Re: Software Protection system...Any tester there ?

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 04/21/04 

Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 05:43:39 +0100

wolfgang kern wrote:
> Beth replied to:
> *
> | > > Everything can be analysed and modified.
> | > not "love". ;-)) :-))
> *
> I just remember an very old Z-80 BASIC example were a virtual
> psychologist (32Kb) responded with astonishing human-like questions
> to the dialog. Similar to the Teddy-Bear anyway.

Yes, a version of a very famous AI program...which, funnily enough,
was called "Eliza" (but is no relation to myself in any way...though,
as I often waffle on about completely pointless things with an "alien
brain" and produce text like a robot on a factory floor, then it might
be tempting to think I'm just the modern "mark II" of the
program...unfortunately, nothing so grand...I'm just a very weird
person, is all ;)...

What the program basically did is parse over what you type and then
extract things, turning them around into a question to keep you
talking (and when it can't understand what was typed, out comes stock
phrases like: "please, tell me more" and "interesting, but why do you
feel you need to tell me this?" and so forth ;)...

For example, if you type "I am afraid of mice" then the program picks
up "I am" and replaces it with "why are you" or "how long have you
been" or other very clever "wordplay" tricks that turn a sentence into
a question, to produce seemingly "intelligent" replies: "I am afraid
of mice" -> "how long have you been afraid of mice?"...if it finds "I
think" in a sentence, then it questions "why do you doubt...?"

At no point, of course, does it actually understand a single word of
what you're saying...all the answers are "stock phrases" with perhaps
a touch of "random numbers" thrown in to select various alternatives
(so that it doesn't end up repeating itself too often, as that would
be the big give-away)...

Arguably, "Eliza" could be considered to have half-passed the "Turing
Test", _despite_ how actually crap and totally lacking in
"intelligence" it was...this is because the author was a university
professor who wrote it for fun, just to make a point about the
difference between actual "intelligence" and _perceived_
"intelligence"...and, from the choice of subject, to probably also
make a little subversive comment about what he thought about the
profession of "psychotherapy"..."he", by the way, was Joseph
Weizenbaum and this happened in the mid '60s...

And what made this program so famous was the unbelievable effect it
had on people...he placed the program onto the MIT mainframe and
students could access the program from many terminals dotted around
the campus at all hours of the day and night...looking through his
"access logs", Weizenbaum noticed that the program was being accessed
_frequently_ and, more interestingly, always late at night...as if the
students really were all believing that the program was a real
"computer psychotherapist" and were actually seriously discussing
their problems with the program...the accesses to the program were
also, suspiciously, _very long_ which also suggested that they weren't
merely just looking quickly at the program to be "amazed" at how such
a simple program could seem so "intelligent"...but, yeah, were really
exploiting the program for long, free "therapist" sessions...

What is even more interesting is that Weizenbaum's secretary _knew_
how the program worked (scanning for "keywords", turning your
sentences around into questions, etc. ;)...and, yet, when Weizenbaum
walked into the room, she'd become embarrassed and try to hide the
"print outs" of the conversation...she _knew_ what it was doing but
_still_, it seems, was having long conversations about her problems
with the program...and when Weizenbaum - like any curious scientific
mind - was so mystified by all these students accessing his program
late at night for hours at a time, that he suggested to his secretary:
"perhaps we could hook it up to a printer and see what they are
actually doing for all this time"...she freaked out with complete
horror: "You can't do that!"...treating him like he'd just suggested
they set up video cameras in changing rooms or similar major "peeping
Tom" activity...but, then again, if they really were seriously
engaging the program with their secrets and problems, then she was
actually very right to insist on their privacy being respected
(Weizenbaum, to be fair, was just not seriously believing people were
so easily fooled by some cheap and cheerful LISP program he'd only
written for a joke)...

Hence, as I say, you could say this program "half-passed" the "Turing
Test" in that people were _treating it_ like it was another human
being on the other end of the line...interestingly, though, one
presumes most knew or could work out after a bunch of replies that it
wasn't really a human but _still_ they persisted to talk with it as if
it was...

Though it would almost certainly fail with an input like: "So, do you
think David Beckham is a good football player?" (it wouldn't
understand the _semantics_ of the question - nor know who "David
Beckham" is (like, perhaps, a lot of Americans out there don't know
who he is...but the rest of the "soccer"-Loving world will know for
sure ;) to talk about him in any way - that the reply would likely
come out as being crap and too obviously "computer
generated"...although, that said, with "keyword scanning", you could
still come up with a very simple "David Beckham is a good football
player. Why do you ask this question?" to quickly try to "change the
subject" to avoid being "found out" ;)...one of the clever things with
choosing a "psychotherapy" application is that you don't really "talk"
in the same way...at least not "chat"...but kind of sit there just
replying - quite embarassed - as "minimally" as possible to the
program...the actual _style_ of a "therapy" session lends itself
particularly well for "bluffing" that you actually know what's going
on when the program, in fact, was nothing but a "keyword parser" and a
bunch of "if" statements, so to speak...

