There's a problem with our current DNS (Domain Name System). It is somewhat related to the current crisis, that of "running out" of ipv4 addresses, but only marginally. The solution to that crisis (a larger address space, called IPv6), will not remedy the issue which concerns me. Though not switching would only encourage monopoly, it is still not as an important issue in the long run as the centralized nature of such addressing itself.

Our current addressing system has a one-to-one mapping to a system which everyone is already familiar with (the postal system). Consider the following:

It does not take a genius to realize that such a centralized system (it is a traditional hierarchy) is susceptible to abuse by those at the top. For a system to be truly fault tolerant, it must be incapable of being decapitated and incapable of being abused and distorted by the head. Our current DNS system is somewhat resistant to decapitation, being as it has 13 "heads" in the form of the DNS root servers. However, it has been repeatedly abused by the owners to censor name-servers (via removing from the listing on a root), and to seize IP addresses and aliases (domain names). Furthermore, there are many who simply "squat" on domains, and sell them in a manner similar to scalping tickets.

In order to overcome these weaknesses, some have set up alternative root zones. These are traditionally known as "darknets", as they are not concurrently viewable by a single observer. This is obviously a sub-optimal solution, as now we have a lot of hierarchical systems with a party that could abuse it's authority. We could replace the authority with something that is not likely to be abused (such as a force of nature), but then we still need some party to provide routing data. An example would be something like an extremely precise usage of longitude and latitude, coupled with a wireless mode of communication for all parties. However, this solution gains vulnerability to disruption (decapitation), and is thus suboptimal.

So what is the solution? A non-hierarchical (peer-to-peer) system. Some would lambaste such as being tantamount to anarchy (which it is), whilst forgetting that the nature of life employs an identical system. There can be no two identical beings alive, even when cloned, they hold differing state. Such is also true of computer hardware. Thankfully, there is such a system; but it requires us to look back in time, and consider why in particular it did not win out.

NetBIOS over TCP/IP (NBT) was a simple way for small TCP/IP networks to set up host names amongst themselves, so that you don't have to remember IP addresses. This is still used on most home and small business networks, and primarily for this very good reason: Host names do not require a centralized issuing authority. The reason DNS won out over this also fairly simple. The mechanism by which NBT verifies that there are no duplicate hostnames is by shooting out a broadcast packet asking them to identify themselves. It does not take a PhD to realize this, while easy from a computational perspective, is quite intensive on the network, and could require you to have a truly enormous pipe in to handle all the responses on the wider internet.

There are ways, however, that this can scale nearly as large as one wants it to. The first tweak to make would be to allow (but not require) hosts to control domains of other hosts (which in todays parlance would be called sub-domains). This would be fairly easy for ISPs and corporations to roll out, as it is roughly analogous to how they currently do things. Many ISPs and simply have one static IP address, and then use NAT to funnel it through their gateway. Many corporations accomplish the same thing by having all sub-hosts proxy through a few gateways. These techniques would reduce the overall number of hosts exposed to the greater internet. It is worth noting that even DNS does this.

Next, we could borrow another technique from the domain name system. We could use powerful servers with the large amounts of bandwidth needed to handle broadcast responses, and to cache routes to known hosts. The traffic could be further kept down by only doing the broadcast by these giants once or twice a day.

Considering that these techniques are needed to make DNS work in the first place, I suspect that NBT would work just fine when using these techniques. So, why did it lose out, and DNS win? Well, it is because it's greatest strength (no need to get permission from a central switching station for hostnames) is also it's greatest weakness. Again, like life, when a system goes down, it's name dies with it; subsequently said name can now be used by anyone else wanting it.

Considering the flock of vultures that already swoop up expired domains, you can imagine how much more this would be hated by anyone who has come to rely on a brand, or a trademark. This could be extenuated by using large hostname cache servers; if they made known their discovery schedules, you could have opportunity to get back up before the next scan. But, also consider how much is charged for the most desired domain names; it may end up much cheaper to have redundant systems to achieve 100% uptime than to hold a domain (especially in the future when things are likely to become more, not less, monopolized).

So, that's why we got an internet that mirrors the Dracula-life of the corporation and governments. Because it is useful to them to be that way. But, it is nice to know that we can set up a parallel network in which free communication would be much, much harder to stamp out. Perhaps we should start work on that.

