Arty Farcer, Intelligence - SPACE ALIENS HIDE M DRUGS!!!
_________________________________________________________
Professer Stephen Grossman, chief cognitator at Boston University's
Department of Cognitive and Neural Systems, has created Thing1 and
Thing2--robots which can adapt to their environment by mastering
approach and avoidance behavior.
He states, "The networks we're building here learn from examples and
exhibit some capability for generalization beyond the training data
we've put into them."
Brian Fitzgerald, in the Summer 1998 issue of Bostonia, points out that
the "neural networks enable the robots to teach themselves...predict
impending impacts, and use the same patterns to suppress movements that
would cause collisions."
It seems to me that the same technology could be used to instigate
movements that would *cause* collisions...
Let's say, for instance, that AMadScientistFromEstevanNamedEarlier
had developed a program which could use data from the power usage of
oil-well pumping stations to predict approaching mechanical failure,
and enable the owners to schedule maintenance, thus saving the major
cost of down-time and mechanical failures which were costly due to
breakdown affecting more than the original faulty part.
Let's also say that a Fucking Idiot who swatted a fly on top of his
exposed hard drive, with a newspaper, fucking it up, mechanically, also
discovered that he could 'fix' the internal arms of the hard drive by
writing a program that made the skinny little internal arms of the
drive work their way, over and over again, toward the faulty area, from
alternating sides of the bad spot.
Let's further speculate that the Fucking Idiot speculated that any
computer part that could be mechanically 'fixed' by a repetitive program
could also be mechanically 'fucked' by a repetitive program, and that
the SickFuck had friends who knew everything there is to know about
the internal workings of computer hardware peripherals, mean-time between
failures, and all manner of little-known facts about good and bad design
techniques in a wide range of computer hardware fields.
Lastly, let's speculate that some very BadMenAndWomen with BigGuns
had stolen the SickFucker's computer, and his nephew's computer, and
that he had access to the ThievingPricks' computer systems.
Thus, if it came to pass that the SickFuck could supply his friends
with the details of the computer hardware and peripherals used by the
BadMenAndWomenWithBigGuns, then his friends could write programs which
would put extra strain on the known weak points of the system, drastically
lowering the mean-time between failures.
If the SickFuck had already tested his friend's programs on $ 50.00
used computers he had purchased in Regina, Saskatchewan, then they would
have already been able to tweak the programs into little SickFuck Digital
Roe&WadeBots which would be able to perform mechanical abortions at any
stage of DigitalLabor, thus being able to control the failure rate in
imperceptible increments over a wide range of systems, so that, over the
course of a year, it would cost the BadMenAndWomenWithBigGuns millions of
dollars by the time they figured out that the SickFuck had his Richard
shoved up their asshole.
If the SickFuck's friends in LostAlamo were BrilliantSickFucks, they
might even take it upon themselves to develop a program capable of keeping
track of how the maintainers of various computer systems would deal with
different problems (e.g. 'fixing' vs. 'replacing') and create their little
BrilliantSickFuckPrograms to learn how to force the computer maintainers
to 'replace' the hardware shortly after they had spent their time and
resources 'fixing' the hardware.
Lastly, if the BrilliantSickFucks were very grateful to the SickFuck
for providing them with information which would enable them to write
what one would think would be incredibly complex programs in the space
of a few short hours, the BrillianSickFucks might provide the SickFuck
with simple device-drivers which could use such unlikely hardware as
printers and programmable keyboards to automatically renew backdoors
into compromised systems in the event the backdoor was found and removed.
[Debitor's Note: T. Arthur, after working with the first version of M$
Word which made use of macro's, realized the potential for using them
for distributing Ribbed Trojan Horses, and Digital Simplex Viruses.
T. Arthur, being a nice fellow, took the time and trouble to phone
M$ Support, wait on the line for 342 hours, and inform them that there
was a possible problem with their program being able to transmit RTH's
and DSV's.
The M$ UnSupportive RepresentativeOfTheM$AttitudeAtTheTime, was gracious
enough to take time out of his busy schedule to launch into a long and
acidic beration of T. Arthur as a neophyte computer idiot who was unaware
that everyone in the industry *knew* that "you can't get a virus from
opening a text file."
