pavi's BIG cat page and link to: SPRING SYSTEMS

Hi! I'm sitting at my computer with a view of my backyard, and beyond that, a semi-obscured view of a distant Sears Tower. I'm well over 10 miles away from Lake Michigan and its skyline, which you can see by linking to: SEE Chicago Skyline (HINT: scroll down the page a bit to get to the picture). I share this environment with my cats Stacy and Alex ( SEE my cats).

The LION graphic is a bit of OVERKILL for communicating that I'm a CAT person.

FREEDOM

The fact that some consider a FREE SOCIETY to be EXTREME, and that this view is not all that uncommon today (this ANTI-FREEDOM stance is a TOTALITARIAN/KONTROL FREAK viwpoint.. EXTREME in its own right), does not portend well for the future for those who love FREEDOM.

I suspect that the BIGGEST enemy of FREEDOM is not OVERT REPRESSION (though this can easily happen if you're in a PC oriented University or workplace with intolerant views and policies, or alternately in an environment characterized by racism [any race vs. any other race counts] or in an environment characterized by BIGOTRY... the subject of the BIGOTRY does not matter... BIGOTRY is BIGOTRY.. it's a mindset independent of subject matter, just like LYING), but rather INDIFFERENCE, TOLERANCE AND CONCESSIONS ON OUR PART to PIECEMEAL LYING, CHEATING, STEALING and other forms of SUBVERSION!!

It may very well be that the WEB/NET as it is at this writing [this 'tome' was originally written on JUL. 1998... and periodically updated since then] is the last bastion of FREEDOM. Check FUTURE developments (regulations, taxes, content infringements, V-chips etc.) on the WEB/NET against this date.

UPDATE 02-04-99
Since July of last year, some of the following has taken place:

• Intel has attempted to hardwire an I.D. system into its chips which allows each user to be indentified on the WEB. They claim that they have a patch that enables a software override to block this function.

• Congress has once again attempted to pass legislation to stop kiddies from viewing porn. This effort was found by the courts to be TOO BROAD, and thus unconstitutional.

• In a number of instances, lawsuits have been filed against the individual operators of WEB sites. The issue was not PORN but SPEECH content the LITIGATORS found objectionable. This includes Matt Drudge, and a site that was alleged to contain possibly incendiary ANTI-ABORTION material.

UPDATE 05-11-99
Since February of this year, some of the following has taken place:

• SERBS TAKE OVER THE WEB
  Slobo's propoganda machine has even infiltrated the WEB via 'Kosovo Crisis' chat boards.

  Notice how many SERB/SLAV apologists there are on any given board. Their 'Share of Voice' is way out of proportion relative to their numbers in the REAL WORLD. It's almost as if they used a 'manual' version of SPAM to artificially inflate the apparent prevalence of their viewpoint.

  Judging by the spelling/syntax of a lot of the posts, the SERB PROPOGANDA machine has assigned a lot of their dimmer lights to permanently monitor these boards, and let no post that is ANTI-SERB go unchallenged.

  An extreme case of challenging posts, is calling on the board host to EXPUNGE any post that has even a hint of being both ANTI-SERB and using objectionable language. This results in the HOST sending a TOS (Terms of Service) warning to the post's author, whether they have such content or not, and then EXPUNGING the post.

  If one reads ALL the posts, there are plenty that use FOUL LANGUAGE, but are apparently left alone because they are NOT ANTI-SERB.

  SERB SYMPS and OPERATIVES are flooding the boards, and at the same time using the HOST'S thought police to EXPUNGE stuff that might be technically objectionable (compared to what??) but was submitted to the HOST by vigilant SERB SYMPS because it was also ANTI-SERB. The result is a biased atmosphere on the boards, which distorts the freedom and integrity of these forums.

  The sad thing is that the HOST'S employees who monitor the boards, are either bureauocratically clueless accessories to these tactics, OR are consciously playing along.

