Monday, February 16, 2009

Initiations

For all the thousands of posts I've done at my domains and blogs I've never coordinated some scattered comments on initiations. I can't now either, but I do now pledge to do so: if I live, if my I.S. bill is paid, if blogspot.com still accepts my posts ...

In the Italy where Shakespeare set his Romeo and Juliet any young rascal with a sword, meaning "son of a property holder, perhaps a noble," could wound or kill almost any one on the street without a sword: the magistrate could be relied on to back the money, and the hell with Jesus' love or God's law. But with or without such details we all know: the privileged of the society are privileged. It's just a redundancy. The law is for the privileged, by the privileged. Ah, but in the famous (read infamous) "public" schools of the English aristocracy (and its public servants) any half-starved school master could terrorize any future duke with impunity. As soon as Lord Byron came by his great expectations, he was transferred from being tyranized by a nanny to being tyranized by the Harrow School: and he had the chilblained feet to prove it.

pk has written, only half-joking, that this practice was the society's way of getting some of their own back, in advance, from the injustices that the privileged lords (and their courtiers) would visit upon the public once they came of age. Now: who else has noticed?Don't we among the developed democracies do exactly the same thing with our own doctors while we have them trapped as interns? as residents?
Can anyone possibly actually believe that making a young doctor work an eighteen hour shift is good for those under their care? or good for the doctor?
No: it's getting our pound of flesh from them before they go off and earn $600,000 a year for being the second-leading cause of death, just behind heart disease.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Census

Sesquipedalian Census, or Napoleon the Enlightened

When we lived in small groups nobody needed to count members. Even toddlers knew the group. It's kleptocracies, remote governments, government by proxies — representatives, ha ha — that want to count heads.
Still, the idea of "census" came slowly, and in stages: and required sophisticated math concepts and statistical approximations and sophisticated interpretation to make much sense. Ancient kings and their courtiers might devise strategies for estimating losses in a battle: issue each soldier a coin, know how many coins were distributed ... count the coins reclaimed after the battle: and you know, fairly accurately, how many losses you sustained, how many men you have still walking.
But the modern census started with Napoleon. He had bureaucrats under the charge of some sophisticated mathematicians "count" Frenchmen. (Frenchmen, what a funny concept: when there are Gauls, and Celts, and Catalonians ... all insisting that they have as much right to live as anyone else. The "French" language had to be shoved forcibly down everyone's throat. No trouble for the Gauls, but it sticks in the craw of the Catalonians, to name only one example.)
Forty million is what they came up with. It scared the bejesus out of every one of Napoleon's kleptocratic neighbors. The emperor of Austria trembled like a baby.
You see, these other monarchs had no idea how many "people" they had.

"Primitive" peoples can typically count to three. After three, they say "many." Governments up to Napoleon said, One, two, three; then they said "many." How many peasants are there? Many. Or they'd wax poetic: like leaves on the trees, like sands on the shore ...

Napoleon said, "Forty Million." A terrifying concept, for those sophisticated enough to know that a million is a lot, but too unsophisticated to know that the number is meaningless without other similarly accurate numbers to compare it to. What would the Austrian emperor have thought if his spies told him, the French have got forty million; but you're got thirty-eight million, or sixty million. The emperor should shit his drawers only if told, "The French have got forty million, and you ain't got but six hundred thousand." That's the time to pass out cold.

Mozart and da Ponte had Don Giovanni's Leporello number the Don's conquests quite specifically. Ma in Ispagna son giĆ  mille e tre. Very funny: because it's so totally unlikely (not just the number, but the implicit accuracy of record keeping). Hemingway's Nick Adams goes fishing, he sets up a perch in the grass. A grasshopper comes and sits on it. He plucks the grasshopper, hooks it , casts it, catches a trout. By that time there's another grasshopper sitting on the perch. No matter whether Nick catches a dozen trout or thirty, he will expect another grasshopper to be sitting on the perch for him to grab as his next bait. Nick doesn't take a census of the grasshopper in the county before he goes fishing. Don Giovanni didn't go to city hall to prowl for records before he went looking for another wench. No, no: one, two, three ... many.
Industrialists didn't take a census of the peasantry before testing how many children could sicken and die in their factories before there were no more children ready to be exploited for a penny a week.
Nietzsche said that the superman was like the ocean: infinite, capable of taking into himself endless amounts of poison and garbage while remaining himself pure: like God listening to endless gibberish from selfish morons wanting unstinted shit for Christmas. Peasants, wenches, children ... red bicycles ... Austrians ... One, two, three ... many. And many more.