When T. Arthur related this incident to a group of LostBoys&Girls who
were solving all of the problems of the computer industry, for all of
eternity, using pitchers of Margueritas at the Holiday Inn Bar in
Albuquerque to keep their GreyMatterCPU's from overheating, more than
one of those gathered pointed out that T. Arthur's brain was running
on 12-Volts/DC, because most of them had figured out the potential for
the 'Macro Virus' (to be 'discovered' years later), "before the program's
shrink-wrap had hit the floor."]
Doc Watson, on a grand summer day in Austin, Texas, walked into the
Armadillo Beer Garden while I was playing a song he wrote, 'Tennessee
Stud,' which has a classic guitar riff, which everyone imitates.
Doc complimented me on my rendition of his tune, noting that he was
impressed with my unique 'interpretation' of his famous riff, and that
he found it refreshing to hear someone doing something other than the
standard autobot version.
Being the TruthMonger, I was forced to admit to him that I had first
tried to 'rip off' his licks from the album, but, being a really crappy
guitar player, I was forced to improvise.
It's the story of my life...
Although it is True (TM) that I am TheWorld'sForemostComputerExpert,
I am pretty much only 'expert' in very bizarre areas of computer hardware
and software technology. (In the 'regular' areas of technology, I am only
'expert' in the sense of availing myself of tools, such as those that are
produced by Peter Norton, that allow one to fix the most complicated of
computer problems by following the instructions on the screen, and hitting
the <Return> button.)
I had the good fortune to learn about computers from a gentleman who
helped design the Adam motherboards, and to learn about how computers
and softwear 'think' by working with retarded and otherwise disabled
children for many years.
Thus I realize the flaw in the widespread notion that certain computers
or programs are 'intuitive.' No...they are fucking retarded, OK?
Aside from neural networks, and other forms of artificial intelligence,
computers and programs are only 'intuitive' in a situational-specific
way. A database program designed to help you balance your books is quite
simply programmed to anticipate such things as your desire to use integers
and decimals, etc. It is not 'intuitive' if you try to use it to program
your breakfast schedule. Neither is a database program designed to help
you program your breakfast schedule likely to be 'intuitive' as to whether
you might want to eat 1.3 eggs, as opposed to offering you a window which
allows you to choose between poached, fried or scrambled.
To confuse the issue of what I am getting at, here, I would like to
point out that, although I am 'learned' in the C-Programming Language,
having studied it in various systems of higher education, I can't write
a single fucking line of code...
Offer me a million dollars to properly write and compile the standard
'hello.c' program, and a week of work will result in my coming up, best
case scenario, a program which echo's, "Nice try, ShitForBrains."
et, give me a backup tape-drive which is 'Supported' by SCO Unix,
but which doesn't actually work, for myself or for anyone else on the
face of the earth, and I can go through a thousand lines of source code
to find and fix the problem (three years ahead of the SCO engineers who
are 'talking to' Colorado Systems engineers, who will 'fix' the problem
exactly one week before the model becomes obsolete).
Another example which doesn't really connect to any of the other things
I am talking about here (unless you already know what I am talking about,
which *I* don't), is the fact that I found a lot of the early password
programs to be easily breakable merely by noting how long it took the
program to return results after checking various values input.
Similarly, I couldn't help but notice that accessing certain 'hacking'
websites on the InterNet results in a 'loading-time' which is way out of
sync with the amount of data, etc., being transferred. (Or that some of
these websites seem to result in a lot of hard drive activity which can
only be noticed by paying attention to the 'sound' of the hard drive,
since the hard drive light doesn't seem to go on, at all. Hhmmm...)
My point?
Read the original Sun Operating System Manuals...the Writing Device
Drivers manuals, in particular.
ou will be left with the distinct impression that AbsoluteSecurity (TM)
is impossible! et, if you peruse later versions of the manuals, right up
to the current versions, you might notice that they no longer leave the
reader with the impression that AbsoluteSecurity (TM) is VaporWare.
