/cyber/ - Cyberpunk & Science Fiction

>>42567

how is that a strawman?

also, there is a difference between the political group "zionism" and the religious group "jewish"

>>42606

Because saying the jews are a hivemind or are at fault for everything is not the concern nor the claim of jew-wise people. It's merely a strawman you are using to make the idea easier to ridicule.

>there is a difference between the political group "zionism" and the religious group "jewish"

Just as there's the Jewish lobby and Jewish ethnicity.

>>42537

At best, which it tends to not be

>>42616

>materialism

you mean consumerism?

>>42617

Either/or.

>>42519

Call shill all you want, the only difference between bartering and brouzouf is that I'm not trading a goat for a sandwich or some shit. The only realistic systems that people propose for a society with no currency depend on everyone either being compliant and ready to gun down those who aren't, or being gunned down because they aren't compliant.

I think the idea is bullshit (also noting I'm not the one you triple-quoted, just the top bit) not because it's different, or because it's not now. I think it's bullshit because you're just claiming equality through submission, and law through fear.

Sound familiar? We're all shills for something, and you're no exception.

>>42540

You are clearly an ignoramus who worships technology yet does not understand it. PDF files aren't inherently anymore unsafe than any other format – most attacks initiated through pdf files utilize data crafting techniques that exploit weak validation/sanitizing systems. This is a problem with the individual reader programs moreso than anything else and making sure your system is patched/sandboxed will make these attacks infeasible or at least extremely unlikely. Unlike Office formats there isn't really an analogue for VBScript Macros.So most exploits rely on instigating a buffer overflow to inject malicious microcode into the target program. These exploits are nearly always platform AND program dependent. Just see for yourself (specific to Adobe Reader):

https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-53/product_id-497/Adobe-Acrobat-Reader.html

Pretty much any program has the potential to suffer from these sorts of vulnerabilities. Even Photoshop:

https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-53/product_id-5467/Adobe-Photoshop.html

Just make sure you only run code in user space and stay away from "Run as admin…" or "sudo" when you don't actually need it. Programs that have complex scripting frameworks or live-update internal state from the network are the real threats. All "pure data" formats are more-or-less created equal assuming you are judicious in picking your specific content viewer/editor.

>>42625

you are arguing literally no points and saying people should get gunned down because they disahreed with your sandwich? what the fuck is wrong with you?

>>42616

a system like that doesn't require pay, everyone is just so self sufficient that they just make what they need.

you lose, game over shills. go home.

>>42670

Did you just take your own argument, intentionally misrepresent it, and then try to pass it off as a gutted version of my premise just so you could save face on an anonymous image board? Are you actually 10?

Dipshits like you are the reason cyber boards never truly take off. Every forum I frequent eventually gets filled with tech illiterate middle schoolers whose sole vocation is jerking off to pseudo-intellectual philosophy and wearing bargain bin trench coats. Scene kids need to fucking die. Get your head out of your ass and get

>>>/out/

>>42681

No shill, I will not click on your .pdf

>>42672

You're still paying time and effort, and there's also the issue of needing something you don't know how to make. :^)

>>42739

>needing knowledge in a society where knowledge is free

>but pay my time and effort hue hue

shills are not even reading or trying

>>42360

If this was like £50 I'd totally buy it and throw out my current phone.

>>42784

ok shill.

>>42837

it's a cool idea

bumpen!!

bump!

>>43912

In the future there are no cyber-punks but cyber-terrorists.

Everyone that doesn't get in line with the proprietary software trend will perish.

>>42672

Ego demands payment in the form of power over others.

All currency is power but not all power is currency.

this thread is gold. glad I clicked the last page to have a whiz

>>42286

You can set up a hacker space with zero resources (Except those required by your body to function). Especially if you live in a large city.

The biggest thing you need for a hacker space is knowledge. Knowledge is free any book or software you can buy is free on the internet.

Acquiring tech with 0$. Dumpster Diving large electronic stores (Ex: Best Buy Dumpster: found 2k dollar gaming laptop in box dusty as hell in perfect condition had a simple booting issue [lose RAM SODIMM] they couldn't figure it out so they chunked it).