The thing about language, any moron can use it. Any moron can say "infinite" without having passed a test administered by Georg Gamow.

Trouble is: we blather about many, and escalate it to infinite, without having measured the ocean or counted the wenches or the children.
I once sat with a lawyer, my jaw dropped, as I watched him "calculate" how much money we were going to make selling some stuff we were about to trick the IRS into helping us finance. The lawyer envisioned us publishing limited editions of lithographs. We'd print 250 there, sell the first 50 at $750, sell the next 50 at $1,000, raise the price to $2,000, sell them out, print the nth edition, sell the first image as cocktail napkins ... And within minutes had showed us a volume grossing $55 million: in a coupl'a years. This lawyer had no idea how difficult it was to sell one! or how long it took how few editions to sell beyond fifty. To him, money was infinite: put up a perch, and pluck the dollar that arrives to sit on it. Cast, catch, re-pluck.

I smiled and nodded not because I believed that I (or anyone) could sell all those images out, but because I knew that the dentists and doctors and plumbers my lawyer would approach for the capital, the IRS pushing their scam, would have no more idea about how hard it was to sell anything out than my lawyer did, and that therefore, by New Years, we'd have hundreds of thousands of new dollars in our bank accounts and multi-millions of dollars worth of new inventory, some of which actually would sell (provided it was me doing the selling).

The logic is impeccable: as long as you know nothing of the real world.

Sure there are publishers who've printed a Sinatra album, an Elvis album, a Beetles album ... sold it out, printed more. But there are many more publishers who printed a YoYo album, and sat with the inventory, paying the warehouse bill till they go belly up.

Never mind: that's more than I meant to say about all of that. I didn't mean to lose sight of my target: kleptocracies.

The Romans didn't invent salt mining. It was the Celts who were the salt masters in the Roman's part of the world. The Celts organized salt mining, salt extraction. Salt was essential for preserving food. Preserved food is essential for kleptocracy: for keeping armies moving: on their stomachs. The Celts flourished. Until the Romans noticed that they were flourishing.
The Romans flourished not by inventing anything, but by stealing inventions, and then administering them. Let the Celts invent the salt business: the Romans could then just take it away from them: the way the US, the universities, the corporations stole the internet from Ivan Illich, Jesus, and me: perverting it as they did so. Point is: once the alpha kleptocracies, following blindly in the wake of the Romans, assuming that there will always be other poor countries to exploit, other poor countries to steal resources from, the buyer determining the selling price for the seller, has destroyed all the open grasslands, all the wet lands, all the forests, all the reefs ... we'll set up a perch, but wait and wait for a new grasshopper to come and be bait for us. We'll look for new wenches to deflower and won't even find any old whores. And children to work for a penny a year? why there simply will be none to be found, none to be found at a penny a second either: and neither will we be here to do the finding.

First draft, what the hell.

Friday, January 16, 2009

Obverse

The obverse side of the coin is the heads side; not the tails. Right? What could be clearer, less ambiguous?
Nothing: on a coin. But what about other human dualiites? Male / Female? Rich / Poor? Matter / Energy? Wait. Before investing mental processing in any of those pairings, in or proposing pairings of your own to process, stay with me and let me propose a couple I promise are fertile: and don't forget, I'm laying tracks toward a question of ambiguity in what's obverse in complex dualities. I precede a bulls eye with a near hit:

What is an American public's purpose in censoring Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn from school and public libraries? Well, the claimed purpose (from traditional racists of course) is to combat racism. Twain's characters say "nigger," are called "nigger" ... and "nigger" is lower case. First, here's an example. In Huck the protagonist stumbles onto a down-river aunt of his friend Tom Sawyer that his up-river friend is scheduled to visit. There are some cute confusions of identity, the friends loyally trying to cover for each other. In any event Auntie asks the presumed "Tom" why he's so late. "Tom" claims that there was an accident, an explosion on the river boat. Auntie exclaims and asks, "Was anyone hurt?" "No ma'am. Killed a nigger," our slick liar replies. Either Huck or Tom could easily improvise such a lie: they're boys, they've cleaver, they're anti-Authoritarian ... And neither of them is a died-to-the-marrow racist, but they both speak the language and dress in the costumes of their day. So, I ask: is censoring such great literature an act opposing racism? Or is it an attempt to cover our history from ourselves and from our children? so racism can continue to poison the culture? invisibily?

Both interpretations are obverse by two different meanings of the word. There's "obverse," meaning "principal reason," and there's also obverse, meaning principal counter-reason.

Ambiguity can dissipate information, dilute it; or ambiguity can multiply information: near double it, more than double it ...

Racism is a classic pk subject, but even more core is schooling and deschooling. What's the obverse purpose of compulsory eduction, administered by state-controlled school bureaucracies? To educate? Or to regiment?
To make us independent? or to cripple us into dependency?

Well, both answers are obverses: incompatible obverses.



Note: Male / Female above: If the woman is on top, is it not intercourse? Is she then guaranteed infertile? Coins are coins, but other dualities are not coins, and are not necessarily simple.



Hey, wait a minute pk: you glibly cite Matter / Energy as a human duality?!?!?
pk answers: I won't back down from that on the basis that all human concepts, including the concepts of physics (including the concept "God"), are exactly that: concepts. And they're all human, no exceptions: at least not until we can meet and compare notes with a non-human sentience. Once we meet intelligent Alderberanis, then we can begin to become objective about who's intelligent, what's sentient ...



2009 02 03 What I've written thus far on the obverse both here and above, is inadequate. Part of my problem as author (and yours as thinking-reader) is that what I have in mind shares subsets with so many other important concepts from ambiguity to limitations of human sentience (with severe limitations to human intelligence and honesty!) I'll try to do a more complete job at my InsTic.blogspot.com.)

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Do You Believe In God?

Human language can be used to model the territory honestly, efficiently, accurately, but that is its Sunday-best, not the costume it grew or weaned in. Creatures in rut declare their identities: Yearning frog here; or Capable bull. So do rutting predators: I'm a male lion. But hunting, the predator conceals its identity. The female lions stalking the gazelle try to declare nothing of their imminence to their targets: Silence, they say: never mind us, we're just waving grass, tricks of the light ...

Humans rut: boy, do we ever. Humans can also sit and munch veggies: chew the fat, chew the cud. But humans also hunt, humans also prey on each other: oh, not for calories, there wouldn't be too many of us around if we did that; but for resources, for turf, for bragging rights: a rutting stage.

Do You Believe In God?
What do we mean?

Well, different things at different times. Of course. Different things at the same time as well. And the attribution is necessarily interpretational in all cases: unless there's an infallible God to dictate objective truth to us: at Judgment: infinitely far away from us in time, orthogonally far removed from us in space, and logic.

Who goes there? Friend or foe?
Friend.
Should we shoot in the direction of the voice? Or provisionally believe the voice: until s/he gets close enough to put a knife in our ribs?

Do You Believe In God? can mean a zillion things, but an open sincere naive inquiry into the details of your faith is the least likely. I propose that there's nearly always one meaning: alternate-obverse if not primary-obverse: Are you on my team? Not Do You Believe In God? But Are you within my semantic and political control?

Actually, if you think about it, very few questions we ask each other are independent of power, politics, of jockeying for control. Who did you vote for? That nigger? We're always testing our alliances, testing our level in the pecking order: trying to rise, looking for a chance to cheat.



Note: for a consideration of ambiguity in our concept of "obverse" ("alternate-obverse if not primary-obverse" above), see the next post. (2009 02 03 Note further, what I've written thus far on the obverse both here and there, is inadequate. I'll try to do a more complete job at my blog InsTic.)