Like I say, it probably _still worked_ in its "theraputic" context
from the perspective of just allowing people to talk a problem out
loud...it just had to show some "interest" in what was being said to
be slightly better than talking to a brick wall...but, thereafter,
even if you know the program isn't really understanding you - as
Weizenbaum's secretary did - you could simply use it as a way to "talk
a problem out with yourself" but without the worry that this is the
proverbial "first sign of madness" to be having conversations with
yourself...no, you could claim to be "talking to the program"...the
truth of the matter, though, is that the program simply "mirrored"
back what you said into a question to keep you talking that, actually,
you really _are_ talking to yourself because the machine's replies
were _quite literally_ what you'd just said feeded back at you in a
different form...

The real funny thing is, of course, that there are real
psychotherapists out there who basically do much the same thing...none
of the "standard replies" actually look in any way out of place from
what therapists _really do say_ (you know, "please, tell me more",
"why do you feel you needed to tell me that?", "Do you think this
effects your relationship with other people?" :)...the program was
_programmed_ to throw out so-called "Barnum statements" but therapists
seem to also do much the same...

A "Barnum statement" for those that don't know (and have probably
fallen for them) is that statement which _sounds_ like it's "personal"
but is, in fact, totally generic...the "Eliza" program, of course, is
the perfect demonstration of these "Barnum statements" because it
literally was a "on-the-fly Barnum statement generator" and nothing
more than that...

Amazing, actually, that there's an awful lot of people who's careers
are basically all about "Barnum statements"...for instance, you go to
the fortune teller and they say "yes, you've been having difficulties
of late...someone in your close circle of friends is involved...but
this is starting to clear up, isn't it? I can tell you that these
problems will eventually sort themselves out in the future"...hands up
who finds such a statement to seem to have some "bearing" on their
current situation...basically, 99% - if not 100% - of people will
"relate" to such a total load of "generic" nonsense I've just spitted
out there...it all works on what applies to anyone and
everyone...everyone has problems so saying "you've been having
difficulties" is always going to apply...the "cleverness" here is
phrasing it in such a delibrately _VAGUE_ manner that what I'm
depending on is that you'll automatically think to yourself: "what
difficulties? Ah, yes...that problem at work I've been having"...it's
_YOU_ who's actually "filling in the gaps" without realising it...

If you like, I'm presenting you with a blank, vague "form" with
"generic" things that apply to everyone: "name", "date of birth",
"address", etc....then _YOU_ are filling are actually filling out that
form in how you reply: "Hmmm, I see in my crystal ball that you have a
name...I see that it has a vowel in it [ practically all words do that
this assertion isn't taking any big risks of being wrong...and,
anyway, when they clearly get it wrong, the fortune teller invents
some "bad vibes have clouded my vision...these bad vibes seem to be
coming from you...is there some problem you're not being honest
about?" which turns it all back around into seeming like they, again,
can really see into the future and can "read your soul" as you sit
there ]" / "Yes, yes...that's right...I have a name...it's Fred" /
"Yes, Fred...didn't you go to school in the '70s? Somewhere near where
you lived?" (basically, the "'70s" thing is the fortune teller taking
a blind guess from looking at someone how old they are...but by
turning it around as a guess on when they were at school "hides" that
all we're talking about is a blind guess of someone's age...plus, the
clever thing with choosing "school" as your target would be that a
person can be in some kind of "school" from age 3 up until 20
something...hence, you can be "out" with your guess at their age with
a decade or so of time in either direction...beginning to see how
these people twist their questions and assertions to make it _seem_
like they know you backwards and forwards but actually know absolutely
nothing whatsoever about you...as for the "your school was local to
you"...well, who lives in New York but goes to school every day in the
middle of Moscow? Exactly, no-one...it's just like same "locality of
reference" thing that cache memory depends on..._most_ memory access
just so happens to be "local" to the last access and often
"sequential"...sometimes it isn't...but if you put money on this
"principle", then the majority of the time, you _WILL_ win your
"bet"...and, again, "near" is a subjective and vague term quite
delibrately...some people go to school and it's in the same street as
they live...some might go on a bus to the neighbouring town...all
depending on how much you _want_ "near" to apply, you can twist
things...it's a relative measure...for instance, even living in New
York and going to school in Moscow could be considered "near", when
compared to going to school on Mars or Jupiter...and that's where an
even cleverer aspect of psychology comes into it: _IF_ you have been
doing a lot of long-distance travel just to go to school, then chances
are that what you call "near" is a further distance than everyone
else...catch how this works? Talk to someone who goes to school in the
same street as their home, that going to the next town to go to school
is "near" and they'd probably reply: "Near? That's not near! My school
is in the same street as where I live!"...but, to you, this is
"near"...because this was the short bus ride you took every single
morning for over a decade...this kind of distance - _exactly because
you travelled it all the time_ - is "nothing" to you...while someone
who doesn't ever go anywhere, finds travelling to the next city is a
"journey" and "adventure"...

