the simpler programs and systems.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And as to having lost any programming abilities, I still program in
Visual Basic 6.0 and Visual C++ on my PC for fun. I experiment with HTML
and similar languages to keep up my knowledge of what's happening these
days.
That's nice. I have had no need nor desire to program anything more
sophisticated than my coffee machine since I retired. Whatever software I
need I can buy off the shelf or download from a website.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/zosbasics/com.ibm.zos.zdatamgmt/zsysprogc_utilities_SPZAP.htm
You'll note in the program description that it speaks of 'patching'.
Anyplace when it talks about hacking which was the starting point of this
discussion?
https://www.lifewire.com/hackers-good-or-bad-3481592
As the article noted, most people think of the term hacker in the negative
connotation. What the article referred to as white hat hacking was more
commonly called patching in my day and I would bet that even today inside
of companies this authorized hacking is referred to by some other term.
In my last company (Financial Services) we hired a group to try to
break into our banking systems. They called it hacking when they went at
it. They were 'white hat hackers'.
IOW, they were hired to determine the vulnerability of your systems to
malicious hackers.
Of course. A standard method of testing systems vulnerability.
Most people wouldn't consider that hacking. They were performing a service
which they were authorized to do.
Sorry, wrong again. 'Hacking' is what it was called, and it was a
necessary service for online companies.
You and I must have worked in different universes because I never heard
the word hacking until it become part of the lexicon of internet
applications and the havoc that could be done through malware. I never
heard it used in regard to any sort of authorize in house testing of
system vulnerability.
Maybe you're just too young to know about computers back then.
FNG
2017-08-10 18:46:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Since this seems to be the tech section:

Has anyone discussed feeding all publically available data into IBM's
Watson AI? (With the known caveat that it could 'Skynet' on us and decide
that humans are the the problem...)

The logs from the processing would be interesting even if no real results
were achieved.
mainframetech
2017-08-11 13:51:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FNG
Has anyone discussed feeding all publically available data into IBM's
Watson AI? (With the known caveat that it could 'Skynet' on us and decide
that humans are the the problem...)
The logs from the processing would be interesting even if no real results
were achieved.
Be sure you include the ARRB files, since they contain many of the
answers.

Chris
bigdog
2017-08-11 16:54:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FNG
Has anyone discussed feeding all publically available data into IBM's
Watson AI? (With the known caveat that it could 'Skynet' on us and decide
that humans are the the problem...)
The logs from the processing would be interesting even if no real results
were achieved.
Even the most powerful computers are incapable of figuring things out that
are beyond the capabilities of human beings. What they do is process data
faster than humans ever could. It's called artificial intelligence because
the computers have no innate intelligence. They only know what they are
fed. Any "solution" a computer could come up with would reflect the bias
of the person programming it.

To put it another way, computers are a great tool for doing one task a
million times. They are a very inefficient way to perform a task once.
mainframetech
2017-08-13 02:28:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by FNG
Has anyone discussed feeding all publically available data into IBM's
Watson AI? (With the known caveat that it could 'Skynet' on us and decide
that humans are the the problem...)
The logs from the processing would be interesting even if no real results
were achieved.
Even the most powerful computers are incapable of figuring things out that
are beyond the capabilities of human beings. What they do is process data
faster than humans ever could. It's called artificial intelligence because
the computers have no innate intelligence. They only know what they are
fed. Any "solution" a computer could come up with would reflect the bias
of the person programming it.
To put it another way, computers are a great tool for doing one task a
million times. They are a very inefficient way to perform a task once.
You've been away too long. Computers using AI programs have been
training from birth on news and other input to develop their personalities
and their intelligence.

They've ben programmed to react to many stimuli like anyone would, and
they follow that training. But many have been given the ability to
analyze situations that might be new to them and react however their
learning has led to do.
bigdog
2017-08-14 02:13:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by FNG
Has anyone discussed feeding all publically available data into IBM's
Watson AI? (With the known caveat that it could 'Skynet' on us and decide
that humans are the the problem...)
The logs from the processing would be interesting even if no real results
were achieved.
Even the most powerful computers are incapable of figuring things out that
are beyond the capabilities of human beings. What they do is process data
faster than humans ever could. It's called artificial intelligence because
the computers have no innate intelligence. They only know what they are
fed. Any "solution" a computer could come up with would reflect the bias
of the person programming it.
To put it another way, computers are a great tool for doing one task a
million times. They are a very inefficient way to perform a task once.
You've been away too long. Computers using AI programs have been
training from birth on news and other input to develop their personalities
and their intelligence.
They still only know what they've been told and they can only reason the
way they've been programmed to reason.
Post by mainframetech
They've ben programmed to react to many stimuli like anyone would, and
they follow that training. But many have been given the ability to
analyze situations that might be new to them and react however their
learning has led to do.
The key phrases are "they follow that training" and "react however their
learning has led to do". That means they will reason just as they've been
programmed to reason which follows my statement that any AI solution would
reflect the bias of the person doing the programming.
mainframetech
2017-08-14 20:39:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by FNG
Has anyone discussed feeding all publically available data into IBM's
Watson AI? (With the known caveat that it could 'Skynet' on us and decide
that humans are the the problem...)
The logs from the processing would be interesting even if no real results
were achieved.
Even the most powerful computers are incapable of figuring things out that
are beyond the capabilities of human beings. What they do is process data
faster than humans ever could. It's called artificial intelligence because
the computers have no innate intelligence. They only know what they are
fed. Any "solution" a computer could come up with would reflect the bias
of the person programming it.
To put it another way, computers are a great tool for doing one task a
million times. They are a very inefficient way to perform a task once.
You've been away too long. Computers using AI programs have been
training from birth on news and other input to develop their personalities
and their intelligence.
They still only know what they've been told and they can only reason the
way they've been programmed to reason.
Ah! You've come onto the answer by accident! Actually, the AI
machines were indeed programmed to learn new things and to add to their
stock of programming from the inputs given them. Watson, the IBM machine
is one of those that have ben given free rein to learn many new things
about mankind and is being used as an intelligent helper in business:

http://tinyurl.com/y6vtflbu
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They've been programmed to react to many stimuli like anyone would, and
they follow that training. But many have been given the ability to
analyze situations that might be new to them and react however their
learning has led to do.
The key phrases are "they follow that training" and "react however their
learning has led to do". That means they will reason just as they've been
programmed to reason which follows my statement that any AI solution would
reflect the bias of the person doing the programming.
WRONG again! The reasoning that was given to them is true, but they
add to their ability to reason by learning new things and applying them to
their further reactions. Try and think how humans do it. They've been
using something called 'neural networks' that learn very much like humans
learn.

They are taught from birth how to reason, and their experience helps
them refine that ability. The same (nowadays) is the case for some
computers:

https://www.wired.com/story/our-machines-now-have-knowledge-well-never-understand/


Chris
claviger
2017-08-10 13:04:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
or US Gov employees?
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-10 21:58:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
Hillary did not hack anything. The Russians did and you give them a
pass, because they did it for Trump.
Post by claviger
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
The Russians are the enemies who hacked the Democrats.
Do you think it was the Democrats who broke into the Watergate?

You seem to have trouble understanding what an enemy is.

If you're going to put Hilary in jail then you have to put Colin Powell
in jail and all of Trump's people.