Also: Though I have read Huck multiple times and studied about Huck many times more, none are within recent decades. I avoided retelling the plot in detail so I would be risking fewer errors, but I still could have made one. Realize: it doesn't matter, the point about America, politics, literature, censorship and racism are the same regardless of whether it was Tom or Huck-as-Tom improvising his lie.

Thursday, January 01, 2009

pk Profile 2009

I've been writing since 1948: stories, novels, essays, science ... Little was published other than by myself. My university ignored my reading of Shakespeare. The world largely ignored my offer of a cheap internet in 1970, as it's more recently ignored my theory of macroinformation. The fed censored me in 2007 and now threatens me if I republish. There's nothing new about authorities hating saviors. Some of my classic modules I'm trying to repost at my blogs.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Censored!

Please pardon my absence, I was unavoidably detained. That is, I wrote something, a black-comedy, an extreme satire: the object of the satire misread it as a threat (literally, it was a threat, but the writing was symbolic, not literal. (Try explaining that to the fed: my public defender saw it, but made no effort to acquaint the court with the truth. I got railroaded, kangarooed.)
I had roughly three thousand modules on line, distributed over five domains and several blogs. The court objected to two files: the satires. (It was primarily the federal monopoly on violence that I was satirizing!) But the judge censored the entire section. My host (Canadian!) panicked, and deleted the whole of Knatz.com (pk's home page), Macroinformation.org (pk's information science page), InfoAll.org (pk's deschooling and non-coercive internet offering of 1970 page), and AgainstHierarchy.org (pk's domain launched in 2006 to take over Knatz.com's political and sociological modules) got wiped out.

(My family had paid all my bills billed by mail, but the most important bill, my domains, was billed by email, and was not paid. For $6 or so overdue, my host destroyed all my data!) (My family could have, but did not, restore my domains!)

Now released ... (my landlord explains it thusly: They saw they made a mistake, but, being who they are, they can't say so: so, they let him go with a minimum sentence. (Translate: he's innocent!))

I ask that you pardon me for being unable to continue my IonaArc blog. Please do not pardon the cause of the interruption. I offered the public a tool to pry the government off their back in 1970 (my FLEX, reported at InfoAll.org, one of the censored sites). The public didn't utilize it. I don't expect God or god or nature to forgive such a public. I certainly don't.

But absolutely we shouldn't forgive the hypocrite government!

I'm so proud to have gotten the US to violate its most sacred law: the First Amendment!

I'll try to add more details, more posts. I'll try to restore my persecuted domains. Wish me luck. Call, help, send support.

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

pk Profile 2008

The deschooler: offered a cheap internet in 1970, arrested in 2006, censored in 2007, three thousand text files knocked offline.

Monday, September 11, 2006

Caesar & Pompey

When it was over, Federer returned to the locker room, cracked open the champagne and spent an hour with perhaps the only other athlete on the planet who understands such sheer domination.
They'd met for the first time earlier in the day, but had been distant admirers. And after Federer's third Grand Slam win this year and ninth overall — Woods has won 12 majors — they visited. Federer sat while Woods stood with his foot on a chair, two champions in the zone.
Tiger could have fucked up KingFed's supremacy, maybe actually did a little. Now Fed says he's going to the golf majors and "pay Tiger back," standing at the 18th green on day for.
Roger said that he wanted to play all the better with Tiger sitting next to his girl in his box. (Mirka's his business manager too, btw.)
If we were Romans 2050 or so years ago, we might have rooted wildly for Caesar: and for Pompey. Should each learn the other's sport now and face off? Can we really stand to have both Jehovah and Jesus in the same universe at the same time? In the same place?
On the women's side, Masha was devastating: and looked better than any female athlete ever had: losing, let alone winning. But pretty or not, she was petulant afterward -- when her father's illegally coaching her from the stands was mentioned.
We may wind up wanting to assassinate this queen.

Pepsi

"The Americans love Pepsi-Cola. We love death."
So said the Afghani guerrilla, according to Time.
That comes as a shocking revelation to me. You mean Coke has lost its grip on the world''s perceptions? You mean Pepsi has caught up not just between New York and California but in the mountains of southern Asia?
Could be. I don't exactly follow these things. It can take forever for a hermit to notice something well documented in public rivers.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Meta Tiger

Nixon's moron at the Times, William Safire, wrote perhaps the single stupidest hebetude I've ever seen. Responding to someone's metaphor of "quantum change," Safire looked it up, didn't bother to understand, and responded that quantum distances were very small. So, if a total change of state, occurs at a nanometer, we don't have to notice it.