Oh yes, this is the art of the "Barnum statement", you see...who'd
have thought there could be so much psychology and clever tricks
inside just _one_ single word like "near"? You'd be surprised...the
military, in fact, have a technique called "information mining" which
works on the _reverse_ principle...you've not been given too much
information? Well, you can "mine" the sentence itself to get more out
of it...if you don't mind it being more about "probability" than
precise facts, then you _really_ can get a lot of information
out...for example, the use of the word "near" to describe a school bus
journey to the next city says, as I suggested, "this person makes lots
of long distance journeys...they are, therefore,
well-travelled...hence, they must actually _enjoy_ travelling (or,
otherwise, they'd rather just stay at home and not go anywhere...that
is, they would NOT be well-travelled...because they are, travel must
not be too great a problem for them ;)...so, when they choose their
vacations, they don't blink at the idea of going a long
distance...therefore, chances are, they like to 'see the world' (this
also makes use of the fact that _most people_ do, at least when they
are young...you can always depend on bringing in "human condition" and
"average person" facts to help along your guesswork)...must have
picked up on 'different cultures' when they did so (something to throw
back at them should you be a fortune teller or psychoanalyst
;)...nothing is ever plain sailing, though, in this life...so, likely,
they did once or twice NOT go on a journey thinking it was perhaps
'too far' or when they got there, there was some 'difficulty'
involved...everyone gets some kind of 'stage fright' too, so you can
imagine that there was an opportunity to go somewhere when a kid - a
school trip - where they got a little 'scared' and 'home-sick', not
really sure if they wanted to go along with these particular people
(again, guesswork but a show of hands will still garner a _majority_
of people putting their hands in the air about such guesses
;)"...blah-blah-blah...

Though a computer program would always be crippled in never really
understanding the _semantics_ of what's being said, it could do a
pretty job of just "automating" some of these kinds of tricks (as I
say, "information mining" is a military technique...you would actually
be taught how to do it in a very "automatic" and "robotic"
fashion...well, that's the style the military basically does
practically everything...whether you're feeling happy or sad, whether
you like the general or not: "yes, sir!" *salute* is _ALWAYS_ the
rigid response you _MUST_ do...it's _entirely_ how the military
operates: they first "break" you - "You squirmy little maggot!! Your
Mommy ain't here to cuddle you no more!!! Get down on the floor and
give me a hundred!!" - which is simply "de-programming" your "civilian
programming"...you ain't "free" no more, it ain't about no "feelings",
you ain't going to go running to your family and friends...and they
make _damn sure_ you know about it and get that message loud and
clear: You aren't a "citizen" in any way, shape or form
anymore...anything you learnt as a "citizen" should be immediately
forgotten...if we see any "individual" showing through, then we're
going to shout it out of you, run it out of you, make you do press-ups
until you can't remember anything else, etc., etc....once
"de-programmed", you're then "re-programmed"...and the military-style
here is simply to almost literally program you like a machine...you do
this first, then you do that, then you must do this...no "deviation"
is permitted and _must_ stick to the "program" exactly like a robot
would...heck, they even tell you how to stand...how to walk...how to
salute properly...re-loading your gun? They literally call out the
"steps": "one, two, three" and you follow the pre-designed movements
for re-loading a gun...you're a robot...you do not "think" about it,
you just _DO IT_! Thinking, soldier, will get you killed...hesitating
in the line of fire will get you and your platoon killed...you do NOT
think, maggot...you _DO_ exactly what I say when I say it...you don't
eat, ***, piss or even breathe unless I give you express permission
to do so! And you will do it _exactly_ as I say you will do it!

Yeah, once you "get" what's going on, it's surprising easy to become a
convincing "drill sargent"...just _SHOUT_ it...the purpose of the
shouting? Well, can _you_ think straight with some big evil-looking
brute of a man shouting how much he hates you and will break you
directly into your ear? And, exactly, they _want_ to disrupt your
usual thinking processes...those are "civilian" thinking processes
about "feelings" and "what am I going to have for lunch?"...don't want
any of those...they must be "de-programmed" out of you, by hook or by
crook...you will not be permitted to even _think_ for your induction,
soldier...not until you only think the thoughts _we_ tell you to
think...oh, and you will be called only "soldier" or "private" until
you've _forgotten_ that you have a name...names are "civilian"
things...don't need those...you are a soldier, you have a _number_ and
you have a _rank_...forget everything else, we won't be using
them...the closest you will get to a "name" is your surname and that's
_only_ so we can tell people apart...and, yeah, it will NOT be
"Mr.Smith"..."politeness" is a "civilian" thing...you are just
"Smith"...indeed, we actually do _Hope_ that you find this "impolite"
and "disrespectful"...you _are_ just a "maggot", after all...get used
to it and get used to it _fast_, soldier!

Also, of course, politicians are full of "Barnum statements" which are
designed to make you _think_ they are actually doing something...they
also like to employ Orwellian "euphamising" too, for anything that
sounds bad in its Plain English form...repetition, just like with our
"maggots" under their drill sargent, is the way to _control_ how
people think...

So, remember, "those who Love freedom", we are against "the axis of
evil" on a "Crusade" to "restore democracy" from the "foreign
fighters" and "former regime remnants" - as well as any other "pockets
of resistance" - with "Iraqi reconstruction"...

Note very carefully that the phrases are always in a particular order
because this is the use of _repetition_ and _euphamism_..._always_
"axis of evil", NEVER "the evil axis", despite being a syntactical
valid alternative..._always_ "former regime remnants", NEVER "those
left over from the former regime", even though it means the same
thing..._always_ "foreign fighters", NEVER "international
insurgents"...although, this _does_ have the required _alliteration_
and other poetical tricks that, if "foreign fighters" hadn't been
chosen as the "official title", you never know, they might have said
"international insurgents" instead...