What has changed? Nothing...
While resurrecting my Opus SparCardII after years of disuse, I found
that the little-bitty BatteryGremlins that reside within the CPU chips
had passed away from old-age.
Thus I had to become an EEPROM expert over the next few days, in order
to learn how to tell it to do things like remember its own name, etc.
("What's your name, Bob? Starts with a 'B' and ends with a 'B'...you've
got five seconds, Bob.")
I'm dense/stupid/ignorant/clueless, added to which, I am usually loaded
while working on my computers late at night.
Thus, I make a lot of mistakes. And I find out some of the most amazing
fucking things!
(e.g. In the DOS 3.3 days, before most of you were born, my Drunken
Fingers (TM) discovered that 'dir *.' would list directories and files
without an extension, although this didn't seem to be documented
anywhere. I was pretty impressed with myself until I discovered that
if my Drunken Fingers accidentally added a certain other keystroke to
this combination, then something happened which did irreplaceable
damage to a certain version of BIOS. I was once again impressed with
myself upon finding that, although most programs would no longer run
on the computer, database programs 'smoked' at about ten times the
speed they usually ran. Why? Don't know...don't care.)
What I'm really-really getting at, here, is this:
Except e become as a little, drunken child...
The reason that it is the teens and pre-teens that are hacking into
'secure' government and corporate computers is that they can't afford
to take the $ 5,000.00 computer classes/seminars that 'teach' them what
can, and cannot, be done.
The reason I can roam at will through Canadian Government 'secure'
computer systems is that I am a sorry, fucking asshole, whose Drunken
Fingers know more about computers than my Drunken Mind ever will.
The reason that Echelon can monitor and analyze all of the electronic
communications on the face of the earth, is that they know that the
nature of BIOS, EEPROM, Device-Drivers, etc., is such that, given even
the slightest amount of influence over standards and procedures in the
design and implementation of these things, they will contain series
of MasterKeys which can open a variety of BackDoors, no matter how
complex and well-designed the features of hardware and software that
overlay the basic computer technology and processes.
The reason that I can use RCMP printers to do my bidding on thier
computer systems is that I don't make them do things that they are
not supposed to do, thereby creating SoreThumbs that stick out where
they shouldn't and exhibit signs of dysfunctional pain and suffering
when new programs or updates are added to the mix, but rather, I ask
them to do things that they are *supposed* to do, but haven't been
asked in the manner which I ask them, because those who designed them
only wanted them to do silly, useless tasks, like print words on a sheet
of paper.
Read This Again:
Professer Stephen Grossman, chief cognitator at Boston University's
Department of Cognitive and Neural Systems, has created Thing1 and
Thing2--robots which can adapt to their environment by mastering
approach and avoidance behavior.
He states, "The networks we're building here learn from examples and
exhibit some capability for generalization beyond the training data
we've put into them."
Brian Fitzgerald, in the Summer 1998 issue of Bostonia, points out that
the "neural networks enable the robots to teach themselves...predict
impending impacts, and use the same patterns to suppress movements that
would cause collisions."
Now Think About This:
If I can find ways to make/enable computer hardware and software
perform a wide variety of tasks that was not envisioned by those who
designed them, honestly being merely a semi-computer-literate dweeb
without the sense Dog gave a Goose, then what is to prevent people
who are learned and competent in computer technology and processes
from adapting the capability and functions of computer technology
and processes to ends which go far beyond the simplistic techniques
which they have been programmed/trained to apply to the tasks they
undertake?
More importantly, if, with my own limited knowledge and computer
literacy/competency, I can find ways to route around the damage caused
by the secrecy/censorship of information that others are using to cause
me problems in my life, then what are the possibilities for those who
are involved in the design and implementation of computer technologies
and processes, to design and develop hardware and software that can
be modified/circumvented/paralyzed/compromised if their use becomes
usurped by the Controllers in order to provide Power&Control to an
Elite Segment of Society?
There is currently a thread on the CypherPunks Mailing List which is
discussing the Perjury of RecognizedAuthority being treated differently
than that of Jane and Joe Citizen.
