Most Popular
1. Banking Crisis is Stocks Bull Market Buying Opportunity - Nadeem_Walayat
2.The Crypto Signal for the Precious Metals Market - P_Radomski_CFA
3. One Possible Outcome to a New World Order - Raymond_Matison
4.Nvidia Blow Off Top - Flying High like the Phoenix too Close to the Sun - Nadeem_Walayat
5. Apple AAPL Stock Trend and Earnings Analysis - Nadeem_Walayat
6.AI, Stocks, and Gold Stocks – Connected After All - P_Radomski_CFA
7.Stock Market CHEAT SHEET - - Nadeem_Walayat
8.US Debt Ceiling Crisis Smoke and Mirrors Circus - Nadeem_Walayat
9.Silver Price May Explode - Avi_Gilburt
10.More US Banks Could Collapse -- A Lot More- EWI
Last 7 days
Keep Calm and Carry on Buying Quantum AI Tech Stocks - 19th Feb 24
How to Profit from the Global Warming ClImate Change Mega Death Trend - Part1 - 17th Feb 24
Why Rising Shipping Costs Won't Cause Inflation - 17th Feb 24
Intensive 6 Week Stock Market Elliott Wave Training Course - 17th Feb 24
INFLATION and the Stock Market Trend - 17th Feb 24
GameStop (GME): 88% Shellacking Yet No Lesson Learned - 17th Feb 24
Nick Millican Explains Real Estate Investment in a Changing World - 17th Feb 24
US Stock Market Addicted to Deficit Spending - 7th Feb 24
Stocks Bull Market Commands It All For Now - 7th Feb 24
Financial Markets Narrative Nonsense - 7th Feb 24
Gold Price Long-Term Outlook Could Not Look Better - 7th Feb 24
Stock Market QE4EVER - 7th Feb 24
Learn How to Accumulate and Distribute (Trim) Stock Positions to Maximise Profits - Investing 101 - 5th Feb 24
US Exponential Budget Deficit - 5th Feb 24
Gold Tipping Points That Investors Shouldn’t Miss - 5th Feb 24
Banking Crisis Quietly Brewing - 5th Feb 24
Stock Market Major Market lows by Calendar Month - 4th Feb 24
Gold Price’s Rally is Normal, but Is It Really Bullish? - 4th Feb 24
More Problems in US Regional Banking System: Where There's Fire There's Smoke - 4th Feb 24
New Hints of US Election Year Market Interventions & Turmoil - 4th Feb 24
Watch Consumer Spending to Know When the Fed Will Cut Interest Rates - 4th Feb 24
Blue Skies Ahead As Stock Market Is Expected To Continue Much Higher - 31st Jan 24
What the Stock Market "Fear Index" VIX May Be Signaling - 31st Jan 24
Stock Market Trend Forecast Review - 31st Jan 24

Market Oracle FREE Newsletter

How to Protect your Wealth by Investing in AI Tech Stocks

Secure Websites Are All a Lie

ConsumerWatch / Technology Aug 22, 2010 - 08:26 AM GMT

By: Shelby_H_Moore

ConsumerWatch There is no such thing as a secure website, and everything you've been led to believe about web security is a lie. And your free speech is threatened, amongst other serious ramifications.

Do NOT trust any website to guard your private data, not even banking websites are secure. I will explain why and how you can help to make sure it gets fixed immediately! I mean that every website where you enter a password to get access, is not secure, no matter what that website says to the contrary.

You may read all the technical details at the following bug report I filed for the Firefox browser:

Note as far as I know, this web security problem applies to all browser software, including Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Safari, Opera, etc..

Two critical vulnerabilities exist on every browser software that you use to surf the web, and even if your browser says the website is secure (small lock icon at bottom), it is a lie and here is why:

1) Hacker in the network can intercept and proxy the secure connection between your browser and the server of the secure website, and thus steal (and even alter) the data that is transferred back and forth. It is impossible for your browser and the website server to know the hacker is in the middle. This hacker could even be the government, because nearly all traffic on the internet passes through government routers (this was verified anonymously by someone who works as a programmer inside Homeland security), and if government can end your security, they can also end your ability to have free speech:

2) Hacker can get a virus into your computer (even if for just a few minutes), and that virus can access your secure connection (even if you have your own SSL certificate and/or hardware password generator device and/or biometric device), because the connection encryption password (and/or the site session authentication keys) are not encrypted properly by the browser.