Surely, you've all noticed? "forme_r_ _r_egime _r_emnants"...it
alliterates and rrrrolls nicely off the tongue...as does "_f_oreign
_f_ighters"...to which anyone who's a bit of a "poet" immediately
recognises the "tricks of the trade" when it comes to making language
sound good...why stop here? There's "_F_riendly _f_ire"..."axis of
evil" or "pockets of resistance" might not be immediately obvious to
those who haven't studied _poetical rhythm_ but alliteration can
happen in other places and not just at the start of a word...the
_syllables_ can alliterate...the overall "rhythm" can be pleasing to
the ear...the syllables "balanced" on either side of the "of" in the
middle...

The choice of unusual words which most people don't know or use, so
that they can be "re-programmed" to mean _anything_ that they want
them to mean...who on Earth _naturally_ says "colateral"? "Yes, the
bus crashed on the main road! It colaterally took out some other cars
as it rolled across the road"...all words implicitly carry
_semantics_...when you meet a brand new word, you're not aware of what
those semantics are...hence, yes, choosing a word no-one much knows
allows it to be "programmed" to be seen in a particular way...

"Surely this can't go that far, can it?", you might be thinking to
yourself...words are words and they mean specific things...you can't
twist the semantics of a word that much, surely? Nope, sorry...you
_really can_ do that...as a slightly twisted but most excellent
example, which some will find highly amusing and / or offensive,
consider _swear words_...how come you can say "sexual intercourse" in
public and polite company without too much worry, yet should you use a
particular four-letter synonym beginning with the letter "F" then you
could cause great offence? One word is deemed "taboo" and "may never
be spoken", the other words, though, are perfectly fine to be said
pretty much anywhere at any time...they _are_, though, effectively
referring to the same act...here's another interesting example of
these quite inexplicable "taboo" words...you can happily refer to the
male genitalia all you like by all manner of names considered
"harmless": "you're a ***!", "you're making a *** of yourself!",
"willy", etc....but you may do the same for female gentialia...so much
so - as some of these words are the greatest "taboos" of the entire
English language - it would be difficult to provide examples that
would not cause certain "polite company" absolute total offence...to
the point, in some cases, of "I shall never speak to a filthy-mouthed
person like you ever again"...suffice to say, the "scientific" word
"vagina" is the one that causes least offence BUT _still_ is deemed
far worse a "taboo" than any of the male words like "penis", "***",
"***" or whatever...at the other end of the scale is arguably the
word that is the greatest "taboo" and most offensive word in the
entire language...oh yes, even the four-letter "f word" has nothing on
the four-letter "c word"...this word is such a "taboo" that even
making such an indirect reference has a lady feeling very guilty for
even going near it in any capacity...and this is in modern "liberal"
times...I would have been burnt at the stake for even admitting I
might know what such a word was in more oppressive times past...

Anyway, I'm NOT trying to talk dirty with anyone before that
impression floats around...the point is that these words are part of
the English language and we all know them...but they are "taboo" and
should not be spoken in "polite company" at all...this is less so in
our modern, more liberal times but the "taboo" on these words does
still exist...certainly, for that most "taboo" of all "taboos" - the
"c word" - were you to march up and down a main street happily
shouting it, then we can quickly judge just how "liberal" people have
become and what effect the "taboo words" still have...aah, not quite
so "liberal", "casual" and "permissive" as we first thought, eh? Blurt
out that particular word on live TV and you shall never be allowed in
front of a camera ever again...the newspapers will probably run "hate
campaigns" against you for the rest of your life...if Janet Jackson
thinks she got it bad for showing a nipple at the Superbowl, then she
should try casually dropping the "C word" into conversation on a live
broadcast cast show a few times...best to immediately pack a bag to
emigrate to, ooh, Mars...

But, note, the word refers to exactly the same thing that "vagina"
does...bizarrely, though it's arguably _worse_ because it's
_descriptive_, something like "front bottom" would actually be
considered even more "harmless" again ...the "F word" refers to
exactly the same thing that "sexual intercourse" is referring to...

Hence, to get to my actual point here, you can see that it is _very
possible_ for an innocent word to be "bestowed" particular
semantics...semantics that, in fact, _don't_ relate to the object or
act in question exactly because there are other _synonyms_ - which
mean _exactly the same thing_ - that _can_ be said...none of this
makes much actual logical sense but that is how the language is,
carrying a set of "taboo" words like this...to non-native English
speakers, of course, these words probably have _absolutely no impact
whatsoever_, as it's really all a "cultural" thing...the words
themselves are, of course, just a particular order of letters like any
other word...what they refer to can be termed "scientifically" and
immediately rendered "non-taboo": "sexual intercourse", "vagina",
"penis", etc....and what they are talking about is _IDENTICAL_...they
are completely synonymous...but you can say one but it's "taboo!
Taboo! tabo!" should you even contemplate mentioning the other...