Guy plays golf, shoots 106, gets a handicap of 34, shoots 99, gets a handicap reduction. The scratch players get no handicap: or aren't allowed to claim them in a PGA tournament. But seedings take over in a way: who gets to play at all, who gets to play last ... Somebody wins the tournament. Good. That's what the tournament was for: to declare a winner.

But there are tournaments next month too! next week, all over. a choice of tournaments, in countries around the world. For some time now there have been sort-out-the-champions tournaments: the British Open for one, the Masters for another. The next thing we know, to be champ, you have to have won not only multiple tournaments, but multiple Major tournaments. Thus, for the longest time, the only real champion was Bobby Jones; until there was also Jack Nicklaus.

Now there's Tiger Woods. Now there's been Tiger Woods for a decade, actually, for thirty years. But something else just happened. Not only did Tiger Woods just win the PGA title, again, for the third time, not only had he just won his two previous tournaments, including, ha!, the British Open, for a fourth time, not only did this record and that record and the other record fall, but something else happened too: Tiger moved into a new golf category. Not just the best golfer this week, in this tournament, not just the best PGA player, not just the greatest golfer of all time ... He'd been all of those things already, except for measurements involving a whole career, and you can't have that while the career is on-going. No, Tiger's accomplishment set up a whole new meta-category, for golfers anyway. It's a category previously known only to a very few: Achilles, Ruth, Ali ... Tiger is now everywhere understood to be the bestBestBEST...

The next step would transcend sport. Tiger would be with Jesus.

PS Mike Wilbon posted a related piece at MSNBC, but I wanted to relate parallel observations to a meta series.

Friday, August 11, 2006

Judgment

A symbol, codeable as a single datum, one bit, can stand for anything: "X" stands for "Cosmos." Meantime any universe within that cosmos may have some vast number of time lines: the location for example of each particle at timem, timen, timeo ... Thus the number of symbols needed to represent details within the cosmos may be enormous. The number of symbols needed to represent say the thoughts of male virgins under the age of fifteen in New York City on May 3rd may be greater than the symbols needed to map all thoughts by all humans alive up until the reign of Rameses. Thus: any symbol in any world might sybolize the entire cosmos; but all the particles in universex might not be adequate to map all the events in worldy. Thus some twelve year old with a G12 processor might be able to hold his own judgment day for world NT of universe ZN, but all the gods that have ever lived or not lived, been imagined, or not imagined, couldn't map the complexity (or the simplicity) of the whole cosmos.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Trash Talk

Trash Talk And the Federalization of Everything

Zizou head-butted the wop talking trash to him. Now everyone tells Zizou that talking trash is part of the game: if you can't take it, get off the field.
Excuse me: are there no limits? no thresholds? Does the ref has no business knowing the specific insult? Are ethnic differences not to be considered?
Is lack of information ever wiser than presence of information?

Once upon a time you knew if you were sick. Your family knew if you were dead: even before the bacteria knew, or the vultures. With federalism, some expert, some priest, some anointed one, some bureaucrat with a certificate from the state alone can say to the satisfaction of the state whether you're sick, whether you're dead ... It's not enough to tell your teacher, your boss, that you were sick, that you're grandma died, you need a note from your doctor, from the undertaker.

Once upon a time no body knew better what junior needed, wanted, liked or didn't like better than mom. Then, past toddlerhood, nobody knew better than junior himself. Now junior needs a shrink to tell him what he wants, and the shrink needs a social worker in grace with the legislature to tell the shrink whether he's a quack.

The guy talks trash to Zizou. France against Italy. Some paper immediately says that the wop called Zizou a "terrorist." Now that's a hot topic. It used to be you had to be a Philistine ... or a Jew ... or a Commie ... or an anarchist to deserve no due process. But of course the paper had no idea what was said. Right now the preponderance of reported opinion holds that it doesn't matter what was said: athletes, playing before a paying crowd, with TV sponsors to consider, have no rights to any sore spots. It doesn't matter what the guy says, the athlete has to ignore it.