I am not joking nor exaggerating, and I am sufficiently expert on this. Read the Firefox bug report to check my expertise. If you ask another security expert for an opinion, make sure they read the technical details first, because most so called "experts" are not fully aware of the logic that applies.

Neither of these threats have anything to do with hacking the server of the website. The first threat is called a "man-in-the-middle attack" and it has nothing to do with a virus in your computer, and it applies to everyone who is using the internet, except for those very few of you who have installed your own personal SSL certificate on your browser software. However, even if you did install your own personal SSL certificate, the second threat applies to everyone. The second threat occurs when a virus can sneak past your firewall and anti-virus software, and then it can steal the data that keeps your connection secure, because that data is not encrypted properly as it should be. And note that the type of encryption that must be used to fix this problem, is very specific and requires the use of one-way hashes.

There is an easy way we can fix the second threat. Browsers must properly encrypt the data they store that controls the security of the (connection and login session authentication) for the website (see my Firefox bug report for the details), so that the virus can not use that data even if it accesses it. In the Firefox bug report, I explained how this encryption can be done in such a way that it is secure. In that same bug report, I also suggested a way that the browser software could automate the issuance of personal SSL certificates in order to fix the first threat.

If you care about this current (and looming to be critical) security and free speech threat, you need to click to that bug report I filed for the Firefox browser, and then click the "Vote" link near the top of that bug report page and to the right of the "Importance" choice. You must first sign up for free to the site, before you click the "Vote" link. You don't need to be a technical expert to sign up and vote. Any one is allowed to sign up and vote. It is your right as member of the internet community which uses Firefox. If we can get Firefox to fix the problem, then the other internet browsers will also, because they don't want Firefox to have an advantage. Website programmers want to make their sites secure, but we need the browsers to fix their side of the problem first.

Do not expect this problem to get fixed if you all do not hammer Firefox with sufficient (as in hundreds of) votes. Firefox has had a similar bug report on this problem since 1999, which they have not fixed after 11 years:

Here is your chance to fight for our free speech rights. All you have to do is click and vote. By protecting our ability to communicate securely on the internet, you will have insured that we can always talk freely to each other without government tracking. And you will have thwarted hackers current ability to steal your bank account and other important sites where you normally login (sign on) with your password.

I urge you not to dismiss this matter, and if you agree about the importance, please act immediately as I have suggested.


By Shelby Henry Moore III

short bio, I have published articles on,,, I am the sole or contributing programmer of numerous (some million+ user) commercial software applications, such as Corel Painter, Cool Page, WordUp, Art-O-Matic, etc.. I have an education in engineering and math.

Disclaimer: My writings are my personal opinions, not to be construed as statements-of-fact. Do you own research. Licenses to think and communicate have never interested me too much, so I am not a licensed research, journalism, investment, legal, nor health professional. Please consult the proper authorities for all matters covered in my writings. I disclaim all liability for what you do after reading my writings. No one can predict the future, and if there is a physical world investment that never loses value, I haven't found it yet in my 44.1 years here on Niribu.

© 2010 Copyright Shelby Henry Moore III - All Rights Reserved

© 2005-2022 - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


Shelby Moore (author of this article)
22 Aug 10, 19:35
McSh8 vs. Linsucks

I just finished a discussion with an expert. And now I think I understand why this problem has not been fixed and never will be fixed.

The geeks who make the worlds open source software, which includes most internet software, love Linsucks and hate McSh8's Windoze. They want to see Windoze perish in its own insecurity. And McSh8 also wants its Windoze to get many viruses, because it makes people want to upgrade to new and improved versions (and often buy a new computer at same time, so hardware vendors also like more viruses).

The more viruses, the more everyone in the industry profits.

So nobody has an incentive to provide you the customer with something that works properly.

Joseph A'Deo
23 Aug 10, 17:42

This article is quite right. I remember reading a study a while back that pointed out the only fool-proof solution to online security: encrypt EVERYTHING. Aside from your very noteworthy points about privacy and free speech, the risk of MITM attacks vacillates with the quality of one's SSL cert and the manner of implementation -- most issues with SSL are currently on the browser and user side, problems that can lead to some of vulnerabilities you're referring to. At VeriSign we strongly recommend extended validation ssl to those concerned, because the green url is so much more difficult for hackers to spoof, and if implemented correctly MITM attacks are a non-issue (users can tell immediately if they're on a "false" site due to the lack of green). But you're right in saying that we all need to exercise caution and look at the issue more realistically.