So, yes, words _can_ be given "additional semantics" well beyond what
the words themselves specifically refer to...note that the only thing
"special" about swear words is that this element is at an extreme and
the words cross a "socially acceptable" line into the realms of
"taboo" that they may _NOT_ be said at all..._EVERY_ word actually
carries these "additional semantics"...they come from how a word gets
used naturally in general...synonyms are the way to begin to see these
"additional semantics" (or, alternatively, it's also easier to see
"additional semantics" in languages other than your own native
one...exactly like the swear words earlier would not cause any offence
nor tweak the ear or anything of someone who didn't speak
English...even if they learn English, the "taboo" thing is cultural
that the words themselves won't mean anything in particular to
them...it would just be a case of repeating "must remember not to say
f**k, must remember not to say f**k"...this is only to "fit in" and
not accidentally cause offence to anyone, as they personally don't
actually care one way or the other about the word...thanks to lots of
Hollywood movies using the "F word" everywhere then even this "taboo"
word is actually losing its "taboo"...I could have, indeed, typed it
out here, right, and, in fact, no-one would have cared...but, well, no
sense _risking_ upsetting anyone when there's no need to do so...after
all, when you say "F word" and "C word", everyone knows what those
words are...which is another bizarre thing because I _have_ just
spoken those words, in a manner of speaking, in the sense that what I
just said is now the full, unadultered "taboo" word inside your
mind...BUT I cannot be blamed for that...hey, I _never_ actually said
it aloud so if you're thinking it then that's your own dirty
mind...nothing to do with me, guv'nor ;)...

Hence, look at any "unnatural" word like "colateral" with a lot of
suspicion...if you can find a word that people don't know much then it
comes to them "semantically blank"...in exactly the same way that
English swear words are first learnt by non-native English speakers
with exactly the same "semantically blank" nature...it just doesn't
mean anything at all...indeed, they might happily and completely
innocently ask their English teacher: "so, what does f**k
mean?"...it's at this point that the English teacher explains about
the actual very unusual presence of "taboo words"...yeah, this is
actually rather a strange thing to have in a language, as most don't
have much in the way of "curse words" and rarely "taboo words" that
are deemed to never, ever be spoken whatsoever...it's a strange
juxtaposition indeed, in fact, for English to have such "relics" of
cultural taboo in it when English and English-speaking countries tend
to actually pride themselves on being all "modern" and "liberal" and
so forth...you know, that English is one of the richest languages when
it comes to "technical terms" that people often use English just for
the "convenience" of having the widest, most known vocabulary, even
when in a country that has another native language and they are
discussing things amongst themselves that it goes nowhere and doesn't
need to be in English for any "translation" purposes at all...I was,
in fact, somewhat "disappointed" to see, when I was in Germany, that
it's very usual to say "computer" exactly like English, even though
there is a perfectly good German equivalent in "rechner"...well, you
know, I wanted to learn all "new" and "exciting" words and "culture"
and everything but, oh, they just want to use the most handy
words...and, from an English-speaking perspective (as English has
never been one to turn down a "borrowed word" from another
language...the language itself is almost basically one long string of
"borrowing" from other languages ;), there's "nothing wrong with
this" - though those special "societies" in France and in other places
about "keep English out of our language!" would disagree (which is
actually a quite reasonable thing because English _can_ kind of
"bulldozer" itself into other languages and push out the local words
and culture...that if you want to hold onto that stuff and "tradition"
and what-not then English would actually become a bit of an
unintentional "enemy") - but here we wander into "cultural
differences" again...the attitude of the English language is that it
doesn't really consider itself "precious" in any way...so, fine, let
some German or Japanese words muscle their way into English...English
(personified) just doesn't care! The more, the merrier! A reasonable
enough attitude...but then so is "we have our own language and culture
and we don't want English coming in and wiping it all out!"...I mean,
that's also a reasonable enough thing...you like your own language and
want to hold onto it and keep it...that's fine...and, really, English
isn't _trying_ to muscle in and wipe out other languages...it's not
intending to "invade" or "conquer"...it's all just a consequence of
America, Britain and Austrailia (plus others) all speaking it, making
it kind of "what the West mostly speaks"...and English "invades"
unintentionally because of other coincidental things...that is,
America makes all the big Hollywood movies and tons and tons of TV
shows (well, big country, lots of TV channels...needs an awful lot of
TV shows to fill in all those "gaps" in the schedules ;)...and it's
those that "invade" simply because they tend to have all the big
budgets and all the best film-makers and stuff...because, for example,
if I wanted to become a "big film director" or something then, to
"make it big", I immediately get on a flight to L.A. (and join all the
others being waitresses in cafes or pumping gas at the gas station
while they "wait to be discovered!"...odds are, of course, firmly
against you...the place is crawling with "people who have
dreams"...the old "more applicants than vacancies" and, dare we say,
often a touch of "more dreams than talent" amongst those
"applicants"...but, regardless, if you want to be doing the _BIG_
films with the _BIG_ budgets and all the _BEST_ special effects, then
NOWHERE throws their money around at this kind of thing than
Hollywood, L.A....hence, note, it isn't necessarily any "only
Americans know how to make films" or anything...it's just that,
wherever you come from, that is the "Mecca" towards where people
go...after all, Nicole Kidman is an Aussie Sheila...Sir Ian McKellen
(Gandalf, Magneto ;) - as the "sir" gives away - is a "limey
Brit"...John Candy is Canadian...blah-blah-blah...therefore, it's just
a consequence that people who want to make films and act go to
Hollywood because that's the world's "capital city of film" and
because all the "big talent" goes to this one place, which happens to
be in America which is English-speaking, then all the films made there
are almost always English-speaking films...they also tend to be the
biggest and most popular films for the entire world (because all the
money and talent "gravitates" to Hollywood ;)...so, unintentionally,
English - by way of films - goes and floods other countries...