Thrift store hit up (goodwill) and a smooth yet sincere talk with the manager.

Cast off older computers a 10 year old quad core Core2 Duo can do a lot. Especially with a decent dedicated GPU on a good board with a good Bus

VERY LOW COST ITEMS.

50 bucks on eBay can land you a good main hack box. And any hack device you think you need to buy you can build the schemas are almost all openly available.

Got a smart phone? Then you got a hack box. (Get people's older phones especially easy to root devices like Nexus 1+ <=Galaxy Note 4 Nokias etc etc.)

The space is yours and learning to set this space up as a reflection of yourself with zero to almost No Funds is in itself some of the best hacking you'll ever do. Your bucking a lot of controls and using THE system against itself when you aquire your wants/needs with ZERO money.

If you really have the mindset you can make a hacker space. No Funds needed.

>>42360

Then make it. Good micro PC boards are everywhere and cheap. A few adds to the board and the right case made and bam you've done it. A lot of rasberry pi phones have been built… push them further this is the nature of cyber progression. A very old idea/working system improved

>>42362

If we all take a step back and stop spending period on anything including bills.

Cut the strings of control.

Follow only 4 laws (right vs wrong is covered by 4 short bullet points).

People believe without government things would fall apart. Thus they believe what the government does. That we need hand holding like children/pets. When we dont

This is why they strip self confidence from the masses. It takes a lot of confidence in ones self to let go of the controls they have put in place and made us believe we need to survive.

This also slows down progress in every field (Except the field of slave ownership). By red taping, misinformation/lies that must be waded through. Worries over going against the status quo of a field. Etc etc.

THEY STIFLE US IN EVERY SINGLE WAY THEY CAN.

The anarchist faq is a good (although lengthy) read http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

Other points I can remember of the top of my head include the reason for the existence of capitalism, hierarchy, corps is to perpetuate themselves and to create a monopoly on violence, but I cant remember where I read that.

>>42365

What even is the point of the current education system other than to indoctrinate the next generation into the system

You ever watch episode 5 of Serial Experiments Lain? Y'know the one that talks about the Earth being sentient or something? Well, I was reading Godel, Escher, Bach, and the part talking about ants, holism, reductionism, and MU got me thinking. Especially how the turtle says that Achilles brain cannot be mapped onto a single ant but rather an anthill. In that case is humanity, not humans, a higher form of conciousness? Seeing as how each human cannot agree what is ethically or morally correct, I would say yes.

As although no two humans can agree on one point, you'll find that society on most parts tries to agree on something. Society, or humanity, can grasp it, however a single human cannot. Think of a human as a single neuron (a bit more chaotic, but still) and a conversation as a form of firing off neurons (well, maybe words are more like it, but since we are more complex I would say a phrase).

Now, unlike (mortal?) beings, society evolves without dying (well, I suppose factions come and go as being the "loudest" in the brain). However, the way society evolves (I'd say) doesn't evolve in ideas, but rather communication methods (seeing how those usually determine who is the "loudest"), with this thing that you're reading on being the most recent.

So this higher conciousness can be seen as a more intelligent (but more chaotic) being whose cells are the earth and everything residing in and around it. Many humans seemingly unconciously pursue this goal to complete unification, just look at most mainstream religions and politics. Christianity's main goal is to be one under God, people who favor isolationism are seen as backward, etc.

You'll also find neurons trying to control this being (media, dictators, corps.). Why? I sure as hell don't see the beauty in being anything more than another neuron.

Anyways, I'm going on a tangent, this idea can be explored differently as well, such as how liberal arts are most important to the being, yet more practical studies are more important to the neurons. Or communication between neuron and being, etc., etc. I probably had more, but I forgot it. I'll add on if I remember anything.

>>42343

What if what i want to do is invent and promote the use of a currency?

>>42343

>money and currency shouldn't exist;

>people should log in every morning and do what they want to do because they want to do it, and not because they have to do it.

This is such a child's perspective. Coercision sucks. Reality sucks. But, the reality is, everyone cannot be doing what they want to be doing 100% of the time because the reality is people fantasize about consuming resources not providing them to you for free.