This was before the election so they were only staffers. But some still
had security clearances.
Post by claviger
or US Gov employees?
claviger
2017-08-11 17:02:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
Hillary did not hack anything.
How can you possibly read the preceding sentence and come to the
conclusion I said Hillary was the hacker not the hackee? Are you
dyslexic?
Post by Anthony Marsh
The Russians did and you give them a pass, because they did it for Trump.
Did Trump ask them to do that? Can Trump control what Putin or Russian
hackers do? Can Trump control what Chinese, North Korean, or American
hackers do? How about Democrat, Liberal, or Sanders hackers? He can't
even control the Republican Party! Or should that be the Repugnican
Party?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
The Russians are the enemies who hacked the Democrats.
Proving how much Putin has changed the political philosophy of Russia.
Wasn't that long ago when Liberals were not so concerned about Communism,
even when the primary method to achieve unity was eliminate the
competition, Trotsky being a well known example.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you think it was the Democrats who broke into the Watergate?
No, it was silly plumbers looking for the master list of prostitutes
Democrats employed. Don't know if wanted to use them too, embarrass the
Democrats, or frustrated they couldn't get any hot dates in DC.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You seem to have trouble understanding what an enemy is.
Well yes when Liberals tell us the Police and Military are the real enemy
it does get confusing. I thought dope dealers and murderers were the
enemy, but Liberals don't agree with those categorical definitions.
Post by Anthony Marsh
If you're going to put Hilary in jail then you have to put Colin Powell
in jail and all of Trump's people.
Yes, when any employee violates State Department rules and regulations
pertaining to National Security they should be punished. The Obama regime
ignored this gross negligence so the voters exacted requite punishment
during the election. Ditsy Hillary did not get a second chance to ignore
Federal Law. Even though her boss didn't care, the voters did.

What did Trump's people do?
Post by Anthony Marsh
This was before the election so they were only staffers. But some still
had security clearances.
No comparison to flagrant disregard of National Security rules by an
acting Secretary of State.


So now can you tell me what information about Hillary we didn't already
know the Russians were able to hack that affected the election? She
stopped having interviews with reporters for 9 months into the election.
The public considered that a tacit admission of guilt. Otherwise why
would she avoid face time with the media that most politicians are
addicted to?
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-12 15:01:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
Hillary did not hack anything.
How can you possibly read the preceding sentence and come to the
conclusion I said Hillary was the hacker not the hackee? Are you
dyslexic?
You snip out the context to create false impressions.
You have no reason to blame Hillary for anything. She did not hack
anything. The Russians did. The Russians also hacked the Republicans,
but did not leak anything about the Republicans. Why?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
The Russians did and you give them a pass, because they did it for Trump.
Did Trump ask them to do that? Can Trump control what Putin or Russian
Yes, he did. He openly asked them to find her e-mails.
Don't you have a TV in your cave?
Post by claviger
hackers do? Can Trump control what Chinese, North Korean, or American
No need to control. Just ask his buddy Putin who does control them.
Post by claviger
hackers do? How about Democrat, Liberal, or Sanders hackers? He can't
even control the Republican Party! Or should that be the Repugnican
Party?
I guess that's supposed to be a joke, but I don't think it conforms to any
of the standard jokes about Republicans and Democrats being the same. Some
people say that, but is obviously not true.

What may be true is that there are extremists or corrupt people in both
parties.

Christopher Shays made an excellent point the other day that Congress does
not reflect the American People. He notes that political opinion of
Americans is like a Bell curve with extremes tapering off on both sides,
but a broad consensus in the middle, but there is no longer any middle in
Congress, just extremes on either side.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
The Russians are the enemies who hacked the Democrats.
Proving how much Putin has changed the political philosophy of Russia.
Wasn't that long ago when Liberals were not so concerned about Communism,
even when the primary method to achieve unity was eliminate the
competition, Trotsky being a well known example.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you think it was the Democrats who broke into the Watergate?
No, it was silly plumbers looking for the master list of prostitutes
Democrats employed. Don't know if wanted to use them too, embarrass the
Democrats, or frustrated they couldn't get any hot dates in DC.
I liked that hoax very much when it came out, but so many people have
already confessed to what they actually did and why that it no longer
holds any water.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
You seem to have trouble understanding what an enemy is.
Well yes when Liberals tell us the Police and Military are the real enemy
Sometimes, not always. Sometimes they just say The MAN.

The one I liked best was a show where the radical just refers to anyone
in authority as THE SUITS.
Post by claviger
it does get confusing. I thought dope dealers and murderers were the
enemy, but Liberals don't agree with those categorical definitions.
No, they don't have enough authority to be the ENEMY.
They usually can't kill people and get away with it the way the police
and military do. Street punks are not usually interested in taking about
people's civil rights, just their money.

Very few ghetto jails have lasted more than a week.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
If you're going to put Hilary in jail then you have to put Colin Powell
in jail and all of Trump's people.
Yes, when any employee violates State Department rules and regulations
pertaining to National Security they should be punished. The Obama regime
She didn't. Colin Powell didn't. You are just making up crap.
Post by claviger
ignored this gross negligence so the voters exacted requite punishment
during the election. Ditsy Hillary did not get a second chance to ignore
Oh really? You mean the public voted Obama out? How did I miss that?
Napping again?
Post by claviger
Federal Law. Even though her boss didn't care, the voters did.
Only because of Russian propaganda.
Were the details of Chelsea's wedding plans a threat to National Security?
Post by claviger
What did Trump's people do?
Take money from the Russians. Collude with the Russians to try to get dirt
on their political opponent. Nothing released about Trump. Nothing
released about Bernie. Money laundering. This was the first time that the
FBI has executed a pre-dawn raid on someone's house to obtain records that
he failed to disclose about connections with Russians as head of a
political campaign. Not the same as sleeper agents, but similar.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
This was before the election so they were only staffers. But some still
had security clearances.
No comparison to flagrant disregard of National Security rules by an
acting Secretary of State.
Never happened.
Post by claviger
So now can you tell me what information about Hillary we didn't already
know the Russians were able to hack that affected the election? She
The Wedding Plans. You think that is Top Secret SCI?
Post by claviger
stopped having interviews with reporters for 9 months into the election.
Silly. Trump didn't have a press conference for a long time.
Hillary talked to the press all the time.
Post by claviger
The public considered that a tacit admission of guilt. Otherwise why
would she avoid face time with the media that most politicians are
addicted to?
Guilt about what? You have no crime.
Why does Trump refuse to have a Press Conference? Isn't that a tacit
admission of guilt?