Can that view possibly stand up to experience?

The guy calls you a motherfucker, so what: these days that's just aural wall paper: like saying there are clouds in the sky. What if he says, "Your mother sucks the boils up the Saddam's ass"? What if he says, "I left a firecracker up your baby's cherry"?
Those insults don't bother you? Fine. Then you won't head butt. But since when can a committee decide what will and won't pull your trigger?

No, no, no. What was said can always count.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

'Roid Rage

I'm just reading a second- or third-hand claim that Barry Bonds would go into steroid rages. If what seems true is true, then why should we care what happens to Barry Bonds? In the days of the caesars, his property could have been confiscated. In the days of any tyranny he could be boiled in oil, hung in a dungeon. In these days of the tyranny of the public, anything could happen.

But, even hanging from chains on the wall of a dungeon, rats crawling up his rag of a breech cloth, Barry should be able to sue. He should be able to sue Mark Maguire for going ahead of him. He should sue the chemists who synthesized the fucking things. He should be able to sue the Giants for encouraging him: and sue the public for a host of silly choices.

I threw the above up real fast (doesn't it show?): but a minute later read a very good suggestion that I believe applies to the whole society as well as to sports as mercinary entertainment: decriminalize all the drugs. Let the athletes take anything (just as we could let the junkies OD if they wanted, leave them to die in the gutter). Cheating can't be controlled, don't try. (I'll link to that article a bit later.)

And another PS: Since we can't ever be sure of how much cheating took place, don't take anything too seriously: not the World Series, not the Supreme Court, not the College of Cardinals.

Monday, June 19, 2006

Mickelson Crumbles

Journalism earns its keep by dramatizing events as though prized neuroses of the culture were being daily vindicated. Thus: Hitler winning an election isn't Hitler winning an election; it's a Triumph of the Will. If you add up the number of strokes with the club over four rounds of championship golf, then Geoff Ogilvy is the new US Open champion. No. Ogilvy isn't the winner; Phil Mickelson crumbled. Just as Colin Montgomery crumbled. As though it were about Will and lack of will.
Skill has something to do with will. Luck has something to do with success.
Journalism doesn't just give facts; it uses famous names to fashion a morality soap opera in which our deepest prejudices are vindicated. The one group that always wins and never loses is the public.

Sorry public: with journalism you lose every time.

PS. I don't mean that Phil didn't crumble: once again Arnie-like he went for more than sense might dictate: and at a time when his driver wasn't working! The bold win some of those, and lose a lot more. Certainly skill counts: and will: and luck ... And don't forget math: probability, averages, statistics ... I doubt there will ever be a journalist who will get it all correctly balanced. We'd have to call him god if he did.

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Nothing

I worship the god of nothing. The god of nothing neither wants nor needs my worship. I do it because I am a human being: and human beings want and need to worship.

Human beings want and need to believe in something greater than themselves: and only nothing fits the bill.

Long live fools.
Long live nothing.

Sunday, May 07, 2006

Boo Birds

Kid's parents are standing there screaming encouragement, kid hits a long ball. Parents go berserk: even if it's caught. Same kid gets to the finals, but on hostile ground. At the plate the boos drown the cheers. Will the kid hit one out?

Barry Bonds has heard cheers, he's heard boos. Bonds can hit the homer through the boos But he's been there before. Still, he'll hit more homers amid cheers.

Jesus spoke to the crowds. On arriving in Jerusalem they put down a royal carpet of palm fronds. For once he wasn't on foot. But he was riding no thoroughbred charger. Neither was he perched on the back seat of some open limousine. But not many hours later he was getting his flesh (and exposed organs) scourged off him. He'd have heard nothing but boos. Ditto a few hours later on the cross.

On the cross, was Jesus more like the kid in the enemy park? or like Barry Bonds in Chicago? Don't forget: it was his first time.

if Jesus is human, as the orthodox Mystery insists, he'll doubt himself with the hoard against him. If Jesus is divine as the orthodox Mystery also insists, why should he care about boos? any more than I sympathize with fire ants while they're biting my ankle?