• AOL A SPECIFIC CASE IN POINT
  AOL is a specific case in point. Apparently their 'THOUGHT POLICE' consists of UNPAID (other than in 'free' connect time) VOLUNTEERS. No one knows who these people are or what they stand for. They are NOT EMPLOYEES of AOL and thus not totally accountable. However, the POWER to judge the merits of complaints brought forth by SNITCHES, and the POWER to erase posts or shut down an account is ENTIRELY IN THEIR HANDS. There is no 'George Carlin' like finite list of NASTY words or phrases that triggers their activity. It's strictly a judgment on their part.
• SNITCHES
  Then there are the SNITCHES. No one knows who they are or what their agendas are. This is like pre Magna Carta (the DARK AGES) where the accused is NOT allowed to confront the accusers.
• NO NEED TO WAIT... CENSORSHIP IS HERE ALREADY
  While we're fearfully awaiting the day when the Government closes its Mailed Fist around the NET, the CENSORS are ALREADY HERE! Because AOL is either too BIG or CHEAP, the people in their system who have POWER over FREEDOM of SPEECH are amateurs whose agendas and judgment criteria we know nothing about.

  Combined with SNITCHES, who work the complaint system to their advantage to CONTROL WHO GETS TO SPEAK WHAT, we have DE-FACTO WEB CENSORSHIP. Who knows, this may be the butterfly which starts the inevitable collapse of AOL avalanche (see: catastrophy theory), though nothing approximating this has happened yet.

UPDATE 12-03-01
I mentioned elsewhere on this page that we had nothing to worry about vis-a-vis WEB FREEDOM, because Government control of the WEB/NET would be like 'herding cats'.

• IT'S NOW POSSIBLE TO HERD CATS
  Well it's come to pass. First of all there was the 'Herding Cats' commercial by EDS several Super Bowls ago, promising that EDS was up to this kind of task. That was amusing and whimsical.
• THEY DO IT IN CHINA
  More recently and OMINOUSLY, the US & World Report (Digital domain by Randall E. Stross 11-26-2001) tells us that The People's Republic of China has succeeded in controlling the INTERNET ACCESS of its CITIZENS.
  "... the Goliath in Beijing has learned.. to check incoming bitstreams from the World Wide Web, block politically incorrect sites, monitor chat rooms, and deploy computer experts to hack into Web sites of enemies of the state, like the Falun Gong... after having taken control, the Government now encourages internet access and use".
• ARE WE NEXT?
  If one fool can do it, so too can another. Who knows how far we are in the USA from similar constraints imposed on the WEB, prompted by allegations of uncontrolled commercial excesses (spam?), pornography, hate speech, political incorrectness, and potential breaches of national security.

  No wonder that several politicians have advocated universal access to the NET/WEB. Only it won't be the NET/WEB as we currently know it. It will be the current web morphed into a ONE-WAY medium (just like the rest of the MEDIA today) in support of their political agenda(s). Control will be imposed via a Government Controlled ISP Monopoly (which will be provided for 'FREE').

• THE TAX OPTION
  Of course, if all this fails, there still remains the option to TAX IT and/or SUE IT into submission.

