Needles, the Internet and Maybe Some News

Firstly, to the reader who asked how I was doing and asked not to have their comment published. I am doing better, send me your new e-mail address in a comment.

Today I had another doctors appointment and am being a good little Pimpernel. As with all doctors appointments it ended with me getting blood drawn. I had a lovely young Phlebotomist who did a fine job. I met with a specialist in blood who said they were testing me to see if I had a genetic disease; but, he agreed that I probably do not and just have sleep apnea. He did however make sure to chastise me for smoking and tell me how bad my cholesterol was. I don't believe the two are related.

So, I picked up food, went home and am resting. I decided to read some stuff on the net and for whatever reason began looking up the history of the net. While doing so, it occurred to me that it has now been 20 years since I first got online. I was online before there was America Online and still have a Compuserve Account. I was online as part of the first ten million people in the world, my; but, I am getting old.

I first started using computers in 1972 when I was in Junior High. By the time I was in college I was using a mainframe to write statistical programs. I never sought out these things, wrong place at the wrong time and a passing interest. In 1989 I was one of the first people to use a personal pc in my organization. Again a fluke; but, I decided to be an early adopter and must say it has certainly been a part of my career. In 1992 or early 93, I was asked to investigate this thing called the internet because most of the systems people were not interested and were more focused on mainframe applications. Out of about 1,500 I had the only pc that even had access to the outside and one of about 40 for the whole organization.

I am telling you these things to explain the history of the internet as I saw it. In 1993 I decided to go online from home. I started trying out Prodigy and then Compuserve, AOL didn't come online till the end of the year. I would surf on Internet Bulletin Boards. Basically, you would direct dial into peoples servers that were shared with others. FTP was still primary and the everything was textual unless you downloaded it to your computer. By 1994 I decided to join an independent Internet Service Provider that had just opened locally. It was cheaper to have a local provider because back in the day you paid for long distance and used land lines, local calls were free. The local provider was a startup in a garage by a couple of Nasa employees for them and their friends. I ended up beta testing the original Microsoft Internet Explorer and showed the Nasa guys how to configure it for their server and then teaching some of their friends because everyone else was using Mosaic or Netscape browsers.

As part of my job I ended up learning to make web pages for my organization and was responsible for figuring out where this whole internet thing was going. I would go to seminars that seemed like Amway meetings where people tried to explain why the internet was going to be the next big thing; but, the reality was that nobody really knew what it was going to evolve into. At the time it was more of a social thing for the casual user and an academic and esoteric thing for those who had been involved in it for any real period of time.

In the beginning most web pages were all textual with maybe a picture or two. They looked like my blog but lacked a color background. Once AOL came online and people began using visuals rather than textual links, everything changed. The net became more and more visual and usage blew up. It also became more commercial, slowly at first; but, that grew too. As the internet grew, I did well in my career although I had long since stopped being directly involved in programming for it. I ended up being a high level administrator and managing, amongst many other sections, a systems section.

While I used to teach people how to use computers, it was always an aside and merely because I had been an early implementer that I even knew how to use them. After the internet became common place, I began asking people who owned it and nobody was ever able to tell me. Back in the day most people assumed that it was owned by AOL, Prodigy and Compuserve because they were the face of the internet on television; but, I had attended seminars and knew better. The internet was created and owned by our own Federal government. It was created by the precursor to DARPA and was still controlled by them. Well, the essence of it, the part that makes it function is controlled by them.

We used to call the internet the World Wide Web; but, it wasn't much. Internet usage was pretty much an American thing for it's first few public years. Being the jerk that I am, in 1995 I posted my own web page. It made fun of animal rights groups and I was quickly threatened with death. I kept it up anyways.

I never got into chat rooms; but, watched as they grew more and more popular. I never really used the social aspects of the net and didn't use it for financial transactions. I sort of just watched it change. It wasn't until about 1998 that I started using it for personal business, mostly e-mails because prior I didn't know many people who had e-mail.

Of all the things I have seen in my life, the internet has made the greatest impact. The internet has made bigger changes in this world than the computer did in and of itself. The personal computer gave people abilities that they never had before; but, the internet made people want to use the pc and made it easy. Smart phones are nothing more than small pcs with access to the internet. In the future, everything will be connected to the internet, they call this "the internet of things"; but, what does that really mean?