And something similar happens with computers because America (and
Britain when it comes to some of the "pioneers" of the
"theory"...Turing, Babbage, etc. ;) goes and builds most of
those...the big companies that make OSes and programming languages
first were English-speaking...again, those who get their "first" and
do it "biggest" unintentionally carry along their language with what
they do...telephones and TV were also invented by English-speaking
Scotsmen...you get the picture...they come up with something new and
they need "terms" for things so these all turn up in English
first...once you've got a term to use - though you can, of course,
completely come up with one of your own that's "native" - it's just
too tempting if you happen to know English, anyway, to stick with
speaking English and the original terms...again, unintentionally, it
has "invaded" another country...

Mind you, it would be remiss not to mention that, though often
"unintentional", that English-speaking people aren't a touch "happy"
about this...that is, simply, _we_ don't want to be "left out of the
conversation" just as much as the next person, so we may not intend
the "cultural invasion" BUT it would be lying to say that - seeing as
it has happened - this doesn't suit English-speaking Westerners just
fine...note: _very important_...it's NOT meant in a "nasty" way, I
stress...just a case of, like I say, _NO-ONE_ enjoys being the one
"left out of the conversation", whatever the language, that when
people speak your language, it's a very useful thing indeed...one of
those things that "works both ways" too...after all, it also means
that technologies and ideas can be _given_ as well as received...

Indeed, it _is_ an incredibly delicate balance...it's arguable that
many problems facing the West have been helped along - if not caused
directly - by the very, very understandable feeling that no-one wants
to be "invaded" nor "occupied" (Iraqis demonstrate this _physically_
but the same is true metaphorically too when it comes to some kinds of
"cultural invasion")...and related problems like "yes, we want your
technological ideas but we don't want your Judeo-Christian morals and
beliefs thrust upon us!"...but, well, see it from a Westerner's
perspective...we aren't necessarily doing that intentionally...you
know, like I talk about a belief in Liberty, it's because that happens
to be my beliefs and, to a degree, that _IS_ me...so, I can't really
"switch it off" or easily "detach" it from the things I say...I mean,
it's not that I intend to ram it down anyone's throats...because doing
that would, of course, be _hypocritical_...how can you talk about
"Liberty" and then offer someone else no choice to be free to believe
what they want to believe? That would be _oppression_...yes, _even
though_ what you're "oppressing" them with is the idea of, ummm, not
oppressing people...

Indeed, one great problem with the West is this kind of _hypocrisy_
showing up all the time...often unintentionally, just because someone
was not really thinking straight at all, getting themselves all
confused in what they think they are doing...you know: "freedom is
great! I Love freedom! I so wish other people could enjoy freedom too!
I know, I can go and help them get freedom! Oh dear, they say they are
happy as they are...but that's not freedom...they should have freedom,
like me, because it's so great! If only they could taste freedom then
they would want it too, I'm sure of it! So, I know, I'll _force_ them
to be 'free' so they can see how great it is, like I do! Oh dear, they
are resisting my attempts to make them 'free'...well, I'll just have
to force it harder...still don't want it? Right, then, you ungrateful
people, I'll make sure you have 'freedom', whether you bloody well
like it or not! Take that! And take this! Ha-ha! See? You don't stand
a chance against my 'overwhelming military force'! Bastards! They're
firing back and have killed my soldiers trying to make them 'free'!
Right, that's it...no more Mr.Nice Guy...send in the tanks! Send in
the gunships! Blow up their cities!"...then, ummm, the soldier stands
on a wasteland of dead people and fallen buildings that once was a
city..."so, what was our mission again, sir?" / "To make these people
'free', soldier" / "Yes, sir...looks like we did a pretty good job
there, didn't we?" / "Are you being sarcastic there, maggot?" / "No,
sir" / "Well, soldier of freedom, just remember that you have no
freedom...when I _tell_ you to make people 'free' then you will make
them 'free' without question and without answering back...do you hear
me, maggot?" / "Yes, sir" / "We are here to stop oppression and give
freedom...DO YOU HEAR ME, MAGOTT?" / "Yes, sir" / "Speak up, soldier!
I can't hear you! What are we here to do?" / "Stop oppression, sir" /
"Yes, that's what I told you so that's what you're going to do
_without question_...I am your superior officer and that means you
don't think, you don't eat, sleep, ***, piss or even breathe unless a
higher ranking officer _tells_ you that you can do it...so when I say
'stop oppression' and 'give people freedom', you are going to _do
exactly as I say_...your own feelings in the matter are
immaterial...isn't that right, maggot?" / "Yes, sir!"...