Ah, but he is supposed to Love us.

Monday, May 01, 2006

Soul

Immortality of the Soul? No, no. Listen:The soul is emergent. Informational. Macroinformational.Like life, it is substanceless. There's no thing there. But unlike life, which manifests in organisms — bodies — the soul —being informational, mental — doesn't exist when not being thought about: like a lap when you stand up.



How I put it before:The soul is a synergy of synergies among synergies: a synergy between the synergy stack of the individual organism and its relation to the aggregates of the aggregates of synergy stacks at large.
(I have also called god the synergy of synergies.")


2009 04 05
I copy this post to my Macroinformation blog.

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Hacker Shows Holes in US Defense

LONDON (Reuters)

Read that news bulletin. Read every word of it. I'll summarize in a moment, but don't rely on my summary. Don't ever rely on any summary. Don't trust what Moses said; get it from God. (And don't trust God either: who know what he's hiding.) Get the raw evidence.

English hacker sees War Games. (I saw that movie with bk, himself a hacker.) Kid hacks into the Pentagon. His hack winds up saving the world from the berserk computer. Now this contemporary hacker goes looking for UFOs, government cover-ups: a truth seeker, a weird pervert of a truth seeker: just what we could use a few more of.

But shame on us if this is news to any of us. Richard Feynman, genius extraordinaire, computer for the Manhattan Project, found US security to be as much hole as wall and told us all about it in the years following WW II. Did we listen? Of course not. No, we're too busy being the big cheese to imagine that what was wrong with Rome applies to us.

Richard Feynman, math whizz, funny-man, had full clearance throughout the military: it was his secrets we were keeping after all. Being involved in security, he started studying security: Houdini, safes, lock picking ...

The Pentagon spent top dollar on the best safes: then never bothered to read or follow the instructions that came with the safe. Feynman went around the Pentagon trying the default combination on unattended (!) safes. Most opened to the factory installed combination! If they didn't, he tried variants of the safe's assignee's birthday. Bingo, again and again. Or he dialed in π, or e ... The Pentagon officials were no better than ordinary citizens at their own security. Where unusual combinations were used, the combination was written out on the desk, where any spy could find it in a minute.

Feynman studied the safes. He discovered that the combination could be de-cyphered by looking at the tumblers. The tumblers were visible only when the door was open. Thus, the safe, with a secure combination added by the user, kept with its doors closed, was safe: worth the investment. But Pentagon offices kept the safe doors wide open, from 9 to 5! Any spy could learn the safe's combination simply by walking by. Feynman wrote memos to all concerned. What happened? The secretaries still kept the safe doors open, but if they saw Feynman coming, they would close the door; not the safe door, the office door! So Feynman wouldn't catch them giving the store away. The spies could read the secrets, but the watch dog wouldn't see.

Now this English nerd follows a movie! buys off-the-shelf software, a cheap hacker's guide ... and waltzes right into the Pentagon, NASA ... Instead of saying Thank you, Mr. Feynman, thank you Houdini, thank you, Mr. Whistle ... we want to crucify him, eat his gristle.

god gives us the materials to live, and the materials to snuff ourselves. We live. Then we get rich, powerful, lazy, drunk, stoned. We pass out, with our pants down, our jewels exposed. Why should anyone care what happens to us?

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Standard Time

Sri Lanka wants to mess with its clock. Arthur C. Clarke is appalled, arguing for the world standard. Sri Lanka has already messed with its clock since Standard Time was invented and implemented politically, now it want's to mess again.

Political time is a lot less screwy than political calendars thanks to clocks being a far more recent invention than calendars. The universe is the universe: our descriptions of it, our ideas about it, our prescriptions for societies ... are something else again. My Sentiens: Stage Sense is one place at Knatz.com abbreviated where I discuss the arbitrary political nature of Standard Time as distinct from the natural time that Prigogine assumes is infinite and predates the universe. I'll now discuss it again in the context of Social Epistemology / Reality / Time, repeating as appropriate. (Calendars too need more than a few words, but there's already a fabulous web site on the subject: I'll add the URL when I find it.)

