Digital Media Addiction

In this article I am not discussing Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) or Social Media Addiction (SMA) because I believe these to be not as broad in meaning. “Digital Media” refers to all things electronic using a binary communication schema; this is really the focus of the article.

Digital Media Addiction

People are saturated by media and moved by others in many different directions; granting themselves little time for developing individual thought, or even supporting their own arguments. Instead of focusing on one topic for a reasonable amount of time, the media of popular attention is flooded with the disposable responses of a thoughtless social structure. This has happened to such a point that a whole generational trend of internet users has risen, whose only application is to add controversy to any given topic instead of engaging in meaningful debate and conversation. I believe trolls and the practice of trolling is a waste of time outside of generating traffic for the content. People will even brag about their ability to create reactions in the atmosphere surrounding any given topic of a social arena. People who wish to discuss events in a genuine manner will always have to deal with the people who won’t. This is the epidemic effect I have witnessed over the past decade of Digital Media Addiction (DMA).

I used to struggle with DMA but I think I’m doing better now. I’ve spent more time on video games and following digital media than I care to disclose in detail. We all enjoy electricity and the benefit of its instant gratification possibilities. It’s a wonderful product but its misuse is easily overlooked. An overwhelming feeling of dependency can form from the constant use of any one thing. A healthy balance of use with any practice or product should be maintained, or at least pursued. I’m a believer that the internet and its social networks should be considered more like tools; engaged and utilized to achieve your immediate goal and then restored back to a state of rest in the toolbox. Today people speak about being lost without their cell phone, and young people think it’s a weird practice to engage each other in a more direct manner instead of just texting. Call me old-fashioned, but I’d still rather touch the ladies than tweet them. Understand that I’m not entirely rejecting social media; I merely want to keep a distance and maintain control of my information, privacy and consent. Few really know what they will want to do in the future, and I think it’s idiotic to ruin future possibilities by irreversibly exposing oneself in a single misguided self-exploitative mistake on social media. Far too often I see the young damaging their identity and credibility by trashing their consent and privacy. Information can be a weapon that knows no limitation of time and distance. And misguided decisions or lack of moral history can severely limit a person’s efficacy. What each of us make public as what we have said or done is important beyond what we can yet know. Meaning: It is wise to always be in control of the information you publish.

Each Facebook user is a social commodity. People are a marketable product. Usage of most popular social media sites includes a shrink-wrapped agreement to become a commodity to be sold and marketed. If there are ads on a site you use, the chances are you have agreed to waive your consent and privacy. If you don’t “go with the flow” and use social media as addictively as the rest, you may be limiting your present possibilities. But this isn’t necessarily bad. Being abnormal is simply defined as the antonym of normal (average, majority) behavior. It is quite average behavior to care less what contracts we click through as we use the various services of the internet. I certainly don’t read every word of these agreements. And the fact remains that the service provider will not haggle with the terms of service. You either have to agree or skip off. And if there is no directly overt attack against me for using the service, then I will weigh the pros and cons and likely decide to simply limit my exposure to the service. But it’s important to always remember the company does not care about any of its commodity users. We are all dollar signs of potential ad revenue.

Digital Media Needles

I abhor marketing and advertising. I suppose I know enough about each of the practices to realize its traps and limiting factors. Marketing is the persuasion of a potential client toward believing they need, or at least want, a given product or service. Marketing is very much like advertising as idealized and reinvented by the propagandist regime of Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov). “If you don’t want what we got, you haven’t been paying attention.” Thus is the essence of advertising at its worst. I want no part of marketing. I understand the idea of advertising as making information available so that people can make a more informed decision about a product or service. This practice can be annoying but is necessary for a number of obvious reasons. The transformation occurs when social media sites we’ve agreed to use, track our patterns and web history, then trade the information to specific advertisers that will individually manipulate each user into buying a specific product instead of informing people of options. Being directly marketed can be averted by: logging out of social media sites when you are finished using them, using search engines only when you’ve logged out of all your media sessions, closed any other services that you’ve agreed to allow track you in their ToS, and logged out of email when you use search and the rest of the internet.