The essential problem is that the West is implicitly
schizophrenic...it's not intended to be ironic or hypocritical, you
see...it's just that our beliefs aren't always ensured to be fully
consistent with our actions..."going in harder" actually makes the
hypocrisy _increase_, not diminish...Western integrity vanishes even
further...people are less likely to listen to the West as the
integrity disintegrates...relations get worse, the job of trying to
_help_ gets harder to do...when Western politicians are found
outrightly lying then, oh dear, the "we come in peace" is completely
shattered...you're a known liar...how the hell can we believe a single
word you say anymore? Oh dear, relations have almost completely
vanished...what shall we do? "Go in even harder again"? Well, back
around the cycle we go once more until the integrity has not only
vanished, things are starting to _go negative_...the "liar" says "we
come in peace" and, yup, people take this to mean the complete
opposite: "Resist! Resist! The liar said 'peace'...but he always lies
and attacks us harder and harder every time he says 'peace', so this
must mean 'all-out war'...resist the liar's war at all costs!"...and
again and again we go around and around the big cycle, making things
worse and worse and worse...

Hence, we've _got to start being consistent_...if we say "rule of law"
then NO exceptions shall exist in Guantanamo to the rule of law...if
we say "democracy" then, under democracy, you _reason_ with people to
gain their support, not "capture or kill" anyone who disagrees
(imagine it applied back home...John Kerry says "I don't think this
war was a particularly smart move"...traitor! Said something against
the President's decisions! He must be killed in a "targetted killing"
immediately "for the sake of democracy"...Hopefully, Western hypocrisy
has not degenerated enough not to be able to spot that _killing_
political opposition is one of the first indiciators that you've got
yourself a "mad dictator" in charge...literally killing off those who
are "political opposition" is what all the best evil dictators do so
that their "diktats" have no opposition and are _forcefully imposed_
on people, whether they like it or not)...

Mr.Bush, in fact, clearly DOES NOT "believe in freedom"...because if
you _believe_ in the "rule of law" then you will not be afraid to use
it in Guantanamo, as you _believe_ it is the right way and it will not
fail you...if you _believe_ in democracy, then you _believe_ that
issues are settled by _reasoning_ and _gaining the support_ of the
majority...if you do anything different then you can say what you
like, you're a NON-BELIEVER..."belief" does not mean "I like to say
the words a lot but then do something completely different in
practice", belief means that you solidly _trust_ that way of doing
things..."political opposition"? Then you _fight them at the ballot
box_...you _reason_ with Iraqis...you _show_ them that your way is the
best way...you _lead_ by _good example_...if you "believe in freedom"
and that Iraqis want freedom and will work for their freedom, then -
it might, indeed, prove to be very difficult at times - but your
belief is that this system _WORKS_...if we're seeing this system being
"by-passed" then, clearly, these are NOT people who "believe in
freedom" at all...it is yet another "nice sounding" _LIE_...

I _believe_ in freedom...that when someone is offered "freedom" or
"oppression", then they will choose _freedom_...and things will,
surely, never be 100% "plain sailing"...there will be times when that
freedom gets into trouble...there will be times when you doubt...but
if you _BELIEVE_ then you have _FAITH_ that, no matter what, freedom
_WILL_ succeed because, in the end, _ONLY_ freedom works and
succeeds...Mr.Bush regularly "panics" that freedom won't work or isn't
enough and "by-passes" it...sidelines it...uses other means...he's one
of the biggest _NON-BELIEVERS_ in "freedom" I've ever seen, in
fact...indeed, if you look real closely when Bush says "I be_LIE_ve in
freedom", his lie almost jumps out of the page at you...

Study Barnum, understand Orwell...get a bit of "poetry" under your
belt...then take another look at what they say to you...it's all
"pre-designed" to make you think in a particular way...the one nice
thing about this is that they leave the proof in plain sight...what
the alliterative "_f_riendly _f_ire" actually means is "incompetent
killing of an ally"...what "colateral damage" actually means is
"murdering innocent people" and, note carefully, it is often used in
the context of "we accept that there will be colateral damage in
making this strike"...that is, "we are delibrately choosing to murder
innocent people"...

What's real interesing is that they are too _cowardly_ to call things
by their real name? Why are the words "killing", "murder", "death"
absent from the terminology? Simple, psychological candy so they don't
feel too bad in doing it and that other people don't completely
realise what it is they've really done...note that what is even more
worrying is that, yes, we're actually NOT talking about "conspiracy"
in that sense...what is highly, highly dangerous is that the military
commander _IS_ saying "colateral damage" with total innocence...a
really, really dangerous element here is that the people doing these
things are often NOT "evil"...they themselves have been "duped" by
these "friendly sounding" euphamisms...and this is incredibly
dangerous when a military commander is ordering a strike but because
"colateral damage" lets him throw off the true nature of what he's
doing - when he can refer to it all as "acceptable losses" - what it
truly _means_ is not only lost to everyone else, it is lost to _him_
too...indeed, it's like handing a machine gun to someone and then
saying "this is a projectile emitter" / "Can it kill anyone?" / "Well,
it generates statistics...its damage is colateral" / "Ummm, what are
you talking about? Is it safe to point it at people and squeeze the
trigger?" / "That action would 'generate a statistic'" / "Oh, so it
just generates statistics...kind of like some measuring device, eh? I
point it at someone and press the trigger and then it gives me a
statistic...is that right?" / "In a manner of speaking" / "Cool...I
wonder how tall that man over there is...right, point the gun...and
press the trigger" *hail of bullets cuts man in half* "Crap! CRAP!
CRAP! What the f**k happened there? ***, ***, ***!" / "You've
generated your first colateral statistic...well done"...