The internet of things means that everything you do will be monitored, assisted and managed online where it can be seen by anyone who is smart enough to. It means that you will be able to access and control every part of your life using your phone. Pluses and minuses to all technologies.

I had intended to write about ICANN and how 13 servers rule the world. Someone had written about how that is no longer true; but, they were either trying or were too young to really understand. The internet is still controlled by 13 root servers, those root servers now have slave servers; but, the essence remains the same at a time when it does not need to. Of those 13, only a few are truly public. All of them are still under contract with the federal government.

That is my boring history of the internet, now, let me tell you why it matters. Yes, the government can see everything that happens on the internet. When people used to have individually owned servers running bulletin boards that were not connected to the world wide web it was different. Those days are not likely to come back.

YouTube - CBC Archives: The Internet 1993

YouTube - 1993 The Internet The Computer Chronicles

YouTube - The Internet As It Was In 1996

Yahoo - The Internet as seen in 1997

Iana - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority - Root Servers. If you really want to understand the fundamentals of the internet, this is the website. Just go through their links. Look at how boring a page they have visually, just like my blog. As you go through the servers, you will discover one of the thirteen was controlled by Nasa at the Ames Research Center. I wonder if that is where the guys from Nasa that I knew when I got my internet account worked? I will never know as I lost touch with them years ago.

Wikipedia - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

IANA is nothing more than another government contractor, just like the one that Snowden worked for. ICANN is nothing more than another government contractor just like the one Snowden worked for. The internet is controlled by 13 servers and one of them is a secret. Younger systems people that think they get it will tell you that there are more than 13; but, they don't understand how each of those sets is still controlled by the 13. The government can shut down the whole internet and is the only group that can restart it. That mean they have a copy of everything that is and has been on the internet. It was the whole purpose of the thing when it was created.

For anyone who has read my blog for any period of time, it should be apparent that I keep a sharp eye on technology. I am not a systems person officially and gave up on programming a long time ago; but, I understand organization and infrastructure and I understand the internet and computers. One of the most fundamental things that systems people get wrong is that they think in a paradigm that is by definition wrong.

Computers are really just a series of numbers. The numbers are 0 and 1. It is a logical assumption that every choice can be either yes or no; but, that assumes their can be an absolute 0. There cannot be an absolute 0 because there is a 1. If I know for a fact that there is one thing in the universe then there cannot be a nothing in the universe. The act of being aware of this means that there can be more than one thing. This is sort of philosophy 101. All computers assume that there can be an absolute 0 which means their base programming is incomplete and can never be fixed. In simple terms, systems people assume that there is such a thing as an absolute 0 and base all their calculations on that possibility and therefore can and must be flawed in their understanding.

Let me put this in a theological manner. Nonexistence is not a possibility in the universe because you exist. To attempt to prove that you do not would be completely illogical, to try and prove that you could not has the same consequence. The only thing one is left with is to attempt that they can cease to exist; but, it means others could. The same cannot be said of the material world. Quantum physics cannot prove that we live in a material world. Nope, they keep proving that we do not. I can prove that if one exists, two can. I cannot prove that if nothing exists anything can, that is the philosophical problem with the big bang theory.

Must the Mainstream Media Spin Everything

A friend had invited me to dinner. I had accepted; but, after church I was very tired and took a nap. When he got here he said I looked a little pale and maybe we should reschedule; but, I wanted to have dinner with him so we went out. I was so tired that we ended up coming back earlier than intended. I guess I am still adjusting to my new medications.

It is getting harder and harder to find straight news. Every outlet now resorts to spinning every story to some agenda. It used to be that the mainstream media that was worthy of respect tried to be objective. All we see now is a rush to make every story have a morality lesson. That is opinion influencing, not reporting.

CNN - Where Obamacare premiums will soar. Lets start with the title, it says that Obamacare premiums will go up and that is just incorrect. Worse, the author knows better so it is a lie. There is no Obamacare premium, the health law did not set any rate for insurance and it is not government insurance, it is still private insurance companies. What he later explains in the article is that some states allow insurance companies to offer plans with little if any benefits and allow the insurance companies to exclude sick people from getting insurance. Those plans would need to offer more benefits, like hospital stays, and that will increase what they charge.