Shelby Moore
24 Aug 10, 16:41
Good news!

Firefox will try to fix this problem (but I don't know when):

25 Aug 10, 02:34



care to translate?

Shelby Moore
25 Aug 10, 09:27
sorry I can't

For libel liability reasons. I am sure you can figure it out, but I will never admit it.

As far as I am concerned, they are fictional terms in a fictional story about major operating systems.

Also I now think the fictional story should include ignorance and ego turf battles.

Shelby Moore (author of this article)
03 Sep 10, 12:14
We can win!!!!

Keep repeating, "We can win!", "We can win!!", "We can win!!!", "We can win!!!!"!!!!!

Please listen to this audio, it may change your whole view on life:

(really you will love the humor & insight in the audio file linked in above page)

Even you don't care about software, you care about evolution, because that it what this entire crap we are going through now is about.

And the key mathematical (evolution) thing I want you to understand, is that every person matters!!!

Somebody just needs to give you a place where you can do your small part and have it matter. And I have an idea about that. We need to move quickly, but remember a few 100s of us can destroy any corporation on the planet with your knowledge. Listen to the audio above and then you will feel empowered. God gave us this power!!! It is called EVOLUTION.

Here is what I wrote today:

I never knew (how much) I loved hackers (ability to make software do what YOU want) until I realized just recently:

that hacking = freedom, in the sense that no group of people no matter how great their collective intelligence, can foresee every best fit to every situation:

for the entire population. In a nutshell, that is the fundamental difference between capitalism (evolution) and socialism (devolution).

The main thing I learned is it is not about me, it is about all of us. I must do my best to facilitate but not frustrate. I must not stand in the way of any group, even if I think they are moving in the wrong direction. I must be a facilitator, and help the most people contribute their small part, even when I disagree with them. If I truely believe that most people are being blocked from what they want and deserve, then I need only to facilitate them to prove they were right.

I will be trying to develop internet websites and software that you the common person can mold like clay in your hands without special skills, which I hope *YOU* will prove Dr. Fielding and the small group of guys at IETF deciding your future are wrong about you being only mindless sheep:

Any encouragement? Any body reading this? Please show me some luv dauwg ;)

Shelby Moore (author of this article)
04 Sep 10, 10:42

(make sure read the footnotes too)

I have been watching many people misuse the word "complexity", and been thinking for a while now, I should explain what is and what is not complexity.

To understand complexity, we must first understand what is entropy. Entropy is the organization of matter[1]. When matter is concentrated in one place in time and/or space, that is known as decreasing entropy, aka increasing order. Conversely, when matter is distributed randomly[2] that is increasing entropy aka increasing disorder.

In nature, low entropy is a brittle and unstable condition. For example, you wouldn't expect to walk into a room and find no oxygen to breathe (i.e. that the oxygen had been concentrated into another place). The second law of thermodynamics was discovered in 1856 and it stated that the universe is trending to maximum entropy, aka maximum disorder. What that law tells us is that order can increase in open systems (where energy can be input from the external system), but that in a closed system (the universe by definition has no external system) order is trending towards minimum.

Most people think disorder is a bad thing. Maximum disorder means the maximum number of independent actors exist in a system, whereas maximum order means the fewest number of independent actors controlling the rest of the actors. Because independence and randomness are synonymous in this context (one can not be independent if they are not free to act at their random free will uncorrelated/unrestricted to the other actors in the system).

What we see in nature, is that nature evolves more efficiently when there is maximum disorder, because the math of self-organization that arises out of the frightening chaos of astronomical random possibilities, is that the more independent actors (free will population), then the more mutations per generational step, thus maximizing the rate of fitness:

(I urge you to study the airfoil example in above link)

Thus complexity is precisely the opposite of what you seem to think is. Complexity is the REDUCTION in the number of possibilities! To increase the possibilities is a reduction in order, increase in freedom and evolution, and a reduction in complexity.

What you are doing by moving back to the farm is combination of increasing and decreasing your complexity. On the one hand you become less dependent on "the highly ordered system that is failing" but you also increase your complexity because you have limited your possibilities for trading with the world.

