The SSL conspiracy

Corporations and non-profit organizations are planning to SSL everything, and people are thinking, how nice of these companies to protect their consumers from foreign and local surveillance?

There are Certificate Authorities popping up everywhere, even free non-profit ones which plan to give everyone a cert.

I think this is dangerous. Almost all of these new CAs are American, and even if they aren’t, these CAs can be easily infiltrated by the Americans. In fact a lot of CAs has suffered break-ins.

This means the Americans can do a man-in-the-middle attack of all SSL traffic and still not lose certificate validity. This is extremely dangerous. We need to use something like CJDNS and avoid the use of CAs altogether.

As a side note, the extent to which the establishment goes to use rubber hose methods to subvert asymmetric key cryptography shows how well they work. Cryptographers have always been suspicious of asymmetric key ciphers because they are presented without formal proof like the symmetric key ciphers.

If there is a way, the will to use it will be found

In a 1943 speech by Henning W. Prentiss, Jr., president of the Armstrong Cork Company and former president of the National Association of Manufacturers, delivered at the February 1943 convocation of the General Alumni Society of the University of Pennsylvania, he noted:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy”

.

Prior to feminism, women had little say in democracy, and as a result they were unable to “vote itself largess out of the public treasury”. As a result women lived like they did for the greater part of human history, by being of value to men.

With feminism, women realized that they are an untapped majority which if mobilized could serve as the source of political legitimacy in a democracy.

Feminists found their political soul mates in political parties that ran on an egalitarian platform.

By preaching the right to not be offended as the more important than the right to free speech, by banning words, by getting people expelled from their jobs for thinking the wrong ideas, and by legislating unjust laws that favored women, feminists demonstrated their power in democracies. They encouraged women to serve as concubines of governments in exchange for more perks from the government.

Combined with a culturally engrained sympathy for the plight of women, feminists gained lesser punishment for similar crimes, no fault divorces, alimony under the threat of imprisonment and easy to obtain government and private assistance.

The rest as they say, is history.

In Eastern cultures where men were paid dowry to compensate for the difficulties in accepting a woman into the household, dowry was made illegal, and although people found ways around it, eventually men started thinking of marriages and families as a financial burden.

In Western cultures where women traded their helping hand in running a family in exchange for financial security, the lure of no fault alimony was exploited by women enough to make marriages a financial risk for men.

Then came taxes and government healthcare utilized more by women paid for using the money earned by the unmarried. Women had eliminated the need for men as a source of financial security.

Women began to progressively attack the more economically productive less attractive men: engineers, scientists, doctors. Women fought over a few attractive men.

The overall effect of all these measures was that the population began to fall unevenly at first: It began with more western cultures being populated with people from the eastern cultures. They tried to change the law to reverse what the feminists did, but even women in Saudi Arabia could be mobilized against its monarchy, so doing so in a democracy was easier.

So here I am now waiting for a catastrophe in slow motion to end all democracies. The decisive turning point will happen in a few hundred years in western democracies which will have become eastern in its demography. Eastern people will value stability, and prosperity over ideological progress. The values of reason and scientific method will not be lost. The easterners can serve as the keepers of such epistemology as they did during the last dark ages.

There are eastern development banks being built so as to seek independence from the International Monetary Fund which seeks to serve the stability of western currencies.

With new found stability eastern currencies will serve as the backbone of this new world order.

The problem with this guy’s analogy.

http://new.livestream.com/accounts/1340800/events/3497300/videos/67779117/player?autoPlay=false&height=360&mute=false&width=640

I think the problem with his analogies is that he is changing the axis on his graph.

When he talks about:

  • Zipf distribution:
    • Y Axis: $ income
    • X Axis: Competence/Ingenuity/Merit/IQ
  • Normal distribution & Uniform distribution:
    • Y Axis: # of people
    • X Axis: Competence/Ingenuity/Merit/IQ

Jesus sounds like Kurzweil and Slavoj Žižek rolled into one.

