Re: OT: my new PC rocks!!

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 01/01/04 

Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 09:35:42 -0000

Jumbo wrote:
> Beth wrote:
> > Personally, I _don't want_ to lose the wires...wires don't cause
me
> > problems because I take the time to keep them tidy and taped
> > down...and they are preferable to _know_ what on Earth is
connected to
> > what...and am I the only person who hears the phrase "always on
> > broadband" and instantly thinks "security nightmare"? And, being
an
> > "old skooler" who cut my teeth on 8-bitters, I always quote modern
> > specifications with _regret_ at how much is _going to waste_...
>
> I also think "security nightmare" about that always on broadband.
> That aspect of it doesn't appeal to me.
> :0)

I just think it's, basically, bullcrap they came up with, so as to
have an extra item on the "features list"...like: "It's faster!! It's
really fast!!! Much faster than dial-up...and...and...and...you can
leave it on all day for no particular reason! Yes, it's always on,
sitting there being of absolutely no use to you personally - racking
up your electricity bill - so that crackers have a big old party at
all this amazingly fast bandwidth out there, which is just sitting
around doing nothing except waiting for a 'port probe' from crackers -
who are going to want to target your "superior" bandwidth, without
doubt - to find all the badly protected machines out there...and with
the Great Clueless Unwashed out there, there's plenty of such
machines, for sure"...

The sole benefit of "always on"? Well, as I don't believe in all this
bullcrap, I actually disconnect and reconnect my modem as and when I
need it...it's not particularly difficult to stop supplying power to
it so it's not "always on" (e.g. the best "techno-fix" of them all:
when in doubt, yank out the power cord ;)...it takes about, ooh, a
second or perhaps two seconds to connect...come on, what sort of "I
must access the internet urgently within one second" emergency is
actually worth leaving probably tens of thousands of machines out
there completely vurnerable to attack? There is no such thing...this
is impatience to a whole new level...unleashing a monsterous security
nightmare of tens of thousands of machines with large bandwidth,
sitting there for no particularly good reason whatsoever...almost as
if they are sitting there, specifically _waiting_ to be cracked
open..."sitting ducks" only mildly covers what "always on" really
means...

And, better yet, you _pay_ for this priviledge because, granted, it
might not be much power but the electricty powering those little
LEDs - which, while not in use, are a completly useless thing
entirely - is coming out of your electricity bill...hence, "always on"
translates as: "Pay extra to make your machine a sitting duck to
probably the biggest security nightmare mankind has been dumb enough
to just leave lying around!"...yes, there's no need to dial-up anymore
because it's 'always on'...but, then again, it takes a few seconds at
most to actually connect, that it is pretty absurd logic...

What next? "Always on" ovens!! Yes, there's no need to wait for your
oven to "preheat" before cooking any more...because it stays on
constantly!! No more waiting for your oven to heat up, as when you
open it, it's already "on" scorching full heat...permanently!!! Don't
worry about the absurd cost of leaving an oven on full heat
permanently or any of those worrying statistics you read in the paper
about thousands of homes burning to the ground because of this
ludicrously dangerous fire hazard or those tales about children being
hurt and killed because of this "clever" permanent danger sitting in
your kitchen that you have absolutely no control over whatsoever!!
Remember, "always on" is your friend...it's good...you can trust this
because it's one of the "features" listed on the back of the box...if
we call it a "feature" then it's got to be a brilliant idea, right? ;)

Yes, the above is absurd logic...it's a disasterously bad
idea...right, that understood, realise that this "always on" concept
is roughly the same problem, except that "fire hazard" now becomes
"security nightmare" instead...and, at least with an oven, to be fair,
you _do_ have to wait quite a while for it to preheat...there's not
even that excuse with broadband connections because they usually count
as "networks" and take only a few seconds to connect at most (blink
and you've missed it :)...and with the slowness it takes Internet
Explorer and Outlook Express (though no browser loads that
quickly...Mozilla's even worse ;), how on Earth are you going to
notice a few seconds compared to almost whole minutes waiting for
these things to do absolutely nothing, as they always do?