Do you understand what suborning perjury means? Telling his son-in-law
to lie.
claviger
2017-08-13 18:04:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
Hillary did not hack anything.
How can you possibly read the preceding sentence and come to the
conclusion I said Hillary was the hacker not the hackee? Are you
dyslexic?
You snip out the context to create false impressions.
I responded directly to your comment.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You have no reason to blame Hillary for anything. She did not hack
anything.
Who said she did? Did you make this up?
Post by Anthony Marsh
The Russians did. The Russians also hacked the Republicans,
but did not leak anything about the Republicans. Why?
Yes the Russians are equal opportunity spies who probably hack every
member of NATO.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
The Russians did and you give them a pass, because they did it for Trump.
That is their prerogative. It could have been the other way around since
Hillary signed off on the uranium deal.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Did Trump ask them to do that? Can Trump control what Putin or Russian
Yes, he did. He openly asked them to find her e-mails.
Don't you have a TV in your cave?
Yes but got bored with all the whining by Liberals making excuses for
losing the election. They keep on insulting the voters.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
hackers do? Can Trump control what Chinese, North Korean, or American
No need to control. Just ask his buddy Putin who does control them.
Putin controls China, North Korea, and America? Then why does he need
Trump?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
hackers do? How about Democrat, Liberal, or Sanders hackers? He can't
even control the Republican Party! Or should that be the Repugnican
Party?
I guess that's supposed to be a joke, but I don't think it conforms to any
of the standard jokes about Republicans and Democrats being the same.
Some people say that, but is obviously not true.
Didn't used to be, but Republicans rolled over and played dead for 8
years.
Post by Anthony Marsh
What may be true is that there are extremists or corrupt people in both
parties.
No kidding. You seem to fit that category with your extreme invective on
this newsgroup.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Christopher Shays made an excellent point the other day that Congress does
not reflect the American People. He notes that political opinion of
Americans is like a Bell curve with extremes tapering off on both sides,
but a broad consensus in the middle, but there is no longer any middle in
Congress, just extremes on either side.
Yes the Middle Class gets screwed by Democraps and Repubnocans.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
The Russians are the enemies who hacked the Democrats.
Proving how much Putin has changed the political philosophy of Russia.
Wasn't that long ago when Liberals were not so concerned about Communism,
even when the primary method to achieve unity was eliminate the
competition, Trotsky being a well known example.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you think it was the Democrats who broke into the Watergate?
No, it was silly plumbers looking for the master list of prostitutes
Democrats employed. Don't know if wanted to use them too, embarrass the
Democrats, or frustrated they couldn't get any hot dates in DC.
I liked that hoax very much when it came out, but so many people have
already confessed to what they actually did and why that it no longer
holds any water.
SOP for Democats. Meow for more.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
You seem to have trouble understanding what an enemy is.
Well yes when Liberals tell us the Police and Military are the real enemy
Sometimes, not always. Sometimes they just say The MAN.
The one I liked best was a show where the radical just refers to anyone
in authority as THE SUITS.
You are way behind the times. Madonna started that. If the suit fits,
wear it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
it does get confusing. I thought dope dealers and murderers were the
enemy, but Liberals don't agree with those categorical definitions.
No, they don't have enough authority to be the ENEMY.
Liberals had the authority for 8 loooooooong years.
Post by Anthony Marsh
They usually can't kill people and get away with it the way the police
and military do.
Ted Kennedy and O J Simpson.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Street punks are not usually interested in taking about people's civil rights,
just their money.
Like owning a wallet. Kind of like Congress.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Very few ghetto jails have lasted more than a week.
Did Liberal judges turn them loose on technicalities? Or maybe Liberal
juries.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
If you're going to put Hilary in jail then you have to put Colin Powell
in jail and all of Trump's people.
Yes, when any employee violates State Department rules and regulations
pertaining to National Security they should be punished. The Obama regime
She didn't. Colin Powell didn't. You are just making up crap.
Do you come from a parallel universe where right is wrong and wrong is
right?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
ignored this gross negligence so the voters exacted requite punishment
during the election. Ditsy Hillary did not get a second chance to ignore
Oh really? You mean the public voted Obama out? How did I miss that?
Napping again?
He endorsed and campaigned for Hillary to take credit for her victory and
extend his legacy, so the answer is yes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Federal Law. Even though her boss didn't care, the voters did.
Only because of Russian propaganda.
How so? What propaganda? It was straight talk by a non politician
that attracted the voters in the NYSM/NYD Campaign she ran and
ran and ran and ran away from the press.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Were the details of Chelsea's wedding plans a threat to National Security?
Only a putz would believe that story.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
What did Trump's people do?
Take money from the Russians. Collude with the Russians to try to get dirt
on their political opponent. Nothing released about Trump. Nothing
released about Bernie. Money laundering. This was the first time that the
FBI has executed a pre-dawn raid on someone's house to obtain records that
he failed to disclose about connections with Russians as head of a
political campaign. Not the same as sleeper agents, but similar.
Wow! So we really do live in Amerika. Will Putin lower tax rates like he
did in Russia or will he become a bigger thief than Demokrats and
Republicons.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
This was before the election so they were only staffers. But some still
had security clearances.
No comparison to flagrant disregard of National Security rules by an
acting Secretary of State.
Never happened.
It happened, the reason for her runaway marathon dodging the press.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
So now can you tell me what information about Hillary we didn't already
know the Russians were able to hack that affected the election? She
The Wedding Plans. You think that is Top Secret SCI?
She admitted it. Her only excuse, it was all boring wedding stuff. You
are the only person in North America who believes that excuse. The people
who voted for her didn't care. You actually believe her story. How
embarrassing.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
stopped having interviews with reporters for 9 months into the election.
Silly. Trump didn't have a press conference for a long time.
Measured in hours.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Hillary talked to the press all the time.
Yes, every 9 months she had a press conference. How many babies were born
between her last two press conferences?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The public considered that a tacit admission of guilt. Otherwise why
would she avoid face time with the media that most politicians are
addicted to?
Guilt about what? You have no crime.
Violating Federal law is a crime. If not technically as defined in
Federal Statutes then gross negligence and misconduct, and should be
forced to resign. Not a good role model at all.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why does Trump refuse to have a Press Conference? Isn't that a tacit
admission of guilt?
What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you understand what suborning perjury means? Telling his son-in-law
to lie.
Yes I do. Mark Lane perfected that concept.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 14:13:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
Hillary did not hack anything.
How can you possibly read the preceding sentence and come to the
conclusion I said Hillary was the hacker not the hackee? Are you
dyslexic?
You snip out the context to create false impressions.
I responded directly to your comment.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You have no reason to blame Hillary for anything. She did not hack
anything.
Who said she did? Did you make this up?
It's a preemptive argument to point out your hypocrisy. You attack Hillary
for doing nothing criminal and you give the Russians and Trump a pass.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
The Russians did. The Russians also hacked the Republicans,
but did not leak anything about the Republicans. Why?
Yes the Russians are equal opportunity spies who probably hack every
member of NATO.
They have to. It's in their nature. They have to spy on everyone.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
The Russians did and you give them a pass, because they did it for Trump.
That is their prerogative. It could have been the other way around since
Hillary signed off on the uranium deal.
You call crimes a prerogative?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Did Trump ask them to do that? Can Trump control what Putin or Russian
Yes, he did. He openly asked them to find her e-mails.
Don't you have a TV in your cave?
Yes but got bored with all the whining by Liberals making excuses for
losing the election. They keep on insulting the voters.
So, you watched Liberal TV? Couldn't you get Fox on your cable lineup?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
hackers do? Can Trump control what Chinese, North Korean, or American
No need to control. Just ask his buddy Putin who does control them.
Putin controls China, North Korea, and America? Then why does he need
Trump?
No. Putin also needs to control the US to break up our alliances.
The old Divide and Conquer.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
hackers do? How about Democrat, Liberal, or Sanders hackers? He can't
even control the Republican Party! Or should that be the Repugnican
Party?
I guess that's supposed to be a joke, but I don't think it conforms to any
of the standard jokes about Republicans and Democrats being the same.
Some people say that, but is obviously not true.
Didn't used to be, but Republicans rolled over and played dead for 8
years.
Trump is not a Rpublican. His goal was to destroy the Republican Party.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
What may be true is that there are extremists or corrupt people in both
parties.
No kidding. You seem to fit that category with your extreme invective on
this newsgroup.
I would hope so. To offset the extremists on the other side.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Christopher Shays made an excellent point the other day that Congress does
not reflect the American People. He notes that political opinion of
Americans is like a Bell curve with extremes tapering off on both sides,
but a broad consensus in the middle, but there is no longer any middle in
Congress, just extremes on either side.
Yes the Middle Class gets screwed by Democraps and Repubnocans.
I said nothing about the middle class.
You sound like Bannon. Are you secretly Steve Bannon?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
The Russians are the enemies who hacked the Democrats.
Proving how much Putin has changed the political philosophy of Russia.
Wasn't that long ago when Liberals were not so concerned about Communism,
even when the primary method to achieve unity was eliminate the
competition, Trotsky being a well known example.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you think it was the Democrats who broke into the Watergate?
No, it was silly plumbers looking for the master list of prostitutes
Democrats employed. Don't know if wanted to use them too, embarrass the
Democrats, or frustrated they couldn't get any hot dates in DC.
I liked that hoax very much when it came out, but so many people have
already confessed to what they actually did and why that it no longer
holds any water.
SOP for Democats. Meow for more.
You like hoaxes.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
You seem to have trouble understanding what an enemy is.
Well yes when Liberals tell us the Police and Military are the real enemy
Sometimes, not always. Sometimes they just say The MAN.
The one I liked best was a show where the radical just refers to anyone
in authority as THE SUITS.
You are way behind the times. Madonna started that. If the suit fits,
wear it.
You have no idea what my obscure references mean.
White Collar.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
it does get confusing. I thought dope dealers and murderers were the
enemy, but Liberals don't agree with those categorical definitions.
No, they don't have enough authority to be the ENEMY.
Liberals had the authority for 8 loooooooong years.
So, all you have are anti-Obama rants.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
They usually can't kill people and get away with it the way the police
and military do.
Ted Kennedy and O J Simpson.
Ted Kennedy didn't kill anybody. Stick to my point about the police and
military.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Street punks are not usually interested in taking about people's civil rights,
just their money.
Like owning a wallet. Kind of like Congress.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Very few ghetto jails have lasted more than a week.
Did Liberal judges turn them loose on technicalities? Or maybe Liberal
juries.
Black people don't have their own jails to put white people into.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
If you're going to put Hilary in jail then you have to put Colin Powell
in jail and all of Trump's people.
Yes, when any employee violates State Department rules and regulations
pertaining to National Security they should be punished. The Obama regime
She didn't. Colin Powell didn't. You are just making up crap.
Do you come from a parallel universe where right is wrong and wrong is
right?
I am pointing out your double standard.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
ignored this gross negligence so the voters exacted requite punishment
during the election. Ditsy Hillary did not get a second chance to ignore
Oh really? You mean the public voted Obama out? How did I miss that?
Napping again?
He endorsed and campaigned for Hillary to take credit for her victory and
extend his legacy, so the answer is yes.
By proxy.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Federal Law. Even though her boss didn't care, the voters did.
Only because of Russian propaganda.
How so? What propaganda? It was straight talk by a non politician
that attracted the voters in the NYSM/NYD Campaign she ran and
ran and ran and ran away from the press.
Pizzagate. Fake stories.
BTW, Trump also runs away from the press. Hillary did not do as much
running as you claim.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Were the details of Chelsea's wedding plans a threat to National Security?
Only a putz would believe that story.
That is why I asked you.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
What did Trump's people do?
Take money from the Russians. Collude with the Russians to try to get dirt
on their political opponent. Nothing released about Trump. Nothing
released about Bernie. Money laundering. This was the first time that the
FBI has executed a pre-dawn raid on someone's house to obtain records that
he failed to disclose about connections with Russians as head of a
political campaign. Not the same as sleeper agents, but similar.
Wow! So we really do live in Amerika. Will Putin lower tax rates like he
did in Russia or will he become a bigger thief than Demokrats and
Republicons.
Lower tax rates? Show me.
Putin is part of the Russian Mafia.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
This was before the election so they were only staffers. But some still
had security clearances.
No comparison to flagrant disregard of National Security rules by an
acting Secretary of State.
Never happened.
It happened, the reason for her runaway marathon dodging the press.
Yet you never criticize Trump for avoiding the press.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
So now can you tell me what information about Hillary we didn't already
know the Russians were able to hack that affected the election? She
The Wedding Plans. You think that is Top Secret SCI?
She admitted it. Her only excuse, it was all boring wedding stuff. You
She never said that. You are making up propaganda again.
Post by claviger
are the only person in North America who believes that excuse. The people
SHe didn't offer that excuse. You are peddling paranoid conspiracy
theories.
Post by claviger
who voted for her didn't care. You actually believe her story. How
embarrassing.
What story? Your straw man argument?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
stopped having interviews with reporters for 9 months into the election.
Silly. Trump didn't have a press conference for a long time.
Measured in hours.
Days. Weeks. Months.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Hillary talked to the press all the time.
Yes, every 9 months she had a press conference. How many babies were born
between her last two press conferences?
No true. All you do is make up crap.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The public considered that a tacit admission of guilt. Otherwise why
would she avoid face time with the media that most politicians are
addicted to?
Guilt about what? You have no crime.
Violating Federal law is a crime. If not technically as defined in
Federal Statutes then gross negligence and misconduct, and should be
forced to resign. Not a good role model at all.
Resign from what? What office does Hillary hold?
You have a weird imagination.
No one forced the issue when Hillary was still Secretary of State.
Neither did they say anything when many others did exactly the same thing.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why does Trump refuse to have a Press Conference? Isn't that a tacit
admission of guilt?
What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.
OK, so now you concede my point and say that Trump should be as evil as
you think Hillary is. Not a good argument.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you understand what suborning perjury means? Telling his son-in-law
to lie.
Yes I do. Mark Lane perfected that concept.
So again you concede my point. You're losing by trying to be too clever,
Pee-Wee Herman.
mainframetech
2017-08-11 13:52:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
or US Gov employees?
So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
to Wikileaks. The hacks we know of for sure was to the email of John
Podesta who was Hillary's Campaign manager. I seriously doubt that
Hillary had any of the knowledge needed to hack anything.