Though often neglected, materials science has been the source of almost all important technological advancement in the last 50 years or so. From transistors to lightbulb filaments, we have found ways to exceed all expectations and smash the barriers before us. The latest discovery has the potential to change the way humans interact with one another forever. That discovery would be metamaterials.

A metamaterial is an object, which thanks to it's specific properties has a negative refractive index with regard to some particular wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. This means that it neither absorbs nor reflects such radiation; instead said force bends around it, as if it were a hole in the world. All of the sudden, it became possible to become physically invisible to all manner of detection. Sure enough, within two years of the discovery of the theoretical possibility of such materials, something invisible to microwave radiation appeared. In another year, the visible spectrum has been defeated.

Of course, the technologies described here have not yet been commercialized, and they will be quite expensive for some time, as their construction is not trivial at this point. However, through layering (with visible on the outermost layer), it has become possible to create shielding which would work against all EM frequencies. It is also possible we find a material which has negative refraction to whatever frequency of electricity is run through it, which would turn out to be the most useful of all worlds.

All this is very good news for liberty; since liberty is based on the principle of voluntary association, and the ability to vanish at will greatly aids with one's ability to resist coercion. However, this is not yet the "holy grail" of human association; that being a simple method for one to make one's self immune (or very close to such) to physical force. Metamaterials are a natural candidate for such a role, as it is infinitely easier to deflect force than to simply resist it. Given the relationship of EM radiation and matter itself, it is not a huge leap to realize materials which negatively refract energy in the solid phase is possible.

You might think that such a thing would be an impossibility, as people might just come up with more effective weapons in the future. However, consider this. RSA encryption is a rough analogue to such a concept for data. The data cannot be compromised for long key lengths (which are nearly trivial to set up) with the combined computational force of the entire planet. Now, since data is just energy, and so is matter, it is not a long leap to realize a similar technique could be used to shield matter. Such an analogue would result in a shield that takes a fraction of the energy to set up as it takes to tear it down. Theoretically, one could make one so effective as to resist even nuking for millenia with something as simple as a coal power plant. Similarly, all small arms (even bazookas) could be easily resisted with the equivalent of a few AA batteries. This would have the consequence of making voluntary association the only viable method of human interaction.

Though there are many roadblocks in the way of this becoming a reality, and gaps in our knowledge, I still must conclude it is but a matter of time before such things become a reality. The powers of the world will likely rage against this for an unknown length of time, and will try to prevent such technology's spread...but they will eventually fail. So, we should get used to the idea of governance by unanimous consent and voluntarism; as it will become the only option left for humanity.

Recently people have been talking about argumentation more and more, probably due to all this "heated rhetoric" surrounding the Loughner case. A lot of people have been tossing around theories on how or how not the discourse should be, and I haven't seen any recent source that is actually correct. This is despite many (such as the ancient Greeks) having the word on this long ago. The most recent example of this I've seen is Graham's "How to disagree". Of course, this hasn't stopped the most recent idiotic "cure" for all the "hate speech"; requiring citation by a third party (preferably someone with a rep) for all of one's points. I guess the wikiPedos have gotten that influential now.

The reason this argument is 100% worthless is because there are plenty of people in officialdom who are more than willing to engage in the lowest manner of discussion (name calling, ad-hominems) that can be cited. Or Just Lie. This certainly won't elevate the discussion for those who bother to read the citations, and will hoodwink skimmers. Furthermore, there is a value to original research; where do you think all these lightbulbs and stuff came from?

tl;dr, all you wokopoodoos should gb2 Unoriginalcontent.org and keep forcing memes, since that's what you want debate to be.

So there's been a lot of talk about the bozo what popped rep. Giffords, 2 Judges, a kid and a few others. Personally, I could care less about what happens to people that I not only do not know and are physically removed from me by several thousand miles; there are plenty of other more local things that have more worthwhile claim on my emotional capital. Nonetheless, one cannot escape talking about it, as the mainstream media has made it their mission to keep people's minds off of the things that could actually matter to them and replace it with sensationalist bullshit. I don't blame the media for this entirely, it would not be so popular if people didn't need something to keep their minds off of the mundane reality of their lives. Otherwise people might get bored and start riots, businesses, or do something meaningful with their lives; and we all know nothing good can come of that...