The article is basically propaganda with a political agenda. Now, you may or may not agree with the agenda; but, the presentation is overly biased for an organization that claims to be a news agency. My blog is not a news agency, it is commentary, it is opinion and that is how I describe it. If the article from CNN had been labeled as opinion that would be one thing; but, is is in the Financial section.

What some states allow is that insurance companies can charge small rates when someone is young and healthy and increase the rate as you get older or sick. In addition they can refuse you insurance as you get older or sick. Basically, it is insurance that only makes economic sense for those who don't need it and is refused to those who will or do. It is like life insurance that costs more as you age and need it less. Eventually you pull out of the plan and never get the benefit of the 30 years that you paid the premium. The article could have been titled, "Under Obamacare some states will be required to let everyone have insurance". In my opinion that title would also have been propaganda; but, at least it would have been an accurate title. An objective title might have been, "The economic costs in different states "under the new healthcare laws". It is okay for reporters to explain the effects of things without taking a position.

CNBC - Spreads show 'big trades' for US, emerging stocks.

Mail Online - Could this be the end of cash-in-hand? New Chip and PIN device for tradesmen is launched (but will anyone actually buy it?). Just another example of how we make all transactions electronic.

The SLOG - GLOBAL LOOTING: The new EU bailin law was passed 8 days ago….did you notice?. I don't follow this blog and know nothing about it. The only point is that the EU has agreed with the IMF, the Eurozone, Canada and the United States, we will have bail ins.

The Telegraph - 56 police hurt in Belfast riots. A number of years ago in Northern Ireland, the Protestant government made a law that allowed the government to keep Catholics in jail without a trial. Some celebrate that change in the law and some do not. Here is the thing that they miss in Northern Ireland, those laws can now be used against all their citizens if they wish to reapply them and they now have a history of allowing such things. In the 1940s we placed the Japanese in "internment" camps. Now, I will make a statement that is both right and wrong. Wrong morally, correct factually.

In the United States, we had legal slavery and it was a horrible and morally wrong thing. What we did to the Japanese-Americans was less morally wrong; but, worse from a legal standpoint. In both cases we took away people's freedoms. The slaves were treated worse; but, in both cases they were prisoners. Slavery was legal under the constitution and the constitution allowed us to change the rules and abolish slavery. The internment of the Japanese was unconstitutional and yet, it was allowed to be done anyways. What if in 1776, the northern states had created a federal government where slavery was illegal and the southern states had created a nation where it was legal. Would we still have slavery in the south today? What if the civil war had never happened because we had never been a United States?

Now, lets get back to the Northern Ireland story. Can you imagine white people marching through little Tokyo to celebrate when we put all the Japanese into internment camps in the west during World War II? Can you imagine people celebrating destroying their own rule of law? What would you think if large groups of young white men attacked black people for celebrating Martin Luther King day? What we allow to be done to others is what we allow the government to do to us all. If you cheat your friends, you are saying it is morally okay for crooks to cheat you.

People - Eydie Gormé Dies, Singing Legend Was 84. Just to show that even in Hollywood, marriages can work.

ABC - Can You Pass This 8th Grade Exam From 1912?. This article has been placed all over the internet and media. What is the point of it because no, most people could not pass the test today because we are not taught the same things today. The article is propaganda for "Common Core", it is aimed at conservatives and appeals to their wish to have education get "back to basics". It all goes back to spin. Spin is appealing to something you know that should be done; but, it appeals to your emotion and ignores the details that are unpleasant.

Let me attempt to make up an example. Can we all agree that every school child should learn their ABC's and that every child should learn to count? Now if I define that as a common core curriculum that should be in every school, who would argue the point? It sounds pretty good when you look at it that way. Now, if I say that every child will be taught the exact same thing and that will include history and sociology and government and other areas where there is not universal agreement, would you feel the same? Now lets look at how this works.

If I am teaching History, there is no one answer. If I teach someone to count to 100, the answer is the same for everyone. When I was growing up, we were taught to count to 100; but, then the new math came in. It sought to make math relative and one of the first things kids learned was number sets that they would never use and didn't help them learn to understand math. They started by teaching kids that we had a base ten number system; but, that we could have a base six, seven, two or any other number system. The problem was that we don't have a base six number system, we have a base ten number system. So, why spend all that time teaching kids that there were alternatives to the numerical system that we used. Well, the intent was to get us to move to the European metric system for everything and the law actually required that we do it. We just refused to learn it. The purpose of having a federal mandate on education is not about making sure that kids learn to read and write and add. It is about being able to control what they learn about history and geography and the social studies. It is about conformity of belief.