================from my private email===================

> If you have N agents each undergoing a mutation every clock

> tick, that is no different from 1 agent undergoing a mutation

> every N clock ticks. The single one can do it, provided you're

> willing to live at 1/Nth the rate.

Exactly, and since nature is competitive, the slower one won't win the

evolutionary race because it won't adapt to dynamic change as fast as the

one with a large population.


> 10 people are only 10x more productive than 1 person. They're

> not 2^10 times more productive...

That assumes the 10 don't interact and form (n! - k!) / k! permutations

for all values of k.

That is why we need the decentralized, end-to-end internet.

> But the fact is there is a finite number of time

> that one agent can interact with others.

That isn't the point. No one agent is exposed to all possible

environments, so sharing is essential for maximum knowledge. Listen again

at the 0:40 to 5:50, most especially from 3:50 to 5:50, or THE KEY

important point from 5:00 to 5:25 min of this:


[1] matter means mass or energy, potential or kinetic, via the relationship E = mc^2

[2] random is not uniformly! Uniform distribution is order via a concentration of variance (of spacing and/or time).

Forrest Lane
11 Sep 10, 11:55
I do, mate

I do read this. While aplying exertion. A serious amount.

By the way, Shelby,

I’ve got myself acquainted with your Theory of the Universe. I’ve always hated exact sciences, so I can’t really provide any opinion on its ‘maths’. But as far as I can see your Renaissance is a new decentralized world. As far as I understand you believe that an infinite number of agents acting independently (that is in social context: people acting unrestrictedly out of their free will) will in a natural way provide the most sensible and fit ’overall picture’. Well, I don’t know about particles and stuff, but it simply doesn’t seem to be true if related to human beings. Let’s see. Is man rather something good (as the glorious scientologist Tom Cruise chooses to assert as well as many other people) or something bad? I wouldn’t know, but I reckon we can contend that man is undoubtedly lazy. In a vast majority of cases he’s neither good nor bad, but generaly week. Thus in all those cases everything almost entirely depends on circumstances. Being put in, let’s say, ’favourable’ ones a typical representative of humankind can spend his whole life without having commited a single bad deed. Being put in less encouraging surroundings the very same one can easily wind up supporting something like Third Reich. I’d say that there are very few people with unbeatable inner axis (whether good or bad) who are inclined to walk their own path, whatever it might be. All the rest are products of influence. And I’m not sure that they deserve a lot more than they have, and from which they are currently ’blocked’ as you say somewhere. What is the principal difference between some lying corporate scum distributing among themselves nine figure bonuses for losing money of millions of people and so many of those people going out regularly to buy another pile of glossy crap with their 135 credit cards, the actual source of credit on which are artificially inflated prises of their houses that they do not own; or enjoying a five euro cup of coffee while being on a social assistance as so many Greek dudes, for instance, used to do? It’s the same mentality. Which derives from inherent constituents of human nature. On the other hand, there are other - somewhat more decent - parts to the same entity. And it seems that in a critically significant number of cases which parts are going to surface is a matter of influence, imposed on people by their natural surroundings. If human beings are provided with an opportunity to act out of their free will unrestrictedly, then, in the most cases, they will act wrong. For instance, why average Americans (not the corrupted ruling elite) should exert their minds to realize a simple fact that they kill or endorse killing of innocent women and children for oil? They will have put some energy into the process and wind up with identifying themselves as murderes and thieves. It’s much more convenient and self-rewarding (for a certain period of time) to save this energy and continue to pose like heroes and messiahs. And that would be the choice that 95% of human beings do deliberately on 95% of occasions. Those are the grounds on which Nietzsche had disparaged his modern man more than a hundred years ago, saying something like (not a direct quote) ’it’s hard to fight overwhelming contemt towards this man when you realize that he acts not out of ignorance but out of his deliberate choice’. Just because choosing so constitutes the path of least resistance (by the way acting out of ignorance is hardly an excuse if one simply opt to be ignorant) . And ’’it’s hard to argue that the 20th century was conclusive in extinguishing any remaining illusions as to what man is inclined to choose while being unrestricted by external circumstances and not stimulated in any way to choose otherwise” - which would be a direct quote from my script. People did have a breathtaking chance to choose otherwise in the middle of the last century. Then was that crucial point when our civilization as a whole could change its both lethal and suicidal ways and abandon the road to an abyss as a result of proper decisions made independently by a critical number of its representatives (since they had been provided with an actual opportunity to do so for the first time in the history of mankind) - and make you and your theory happy ones. That’s precisely what Kubrick was pointing at with his magnificent “Odyssey” (which evidently can be perceived as a dramatization of the same Nietzsche’s “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”) issued at the exactly right time. But shortly afterwards it became clear that Kubrick had put too much completely unjustified faith in our glorious mankind. That movie was filled with hope. For what people did with it he accounts in his last work, in which the amount of this substance approximately equals the same thing in the end of Kafka’s “The Trial”. Why our modern civilization more resembles not even a herd of rams but rather a row of vegetables? It hardly seems to be a piece of mystery. Allow me just one more quote from my script:


It sounds sad, though may be true,

but still - if people make such

a choice out of their free will

now, when they have been bestowed

with an opportunity to do so -

it means that those things which

make them do so are their nature -

and always been. In other words -

people always been like this.


Not at all. It rather means that

those things have always been -

a part - of their nature.


O.K., let’s set aside this not

quite clear entity of soul

pertinent to your self-serving

mythology and stick to the term

‘consciousness’. People might

be not that bad. But they are

undoubtedly lazy. Now, take that

thing which is supposed to be

responsible for their choices

and action - their consciousness.

It may very well operate exactly

by the same rules as your body,

for instance. Say, you are a

runner. In order to be able to

run better then you do at the

moment you are expected to

practise. In order to make Mr.

Bolt nervous you need to practise

a lot. Former man was no better.

He possessed - or was possessed

at times - by the same human



But he was permanently exerted

by ordinary conditions of his

life? Which made him progress -

in some ways at any rate?


Exactly. But in the age of mass

consumption this natural incentive

doesn’t work any more. The progress

in technologies had spawned you

a rival - mass culture now brought

at every home 24/7 by television.

This thing does precisely what you

have - it lies and irresponsibly

trades dangerous illusions - most

notably that of getting what

you want here and now - for

money and power, and thus not

giving, but rather killing

any hope. With this compound

the art of veg growing has

had a breakthrough. Even your

corporation has probably never

had an opportunity to brainwash

people on such a scale with this

degree of intensity. Through its

application people’s minds have

been on an exclusive fast-food

sustenance for decades, with

no training activity involved

whatsoever. While just one year of

this diet supplemented with such

a regime is quite enough to turn your

mind into a mash. The outcome - at

least among the vast majority within

the Western culture - can be easily

observed. The product of this

gardening - a potential human being

once - stares at the screen having

conveniently convinced himself

out of his sheer laziness that

he will remain a master of the

universe forever if only he

continues to buy. While a bunch

of greedy scumbags use this

situation to sneak into his pocket

every next minute to steel another

15 bucks out of it. Which he’d

allow, because, in fact, he

understands that it would be a payment

for sustaining his illusion. And

this thing with his brains perfectly

fucked up and will degenerated he

is now dying to preserve. So, what

do we have? - a retard who has lost

any ability for adequate perception

of reality, and thus for any

adequate action. Why?

because he’s naturally vain? No,

because with his head stuck into

his ass, maybe not his intellect,

but most certainly his mind has

been out of any practice for a

half of century. Can it be fixed?

I believe so. However, as we are

now, it doesn’t take a lot to figure

out our brilliant perspectives.


So, despite the present condition

you think that man does want to

see the truth?


You mean the one that actually

exists? I think he’s capable

of it. Some people thought

that an average man would avoid

it and do so deliberately, not

out of ignorance or being

genuinely lost, at least whenever

he’s provided with a choice.

Others assumed otherwise. I still

believe it to be just a matter

of practice. But practice

derives from what is deemed

normal in your neighbourhood.

Set the right rules - they

will initiate the right

process. Or at least make them

known. In plain words, stop


That said, I do not quite follow how you’re going to block destructive influence in your ‘incredibly dispersed’ world and promote constructive one (it’s always rather a ’centralized’ endeavour). Or, if this constructive influence is not promoted (something like Nietzsche’s doctrine of the Superman who tries to lead in a presumably right direction not through violence but by setting an example), what makes you think that people wouldn’t make exactly the same choices and we have the same shit once again (in fact, you yourself expect the repetition of 1913-2012 period but in a fast-forward mode in social and economic terms). While to get rid through decentralization from any influence obviously seems utopian.