COMPUTING PARADIGMS

• THE BEGINNING
  In the BEGINNIG [50's to late 60's] there were MAINFRAMES [dominated by IBM], in air conditioned glass houses run by a 'Priesthood', of 'computer professionals' to whom the 'laymen' (see: END USERS) would SUBMIT [sometimes making a sacrifice of a small goat] requests for information and/or new programs to solve new problems. Usable results were COMPLETELY under the CONTROL of the 'Preisthood', and more often than not were not forthcoming or involved impossibly long timeframes or excuses of "it can't be done".
• TIME SHARING AND MINIS
  Eventually [70's], there was 1)TIME SHARING and 2)MINICOMPUTERS which gave a little bit more EMPOWERMENT to END USERS. Programs tended to be more 'interactive', and END USERS (if they were diligent enough) were given opportunities to customize things via PERSONAL PROGRAMMING.
• PERSONAL COMPUTING
  The late 70's and early 80's brought on the PERSONAL (PC) COMPUTER REVOLUTION. INDIVIDUAL END USERS were able to control their computing needs without the CONTROL or interference of EDP types. There was CHAOS but also EMPOWERMENT. Computing became accessible to a much broader class of people ON THEIR OWN TERMS. Because of the SHEER VOLUME INCREASES this produced, OVERPRICED and UNDERPOWERED software and hardware solutions were dispalaced by MORE COST EFFECTIVE PC's and their SOFTWARE.
• THE INTERNET
  To a degree, the advent of the INTERNET presaged the DEATH of PERSONAL COMPUTING. The original STALINIST TOP-DOWN computing paradigm of MAINFRAMES, is being displaced by a similar SERVER BASED VISION, where everyone would have access to the INTERNET via the equivalent of DUMB TERMINALS (the NET PC).

  Control over what software and customizations would be available to the END USER, would once again revert to WHOEVER WAS RUNNING THE INTERNET SERVER (see: SUN and ORACLE ... what did either ever do to help PERSONAL COMPUTING EMPOWERMENT?... and more 'innocuously' and therefore more PERNICIOUSLY, see AOL and its monopoly of both the gateways and the content. They make Microsoft look like a 'niche' player and are the very embodiment of all encompassing Monopoly if not INFORMATION TOTALITARIANISM).

  So much for INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM and EMPOWERMENT IN COMPUTING.

Relax, we're not there YET. The INTERNET is still like 'herding cats' to anyone willing to try to control it (not any more.. SEE ABOVE re: 2001). Nevertheless, the WEB still looks like it has the potential to be another TOP-DOWN CONTROLLED instrument of MASS MEDIA, morphing slowly into what the BROADCAST MEDIA are today (see: AOL and its Time/Warner component).

Such media provide access to the masses for CULTURE CONTROL, INFORMATION and NEWS CONTROL, and IDEOLOGICAL PROPOGANDA/GROUPTHINK DISSEMINATION purposes, to IDEOLOGICAL OLIGOPOLIES and to politicians who advocate a dumb terminal in every school and who favor yet another one-way pipeline to the people via A KONTROL FREAK FRIENDLY ENVORONMENT.

Want to stay relatively independent? Stick to your FAT PC's (within the bounds of affordability, MORE IS BETTER, especially memory and disk storage) and think of INTERNET ACCESS as an EXTRA feature (one of many) rather than the SOLE PURPOSE of computing. Much of what you can get on the NET (no longer as true as in 98), you can ALSO get OFFLINE via CD-ROMS, TOTALLY under your OWN INDIVIDUAL CONTROL. Use your computer to CREATE SOMETHING NEW and WONDERFUL, independent of NET-THINK!

Use the NET as a communications medium (via e-mail, chat groups, publishing via WEB pages, etc.). But STOP USING IT when it ceases to be FREE (in BOTH senses of the word). The signs are already there (once again, SEE ABOVE re: 2001).

Incidentally, one way to check the status of WEB/NET independence is to compare the results of surveys (assuming identical or very similar questions) done on the WEB with those done by PHONE with the 'general' population. As long as there is divergence between the two, we're still OK.

REDUNDANCY/PERSISTENCE

I'm trying to set up something similar (a work in progress). I'm attempting to do this by putting up a number of INTERCONNECTED, similar/redundant, but independent sites.

Since I've been on the NET, I've seen no fewer than 25 providers of various resources that I had occasion to use, DISAPPEAR or MALFUNCTION. This obviously demonstrates the wisdom of not putting ALL of one's eggs in a single basket.

There is an implicit POTENTIAL within the NET that involves FAILSAFE PARALLELISM similar to what's implemented in certain HARDWARE ARCHITECTURES. Such architectures insure a satisfactory level of PERSISTENCE via REDUNDANCY, and so do their NET presence analogs.