So, why write about this at all? Well, had the story stayed "Congressman survives assassination attempt; the nation is disappointed", there would have been nothing to say. However, like Columbine, 9/11, and many other incidents, people have started falling over themselves to excuse or explain his behavior in one way or another. That anyone thinks we will ever know the true motivation here is humorous; people can (and have) acted crazy and kept secrets to their graves. Nonetheless, it's a chance for the state-worshipers and quacks to trot out their old chestnut of a theory that nobody is in control of their own thoughts or actions.

That of course, is what I take issue with. This belief, at it's heart, is nihilism; when nobody is in control of their own actions, nothing matters at all. If we are but clockwork, and controlled by some other force, this raises two interesting questions:

• How would changing anyone or anything purported to be the "corrupting influence" change the outcome? Furthermore, how could we change it in the first place?
• Who or what is the puppet master of this diorama?

The first question, being largely rhetorical, answers itself. The second, however, is more interesting. The statists believe that collective figments of our imaginations (governments, corporations) have control over our lives, and believe that authority to be legitimate, even when they consider the direction they are being controlled unwise. They do not stop to think that their ability to think critically about their leaders' policies invalidates the legitimacy of any control over their lives by these institutions. Nor do they consider the origins of these institutions requiring free will at some point; the hardest of the hard core will fall back on a "turtles all the way down" argument when push comes to shove.

Speaking of turtles all the way down, it is especially humorous when I hear atheists espouse these sort of arguments, as they elevate something (be it simple algorithms in DNA, chemicals, people, or institutions) to godhood in the process. This is because even with the best theory supporting this nonsense yet (that of quantum probability and the many-worlds interpretations) still says jack squat about what or why one quantum event happens as opposed to another. There's just as much evidence that our thoughts control quantum probability as that of some god doing it (I.E. No evidence whatsoever). You will find that when it comes to whether things are predestined or whether our will is truly free, that there is no evidence supporting EITHER SIDE!

So, in conclusion, what the media is really doing here is not talking politics; it's talking religion. 'Cause when it comes to consciousness, UFOs, gods, and other things without conclusive evidence either way, you gotta HABEEB something. So, given that choice, I chose what any completely rational (read: emotional) person would do, and chose free will. Because otherwise there's no hope for the future, and people can read your minds.

For those of you still unconvinced led to believe that we aren't in control of our actions, and that our excited utterances reliably convey our intent, consider this:

• Loughner stated that he could read people's minds. This belief seems to be in line with yours.
• He also believed that grammar was controlling our actions. This belief seems consistent with yours.

iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg

There's really only one relevant issue to our government at the moment, and that is whether or not to raise the debt ceiling. At first glance to most people, this would be a no-brainer, since the immediate consequences of not raising the ceiling are quite severe, as government checks start bouncing sometime in march-April. However, what people do not talk about is that the day when government checks bounce is coming whether we raise the ceiling or not; it merely comes later if we decide to kick this can. This is for several reasons:

• The amount of current spending per annum is larger than tax receipts
• Tax receipts (revenue) will not be increased and spending will not decrease, as congress values incumbency above all other things
• State finances are on the brink of imminent collapse; we can expect a large and costly bailout in the immediate future
• The amount of debt outstanding is so large, that were interest rates to rise by just 2%, we could never even pay the interest even if the government confiscated 100% of income each year.

If we go ahead and keep borrowing despite the above factors, this has several interesting consequences:

• We can expect the fed funds rate to stay at zero, which will force commodity prices up until we have another collapse of the general market.
• As an additional consequence of such cheap money (and the obvious returns of bubbled markets), companies will invest rather than employ with this "stimulus", and unemployment will not improve.
• The resultant bailout of banks and large hedge funds and corporations will likely be of such magnitude as to significantly increase our debt load, further making us insensitive to interest rate hikes

Do you see where this is going? Eventually we get to the point where no rate above zero allows us to pay down our collateral, regardless of our attempts to grow revenue. The predictions differ on how long this will take, but most of the smart money is on about 2-3 years tops. Add the unemployment picture, and near the end the misery in this country will be close to what is described as "financial armageddon" by those who have analyzed what not raising the debt ceiling will do. And that's if "bond vigilantes" don't make us default first by refusing to lend without punitive interest!