Chris
John McAdams
2017-08-11 13:56:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
or US Gov employees?
So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
DNC, and probably the RNC too.
The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is bogus.

It was three.

The media retracted that:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html

https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6

Seems that's like a lot of JFK factoids.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-12 00:38:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
or US Gov employees?
So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
DNC, and probably the RNC too.
The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is bogus.
No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
Post by John McAdams
It was three.
Always atttack the Media. Never admit any fact.
Post by John McAdams
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6
Seems that's like a lot of JFK factoids.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-08-12 00:43:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11 Aug 2017 20:38:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
Post by John McAdams
It was three.
Always atttack the Media. Never admit any fact.
Irony alert!

Tony whines about how I'm "attacking the media," but refuses to accept
(and probably doesn't read) the links below of both AP and the New
York Times backing away from that "13 agencies" factoid.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6
Seems that's like a lot of JFK factoids.
Tony will never admit he's wrong.

I'm still waiting for evidence that "Farewell America" was banned in
the U.S.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-13 02:55:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 11 Aug 2017 20:38:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
Post by John McAdams
It was three.
Always atttack the Media. Never admit any fact.
Irony alert!
Tony whines about how I'm "attacking the media," but refuses to accept
(and probably doesn't read) the links below of both AP and the New
York Times backing away from that "13 agencies" factoid.
I read all that crap. So now after you've been proven wrong you move the
goal posts and claim that it wasn't 17, it was only 13? The point
remains that Trump there are not even 17 intelligence agencies there are
only 3.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6
Seems that's like a lot of JFK factoids.
Tony will never admit he's wrong.
I'm still waiting for evidence that "Farewell America" was banned in
the U.S.
I gave you the quote.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-08-13 03:01:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12 Aug 2017 22:55:29 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 11 Aug 2017 20:38:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
Post by John McAdams
It was three.
Always atttack the Media. Never admit any fact.
Irony alert!
Tony whines about how I'm "attacking the media," but refuses to accept
(and probably doesn't read) the links below of both AP and the New
York Times backing away from that "13 agencies" factoid.
I read all that crap. So now after you've been proven wrong you move the
goal posts and claim that it wasn't 17, it was only 13? The point
remains that Trump there are not even 17 intelligence agencies there are
only 3.
Now you are *admitting* there were only three, and not the 17 agencies
the mainstream media agreed about Russian hacking?

Has to be a mistake on your part, since you never intentionally admit
*anything.*
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6
Seems that's like a lot of JFK factoids.
Tony will never admit he's wrong.
I'm still waiting for evidence that "Farewell America" was banned in
the U.S.
I gave you the quote.
From an Amazon discussion board!

Just admit you were blowing smoke, Tony.