All of that sounds like a Hell of an annoying protocol to practice, so it’s much easier to just ignore the marketing. That’s easy for someone like myself that is aware of the methods in which these technologies are used, but now I return from my digression and on to more of the point of this article.. The young are stupid, inexperienced and manipulated by even simple advertising. This is why there are people who have gone through the entire series of every single iPhone release, android version or other hot item of the month. They are slaves to their DMA. Many consumers have spent money in this reckless manner and refuse to acknowledge this as an obsessive disorder; there is certainly no company with a product to sell that will support this argument. People don’t want to be told they have a problem, they just want it to disappear by filling the void with the digital amusement of their choice, further supporting their addiction. It’s pretty bad when people are interfaced with a screen all day, plugged into Facebook updating their digital identity; meanwhile the cats need to be fed, dogs let out, house should get cleaned, boxes sorted through, food cooked, household members spoken to, or should go for a walk or do something physical to relieve stress.

The extent of my social media networking is a Twitter account I check maybe four times a week. I also still play a bit of video games and watch movies in the evening. The rest of my usage of the internet is primarily research for my writing. I still use digital media more than I want to, but it is on my terms. I feel that my skin hue is too white because I should spend more time outside interfacing with live people during the day. I live ten miles from a sizeable beach and I haven’t had my feet in its sand in years, that’s a shame. However, I am aware of my behavior and that empowers me to change. I seek to make others aware of this addiction, so that they too can be apt toward positive changes. It’s best to unplug and remove our shoes to feel the Earth beneath our feet from time to time. I believe the longer people remain disconnected from direct interaction, the more likely they are to be overwhelmed by bad habits and neglect significant deficiencies of the self. It is important to end this article by highlighting I am not passing judgment on others for their behavior; I’m more so speaking with a mindful aversion of repeating personal experience.

-Jeremy Edward Dion

Advertisements

When Idiots Design Security

security shieldI can remember the days when an internet company provided a service that was designed to hold your identity intact unless you chose otherwise. Personal security wasn’t an issue because identity was well contained by proper security design. All you had was a username and password to access the service. There were no easy-outs, email identities, password hints, security questions, or user names that were identical to your email address. All of these so-called features were added because of the numerous complaints by idiots losing their usernames and passwords. Some of those were legitimate idiots and some of those were asshole hackers socially engineering information from customer support. This was the beginning of a trend in security schemes that would slowly destroy online anonymity and security. It is the progressive agenda.

I control sixteen email addresses. Most require different passwords but there are chunks of emails that use similar low security passwords. I use those low-security emails on low security sites for registration. This way, I’m not compromising anything I care about. Keeping up with all these email identities can be difficult so I have a password file; written in code and encrypted with a passphrase. I’ve accumulated these addresses over the years because the idiot agenda to make everything easier for users was compromising proper security practices. Every time I would encounter a service that demanded I use my email address for a login, I would go create a new email address. Using your only one identifiable email address as a login for some stupid service you may only need to use a few times is like throwing your identity information into a low security den of thieves. That service, which may even be compromised, is going to want a password too. Since you’re already supplying your email as a login, it’s not a far stretch for users to supply the same damn password that they would if they were logging into their email. Boom, an instant security nightmare. It might be easier for the user, but it’s also easier for a hacker to relate and compromise your account when they’ve already got your email address and you’re throwing around your password across low security services over under-encrypted channels. So use a different password. Fine, but people still know that you use that service because your one and only email address is the login information to their database; there is no anonymity.

My issue with security questions is that they’re just another password field, but a low security password because they give you hints that often relate to public knowledge. “What is your mother’s maiden name?” Are you kidding me? My mother knows that information! My friend knows that information! Hell, the DMV knows that information! Hackers compromise more accounts by answering stupid public knowledge questions than any other way. Idiots came up with this giant security hole. “What was your first car?” Ridiculous. The best way to deactivate this often forced security hole to an account you’re setting up is to supply a string of random characters (another password), but make sure to write it down somewhere. By all means, do not use truthful answers to these questions! It’s a welcoming mat for anyone with a bit of knowledge of your past, and the Feds know it all. Again; designed by idiots or assholes.

How about linking your personal phone number to your email address? No. I’m not doing that. Like I want the Feds, or anyone else, to have that information, know that it’s linked to that online identity, and use it against me somehow. If you’re someone I care about then you know my real name and you probably have my number. Otherwise, you can look it up in one of the many third-party databases that I have not given permission to use. Good luck with that. There is no trust relationship with the services you sign up for. Read the terms of service! They are not liable for any information you supply. Your data is in their servers, they own it, and they will do whatever they damn well please with it. They word agreements as if they care about your privacy, but they have to say those things otherwise users wouldn’t trust using their services. It has always been this way. Why would you think it would be better than this? It always gets worse.

biometric thumbBiometrics are really good at keeping people out of your account, but it absolutely ties your personal identity to that account. So you will not want to use biometric security on an account that you use as a dead drop for questionable material or anything the government may in the future deem illegal or questionable activity. These may not be concerns the average idiot has, but I’m reading the signs of what’s around the corner and I want nothing to do with biometric verification schemes.