What's perhaps _even more worrying_ than the use of these kinds of
terms to "dupe" us all is the prospect of those _MAKING DECISIONS_
being just as clueless about what "generating a statistic" actually
means themselves..."Sir, the missile is in place...it should be able
to 'silently' 'generate colateral statistics' for the entire
city...shall we launch?"...

Now, refer back to the examples of "swear words"...when we say "sexual
intercourse" then it's just fine to say and do...when we say "f**k"
then it's a terrible "taboo"..._ALL_ words carry semantics and effect
how we see and interpret them...

So, let's look at the same question with the "euphamisms" removed and
wonder if the simple change of words could make someone seriously
think twice about their answer: "Sir, the nuclear bomb is ready to be
flown over to the city and dropped...it _will_ mercilessly slaughter
every innocent person in the entire city...shall we drop it on their
heads?"...

Not so easy a question to answer anymore, is it? And for questions
like these with people's lives hanging in the balance, then they
_SHOULD_ be the most difficult questions possible...the questions that
requires a lot of deep thought...we want to be _SURE_ that our
decision maker is making the decision _CORRECTLY_...is fully aware in
all capacities about what they are doing? After all, it's NOT just the
lives of those they will kill...such "strikes" are almost certainly
going to generate "reprisals"...if they have a nuclear arsenal too,
then your answer could mean the extinction of all life on Earth should
an "all-out exchange" be triggered by this action (also remembering
that many countries take "opportunity" from others starting conflict,
even if not directly involved...you know, "no-one'll notice this small
missile strike on my enemy, while there's World War Three going on
over there"...Saddam fired a missile over at Israel when attacked in
the first Gulf War...a case of "oh, well...if I'm going to be attacked
anyway, what's to stop me getting one last strike in at those enemies
I've always wanted to attack?"...when you corner a wolf, the wolf very
inevitably will strike back _regardless of what it is facing_...after
all, it now has nothing to lose...if it did nothing, it would be
dead...if it does something, then it might get killed but it would get
killed, anyway, so what's to be lost from trying? It may be a very
slim chance but maybe the wolf might "catch them by surprise" enough
to take an opportunity to escape...probably not...actually, no, it
just won't happen, the wolf is buggered...but, again, you've _nothing
to lose_ from at least trying...really weird things sometimes
happen...so, "sensing his end" - which it should have been and then
none of this current nonsense and tradegy would be happening - he no
longer has the "restriction" he once had...you know, Saddam thinks "I
always wanted to throw a missile at Israel but knowing that America
and others would attack to defend them, there was a 'deterent' from
considering doing it...America and others are attacking, anyway...no
more reason not to do it...here, Israel, have one of my
missiles!"...yet another reason to consider really, really carefully
before "going in hard" to "pound into submission"...a bear is
"dangerous" but, leave it alone, don't spook it and it'll Hopefully
just walk away...but walk up to a bear and pester it and try punching
it a few times and, simply, _you're dead_...it'll rip you limb from
limb...it's no longer "dangerous", it's now "deadly"...actually, a
human versus a pissed off bear? Might as well go "whole hog", it's
beyond not only "dangerous" and "deadly", your chances are so slim in
unarmed combat with a bear, might as well jump to the conclusion and
just call it _fatal_...things are so stacked against you, it really
would be a "foregone conclusion"...you'd only live if the bear was
feeling particularly "merciful" that day...note "merciful" means
something like having your innards hanging out that you need
_immediate_ medical attention and then probably still wouldn't make it
but there's a slim chance...but, hey, the bear walked away before you
were fully dead...a weird kind of "merciful" but it would be your only
chance in a situation like that)...

Hence, indeed, there's a very interesting set of lessons in looking at
something like "Eliza"...as the wise men say: "Many a true word spoken
in jest"...the program _is_, even if not openly admitted, a "social
comment" on the "usefulness of psychoanalysis"...just taking the
mickey out of them royally for a funny joke...

But, indeed, Weizenbaum was stunned at the reaction..."Eliza" was
demonstrating things well beyond a simple joke or a demonstration of
how you can "fake" intelligence quite convincingly, even with a
completely unintelligent program...that is, not by "good AI
programming" but, instead, by exploiting "stupid human
thinking"...people were having "sessions" with it for hours! Did they
work out that it wasn't actually intelligent in any way and wasn't
really listening but just didn't care because it was "kinda fun"...or
did we actually have one or two students really _believing_ it was
some fantastic new "computer brain"? I can imagine - knowing what
people, especially students, are like - that a bunch of computer
science students, who knew all about it being a simple program, would
convince some other students about "Try this new AI! It's amazing! It
can totally understand you and you can talk with it!" and then sit
back and giggle to themselves as the other student has a go and is
actually "falling" for the "scam"...you know, "let's see how long it
takes for her to realise that it's not really intelligent at
all?"...typical student prank (actually, a rather "lame" one because
students would tend to do something a lot more cruel than this...but
they'd still have a laugh doing it that I reckon one or two of those
accesses was all about "let's see how long it takes for them to work
out the joke" ;)...

Beth :)