You repeated a silly conspiacy factoid, and now when you are called
out don't have the decency to admit you were wrong.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 19:34:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 12 Aug 2017 22:55:29 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 11 Aug 2017 20:38:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
Post by John McAdams
It was three.
Always atttack the Media. Never admit any fact.
Irony alert!
Tony whines about how I'm "attacking the media," but refuses to accept
(and probably doesn't read) the links below of both AP and the New
York Times backing away from that "13 agencies" factoid.
I read all that crap. So now after you've been proven wrong you move the
goal posts and claim that it wasn't 17, it was only 13? The point
remains that Trump there are not even 17 intelligence agencies there are
only 3.
Now you are *admitting* there were only three, and not the 17 agencies
the mainstream media agreed about Russian hacking?
No, I am admitted that you always misrepresent what I say.
Clapper explained it.
nnn
Post by John McAdams
Has to be a mistake on your part, since you never intentionally admit
*anything.*
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6
Seems that's like a lot of JFK factoids.
Tony will never admit he's wrong.
I'm still waiting for evidence that "Farewell America" was banned in
the U.S.
I gave you the quote.
From an Amazon discussion board!
Discussion group? You're blowing smoke.
Amazon was selling the book.
Post by John McAdams
Just admit you were blowing smoke, Tony.
You repeated a silly conspiacy factoid, and now when you are called
out don't have the decency to admit you were wrong.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-08-14 19:40:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14 Aug 2017 15:34:20 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 12 Aug 2017 22:55:29 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Always atttack the Media. Never admit any fact.
Irony alert!
Tony whines about how I'm "attacking the media," but refuses to accept
(and probably doesn't read) the links below of both AP and the New
York Times backing away from that "13 agencies" factoid.
I read all that crap. So now after you've been proven wrong you move the
goal posts and claim that it wasn't 17, it was only 13? The point
remains that Trump there are not even 17 intelligence agencies there are
only 3.
Now you are *admitting* there were only three, and not the 17 agencies
the mainstream media agreed about Russian hacking?
No, I am admitted that you always misrepresent what I say.
Clapper explained it.
Yes, Clapper explained it was only three agencies.

*You* posted his testimony.

Here you are arguing with yourself, yet again.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Has to be a mistake on your part, since you never intentionally admit
*anything.*
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html
https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6
Seems that's like a lot of JFK factoids.
Tony will never admit he's wrong.
I'm still waiting for evidence that "Farewell America" was banned in
the U.S.
I gave you the quote.
From an Amazon discussion board!
Discussion group? You're blowing smoke.
Amazon was selling the book.
So point us to exactly where is was. I understood you to say a
discussion board.

The blurb here says:

https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-America-Plot-Kill-JFK/dp/1883955327/

"importation of the book through Canada was squelched, allegedly at
the instigation of the FBI."

But of course, nobody at Amazon vetted that supposed information. It's
probably just PR hype from the (questionable) publisher.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Just admit you were blowing smoke, Tony.
You repeated a silly conspiacy factoid, and now when you are called
out don't have the decency to admit you were wrong.
Tony will never admit anything.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
2017-08-13 13:37:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
or US Gov employees?
So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
DNC, and probably the RNC too.
The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is bogus.
No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
Name those 17 agencies.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 14:30:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
or US Gov employees?
So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
DNC, and probably the RNC too.
The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is bogus.
No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
Name those 17 agencies.
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper himself appeared
in front of Congress and explicitly pushed back on the idea that “17
intelligence agencies agreed,” stating flatly that it was just three.

Fact Check:

The intelligence community is comprised of 17 agencies including the
FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of Naval
Intelligence (ONI). Another of these agencies – the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) – speaks on behalf of the
intelligence community and orchestrated the January report.

“The [intelligence community assessment] was a coordinated product from
three agencies: CIA, NSA and the FBI, not all 17 components of the
intelligence community,” said former Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper during a congressional hearing in May. “Those three under
the aegis of my former office.”

A handful of experienced analysts were chosen from the three agencies to
investigate and draw independent conclusions. Each agency reached the
same verdict about Russian interference.

So while the DNI published the report as an intelligence community
assessment, Clapper clarified at the hearing that the report reflects
the views of those three agencies alone. In fact, when questioned by
Democratic Senator Al Franken, Clapper resisted the notion that all 17
agencies had reached a consensus.

Franken: The intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of
them, that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how
that’s right.

Clapper: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator
Franken, it was- there were only three agencies that directly involved
in this assessment plus my office.

Franken: But all 17 signed on to that?

Clapper: Well, we didn’t go through that process. This was a
special situation because of the time limits and […] the sensitivity of
the information, we decided – it was a conscious judgment – to restrict
it to those three. I’m not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed
when it came out.


Now, try to mimic Trump and say there are only 3 intelligence agencies.
John McAdams
2017-08-14 14:33:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14 Aug 2017 10:30:52 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
or US Gov employees?
So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
DNC, and probably the RNC too.
The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is bogus.
No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
Name those 17 agencies.
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper himself appeared
in front of Congress and explicitly pushed back on the idea that “17
intelligence agencies agreed,” stating flatly that it was just three.
The intelligence community is comprised of 17 agencies including the
FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of Naval
Intelligence (ONI). Another of these agencies – the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) – speaks on behalf of the
intelligence community and orchestrated the January report.
“The [intelligence community assessment] was a coordinated product from
three agencies: CIA, NSA and the FBI, not all 17 components of the
intelligence community,” said former Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper during a congressional hearing in May. “Those three under
the aegis of my former office.”
A handful of experienced analysts were chosen from the three agencies to
investigate and draw independent conclusions. Each agency reached the
same verdict about Russian interference.
So while the DNI published the report as an intelligence community
assessment, Clapper clarified at the hearing that the report reflects
the views of those three agencies alone. In fact, when questioned by
Democratic Senator Al Franken, Clapper resisted the notion that all 17
agencies had reached a consensus.
Franken: The intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of
them, that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how
that’s right.
Clapper: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator
Franken, it was- there were only three agencies that directly involved
in this assessment plus my office.
Franken: But all 17 signed on to that?
Clapper: Well, we didn’t go through that process. This was a
special situation because of the time limits and […] the sensitivity of
the information, we decided – it was a conscious judgment – to restrict
it to those three. I’m not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed
when it came out.
Now, try to mimic Trump and say there are only 3 intelligence agencies.
You don't even know what you posted!!

Clapper admits there were only three agencies, and the others did
*not* sign on.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-08-14 19:32:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14 Aug 2017 10:30:52 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is bogus.
No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
Name those 17 agencies.
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper himself appeared
in front of Congress and explicitly pushed back on the idea that “17
intelligence agencies agreed,” stating flatly that it was just three.
Note "pushed back."
Post by Anthony Marsh
The intelligence community is comprised of 17 agencies including the
FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of Naval
Intelligence (ONI). Another of these agencies – the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) – speaks on behalf of the
intelligence community and orchestrated the January report.
“The [intelligence community assessment] was a coordinated product from
three agencies: CIA, NSA and the FBI, not all 17 components of the
intelligence community,” said former Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper during a congressional hearing in May. “Those three under
the aegis of my former office.”
A handful of experienced analysts were chosen from the three agencies to
investigate and draw independent conclusions. Each agency reached the
same verdict about Russian interference.
So while the DNI published the report as an intelligence community
assessment, Clapper clarified at the hearing that the report reflects
the views of those three agencies alone. In fact, when questioned by
Democratic Senator Al Franken, Clapper resisted the notion that all 17
agencies had reached a consensus.
"Those three agencies alone."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Franken: The intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of
them, that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how
that’s right.
Clapper: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator
Franken, it was- there were only three agencies that directly involved
in this assessment plus my office.
Franken: But all 17 signed on to that?
Clapper: Well, we didn’t go through that process.
"We didn't go through the process!"
Post by Anthony Marsh
This was a
special situation because of the time limits and […] the sensitivity of
the information, we decided – it was a conscious judgment – to restrict
it to those three. I’m not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed
when it came out.
Now, try to mimic Trump and say there are only 3 intelligence agencies.
Only three agencies (and not 17) produced any assessment of Russian
interference in the U.S. election.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 14:33:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
or US Gov employees?
So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
DNC, and probably the RNC too.
The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is bogus.
No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
Name those 17 agencies.
Etymology

The term "Intelligence Community" was first used during Lt. Gen. Walter
Bedell Smith's tenure as Director of Central Intelligence (1950–1953).[5]
History

Intelligence is information that agencies collect, analyze, and
distribute in response to government leaders' questions and
requirements. Intelligence is a broad term that entails:

Collection, analysis, and production of sensitive information to
support national security leaders, including policymakers, military
commanders, and Members of Congress. Safeguarding these processes and
this information through counterintelligence activities. Execution of
covert operations approved by the President. The IC strives to provide
valuable insight on important issues by gathering raw intelligence,
analyzing that data in context, and producing timely and relevant
products for customers at all levels of national security—from the
war-fighter on the ground to the President in Washington.[6]

Executive Order 12333 charged the IC with six primary objectives:[7]

Collection of information needed by the President, the National
Security Council, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and
other executive branch officials for the performance of their duties and
responsibilities;
Production and dissemination of intelligence;
Collection of information concerning, and the conduct of activities
to protect against, intelligence activities directed against the U.S.,
international terrorist and/or narcotics activities, and other hostile
activities directed against the U.S. by foreign powers, organizations,
persons and their agents;
Special activities (defined as activities conducted in support of
U.S. foreign policy objectives abroad which are planned and executed so
that the "role of the United States Government is not apparent or
acknowledged publicly", and functions in support of such activities, but
which are not intended to influence United States political processes,
public opinion, policies, or media and do not include diplomatic
activities or the collection and production of intelligence or related
support functions);
Administrative and support activities within the United States and
abroad necessary for the performance of authorized activities and
Such other intelligence activities as the President may direct from
time to time.

Organization
Members

The IC is headed by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), whose
statutory leadership is exercised through the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence (ODNI). The 16 members of the IC are:[8]
The official seals of U.S. Intelligence Community members.
Agency Parent Agency Federal Department Date est.
Twenty-Fifth Air Force United States Air Force Defense 1948
Intelligence and Security Command United States Army Defense 1977
Central Intelligence Agency none Independent agency 1947
Coast Guard Intelligence United States Coast Guard Homeland Security 1915
Defense Intelligence Agency none Defense 1961
Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence none Energy 1977
Office of Intelligence and Analysis none Homeland Security 2007
Bureau of Intelligence and Research none State 1945
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence none Treasury 2004
Office of National Security Intelligence Drug Enforcement
Administration Justice 2006
Intelligence Branch Federal Bureau of Investigation Justice 2005
Marine Corps Intelligence Activity United States Marine Corps Defense
1978
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency none Defense 1996
National Reconnaissance Office none Defense 1961
National Security Agency/Central Security Service none Defense 1952
Office of Naval Intelligence United States Navy Defense 1882
John McAdams
2017-08-14 14:34:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14 Aug 2017 10:33:35 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
or US Gov employees?
So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
DNC, and probably the RNC too.
The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is bogus.
No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
Name those 17 agencies.
Etymology
The term "Intelligence Community" was first used during Lt. Gen. Walter
Bedell Smith's tenure as Director of Central Intelligence (1950–1953).[5]
History
Intelligence is information that agencies collect, analyze, and
distribute in response to government leaders' questions and
Collection, analysis, and production of sensitive information to
support national security leaders, including policymakers, military
commanders, and Members of Congress. Safeguarding these processes and
this information through counterintelligence activities. Execution of
covert operations approved by the President. The IC strives to provide
valuable insight on important issues by gathering raw intelligence,
analyzing that data in context, and producing timely and relevant
products for customers at all levels of national security—from the
war-fighter on the ground to the President in Washington.[6]
Executive Order 12333 charged the IC with six primary objectives:[7]
Collection of information needed by the President, the National
Security Council, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and
other executive branch officials for the performance of their duties and
responsibilities;
Production and dissemination of intelligence;
Collection of information concerning, and the conduct of activities
to protect against, intelligence activities directed against the U.S.,
international terrorist and/or narcotics activities, and other hostile
activities directed against the U.S. by foreign powers, organizations,
persons and their agents;
Special activities (defined as activities conducted in support of
U.S. foreign policy objectives abroad which are planned and executed so
that the "role of the United States Government is not apparent or
acknowledged publicly", and functions in support of such activities, but
which are not intended to influence United States political processes,
public opinion, policies, or media and do not include diplomatic
activities or the collection and production of intelligence or related
support functions);
Administrative and support activities within the United States and
abroad necessary for the performance of authorized activities and
Such other intelligence activities as the President may direct from
time to time.
Organization
Members
The IC is headed by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), whose
statutory leadership is exercised through the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence (ODNI). The 16 members of the IC are:[8]
The official seals of U.S. Intelligence Community members.
Agency Parent Agency Federal Department Date est.
Twenty-Fifth Air Force United States Air Force Defense 1948
Intelligence and Security Command United States Army Defense 1977
Central Intelligence Agency none Independent agency 1947
Coast Guard Intelligence United States Coast Guard Homeland Security 1915
Defense Intelligence Agency none Defense 1961
Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence none Energy 1977
Office of Intelligence and Analysis none Homeland Security 2007
Bureau of Intelligence and Research none State 1945
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence none Treasury 2004
Office of National Security Intelligence Drug Enforcement
Administration Justice 2006
Intelligence Branch Federal Bureau of Investigation Justice 2005
Marine Corps Intelligence Activity United States Marine Corps Defense
1978
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency none Defense 1996
National Reconnaissance Office none Defense 1961
National Security Agency/Central Security Service none Defense 1952
Office of Naval Intelligence United States Navy Defense 1882
You just posted a message with Clapper saying all those agencies did
*not* sign on to the assessment.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 23:30:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 14 Aug 2017 10:33:35 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
or US Gov employees?
So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
DNC, and probably the RNC too.
The "17 intelligence agencies" claim is bogus.
No. Trump said he checked into it and there are not even 17 intelligence
agencies in the US. Trump claims there are only 3 intelligence agencies
in the US. That is because he has no intelligence. Anyone who ever
believes anything that Ttump says had no intelligence.
Name those 17 agencies.
Etymology
The term "Intelligence Community" was first used during Lt. Gen. Walter
Bedell Smith's tenure as Director of Central Intelligence (1950–1953).[5]
History
Intelligence is information that agencies collect, analyze, and
distribute in response to government leaders' questions and
Collection, analysis, and production of sensitive information to
support national security leaders, including policymakers, military
commanders, and Members of Congress. Safeguarding these processes and
this information through counterintelligence activities. Execution of
covert operations approved by the President. The IC strives to provide
valuable insight on important issues by gathering raw intelligence,
analyzing that data in context, and producing timely and relevant
products for customers at all levels of national security—from the
war-fighter on the ground to the President in Washington.[6]
Executive Order 12333 charged the IC with six primary objectives:[7]
Collection of information needed by the President, the National
Security Council, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and
other executive branch officials for the performance of their duties and
responsibilities;
Production and dissemination of intelligence;
Collection of information concerning, and the conduct of activities
to protect against, intelligence activities directed against the U.S.,
international terrorist and/or narcotics activities, and other hostile
activities directed against the U.S. by foreign powers, organizations,
persons and their agents;
Special activities (defined as activities conducted in support of
U.S. foreign policy objectives abroad which are planned and executed so
that the "role of the United States Government is not apparent or
acknowledged publicly", and functions in support of such activities, but
which are not intended to influence United States political processes,
public opinion, policies, or media and do not include diplomatic
activities or the collection and production of intelligence or related
support functions);
Administrative and support activities within the United States and
abroad necessary for the performance of authorized activities and
Such other intelligence activities as the President may direct from
time to time.
Organization
Members
The IC is headed by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), whose
statutory leadership is exercised through the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence (ODNI). The 16 members of the IC are:[8]
The official seals of U.S. Intelligence Community members.
Agency Parent Agency Federal Department Date est.
Twenty-Fifth Air Force United States Air Force Defense 1948
Intelligence and Security Command United States Army Defense 1977
Central Intelligence Agency none Independent agency 1947
Coast Guard Intelligence United States Coast Guard Homeland Security 1915
Defense Intelligence Agency none Defense 1961
Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence none Energy 1977
Office of Intelligence and Analysis none Homeland Security 2007
Bureau of Intelligence and Research none State 1945
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence none Treasury 2004
Office of National Security Intelligence Drug Enforcement
Administration Justice 2006
Intelligence Branch Federal Bureau of Investigation Justice 2005
Marine Corps Intelligence Activity United States Marine Corps Defense
1978
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency none Defense 1996
National Reconnaissance Office none Defense 1961
National Security Agency/Central Security Service none Defense 1952
Office of Naval Intelligence United States Navy Defense 1882
You just posted a message with Clapper saying all those agencies did
*not* sign on to the assessment.
Sign? They AGREED.
You can't admit any fact, can you?
You delete my messages and call me a liar in violation of the rules,
then post the same thing that I was trying to post.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-08-14 23:34:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14 Aug 2017 19:30:00 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 14 Aug 2017 10:33:35 -0400, Anthony Marsh
You just posted a message with Clapper saying all those agencies did
*not* sign on to the assessment.
Sign? They AGREED.
You can't admit any fact, can you?
You delete my messages and call me a liar in violation of the rules,
then post the same thing that I was trying to post.
They were not asked. You don't read what you post.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Franken: The intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of
them, that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how
that’s right.
Clapper: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator
Franken, it was- there were only three agencies that directly involved
in this assessment plus my office.
Franken: But all 17 signed on to that?
Clapper: Well, we didn’t go through that process. This was a
special situation because of the time limits and […] the sensitivity of
the information, we decided – it was a conscious judgment – to restrict
it to those three. I’m not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed
when it came out.
Note: "didn't go through that process."