"Always on" is a disaster...in fact, the only reason I can
legitimately come up with as a plausible reason why they push it so
heavily is to try to make people think that "always on" is good and
something that they should demand at the store...then, all the
"spyware" and "adware" these companies release can _constantly report_
on your every move back to their servers...the FBI can use some "back
door" that was arranged with Microsoft to be in Windows, which was
part of the deal they struck in that DoJ case (because, in case people
forget, they were found _guilty_...but you'd think they actually got
off from the constantly watered-down "punishment" which I think now
has been decided to simply be: "a slap on the wrist and let's all just
forget about it" ;)...

I think you get the picture: Create a climate where people are
ignorantly _demanding_ security cameras (they "reduce crime",
apparently...interesting, then, how most city centres have full closed
circuit cameras in operation everywhere...and then they publish crime
statistics that, oh, show an overall rise in crime...and, ummm, how do
you measure a "non-existence" anyway? How do they know that there
would have been six armed robberies but the cameras reduced it to only
two? Are they hiring psychics these days? And, if crime isn't going
down in the overall, does this simply mean that all those stores and
"retail opportunities" are being protected, at the expense that all
the crime is moving out of those areas and being targetted at people's
_homes_ instead? Ummm, and we're supposed to be thankful of
this?)...where people _demand_ that they have hardware which leaves
their computers completely vurnerable to cracker attack, "spyware"
reporting back what you're doing on your machine, the FBI and others
getting access to your machine without the hassle of getting warrants
and such because, hey, "Big Brother" can simply pretend to be a
cracker...if they get caught, then it was just some teenager doing it,
right? The judge will happily back this up when the FBI forge
themselves a simple "anti-terrorist" excuse or utter those immortal
"national security" words: "What are you doing?" / "National security,
I can't answer your questions" / "Who's accountable for this?" /
"National security, I can't answer your questions" / "Is this actually
legal?" / "National security, I can't answer your questions" / "Can
you demonstrate in any way that doesn't compromise 'national security'
that your actions are legitimate?" / "No, you must simply accept
everything I say and do, on the grounds of national security"...

If the judge isn't happy with such nonsense, then you pull out your
trump card: "anti-terrorism"...with "anti-terrorism", you're allowed
to: kidnap foreign nationals from countries totally outside your
jurisdiction, in complete violation of fundamental international law,
and then torture them for years without any prospect of being
_charged_ with anything, let alone the concept of legal representation
or fair trial or anything...nope, you're their "play thing" until they
get bored...which is when they simply execute you behind closed
doors...public accountability? Justification? Evidence that proves
_beyond doubt_ that they really have the right person for these
supposed crimes (evidence of crimes is even absent in many case, for
goodness sake)...which, by the way, is to protect _society_ more than
the victim...if you've got the wrong guy, then the _real culprit_ is
still out there...not just capable of committing more crimes and
terrorist plots but, heck, you've given him a free hand...you've "got
your man", right? So, you reckon you have the culprit of some crime in
your concentration camp, so you're simply NOT EVEN LOOKING for the
actual _real culprit_...locking up the wrong person isn't just a case
of "immorality" to the innocent victim who's suffered because of your
stupid mistake...oh no, locking up the wrong person is an effective
"full pardon" to the real person who's _STILL OUT THERE_...there's
no-one still looking at the evidence to look for suspects, there's
no-one trailing these dangerous people...they are totally free to do
whatever they like, as there's not even anyone going after them or
looking at them, let alone trying to actually prevent them doing
things...that is why the system of laws evolved in the way it
has...fair trial protects _everyone_...but, most importantly, it
protects from mistakes...because mistakes aren't excusible...if you
lock an innocent in that concentration camp as a "terrorist" when they
aren't at all...then the real terrorist out there is walking around
scot-free...and when they kill, that could have been an _entirely
preventable_ set of deaths...there is _very good reason_ why the
American Constitution guarantees legal representation, fair trial,
speedy trial, public accountability, public scrutiny, that you _must_
be _charged_ with something before even being detained, and so on and
so forth...the law did not just "appear" overnight, you know...it
_evolved_ into what it is over hundreds of years (it's, in a sense,
_older_ than America herself because the founding principles were
"borrowed" from the long evolution of law in European
countries...which themselves have not been ashamed to "borrow" from
elsewhere when they could see "good ideas" evolve...hey, there's no
need to start completely from scratch for all the stuff we already
know is good, right? ;)...every single one of those rules and
regulations and laws that are in effect in a court of law were _all_
put there for a _good reason_...

