Intel Microcode

The Intel CPU instruction set is actually a microcode architecture. Calling MOV, IMUL, etc. means that a series of microcode instructions get executed to perform the desired opcode. This lets Intel treat the x86/x64 instruction set as an API, so they can change the microcode underneath with each new CPU or CPU stepping.

Intel can ship new versions of the microcode to fix problems identified after a CPU is released and is in the field. These updates are digitally signed, traceable back to Intel’s root key, so that not just anyone can ship an update. These get distributed through trusted partners, like Dell and Microsoft.

But … there are rumors that the NSA has a copy of Intel’s private key. And this means they can overwrite the microcode in your CPU with their own instructions.

It affects AMD processors as well.

root@ws:~# apt-cache search -- -microcode
iucode-tool - Intel processor microcode tool
microcode.ctl - Intel IA32/IA64 CPU Microcode Utility (transitional package)
amd64-microcode - Processor microcode firmware for AMD CPUs
intel-microcode - Processor microcode firmware for Intel CPUs

There is no source code. The whole thing is a closely guarded secret by Intel. The microcode is not only signed, it’s even encrypted so that us plebs don’t get any chance to even go near Intel’s prized crown jewels (because we’d probably be able to find all the bugs in there…)

Here‘s some nice writeup about what little things are known, if you’re interested. This site has some info on AMD microcode updates.

If learning microcode is actually something you want to do, then you don’t need Intel at all for it. Get an FPGA and start hacking away on many of the open-source CPUs. The FPGA toolchains are closed-source. But there are FOSS soft-cores that can be run on an FPGA. http://opencores.org/

Anglophile Agenda

In the conspiracy theory community, there are “globalists” who want a “new world order.”

After reading Carroll Quigley, and listening to Zbigniew Brzezinski I have come to the conclusion that the so-called “globalists” are actually merely “anglophiles”, and the “new world order” they wish to create is merely a political union of all the nations which accept the western culture as represented by the Britain and USA.

The original vision of the first anglophiles like Cecil Rhodes was indeed a worldwide empire, a singular political entity. Later under people like Lionel Curtis these imperialists gradually became disillusioned enough to accept a Commonwealth of Nations as an achievable substitute. Later even the Commonwealth became weak; after the peoples of India, Palestine, Egypt and Ireland failed to accept the Western culture. But the anglophiles did manage to include USA in their ranks.

Now with the help of USA and its NATO, the anglophiles wish to create an Atlantic Consensus, a union of the people of the west i.e. people who accept the western culture. They wish to use the western culture to spearhead democracy, human rights around the world, among all people.

They will stop at nothing in order to achieve this. They are driven by the ideas of Arnold J. Toynbee, “that fine historian who said any group, any race, any world that did not run to seize the future and shape it was doomed to dust away to the grave, in the past.”

Perhaps a global unification is in its agenda, but it won’t happen in the next 200 years.

I think the western civilization is a massive human achievement, and we should learn from this achievement and stop posturing about our failures so far.

Laws of Female Journalism

  1. The First Law of Female Journalism a.k.a Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism: The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered more desirable.
  2. The Second Law of Female Journalism: the types of sexual relationships advocated for by female journalists tend to follow closely with the sort currently purchasable by their sexual market value.

I need feminism because

I want,

  1. To end systematic reproduction: Everyone in India replicates. Reproduction isn’t for everyone. Only the best people should have kids.
  2. To have more divorces in India:  I just hate the idea of family as we practice it today. They are cesspools of hypocrisy and pretense. There is so much dissatisfaction shoved under the rug so that no one sees it.
  3. To have unfair divorce settlements in India: Once divorces become extremely costly for men, men will reduce marrying.
  4. To end marital sex: Many people still use marriage as a means to have sex. Marriage should be just a contract to share resources for raising children, much like how a company is merely a contract between people to share resources for mutual benefit. Using marriage for sex is a bad idea, because women don’t hand out sex easily by nature, and men dislike have sex with the same person for 50 years. Most people can’t even bear their parents for 25 years, so how are we expected to be intimate with a stranger for twice that long?
  5. To encourage non-marital sex: More participants in the pre-marital sex scene is good to reduce prevalence of STDs. Extra-marital sex breaks down families which shouldn’t exist in the first place.

Feminism helps women exercise their inborn polyandry and breakdown marriages.

Sure there will be some pain, but we have it too easy in India. The excesses that are created by letting everyone marry, have sex and have babies is a bad idea. Men don’t better themselves. Husbands don’t better themselves.

Gaelic Rhyme

The way to get on with a girl

Is to drift like a man in the mist,

Happy enough to be caught,

Happy enough to be dismissed.

Glad to be out of her way,

Glad to rejoin her in bed,

Equally grieved or gay

To learn that she’s living or dead.

Anonymous (7th-12th Centuries), Translated by Frank O Connor

Efficacy is not exertion

The efficacy of Montreal Protocol shouldn’t be measured by how much CFC was eliminated from the atmosphere, but by how much reduction in stratospheric ozone depletion was achieved.

Similarly, the efficacy of Kyoto Protocol and other similar measures shouldn’t be measured by how much CO2 was eliminated from the atmosphere, but by how much reduction in mean global temperature was achieved.

The current trend is to publicize how much reduction in CFC or CO2 was achieved without mentioning that little to no improvement in ozone depletion or global mean temperature was achieved.

That is like saying, “We didn’t cure cancer, but we reduced the amount of carcinogens in his system.”

It is the subtle switch of concerns that are used to distract the public. The goal is to solve problem, not to make people work harder.

Origanizational dishonesty

There is a proven way to execute dishonest actions without using self-deception.

As mentioned before in this blog, self-deception is one way in which dishonest people deceive others without appearing to be deceptive. A deceptive person who has deluded themselves, can never exhibit the tell tale signs of a deceiver. Whereas a person who has deceived himself.may be capable of pulling it off. The best cults teach people how to deceive themselves through various means before then can go forth and deceive others.

However there is another way to deceive others without self-deception. It is through the use of “obedience without understanding”. A pretext for “obedience without understanding” is created in organizations, because it is considered unacceptable to question the interests of the superiors.

Without the knowledge about the interests of the superiors, their minions act in ways which appear systematic and conspiratorial to the observer of the organization.