In some cases, people may be happy to provide you labour for free. For instance: I work in IT, in utopia or Peppa Pig, I am happy to fix your computer for free provided parts are provided for free to me, and I am sure some one is happy to produce parts for free provided materials, etc.

Where this breaks down is , you want to use a clean bathroom at McDonalds, you want bathrooms available, you don't want to clean them. No one does. The reality is that most work that is being done is boring unwanted labour done in exchange for the promise of the ability to consume in the future. Its the difference between career based on a passion vs job.

There are also supply issues. With unlimited ability to consume, peoples consumption habits will probably look a lot different IE. I want brasilian bbq 3 times per day instance of once a year. So, suddenly there is a huge demand for skilled chefs, electrical engineers, graphics designers etc. But, a huge shortage of people willing to invest the time to develop the skillset: Why spend 10 years becoming a physicist - you can go to Disney land every day and pop those somas for free. (Brave new world is really relevant here, there is actually reason to struggle in a world of infinite cheap pleasure - but not enough to realistically create a supply of hyperspecialized labour).

But, the reality is, this will occur anyway. Post scaracity society will happen as long as artificial scarcity isn't imposed by the elite - which it might over some time: Consider microsoft office. Marginal cost is near zero, but microsoft artificially creates scarcity through the violence of a government sanctioned monopoly.

>>42353

Humans are social animals conscerned with relative status. Even if everyone was infinitely wealthy (IE. own planent) they would still want to interact, dominate, humilate and rank each other in some kind of social hierachy.

>>42364

>we need to think if perhaps we can get the population under control

Nazi! JK UN projects human population to stabilize at 10 Billion in 2100. Provided technology gains make that number non-malthusian, population control may never become an issue.

>We need to convince people through logic and education to simply just "try" to have less babies for a little while.

Not sure we need to (cf. abvoe) , but using 'logic' to convince the bottom precentage of intellectually capable people not do anything sounds unlikely. Also, there are evolutionary factors (instinct to reproduce), emotional factors (desire to reproduce) and cognative biases (dunning-kruger effect) which will also stop people from deciding they are too stupid for children.

>it's a well known fact that intelligent people think about having kids for much longer

Its not a well known fact. Its true that college educated people are more likely to have kids later in life and have fewer kids, but thats probably due to increased demands of there life, and not do to an elaborate mental process where a calculation is made on the benefit of there kids to the world.

>stupid people just do it like rabbits without a second thought and make loads of kids that they can't even afford.

This is an elaborate American political fantasy. Stupid people do not have orders of magnitude more children than intelligent people.

>>42527

This guy understands politics. Wealth will not fix evil. Humans are built evolutionarily for a hyperscarce world. We should try to overcome tribalism, but not by being tribalists ourselves.

Amidst all of this negativity about how the world is, are there any ways of attempting to try to point out that things don't have to be the way it is and that it can be so much better? (without imposing another form of oppressive government)

So many people blindly follow utilitarianism, progress, numbers, nepotism and crave the thrill of power. I've found it almost impossible to try and get people who think in that way to look at anything not driven by profit and materialism.

>>49683

I reckon the most important thing is routing out deterministic thinking. I don't exactly believe in free will (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im8tXVYURgA), I reckon most people do without even thinking much about it but also think/plan in a deterministic way.

The problem I see with deterministic thinking is the self-fulfilling prophecy. People believe nothing can be changed so they end up acting in a way that causes things to stay the same.

>>49726

This kind of feels like the opposite of trying to convert someone to a religion. We've all experienced how hard it is to be converted (or convert someone ._.)

When I tell someone that something doesn't have to be the way it is, I generally get brushed off without a second thought or they make up a few weak reasons (or excuses). Free will really ties in with brouzouf though. I mean it'd be nice to not live in a basement and eat instant noodles all day and have a cushy corp job.

Yet to see a true spark of life in programmers' eyes when they get told they can do whatever they want with their digital literacy.

>>49776

The way you talk about Religion and converting makes me think you'd find it interesting to reflect on how people feel when their dogmatism takes over. The way I perceive it is that people feel the need to convert others in order to reaffirm themselves of the validity of their beliefs. e.g

>there is no god

>I need to enlighten these people

>it makes me giddy to think of how enlightened I must be if a manage to convert them.