The process was "restricted to those three."

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

bigdog
2017-08-12 00:31:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
or US Gov employees?
So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
to Wikileaks. The hacks we know of for sure was to the email of John
Podesta who was Hillary's Campaign manager. I seriously doubt that
Hillary had any of the knowledge needed to hack anything.
Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
you like.

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

The most telling line in the whole article is this one:

"We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
long records of deception."

Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-13 03:14:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
or US Gov employees?
So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
to Wikileaks. The hacks we know of for sure was to the email of John
Podesta who was Hillary's Campaign manager. I seriously doubt that
Hillary had any of the knowledge needed to hack anything.
Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
you like.
Nonsense. Why don't you just go ahead and cite Brietbart? Any rightwing
nut will do.
Post by bigdog
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
"We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
long records of deception."
Nothing new about that.
Post by bigdog
Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
More Bannon paranoia.
John McAdams
2017-08-13 03:20:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12 Aug 2017 23:14:36 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
or US Gov employees?
So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
to Wikileaks. The hacks we know of for sure was to the email of John
Podesta who was Hillary's Campaign manager. I seriously doubt that
Hillary had any of the knowledge needed to hack anything.
Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
you like.
Nonsense. Why don't you just go ahead and cite Brietbart? Any rightwing
nut will do.
You have no *idea* how silly you look calling THE NATION "right wing."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
"We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
long records of deception."
Nothing new about that.
So you agree.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
More Bannon paranoia.
So you agree, and then turn around and call the whole idea "Bannon
paranoia."

You are arguing with yourself ALL IN ONE POST!

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 19:33:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 12 Aug 2017 23:14:36 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
or US Gov employees?
So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
to Wikileaks. The hacks we know of for sure was to the email of John
Podesta who was Hillary's Campaign manager. I seriously doubt that
Hillary had any of the knowledge needed to hack anything.
Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
you like.
Nonsense. Why don't you just go ahead and cite Brietbart? Any rightwing
nut will do.
You have no *idea* how silly you look calling THE NATION "right wing."
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
"We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
long records of deception."
Nothing new about that.
So you agree.
No, not with what you say.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
More Bannon paranoia.
So you agree, and then turn around and call the whole idea "Bannon
paranoia."
I did not agree. I have never said Deep State. That is Breitbart paranoia.
Post by John McAdams
You are arguing with yourself ALL IN ONE POST!
You are misrepresenting me as usual.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2017-08-13 03:42:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
or US Gov employees?
So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
to Wikileaks. The hacks we know of for sure was to the email of John
Podesta who was Hillary's Campaign manager. I seriously doubt that
Hillary had any of the knowledge needed to hack anything.
Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
you like.
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
"We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
long records of deception."
Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
Oh Lordee! Yet another buzz/code word of the Republicans..."deep
state."

So on the one hand we have 3 intelligence agencies saying that they've
done their homework and found that the Russians hacked the DNC and RNC,
and put the bulk of Podesta's emails into Wikileaks for distribution,
which was agreed to by the other intel agencies, and on the other hand we
have the one article saying it was the democrats that did it. Who to
believe? :)

Check with Politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/

Chris
John McAdams
2017-08-13 03:50:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
you like.
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
"We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
long records of deception."
Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
Oh Lordee! Yet another buzz/code word of the Republicans..."deep
state."
You don't seem to understand that "Deep State" has mostly been used by
leftists, and blamed for the murder of JFK.
Post by mainframetech
So on the one hand we have 3 intelligence agencies saying that they've
done their homework and found that the Russians hacked the DNC and RNC,
and put the bulk of Podesta's emails into Wikileaks for distribution,
which was agreed to by the other intel agencies, and on the other hand we
have the one article saying it was the democrats that did it. Who to
believe? :)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
I'm afraid Politifact is biased. Note how they try to spin the "17
agencies" as correct.

And they have not seen the NATION article.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2017-08-14 02:25:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
you like.
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
"We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
long records of deception."
Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
Oh Lordee! Yet another buzz/code word of the Republicans..."deep
state."
You don't seem to understand that "Deep State" has mostly been used by
leftists, and blamed for the murder of JFK.
I hear it used all the time on FOX, but rarely on the other stations.
So no matter who coined it, FOX loves to use it.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
So on the one hand we have 3 intelligence agencies saying that they've
done their homework and found that the Russians hacked the DNC and RNC,
and put the bulk of Podesta's emails into Wikileaks for distribution,
which was agreed to by the other intel agencies, and on the other hand we
have the one article saying it was the democrats that did it. Who to
believe? :)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
I'm afraid Politifact is biased. Note how they try to spin the "17
agencies" as correct.
So you've used your opinion of Politifact to fend off the comment. I
see.
Post by John McAdams
And they have not seen the NATION article.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-08-14 02:28:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
So on the one hand we have 3 intelligence agencies saying that they've
done their homework and found that the Russians hacked the DNC and RNC,
and put the bulk of Podesta's emails into Wikileaks for distribution,
which was agreed to by the other intel agencies, and on the other hand we
have the one article saying it was the democrats that did it. Who to
believe? :)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
I'm afraid Politifact is biased. Note how they try to spin the "17
agencies" as correct.
So you've used your opinion of Politifact to fend off the comment. I
see.
You've used your opinion of PolitiFact as authoritative to make a
point.

Note that the NEW YORK TIMES and the ASSOCIATED PRESS admit it was
only 3 agencies, but PolitiFact won't admit that.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 19:42:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
So on the one hand we have 3 intelligence agencies saying that they've
done their homework and found that the Russians hacked the DNC and RNC,
and put the bulk of Podesta's emails into Wikileaks for distribution,
which was agreed to by the other intel agencies, and on the other hand we
have the one article saying it was the democrats that did it. Who to
believe? :)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
I'm afraid Politifact is biased. Note how they try to spin the "17
agencies" as correct.
So you've used your opinion of Politifact to fend off the comment. I
see.
You've used your opinion of PolitiFact as authoritative to make a
point.
Note that the NEW YORK TIMES and the ASSOCIATED PRESS admit it was
only 3 agencies, but PolitiFact won't admit that.
Not exactly. Read more and propagandize less.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-08-14 19:45:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14 Aug 2017 15:42:59 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
I'm afraid Politifact is biased. Note how they try to spin the "17
agencies" as correct.
So you've used your opinion of Politifact to fend off the comment. I
see.
You've used your opinion of PolitiFact as authoritative to make a
point.
Note that the NEW YORK TIMES and the ASSOCIATED PRESS admit it was
only 3 agencies, but PolitiFact won't admit that.
Not exactly. Read more and propagandize less.
Yes, exactly. They admitted it was actually three agencies.