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to stay anonymous on the internet. There is a whole generation of people who “have nothing to hide”, and have embraced the ultimately stupid practice of connecting their accounts together. Democracy is majority rule, and sadly the internet is populated by idiots and assholes. They make the rules. They are the ones that will implement the “no-security” scheme of future systems. I can understand them making this mistake, they’re young and naive idiots. They have no security or privacy, and they probably don’t believe they deserve any; the poor programmed and restricted youth. These are people who believe liars, people who vote, people who vote for Obama; such an obvious liar. That is sad. I have plenty to hide. I’m very security-wealthy and I enjoy privacy. I don’t want my every idea and tweet geo-located. I use encryption and Tor, travel around, buy questionable items on the internet, and visit places I wouldn’t want people to know I visit. And I do all this using aliases because I watched the idiots implement this false-security model for over two decades.

I’m not in this to win a popularity contest. I don’t care about followers. I’m not an egotist, however, I do value reputation and honor. It’s worth protecting because it can’t be physically removed from you. The internet is a tool, not a community. A lot of people don’t realize this and fall victim to the trap. They believe it’s a safe environment that’s very accepting, kind of like another parent. It’s not your mama or dada, folks! It’s a series of systems interconnected transmitting electrical patterns. It’s a solid environment of silicon, silver and gold; but it may feel like a community because of all the like-minded idiots using the systems.

You have to take control of your identity and security or someone else will. They will sell you down the rabbit hole until there is nothing left that is truly yours. Identities are commodities; traded like every other commodity. Change your methods. Don’t embrace the idiot agenda and don’t trust assholes.

The paramount worst security nightmare of an email service is Yahoo. From Yahoo’s increase in so-called security measures, it’s resulted in locking legitimate security-conscious people out of their accounts, even when they supply the password. Yet they allow trivial easy access for anyone to accounts of people who supplied accurate responses to security questions.

When Yahoo first implemented the security question scheme, it was for people who forgot their passwords. Since I was never going to forget my passwords, and I realized this was a security hole; I supplied a string of random characters as the answer to their questions. I would never have to remember that information because I would never forget my password. A few years ago, Yahoo began asking those security questions, even if the correct password was supplied. That is a break in their original agreement. I argued this point with their support staff and they hung up on me because they’re liable for breaking their own security scheme, and they know it. They ask for your security questions if they “don’t recognize the device you’re signing in from”. Well, I travel around. The result: A security-conscious individual like myself gets locked out of two of his low-security Yahoo accounts because he doesn’t have the string of random characters written down for his security questions.

Even if you know your password, if you do not know your security question password; you’re locked out. In fact, all you have to know is the answer to a security question and you’re in. That is why Yahoo is the worst email provider ever, and known for the worst security on the net. They punish security-conscious individuals, while allowing idiots or assholes trivial access to everything. It’s a very “progressive” agenda designed to allow easy access to accounts for federal spying programs from legislation like the Patriot Act and NDAA. But progress toward idiocy isn’t positive. If you don’t have the option of privacy, you don’t have freedom.

Update: I have since recovered both my locked low-security Yahoo! accounts with a mixture of statically setting my IP to a previous address, hacking an exploit in their authentication schema, and socially engineering information from poor English-speaking support staff outside the Americas.

-Jeremy Edward Dion

The Slinky Drop

The Slinky
My explanation for dropping a hanging slinky:

The contraction force (the spring attraction) in a slinky is like a resistance and is retarding the travel of kinetic information from the top of the slinky to its bottom. The point of change is at the top because that is where the state change begins (we drop it). The top of the slinky is falling faster than the rate of free fall because it’s rate of downward motion is amplified by its inward (and in this case, vertical) contraction forces. The bottom of the slinky does not move because the contraction force is retarding and outrunning the free fall force and kinetic information, therefore the bottom acts unaware it was let go at the top. This effect happens to such a degree that the top of the slinky, and other parts below, race downward to impact the bottom of the slinky in a surprising fashion. This occurrence often causes much debate.