You ignore law at your peril...as Cecil B. Demille said of the Ten
Commandments when he was filming the movie of the same name: "It is
impossible to break the law, you can only break yourself against
it"...because, though, granted, there are times when law is not up to
the job and fails, we all really know in our hearts that its
principles are timeless, self-evident, logical principles...due to the
process of making laws (not particularly easy, having to pass by so
many people and so much "due process" and red tape and so forth), it's
all _evolved_ into place...because much of this process occurred a
long time ago, it's tempting to simply think that some person sat down
and just "invented" the rule of law overnight and sort of "made it all
up" in one night or something...absolutely NOT so at all...actual
events and miscarriages of justice that later came to light and times
when law has failed, have conspired over centuries to "evolve" and
"hone" the principles of law into rock solid dependable principle of
living...you can only break yourself against the law, not break
through it...it, in fact, exactly _evolved_ as such because thousands
of crimes were literally broken against the shores of law into order
to be able to refine it into what it is today...the Constitution is
_entirely correct_ to refer to these things as "self-evident truths"
because they came to light by society repeatedly breaking itself
against the shores until the only things that could stand were the
guiding lighthouses of _principle_...principles are immortal and
self-evident and harm only comes to those who ignore them, in the
end..._that_, in fact, is what defines them as "principles", that this
is "by definition" and you cannot say any differently...

"1984 will NOT be 1984"
[ Apple Mac advert from 1984, directed by Ridley Scott ;) ]

Indeed, it took another 20 years for the mechanisms to be put in place
(well, Orwell had named their methods and strategies perfectly - what
else is an Orwellian euphamism like "friendly fire" but a "war is
peace" reverse? - so that forced the fascists' hands to be even more
deceptive and devious in how they go about setting up their police
state...the oldest trick in the book - as employed by all the best
con-men - _trick_ your victims into actually _demanding_ that you do
these things to them...like some cartoon: "you want this" / "No, I
don't" / "you want this" / "No, I don't" / "you want this" / "No, I
don't" / "you don't want this" / "Yes, I do!!!"...oh crap! ;)...

1984 will NOT be 1984 because, increasingly, it looks like they've got
their sights on 2004 - 20 years later - instead...

Oh...and a Happy New Year to you all too ;)

Beth :)

Relevant Pages

  • =?windows-1252?Q?What_The_Heretical_2_Case_Says_About_The_Federal_=93?= =?windows-1252?Q?Hat
    ... arrested on "hate crime" charges, should they ever so much as change ... And yet, the American MainStream Media ... discreditable to her but irrelevant to American law. ... white men against blacks were being inadequately punished was a lie. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: For the Cardinal, the issue of prisoners is case closed
    ... people convicted under the abusive laws of the Cuban regime Dan Christensen aka DCPROOF. ... Dangerousness Law 88 Article 91 ... Article 144, which defines the crime of desacato, or "disrespect." ... These articles come under the heading, "The Dangerous Status and Security Measures," a section of the Penal Code under which someone can be sentenced for up to four years in prison on the grounds that the authorities believe the individual has a "special proclivity" to commit crimes, even though he or she might not have actually committed a crime. ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)
  • Self defence
    ... responsible member of society. ... If the crime under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on ... non-lethal weapons she may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace ... someone needs to inform the law enforcement ...
    (uk.politics.misc)