As always, when given the choice to take our lickings now, or later (but with more lashings); we will opt for later and regret it in a big way when the reckoning day finally comes. The form it will take is still up for grabs; nobody knows whether it will be a zim-style printing, a simple shutdown of the government until it saves up enough revenues and reduces expenditures to function once more, or a bloody revolt when the government steals everything they can get their hands on to cover obligations.

I personally am leaning towards the latter; as riots will likely grip the country when people realize that their SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, and Social Security checks are going to bounce soon. Our government is well prepared to institute martial law in response (which is the only response governments have EVER had to such situations, anyways); this will be a good excuse to get away with any confiscatory scheme. As an added bonus, (what is left) of the USA has a high probability of escaping the situation with a dictator.

If the government does the hard (but right) thing, and shuts down, we can expect nearly all federal land to be sold in short order, and the old budget thrown away and replaced with something more sensible. Now congress is talking about bringing spending down to 08 (2008) levels; but when they get really serious here, they'll be thinking more along the lines of 1908 levels. Some states/territories (AK, HI, PR, Guam in particular) may be sold to other nations.

If we hyper-inflate, the USA is hosed. Expect the worst of both previous scenarios, but with famine added to the picture. Note that in all of these scenarios, we can expect secession from one or more states when they realize there is no benefit to being in the union any longer.

In short, this is how I learned to stopped worrying and love the congress. It does not matter what the government does anymore, really; we end up in roughly the same place anyways. The only thing personally to do is try and escape notice as hard as possible, whilst secreting away what you can. I must admit, that Thundering Mogambo Moron (TMM) was right all along.

Don't Belive me? Timothy Geithner has something to say about that - so do others.

Last year I started to use Google reader to follow things in the news, and to keep up with what other folks I knew thought interesting. This has been quite the mind sharpening exercise, if only because the amount I read went up from roughly 100 pages to about 200 daily. As a result, I've learned more than I ever expected; certainly more that was useful then the entirety of my schooling. Also, through the comment system there, I've gained a lot of clarity of thought through the argumentation facilitated there. However, the more one reads and writes, the more one wants to; it's a vicious cycle that ends with one being a pompous windbag at worst, and an opinion leader at best (and sometimes both!) With that in mind, I've decided to descend even further into said madness and become the worst kind of degenerate scum; a blogger.

When I thought about it, I realized that I'd forgotten what the word "blog" even meant; I suspect nearly everyone has. I think it was a log on the web (shortened weblog), but I think journal always a bit more apt. Digression aside, I realized there was a choice ahead of me; that being how I wanted to go about it. There are two main distinctions in blogging, and I had to come down on one side or the other, and it all has to do with comments.

The traditional blog has comments below each post; and roughly anyone can post fairly easily. This has lots of drawbacks however, the main one being the excessive amount of moderation required due to rampant spam and shitposting. A blog has to become very large before enough people care about it to have anyone insightful in the bunch commenting. Until then, you have to deal with the depressing prospect of either no comments, bad/useless comments, and spam being the only comments at all. If you've ever seen the comments on youtube videos, this is what I'm talking about.

As you must have surmised by now, I am not too keen on that idea. I built this site around the principles that involve me doing as little work as possible; Nearly everything is just dynamically generated based on files I just unceremoniously dumped in some directory. Also, due to running a BB for a while (and doing so again), I hate spam comments with an extreme passion. Though I know such can be kept under control (I have administrated wordpress blogs for folks), I know it's more work than not having to deal with it. So, I looked at a decidedly different model; disallowing comments completely.

This is not a decision to be taken lightly, as comments can add lots of value; Indeed some blogs have comments that are far more insightful than the original post! However, this does not mean one cannot have a good site without them; on the contrary, most web 1.0 "internet celebrities" basically just posted essays and corresponded by email. Some would post up some of the interesting mail (or hilarious hate mail), and thus preserve the spirit of comments. Also, with the advent of things like Google reader, folks can still make meaningful comments amongst themselves. I've found that commenting on stuff only your friends are seeing decidedly stops spam and shitposting.

So, I decided I'd take the old-school approach, and tell everyone to just mail me, comment in the forum, or get on irc if they want to talk about it. Hopefully this will force me to write higher quality posts that don't reek of USI like all mine so far.

Back to how much I rule

I wrote this blog system in less time than it took to set up wordpress.

I never have to worry about any spam either. Shit is SO cash.

If you want to comment, make a thread in the forum and I'll link to it.

Yeah, it's a blog. Get over it.