NET NET (no pun intended), some piece of this entity will survive no matter what happens!

DEGREES of SEPARATION

EMPOWERMENT

On the WEB we are not as constrained by this statement, because in effect, everyone 'OWNS A PRESS'... at least on a VIRTUAL level.

Personal publishing via a Personal Computer was already there before the WEB became popular. DTP provided control over layout and typography that was formerly only available through professional printers. However, the audience was limited to what one could afford to print and distribute as 'Hard Copy'.

The NET and more specifically, the WEB (which via HTML and scripting, provides a degree of font and layout control as well as multimedia and interaction possibilities) also adds the dimension of providing a potentially LARGE and INTERNATIONAL audience for personal PUBLISHING efforts at relatively low cost. It's somewhere between 'Samizdat' and an affordable 'Vanity Press'.

Keep in mind that at the end of the day, EVERY PRESS (even the 'mainstream media') is ultimately a VANITY PRESS.

On the WEB, this has resulted in pages and sites that encompass 'The GOOD, the BAD, and the UGLY'. Many early efforts at home pages are similar to many early efforts at DESKTOP PUBLISHING in that they resemble ransom notes in their aesthetics and use of type and layout.

If you have nothing to say (or can't spell it properly), sing it (via WAV or MIDI), or else write poetry. If that fails, use slow loading EYE CANDY graphics.

But hey, that's COOL. The essence of EMPOWERMENT is to accomodate ALL of these possibilities, and then some.

FLAWS IN THE EMPOWERMENT PARADIGM

The advent of an 'INFORMATION UTOPIA' is not quite what happened. While it's true that PC's now have approximately 60% or more household penetration in the US, and the average PC is orders of magnitude more powerful than yesterday's mainframes, we are nevertheless a long way from UTOPIA. Given the order of magnitude increase of computing power available to an individual user, the results have thus far been somewhat disappointing.

Productivity, knowledge gains, and/or discovery breakthroughs (estimated to have increased by about 20%) have certainly not increased by the same orders of magnitude as computing power. Major advances like cracking the genome code (largely attributable to newly found computing power) remain within the province of 'professionals' rather than talented laymen who now have access to computing power.

Part of the problem is that:

"YOU CAN LEAD A HORSE TO WATER BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE IT DRINK".

The availability of computers is not enough. Someone has to be able to use them intelligently. It's entirely possible that household penetration of PC's as they are made today will have reached a saturation point at around 60% (household penetration is actually higher now [2/2002].. close to two thirds, but some of these computers function primarily as dumb terminals and/or their functional equivalents, PAPERWEIGHTS). Even if PC's were to be FREELY available, the rest of the U.S. probably wouldn't know or care how to use them (this includes the teachers... especially the teachers).

Keep in mind that relative to kids in other countries, our kids have miserable math & science scores on standardized tests; 20-25% of the population is functionally illiterate (an optimistic estimate); a larger proprtion (It's now 2002. This word has not been spelled correctly [should be: proportion] for several years. How may of you noticed? I rest my case.) may be functionally 'innumerate'; in a recent survey 30% of those polled agreed that the sun revolved around the earth.. with flashing 12's on VCR's on and on ad nauseum, and so it goes. It's not unreasonable to hypothesize that 40% to 50% of today's population is either cognitively unequipped to handle a PC as it's currently made, or simply will not bother expending the effort to learn.

In addition, much of today's PC usage is in mundane areas such as data entry and low end word processing. PC's have made modest contributions to productivity, but we should not hold our breath waiting for some kid (or any other 'layman' for that matter) to USE ONE to develop a Unified Field Theory, or alternate energy sources that are cost competitive with fossil fuels, or cures for cancer. It's lucky if they can use one to balance their checkbooks. So much for UTOPIA.

HOW I'VE USED THIS EMPOWERMENT OPPORTUNITY