I read the oldest gospel, the gospel of Thomas – the same guy who came to Kerala in A.D. 52 to convert the Cochin Jews who had been in India since 8 B.C. But Thomas ended up converting a lot of Indians. The gospel of Thomas is older than the oldest canonical gospel – the gospel of Mark. The gospel of Thomas is newer than the Pauline epistles, so clearly Thomas had accepted Paul’s idea of preaching Christianity to the foreigners in far away lands. And that compelled Tom to leave the Jewish cult (i.e. Christianity) in Judea into India because India (like China) traded with Rome back then.

The gospel of Thomas has no story line, it looks like a bunch of notes students usually take down, when teachers speak in class. It is a lecture note. And I am pretty sure those who made the copies also added a few lines between the original lines, which make it stand out in awkwardness between the surrounding message.

Jesus is like Slavoj Žižek because Jesus is (tried to be) controversial and original, although both Žižek and Jesus screw it up badly most of the time. Jesus is like other post-modernists because they talk absurd and irrational things. But occasionally gets shit right. Both Žižek and Jesus are anti-authoritarian, cunning but well-meaning people.

Jesus is like Kurzweil because both of them believe in some Omega Point or Singularity or whatever. Both Jesus and Kurzweil talk a lot about transhumanism, and the order of things to come, and how the future is already here. I cannot count the number of times Jesus used the phrase “the Father’s imperial rule”. He struggles hard to describe this post-singularity post-scarcity post-human world. He goes on and on about how “the Father’s imperial rule” is like this or that. I think because Judean simpletons could not understand concepts like decentralization and virulence, Jesus goes into elaborate analogies to try to explain it, but screws it up many times.

His disciples are way more stupid, and are often concerned about petty local political issues like – “should people be circumcised”? Jesus says if god wanted people to be circumcised he would have made people to be born that way. It reminds me of petty issues like “should gays be allowed to marry” that people argue about endlessly.

Some of his disciples/listeners want Jesus to take a side on one petty political issue or another, sponsor a side in a dispute. But Jesus is way out of their league. He is trying hard to talk intellectual things to common people. I feel like smacking the disciples.

I am sure Apostle Peter (my baptismal namesake) is a misogynist, and Jesus puts Peter in his place. I think Peter was the biggest loser among the bunch of his disciples, and yet he gets to be a leader.

Apostle Thomas was smarter and progressive than the rest for sure. He didn’t want to color Jesus with his prejudices.

Thoughts on Vicarious Systems Inc.

Crunchbase says:

Vicarious develops Recursive Cortical Network™, a visual perception system that interprets the contents of photographs and videos.

Their website says:

They use:

  • a probabilistic generative model
  • a structured probabilistic model
  • which can discover causal semantics
  • has parts-based representations and compositionality
  • similar to a grammar based model
  • has a network architecture used for generalization
  • can provide tight control for invariance-selectivity tradeoffs

They don’t use:

  • convolutional neural networks
  • Neocognitron
  • Hubel and Wiesel model

Prediction: Visual object recognition and video commentaries is the furthest they will go in AI research. This is because they steal the features discovered by evolution over millions of years. Even if they succeed in developing various stances towards different types of visual phenomena e.g. physical stance, designed stance and intentional stance, they will unable to do so other sensory modalities in the near future. But they will go further than everyone before regarding computer vision.

Planned extinction

Our species needs marriage because human children take 20 years to mature and learn everything our ancestors learned. That is the longest time to mature among all the species on this planet. Having two (or more) parents reduces the difficulty of raising children for 20 years.

Putting additional demands and risks on the marriage contracts can quickly make marriage a bad idea. And that is what is happening now. Women have unjustifiable legal and political power in a marriage in the western civilization, and they are often corrupted by such power to the detriment of men and children.

I personally think it is time we initiate the extinction of our own species.

Once we give birth to real AI, the future wouldn’t need people. People are just too costly a way to conduct sapience in this universe. Our values collide constantly due to our irrationality and cause too much unnecessary suffering. Battles of the sexes, races and religions. Much ado about nothing. Much ado about pussy.

As men we are ideally placed to end our species slowly and gracefully. Men dominate the fields of neuroscience, cognitive science, artificial intelligence and philosophy, which we need give birth to neo sapiens – a newer form of intelligence that is better.

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/