First, there was time. We have evidence that men were recording lunar cycles by eighteen thousand years ago. Calendars developed. Much later, somebody came up with the sun dial: worked in good daylight only. Only recently have there been mechanical clocks. Only very recently has there been Standard Time: and standards require not only culture but politics: some authority sets the clock.

Prior to the telegraph "noon" was when you perceived the sun to be "overhead." The sun is actually wherever it is. The spinning earth revolves around it, at an angle. Thus, noon moves around the earth each "day." Noon, day ... these are concepts of local perspective. If we were orbiting Jupiter noon on earth would make little sense unless we were in contact with some specific earthling in some specific location: Greenwich, New York, Tokyo ... If I'm standing in a field in the Catskills, on the phone with somebody in another county or another state, we'll have very different noons. If our measurements could be precise enough, my noon on this side of the street wouldn't match your noon on that side of the street. With enough precision, we could be standing next to each other and not have the same noon.

Before the telegraph no one worried about that. With the telegraph, and the time stamping of messages, a guy in Brooklyn wires a guy in Hoboken. They seem to be "talking" at the "same" time, but the guy in Brooklyn time stamps his version of the message a few minutes before the guy in Hoboken's time. In step the politicians, and we have Greenwich Mean Time, Eastern Standard Time, etc. We pretend that it's noon at the same instant everywhere in the time zone, we pretend that Chicago is an hour earlier.

Just remember: in my house I can set my clock to any "hour" I want. It's my clock. And if the clock breaks, the hour is set at whatever position it was in when it broke: unless I move it manually. The missionary gives the clock to the cannibal chief. In Eco's illustration, the chief wears it as a necklace, the missionary has no idea what it means to him.

Meanwhile, real time is real time: infinite: unknowable.

Memory

A bigger more complex brain extends memory. The Homo sapiens mother recognizes one twin from the other, the 'gator mom, the ostrich mom, just has a bunch of little gator/ostriches behind her: switch in her neighbors', she won't know. or care.

Then we develop speech, then writing. Now we know precisely what was published as Twain, imprecisely what Shakespeare wrote (though precisely what was published AS Shakespeare), precisely what was published as Jesus, very imprecisely what Jesus might actually have said. And nothing at all of what Eve might have said 150,000 years ago. (But we sure know precisely, just recently, how her genes were different!)

I can know exactly, typos and all, what I emailed my son under my current MacMail. I have a clear memory of what I wrote to Ivan Illich in 1970, but no carbon. I remember, but more fuzzily, what my mother said to my grandfather after his cancer when I was a kid.

Once upon a time we knew what our mother looked like now and also had a fuzzy memory of how she looked when we were an infant. Then comes photography. Most people's snaps are brown and yellow and then nonexistent within a few years. Suddenly, at the museum, there's a good print from Lewis Carroll! Victorian!

Guy like me has a clear memory, photo assisted, of periods going back to the mid-19th C. I "remember" Carroll, Brady, Lartigue,
Jacques-Henri Lartigue, Boulougne
Jacques-Henri Lartigue, Boulougne

Cartier-Bresson ... Melies, Lillian Gish, Chaplin, WC Fields ... My actual life I remember more in the fuzzy style common to all moderns: some photos etc, but we sure don't know that many of them.

I have my own memories of Burt Lancaster, like my memories of my mother. Then there are the films-photos themselves. I artificially remember Burt when he was young, did trapeze work. My memory of Atlantic City, Burt old, is clear.

Now for the first time I watch Local Hero, 1983. Burt is old. Fine: I'd know him anywhere, any age. But then there's this twerp in the movie. Good god, it's that guy from Animal House!
Suddenly I have a "clear" memory of Animal House with this twerpy kid. I look him up at IMDb (Peter Riegert) . He's old! He did a million movies I didn't see! He grew old without me! He lived with Bette Midler and I didn't know.

What insanity to mix clear with fuzz, verifiable documents with unverifiable documents ... 

Then again I bet a worm has some sort of impressions: some clear, some fuzzy, some verifiable, some just ghosts.