P.S. I have also left a comment on your “End Game, Gold Investors Will be Destroyed” article. I hope you will give it a look when you have time.

Shelby Moore
11 Sep 10, 23:32
Propaganda vs. Evolution

Forrest Lane, thanks for the feedback.

Ah yes, my incomplete Theory of Everything (TOE):

I interpret your basic premise is that evolution has stopped functioning, because you assert that men are incapable of meaningful diversity, and I know that science says diversity is required for evolution to anneal (mutate in a meaningful direction):

Polls show majority of Americans are against the Iraq war. A significant minority is aware of million+ deaths in Iraq ( ), 9-11, etc.. I have explained that even in something as simple as smartphones, customer choice is thwarted by oligarchy: (Jocelyn is me)

Why is it that the reality you think exists is different from the reality that exists? Why is that there is some amount of the mass action that you allege? What exactly is obscuring the awareness of both the real diversity that exists and encouraging mass action? And what is the weapon that nature is using to destroy that so that evolution will continue?

Before I tell you the obvious answer, let me point out that nature (evolution) routes around less diverse structures. Coase's Theorem states this. The 1856 2nd law of thermodynamics states this ( ). And the link I gave above shows that nature always favors more diversity so evolution can anneal meaninfully.

The obvious answer is that a few families (an oligarchy, ) control all major media of their world! And nature's weapon is the internet! The major newspapers and TV stations are dying ( ).

Those who continue to stay vested in the old order ( ), are not going to fit through the narrow gate to good globalization, as I explained in my reply to your comment at my “End Game, Gold Investors Will be Destroyed” article:

It is not that humans are good or bad, or that a good deed can even be defined non-arbitrarily. What matters is that every *uncorrelated* (arising out of free will, not mass media mind programming) deed is a mutation for evolution, and evolution (the trend of the universe) won't tolerate obstruction. It is not that I won't allow a centralized force to block evolution, it is that evolution itself won't allow it.

I leave you with an alleged Rockefeller quote at a Bilderberg meeting at turn of the 21st century:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

Don't you see that technology is obliterating the ability of TPTB to keep the light from being shined on their fraud? The humans are poised to route around TPTB as often as technology offers them such choices.

Forrest Lane
14 Sep 10, 12:51
Your reply

Well, in a way that was exactly my point. I’ve just used the terms “destructive influence” and “mass culture” instead of “all major media of the world controlled by an oligarchy”. But, at the same time, there is a major difference in our positions as to this influence’s origin. Who are those TBTB anyway - some kind of aliens imposed on human kind by extraterrestrial authorities? Or by some mysterious powers? No, they are us. And they had come to power under much more ’dispersed’ circumstances than those that we have now. Hence what you are talking about may very well prove to be just a technological ’reset’.

Even if it works out and we start again on a new technological level with an infinite number of agents acting independently (i.e. people, not mind programmed by mass media, but acting out of their free will) this situation won’t last, just as it didn’t in the past. The milieu of the 19th century America was infinitely more ’dispersed’ if compared to that of today. But it had eventually spawned Rockefellers, Rothschilds and the whole pack. Even if that “every ’uncorrelated’ deed is a mutation for evolution” rule is applicable to human beings, there will never be such a sterile environment which is required for this ’uncorrelated’ thing to exist for any historically considerable period of time (unless you take the labour to explain how it would be possible to maintain such an environment by using technological breakthroughs - in, fact, that was a core question already in my first post). Let’s take some rude example - the movies, for instance. Films are constructions of cinematic language. To perceive them adequately you need to be more or less literate in that language. To learn it takes effort. But I still contend that people are lazy. The vast majority of them do not want to apply any exertion to the process of their existence. They can do that if they are forced to do so by circumstances or, at least, encouraged to do so by some external influence. But they won’t make such a choice out of their free will. Allow me one more brief quote from the same dialogue:

Everything is pretty

simple - in order to make a

progress in advancing to any

constructive end you need to

apply exertion. It’s not a moral

obligation or kind of duty,

imposed on you by any powers.