We allow our world view to be manipulated when we only listen to what we want to believe. The more we seek answers that fit into our existing world view and the less we consider alternative views, the easier it is to manipulate us. The media is degraded to the point of two people yelling slogans at each other. Now, I want to talk about Trayvon Martin again.

Lets say you are a 15 year old white kid wearing a nice suit while returning from working at a charity for homeless people all day. As you are walking home thinking about how you are going to feed even more people tomorrow, you spot a 22 year old black man following you in his car. You call your friend and she tells you that there has been a rash of older black men catching and raping young white boys. You tell your pursuer to leave you alone and he doesn't. Might you attempt to protect yourself and attack him first. In Florida you have the right to stand your ground.

The media has sought to portray both Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman. They either wish to portray Mr. Martin as just another black kid being abused by a white guy or as a wanna be thug. Mr. Zimmerman is either portrayed as a valiant young man trying to defend others or a hateful bigot. Assume any combination you want and you miss the real point, guilt or innocence. The question is about what someone should be able to do on a neighborhood watch. Should they be allowed to follow people? If you say yes then the next question is should they be allowed to stop people and ask them questions? Should the cops be allowed to stop anyone for no reason and force you to tell them what you are doing? That is wrong thinking. I see people like Mr. Ted Nugent saying that we live in a police state and that our rights are being violated while also saying that Mr. Zimmerman was right to kill Mr. Martin while ignoring the fact that Mr. Zimmerman was doing exactly what Mr. Nugent believes the government should not be allowed to do. The media presents us with the thoughts of a complete idiot (Mr Nugent) while avoiding the bigger issues about how we should treat one another when we don't have prior experience with each other.

Mr. Zimmerman is half Cuban. He is a person of color. Still there are those who portray him as "white" because one of his parents is. The president also has a white parent; but, most would consider him black. Still, there are those who will say the president is black and that Zimmerman is white. While issues of color are still in people's minds, the question we can deal with is how we write our laws and what it means to break them. I cannot look into the soul of another; but, I can question whether or not a person has a right to stop me on the street and demand that I explain myself to them.

Now, lets look at the court case. Mr. Zimmerman was found not guilty. By definition, the jury found that in Florida, you have the right to follow someone and approach them, at night, and demand that they explain themselves to you. They are not entitled to attack you even if they feel threatened. If they do, you can kill them. That is the law that was upheld and that we all get to live under in Florida. The real question was how could this all have been avoided and that if it did occur because one of the parties was a horrible person they would have been prosecuted or let go because they stayed within the law and the law was just. I think the media focused too much on the unknowns and ignored what could have been knows.

Oprah Winfrey compared Trayvon Martin to another case. The other case involved a young black man who flirted with a young girl. Some white guys kidnapped him and killed him. She is as bad as Ted Nugent. Lets assume this young black man was a gang member and a drug dealer and even wanted to take advantage of the young white girl. Would you think it was okay for him to be kidnapped, tortured and killed or could we find a way to outlaw kidnapping, torturing and killing regardless of race or even who?

What if the law in Florida said that it was okay to follow people and even stop them; but, that if you did, they had a right to protect themselves and force you to leave them alone? What if that law said that once you stopped someone, you would go to jail for life or suffer the death penalty if you wrongfully stopped them? Mr. Martin has not once been accused of breaking and entering or committing any crime prior to being stopped.

The reason I took so long to talk about the case is because I wanted everyone to establish their positions first. Now, we can examine how we were manipulated into taking polarizing positions and re-consider the choices that were presented to us. The media has ceased being objective because they are fighting over readers and if we can get the left to follow the Huffington Post and the right to follow Fox News, the two most polarizing media groups both make money. The sides are chosen and the truth becomes spin. If we read everything through our per-conceived and comfortable biases, sometimes we may understand the facts and sometimes we will be wrong; but, our analysis will always be wrong because we based it on our biases.