If you really want to change people you have to step over this trap, it just turns people completely off from considering what you have to say.

Some ideological (usually extremist) pieces of literature have identified a need to erode the system that keeps people comfy in their jobs and being doped up consumers before they can have any hope to shake up the established order (a naive pursuit I reckon).

Consumerism actively encourages hooking people into addictive behaviours that dominate their thoughts, social media being a prime example. This has the knock-on effect of actively removing any encouragement for imagination and creativity in general. Looking into how we form habits and addictions (both related to how we learn) is what makes me doubt free will, we lose things like our curiosity when we wire our brains to gamble or take drugs which I see just as harder forms of consumerism.

In reference to programmers, that seems to be a dying trait as the sector is diluted with grads that never really understood the culture, to begin with. The minority that does invest time into learning how to code invariably neglect the old wisdom of UNIX philosophy, you just have to look at the web tech frameworks being popularised to see what a mess things are becoming. I have no idea who's going to replace the old guard of OS designers et al, this has become really esoteric.

>>49831

I didn't even realise that I myself was on track to becoming a religious door knocker or already was thanks for pointing it out. It seems like if people really are interested they will seek out how to avoid consumerism themselves but it peeves me nonetheless.

As for programming, it feels like a case of "let's use a wrapper for a wrapper for a framework so I don't have to think". Young grads seem pressured to learn corp stacks and frameworks and pump out projects at high speeds which is good for the corp and consumer.

>>42342

me too. this is a pretty good basic idea. of course there will still need to be laws and stuff for more complex cases.

>>51163

isnt that just free speech and democracy in a nutshell - people can do what they want as long as hopefully noone else (or minimal other people) are negatively effected

>>51171

Democracy is mob rule, in a nutshell, and is not necessary to have free speech, and especially not "leave everyone alone" thing, quite the opposite, you're forced to compete for the public opinion to have an option.

>>42553

>stirner memes are a thing… mostly on the botnets tho i ssee it on instagram

>>42616

>GOMAD

is a meme - just eat decent food that you cook yourself, and make sure the ingredients contain your daily nutritional requirements (maintenance) plus gains.

>>51171

I don't think you understand what you're talking about. (((Democracy))) is evil. The US system of a representative Republic is probably the best system that's reasonably doable in the current modern world. Once TSHTF, then honest Libertarianism will be the norm for the survivors, until (((feminism))) once again manages to once again gain a stranglehold on men.

>>51194

>implying feminism hasn't already fucked everything up so much that nothing can fix it

The problem with all the "do as ye will but harm none" rhetoric in this thread is that people will just label anything they don't like harmful. You're an honest, respectable citizen and you want to own a gun? Too bad, that's potentially harmful to society (read: the government), so it needs to be banned. You're a college student and the other day while you were walking down the street, some qt3.14 from the local high school was eyeing you? You can't be with her because some feminist hag in academia published a bullshit paper saying it's psychologically harmful (to the hag's self-esteem because she's mad that you'd rather have a teenage babe than her busted ass) and her squads of nu-male manginas will back her up to virtue signal in the hopes of getting some roastie pussy because they know they can't score anything better. What different people classify as harmful inevitably ends up being whatever goes against their interests or desires. No matter how much evidence you show them that their threat narrative is crap, you'll never be able to convince them, just like the rich and powerful will never be convinced that they should stop oppressing the poor and powerless. What society considers harmful is entirely dependent on who has power. If you want your definition of harm to be the one society uses, you need power. Rhetoric only convinces those whose demographics would make them naturally inclined to agree with you.

>>51207

>that people will just label anything they don't like harmful

The best way to solve this is just by considering only direct damage as harm. Libertarians with their NAP have thought this thoroughly long ago. The problem with it, and with any other option is that they do not matter as the most publicly supported opinion, no matter how wrong or inconsistent it is, will be the one to be used and treated by judges the way they want to. Democracy encourages not only uncritical thinking and loud opinions, but the meanings of words as well.