Hanging SlinkyRemember: The slinky is not stretched out in a uniform manner because the top is supporting more weight than the parts of the slinky at the bottom, so the contraction forces are off-center and concentrated at the top, and they are variable. This causes: a great deal of added acceleration downward at the top, while entirely nullifying the upward attraction at the bottom, and the bottom also holds in equilibrium against the downward gravity force until it is impacted by the slinky parts above. Again, the contraction force is amplified at the top because it is stretched out more than it is at the bottom.

-Jeremy Edward Dion

Check out this slinky experiment in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCMmmEEyOO0

Collectivism and the Aggression Principle

Essay of Collectivism and the Aggression Principle

The practice of a group having more liberties than an individual is flawed. Should it concern anyone that I could have an armed drone, I solely own, flying around our skies? It should. Equally, it should concern you that a group has assumed they have the right to do this. The practice of discriminating who may do what, will eventually lead to megalomaniacal rulers. Either we all must have the same ability, or no one may have the ability. Classically, it has always been criminals that practice what is not allowed of the people. Today we classify them as politicians, corporations and governments. Our constitution was written to limit the abilities of government from exceeding the public liberties. The fact that government has overstepped this restriction is testament they do not respect our equal rule of law. It is past due the time for sundering this government. The states must rise as sovereign, yet united, against the tyranny of extreme collectivism.

Realistically and logically; all people are individuals and wholly responsible for their own security and well-being. No collection, group, or committee of individuals may dictate otherwise. These responsibilities may extend to the small group of family, or a township of like-minded families; but mandates from hundreds of miles away are indeed foreign and have no business being observed.

My task was to:
1. Form a logical argument explaining why it is necessary to allow groups public liberties that the individual may not exercise.
2. Discover the purpose of authority with privileged rights.
3. Note what types of people are attracted to politics and positions of delegated authority.
4. Research the result of systems built on the ideas of collectivism.

I was not astonished by my findings because I’ve been objectively awake for decades. With research, I very often find to be true what I suspect while dissecting propaganda and placing bias. So yes, this outcome was likely predestined but valid.

I could not form a logical argument supporting collectivism. All people are sovereign. There are groups that would say otherwise, but what do you expect from them? They’re collectivists, and I am not. Certainly there are some that are better than others at any given task, but that selective superiority cannot demand authority.

The purpose of authority having privileged rights is for strong organization under threat of coercion or force (privileged rights) to meet set goals. This is why cops can hit you without thought of consequence but if you touch an officer, you can be beaten and arrested for assault. There is no disputing this model gets results but the result is tyrannical; and immoral if deployed publicly.

Psychos and sickos run it all. Anytime authority is delegated, the devious schemers and power hungry volunteer because it places them in the position to collect and secure more power for groups. Always seeking advancement, this form of greed is an artificial appetite brought on by a psychosis. Perpetually discontent, they must demand the power to elevate themselves above all others as a special group. Certainly there are the true servants that seek public office, but they rarely succeed to the levels of office that candidates conspiring in secret toward group efforts will achieve. Ultimately, the individual has no place in politics. I’ve discovered this is the natural order of all sociology. This aggression principle and attraction to group power structures is fascinating. While I assume this must be noted elsewhere, I feel I’ve made a contribution toward a deeper understanding of groups.

Collectivism results in social adherence to strict rules that benefit few people. Collectivism is progression of unnecessary sacrifices; a marketable and trendy anti-freedom product. It is government pushing fear of a chaotic result if the group should ever fail. One such group today is called progressives; their goals to power require severe political and social reform. A historical and dangerously successful progressive collectivist movement was the German Worker’s Party, later known as the Nazi Party. The Nazi’s were champions of the aggression principle. Many of the party followers were brainwashed into believing peace was obtainable by forcefully reforming all nations into one nation. Meanwhile, the Nazis were committing genocide and performing occult rituals under guidance of the Thule Society. Even today, group leaders meet in Bohemian Grove among the redwoods to perform what we hope are just mock human sacrifices. Surely this behavior must be tradition from their activities with Skull & Bones. Though that is not the case, as a multitude of other secretive societal denizens participate in the Bohemian Grove collective.

My earlier studies into the occult have informed me of the benefits to possessing knowledge which is unknown to most. There is a psychological edge with the Saturnalia practices but it affects only the participants of that black mass with a false-knowledge; simply an understanding among that group. This is an important point. A secret known only to a group is a very powerful atmosphere; the darker the secret, the more powerful the psychological effect. It can only affect them, not the uninitiated. There is no magick involved; it is simply the creation of a testament to will force, and followed possibly by the occasional human sacrifice. “Burnt offering” translates to Holocaust so that may be something to consider when you learn of genocide perpetrated by warring government groups.