Perusing Perry Mezger's post, I was impressed with the thoughtfulness
and insight that he displayed on the issue, and the quality of questions
he raised in regard to ethics and public attitudes in this area.
Nonetheless, if you ask Tim C. May to check the archives, I think he
will find that I previously dealt with this issue in a simple and a
succinct manner.
I stated, quite simply, that what I found most disturbing was not that
our elected political representatives and a wide variety of government
employees, public, private and corporate figures were in the habit of
lying, but that they no longer even bothered to tell GoodLies (TM).
The bottom line is that it doesn't matter whether you've wrecked daddy's
car, or you are cheating on your spouse, the cost of telling the Truth
grows faster than the interest you owe on a loan from a guy named 'Big
Al.'
The longer that the citizenry avoids confronting THE LIE, in order to
prevent rocking the boat, since "Things aren't really that bad." (ET!),
then the larger the weight of the BadLies will become, and the more they
will become an 'accepted' part of our everyday reality.
The longer that those involved in computer design and implementation
deliver products which reflect only what they are asked to produce to
meet certain, narrow goals, then the greater will become the end-user's
reliance on, and vulnerability to, those who have the money and the
power to set standards and influence the directions and goals of future
computer use.
In effect, what I am saying, is that if those involved in the design
and the implementation of computer hardware and software technology,
standards and processes are not able to "learn from examples and exhibit
some capability for generalization beyond the training data...put into
them," as well as to "predict impending impacts, and use the same
patterns to suppress movements that would cause collisions," then
they might as well pledge allegience to Thing1 and Thing2, because
they will do whatever the GreatBeast programs them to do, and it will
be little comfort to those crushed underfoot to know that those who
fed the GreatBeast at the expense of WeThePeople were "just following
orders."
"They wanted to come for the Jews, and I wasn't a Jew, so I wrote the
program..."
Surprisingly, most of the people I know who are most concerned about
designing hardware and software that resembles a two-sided coin which
can be turned against its Masters, if they become rabid and frothing at
the mouth, work for high-security government and corporate agencies
who go to great lengths to implement 'access enhancement features' in
their products.
The common consensus among them seems to be that the average designer
and programmer can implement sane and effective 'enhancements' to their
products with very little effort, simply by being consious of the myriad
of opportunities, that are constantly present, to 'add' certain features
which lend themselves to include user-friendly control of the product.
As well, they recognize that those who actually *do* the programming
are often much more aware of what design features they can include that
will allow other programmers to produce add-ons or tie-ins which will
allow the end-user to be a participant in their software's functionality,
as opposed to riding a one-way train whose ultimate destination will be
Government and Corporate Auschwitz.
I currently have what might be considered Unauthorized Access to a
variety of computer systems, which could theoretically result in my
being subject to a few million years in prison.
However, thanks to the wisdom and foresight of a few Computer Angels
who design and program high-security government and corporate systems,
I was able to gain access by doing nothing more than simply give myself
the same 'network privileges' as held by those who chose to make my
computer a part of their network, in order to read my files and put in
place programs of their choosing.
{Ownership of my computer bestows upon me the right to set my privileges
to whatever level I desire, and if that allows me the same privileges
throughout a computer network I was linked to with the full consent
of those in charge of it, then I can hardly be faulted for assuming
that I have authorization to use the resources and information that is
available on 'our' network.}
The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is that the InterNet, by
definition, is an InterActive Medium.
Those who choose to participate in the InterActivity of the Medium
must be prepared to encounter individuals who wish to exercise their
right to participate in the exchange of resources and information, as
opposed to being a passive recipient of whatever the other party, in
their egoistical imaginings of superior position and authority, wish
to bestow upon them.
Anyone who wishes to join their computer to mine in order to check for
dirt under my fingernails had best wash the shit off of their dick before
they do so...
It is understandable that those who design computer hardware and
software would take pains to provide their employers with a product
which empowers them.
However, if they ignore, or pass upon, available opportunities to
empower the end-users, clients and customers of their employers, then
the public becomes, not *beneficiaries* of the designers efforts, but
*victims* of their efforts.
The rEvolution is NOW!
