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!