It’s a simple but unbending

natural law. Hence any sensible

existence is inextricably

connected with permanent effort.

Find your path, then walk it.

If you manage - that‘s cool.

But only if you do. Because

there is neither any Saviour

to do it for you nor any Devil

to blame your failure upon.

Which, however, would obviously

sound as a bad joke to our

gloriously pious bear lover.

95% of people simply do not think like that and won’t act like that if provided with a free choice. And that is wrong. It’s not that ‘wrong’ - or that ‘right’ - which cannot be defined otherwise than arbitrarily. It’s an actual ’wrong’ (like the same thing as to think that water is dry is wrong, ‘cause it’s wet). (By the way, we would be able to define any deed almost without any exception in this terms too, if it’s considered in a context. The only thing to which you cannot attribute such notions is action in general. You cannot say that to kill is bad or that to kill is good. But you can certainly say that to kill little kids with someone else’s hands to provide for your Escalade with cheep gasoline is bad. Indubitably.

While to vote for someone who will initiate such a process - or even to oppose his election in a mode that proves to be insufficient to prevent it - is the same thing as to personally shoot them in the head. That wouldn‘t be arbitrarily, dude.) And there is no way how many ’independent’ wrongs can produce an ’overall’ right in the end. You might be disagree and assert that it’s exactly the opposite, but to me it’s the same thing as is pointed out by H. L. Mencken: “Democracy is a pathetic believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance”. And that’s not all. Let’s go back to our example with the movies. Given what was said above, a producer has a choice - to exert himself and create something worthy and complex, which a priori can be adequately perceived by relatively esoteric audiences, or save himself a lot of energy and set off a conveyor of easily accessible crap.

As it was already said the vast majority of people will choose the path of least resistance if provided with a choice and not stimulated to choose otherwise (by an example set and made known to them, some other incentive present in the environment, education or whatever - in fact, I’ve conceived the above-mentioned script about a year ago precisely as an attempt to re-educate people before 2012). And it doesn’t even have to be a [vast] majority. A few of them would be quite enough. As soon as these few have made some easy money through choosing this path, they instantly start to spend part of it (they can afford themselves to do it now, while the few people who have chosen honestly cannot) to change the rules of a game in a self-serving way. It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out the rest. They start to create institutions and channels through which they can manupulate the masses and exert their influence upon them, and from this point on it’s getting only worse, and we ultimately wind up in the present situation: TPTB and socialism (in your terms). But those TPTB are the same masses. They have just drawn a lucky lottery ticket - just like all those Hollywood assholes. Thus that sterile environment that is required for maintaining conditions which are necessary for your agents to act independently is rendered extremely unstable by inherent constituents of human nature. And hardly any technology can change that. The situation you are craving for had already occurred in the middle of the last century (about Kubrick‘s referencing to it in his movie I have already written). But now we are where we are. I agree that the Internet is our only hope at the moment - simply because everything else is controlled by the enemy.

But I don’t understand how you’re going to use it to solve this problem. You say that majority of Americans are against the Iraq war. Now, when they have suffered the massive loss of life and money without any constructive outcome whatsoever - yes. But it was not like that when they were expecting to easily get out of it victorious and with benefits. And they wouldn’t have been, if they had managed to do that. All viciously slain women and children would have undoubtedly been considered an acceptable collateral damage not only by TPTB, but the masses as well in this case. Just like those Georgian murderers have become remarkably pacifistic only when their ass was properly kicked. You say that a significant minority is aware of the truth about 9/11. First, I’m not sure about it - have any polls shown you that even on the ’naturally’ independent Internet? (by the way, Wikipedia - not exactly a neocons‘ offspring to me - considers any plausible versions - that is any which do not coincide with the official one - of these events in a separate article entitled “Conspiracy Theories of the 9/11” along with other interesting suggestions - that it was made by aliens would be one of them, for instance). Second, what difference does it make if they ain’t do shit. It reminds me that brilliant “Smug” episode from “South Park” with a reference to George Clooney’s speech at the Oscars and his implications that by making “Syryana“ they have saved our mankind (Bruce Willis was obviously on vacation), as well as Parker/Stone’s famous 100th one. Those people in the 60s who knew the truth about the Vietnam war did do something. But what you ‘know’ while sitting idly on your ass is a matter of profound indifference. So, there would be two major points that you seem to be ignoring. The first one - a virtual environment can be as easily manipulated as a ’real’ one. Take a wild guess: what site has more users - that of “Film Quarterly” magazine or “Empire” magazine (and the gap is of several levels). The problem is not that the masses are forced to make this choice through brainwashing. The problem is that they are stimulated to make this choice all by themselves through offering them what they want - or rather an illusion of it (just as the script says: ’illusions of easily getting what one wants here and now’).