The practice of the group’s importance over the individual may be the single most dangerous exercise of the ages. I can’t help but to think materialism and a disbelief of permanent consequence led to apathetic group behavior.

-Jeremy Edward Dion

Connecticut School Shooting

Beretta 92 FS Inox
Beretta 92 FS Inox
This is a sad day. I hope the truth comes out about this tragedy.
And I hope people understand the real problem, instead of what the agenda of the control freaks would have them believe.

This argument uses simple logic and rational sense.
A lot of people won’t understand this but I must try.

You can’t de-invent the gun.
You can’t disarm criminals.
A criminal does not care for law.
A criminal will always have the invention of the gun.
The good folks must have the same technology.
There are good people, and there are bad people.
There are good acts, and there are bad acts.
You cannot have one without the other,
But we aim to imbalance our society toward goodness.
That is logical.

Do I wish the gun could be de-invented?
Sure, because a quarrel would then rely on the skilled use of melee combat.
Guns are superior weapons because they require less skill to produce a severe result.
But that edge cuts both ways.
If we restrict the lawful use of common technology,
We imbalance the society toward allowing bad guys to reign free.
Only the “criminals” will have guns because they will construct them in tool shops.
A gun can be made with a vice, drill press, grinder, taps, dies and an assortment of small tools in a basement.
Would you want the bad man next door to be able to craft a gun, while you cannot?
Of course not; don’t be a dolt.

If a bad guy has a knife, I should have a knife.
If a bad guy has a sword, I should have a sword.
If a bad guy has a gun, I should have… a piece of paper with “The Law” written on it to show the bad guy the wrongness of his actions.
No. I should have an equal ability to defend myself against all threats, foreign and domestic.

Now I say to you gun-grabbing irrational types, why is your brain in error?
What is wrong with your mental faculties?

You think the whole world will be hunky-dory with no war because everyone will only have flowers and law books?
Stop fantasizing and come back down to Earth. There is no Utopia.

A good child with a slingshot and ball bearings could have maimed the bad man.
But panic and fear can be very debilitating when the individual isn’t acclimated to managing those emotions.
Also, kids aren’t allowed to have sling shots in school.

Courage and the ability to take immediate decisive action is usually an ability only found with adulthood.
So why aren’t more adults armed with slingshots? Perhaps it’s because slingshots are sloppy and aren’t a well-ready tool.
So, why weren’t any adults around with the capability to stop the bad man?

BECAUSE THEY WERE FOLLOWING A RULE OR DRACONIAN-TYPE LAW THAT IS IMPROPERLY DESIGNED.

Also, it’s pretty hard to stop someone armed with the determination of will.
The bad man will always try and find a way to hurt others.
Don’t make it easier for them to do that.
You must stop the bad man with equal force.

Stupid laws produce helpless dead victims. Shame on the idiots. Shame on them.

-Jeremy Edward Dion

Realization of Life Awareness

On this fifth day of July, Two thousand and twelve, I have made an astonishing realization.

We are the same as all living things. Plants, like our foods, are engineered as we design and are alive. But if they are designed by humans and yet grow alive as plants, then isn’t that artificial life? And so, isn’t all life designed, and thus all life artificial? No. I say, rather, that the term “artificial life” is invalid and that all things are simply alive, regardless of how they are designed. And so, life is a perfect collection of particles bound by a cohesive harmony that facilitates an awareness of conditions, and thus, gives that union of material the ability to adjust its behavior. Such can be seen in plants, animals, and humans alike; and so, we are the same. We are all dust in motion responding to elemental forces. We truly are as one; in that, we owe our lives to the forces.

-Jeremy Edward Dion

Venus Transit

Today I watched Venus transit across our solar disc. It was beautiful. I watched it on a NASA web stream. I had been anticipating this day for a while. Astronomy is something that interests me and I’m happy I was able to catch a glimpse of Venus with my own eyes. It was cloudy earlier in the day but it cleared up by the time of first contact when Venus began voyaging across the sun. Very briefly I viewed the Venus transit with a pinhole projector I manufactured out of two toilet paper rolls, tin foil and wax paper. It was awesome. After some trial and error, I was able to enhance the image and see a super tiny black dot. I may never be able to see Venus again in this fashion, as her next transit is in 2117.

I will write more on this when Venus completes her transit shortly.

I watched her come and I watched her go. She brought with her a century of knowledge I would have never known. I am thankful to witness the goddess on the go as a small speck on the face of Sol.

-Jeremy Edward Dion