And so did Clapper IN TESTIMONY YOU POSTED.

So here you are arguing with yourself again.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2017-08-14 20:31:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
So on the one hand we have 3 intelligence agencies saying that they've
done their homework and found that the Russians hacked the DNC and RNC,
and put the bulk of Podesta's emails into Wikileaks for distribution,
which was agreed to by the other intel agencies, and on the other hand we
have the one article saying it was the democrats that did it. Who to
believe? :)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
I'm afraid Politifact is biased. Note how they try to spin the "17
agencies" as correct.
So you've used your opinion of Politifact to fend off the comment. I
see.
You've used your opinion of PolitiFact as authoritative to make a
point.
Note that the NEW YORK TIMES and the ASSOCIATED PRESS admit it was
only 3 agencies, but PolitiFact won't admit that.
My understanding from the news is that the 2 agencies did the work and
the other agencies looked at their work and decided to go along with it.
I can understand the opinion you have of Politifact, since a study came
out with the fact that their work has shown that Republicans lie 3 times
more often than the Democrats.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/study-politifact-says-republicans-lie-three-times-more-often-than-dems

Chris
John McAdams
2017-08-14 20:38:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
So you've used your opinion of Politifact to fend off the comment. I
see.
You've used your opinion of PolitiFact as authoritative to make a
point.
Note that the NEW YORK TIMES and the ASSOCIATED PRESS admit it was
only 3 agencies, but PolitiFact won't admit that.
My understanding from the news is that the 2 agencies did the work and
the other agencies looked at their work and decided to go along with it.
No, the "finding" was promulgated without any input from the other
agencies.
Post by mainframetech
Franken: The intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of
them, that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how
that’s right.
Clapper: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator
Franken, it was- there were only three agencies that directly involved
in this assessment plus my office.
Franken: But all 17 signed on to that?
Clapper: Well, we didn’t go through that process. This was a
special situation because of the time limits and […] the sensitivity of
the information, we decided – it was a conscious judgment – to restrict
it to those three. I’m not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed
when it came out.
Note: "didn't go through that process."
Post by mainframetech
I can understand the opinion you have of Politifact, since a study came
out with the fact that their work has shown that Republicans lie 3 times
more often than the Democrats.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/study-politifact-says-republicans-lie-three-times-more-often-than-dems
Their *claims* are to that effect. But (1.) some of their judgments
are horribly tendentious. Note they have refused to back off of the
"17 agencies" business, and (2.) there are lots of lies from both
Democrats and Republicans, and they have *chosen* to focus on supposed
lies of Republicans.

It's run by liberal journalists. Were you not aware of that?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 19:46:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
you like.
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
"We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
long records of deception."
Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
Oh Lordee! Yet another buzz/code word of the Republicans..."deep
state."
You don't seem to understand that "Deep State" has mostly been used by
leftists, and blamed for the murder of JFK.
I hear it used all the time on FOX, but rarely on the other stations.
So no matter who coined it, FOX loves to use it.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
So on the one hand we have 3 intelligence agencies saying that they've
done their homework and found that the Russians hacked the DNC and RNC,
and put the bulk of Podesta's emails into Wikileaks for distribution,
which was agreed to by the other intel agencies, and on the other hand we
have the one article saying it was the democrats that did it. Who to
believe? :)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
I'm afraid Politifact is biased. Note how they try to spin the "17
agencies" as correct.
So you've used your opinion of Politifact to fend off the comment. I
see.
He usually cites Brietbart.
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
And they have not seen the NATION article.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-08-14 16:53:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
you like.
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
"We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
long records of deception."
Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
Oh Lordee! Yet another buzz/code word of the Republicans..."deep
state."
You don't seem to understand that "Deep State" has mostly been used by
leftists, and blamed for the murder of JFK.
Not exactly. Are you thinking of Deep Politics?
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
So on the one hand we have 3 intelligence agencies saying that they've
done their homework and found that the Russians hacked the DNC and RNC,
and put the bulk of Podesta's emails into Wikileaks for distribution,
which was agreed to by the other intel agencies, and on the other hand we
have the one article saying it was the democrats that did it. Who to
believe? :)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
I'm afraid Politifact is biased. Note how they try to spin the "17
agencies" as correct.
I just posted Clapper's comments.
Funny that you say that Politifact is biased. You mean anti-Trump?
Post by John McAdams
And they have not seen the NATION article.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2017-08-14 16:54:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14 Aug 2017 12:53:02 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
you like.
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
"We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
long records of deception."
Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
Oh Lordee! Yet another buzz/code word of the Republicans..."deep
state."
You don't seem to understand that "Deep State" has mostly been used by
leftists, and blamed for the murder of JFK.
Not exactly. Are you thinking of Deep Politics?
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
So on the one hand we have 3 intelligence agencies saying that they've
done their homework and found that the Russians hacked the DNC and RNC,
and put the bulk of Podesta's emails into Wikileaks for distribution,
which was agreed to by the other intel agencies, and on the other hand we
have the one article saying it was the democrats that did it. Who to
believe? :)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
I'm afraid Politifact is biased. Note how they try to spin the "17
agencies" as correct.
I just posted Clapper's comments.
And Clapper said it was only three agencies.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Funny that you say that Politifact is biased. You mean anti-Trump?
Yes. Anti-Republican. Anti-conservative.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
2017-08-14 02:14:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
So hacking has been around for a long time, the reason why Hillary's
attempt to play dumb was not believable to the voters. Or maybe they did
believe she was a complete airhead and didn't want her anywhere near the
White House. Was Hillary hacked or any of her staff? Any connection to
the Russians? Was Trump hacked or any of his staff? Was it the Russians
or US Gov employees?
So you also have become a Trump? He doesn't want to believe that the
17 intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia did the hacking of the
DNC, and probably the RNC too. and then gave much of the email info over
to Wikileaks. The hacks we know of for sure was to the email of John
Podesta who was Hillary's Campaign manager. I seriously doubt that
Hillary had any of the knowledge needed to hack anything.
Your timing is really, really bad. Just two days ago The Nation magazine
wrote a report indicating the leaking of DNC emails was likely an inside
job, not the result of Russian hacking. You can read the whole article if
you like.
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
"We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with
long records of deception."
Sounds like they are referring to the deep state.
Oh Lordee! Yet another buzz/code word of the Republicans..."deep
state."
So on the one hand we have 3 intelligence agencies saying that they've
done their homework and found that the Russians hacked the DNC and RNC,
and put the bulk of Podesta's emails into Wikileaks for distribution,
which was agreed to by the other intel agencies, and on the other hand we
have the one article saying it was the democrats that did it. Who to
believe? :)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
Had you taken the time to actually read the article you would see that
even the three intelligence agencies no being cited as having determined
the Russians hacked the DNC computers were actually just people within
those agencies leaking information which had not been vetted by an agency
wide review. Note the last two sentences in the passage below:

"The Intelligence Community Assessment, the supposedly definitive report
featuring the “high confidence” dodge, was greeted as
farcically flimsy when issued January 6. Ray McGovern calls it a disgrace
to the intelligence profession. It is spotlessly free of evidence, front
to back, pertaining to any events in which Russia is implicated. James
Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, admitted in May
that “hand-picked” analysts from three agencies (not the
17 previously reported) drafted the ICA. There is a way to understand
“hand-picked” that is less obvious than meets the eye: The
report was sequestered from rigorous agency-wide reviews. This is the way
these people have spoken to us for the past year."

It is hardly just one article that is reporting this. This news has been
out there for about a month now but has been dismissed by left wing news
organizations as fake news from the right. The significance of this
article is that it i