Which they do (that‘s why the perfectly consistent creed of Buddhism does not spread beyond its historically determined area, but, instead, people now, many years after the Inquisition had ceased to exist and when they are free to make a choice, still choose to take those lies the institutional Christianity feed them out of its self-serving considerations).

The truth is out there on “The Market Oracle” and I don’t seem to remember having seen any armed guards around it, but no one simply gives a shit. Where are those normal humans who hold their breath waiting for a technological opportunity to do a right thing? Are we talking about those people who voted for Chaney? People who voted for Bush? Twice? Give me a break. The masses may be not that brilliant but they are not comprised of clinical idiots. And if people choose to see only what they want to see or think two things - even if opposite ones - at the same time (see Orwell on the subject) just because it suits - or they believe that it suits - their interests, it’s completely another story. So, the second one is that TPTB are not some vampires ’shedding the light on whose fraud’ will make them vaporize. They and the masses are two sides to the same coin. It’s not that people (the masses) are like that because TPTB are out there. It’s rather that TPTB are out there because the people are like that. So it’s very likely that the only thing that you will be able to accomplish with your high-tech breakthrough is restarting a new round of rat race on a new technological level, and in the end you will have to wind up with simply substituting a bunch of frauds with a pack of crooks.

While diversity is not outside, but inside us. And to make the best parts surface we need a centralized endeavour of fierce education to promote individual responsibility and obtain a real shift. To the agent Smith’s: “Evolution, Morpheus, evolution”, the latter should reply: “It’s rather revolution”. The Starchild. Incipit Zarathustra.

Shelby Moore ("author of this article")
17 Oct 10, 07:59
Oxymoronic "secret questions"

Does any one else hate the "Secret Question" password recovery techniques? The name of my first dog, where I was born, etc... are not secrets! Especially after I answer the same question on several websites (you think they are all perfectly secure??). I always answers these (if I am forced to answer) with gibberish, e.g. "kjhbjkuytv78wsdnjksnkjjn891gb ckj". Then I call or email support if I need password recovery.

Oh and in rebuttal to Forest Lane's last comment:

The universe is always trending to more disorder, i.e. more independent actors and more possibilities. It will always outrun the centralized orders. That is the definition of natural law.

Shelby Moore ("author of this article")
18 Oct 10, 07:06
"Internet Kill Switch"

From Paul Rosenberg the CEO of Cryptohippie USA, the leading provider of Internet anonymity, wrote about the "Internet Kill Switch":

Obama proposes to eliminate secure websites entirely because the govt will always have a backdoor.

My rebuttal:

1. It is impractical for them to enforce that proposed wiretap backdoor legislation, people will simply move to P2P and rogue anonymous software for doing so. This will be effective against large, popular sites though.

2. "Internet kill switch" is technically impractical, because TCP/IP is self-healing and will route around any networks that are taken down. They can kill major arteries, but the internet will go virally P2P in a very short time.

3. Technically, SecureBGP (BGPSEC) can't be widely implemented because it won't scale well beyond the major arteries. Ad hoc routing with TCP/IP will route around it, if it becomes a block (nature sees it as non-functional and routes around due to Coase's Theorem). The fact that BGP is P2P now, means that it will be impossible to go back to making it centralized.

4. Regarding intellectual property policing, a decentralized DNS is feasible and will be incentivized by the govt's fascism.

5. All of this is like the Napster experience-- the more the authorities attacked, the more P2P alternatives popped up and the more people that participated in downloading music for free. The govt is powerless (as usual), but they will hold sway over the large sites and arteries.

6. "Computer health certificate" is so impossible, I really doubt the competence of the author of the link you provided.

7. Cloud computing can be P2P, I am working on it:

Yes we have a battle coming between the State and the individual.

I urge people to come up to speed on the centralization that is dying:

And more on that:

Post Comment

Only logged in users are allowed to post comments. Register/ Log in