Steve Kudlak
Since 2004
Works in Watsonville, California United States of America

BIO
I have a BS in Biocehmistry and BA in Art with a concentration in Printmaking. Recently I have become interested in digital media. When I get a webpage done I will post the info
Discussions (71) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

On Second Thouhgt...Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Virus Thread Question


Didn't we run out of disk space or have some problem at some
point. You should be able to reply to any thread you wish.
I was told when I read my agreement anything about "Locked Topics"
like there is on some BBS systems.

Have Fun,
Sends STeve

> I was away on vacation for the past two weeks. I was browsing through
> past Rhizome messages (I use the web board rather than email list), and I
> came across a weird thread that started with the subject "Clarification",
> and included an interesting collection of articles
> (http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?threadH27&text&866#26866) profiling
> virus programmers. I was going to add my own thoughts, but the thread
> degenerated into odd rantings, and no "post a reply" button appeared on
> the page I wanted to reply to. Given the strangeness and context of these
> posts, I was hesitant to reply, feeling as though I was being
> intellectually ambushed, or something. Does anyone know what is up with
> this? Was this misunderstood playfulness on my part, some sort of
> dada-like free expression, an innocent bug, a mixup with the list or
> deliberate naughtiness? is it possible for Rhizome staff to turn off the
> "post a reply" button - or is that a bug?
>
> Jason Van Anden
> www.smileproject.com )
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Virus Thread Question


You could reject replies with a certain subject like.
But this is getting awfully fascist and authoritarian
so I don't think that is what happened.

Of course the "raw" version of Rhizome is pretty free form
and unless one puts effort into replying to get things on
track they might drift off of it. So if one posts a message
and goes on a vacation strange things might have happened.

The best thing right now as far as I think is you can post
your replies with this subject. My basic grumble was I thought
the common image of a virus programmer trotted out about the
sort of twisted lonely hyper adolescent or emotionally malformed
young male is kind of shopworn boilerplate that tech writers
use rather than thinking with an inquisitive and open mind.
I would like to see a more interesting discussion on this.
If you want to start again go ahead.

Have Fun,
Sends Steve

> I was away on vacation for the past two weeks. I was browsing through
> past Rhizome messages (I use the web board rather than email list), and I
> came across a weird thread that started with the subject "Clarification",
> and included an interesting collection of articles
> (http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?threadH27&text&866#26866) profiling
> virus programmers. I was going to add my own thoughts, but the thread
> degenerated into odd rantings, and no "post a reply" button appeared on
> the page I wanted to reply to. Given the strangeness and context of these
> posts, I was hesitant to reply, feeling as though I was being
> intellectually ambushed, or something. Does anyone know what is up with
> this? Was this misunderstood playfulness on my part, some sort of
> dada-like free expression, an innocent bug, a mixup with the list or
> deliberate naughtiness? is it possible for Rhizome staff to turn off the
> "post a reply" button - or is that a bug?
>
> Jason Van Anden
> www.smileproject.com )
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Some thoughts on computer security and the living dead


Fun with words. Can I play?;) After one faux pas a couple more
would be fun. My thought it is that "virus" was a reasonable
way to look at it, but of course it stretches a whole lot.
Although the image is enticing. You have a piece of code that
carries instructions that has does act like a biological virus.
But in other ways it is vastly different. For example computer
viruses often have things like "mailing engines" thar allow it
to send out copies of itself and a variety of forms. Or in case
of some it can be dormant until activated. This is strange in
the bio-image. It is like having a mini-brain that would for example
if it existed in the biological world might act like this. Mark catches
a virus from Steve. It somehow already has a mini-brain in it that
gets mark to write a bunch of letters, sigh them in Steve's handwriting
and style or lack thereof;). It might even make Mark's memory
work better!

The interesting thought which comes into my mind when reading Mark's
essay is not whether I agree with it or not. It is the idea thar our
society has "electrotechnophilia" and "biotechophobia" . I can easily
plan to build all sorts of electronic devices that people interact
with and that could change their interactions with the world in all
sorts of ways. If I try to do this by some biological or chemical
mechanosm, even at a lowest level as we see with the CAE case I am
apt to have the authority of the state come down on me in a very
intense way. Heaven forbid I should grow certain species of fungi
and share them with friends. It is very odd that an embryo that is
created to a fertility clinic and will be thrown away anyway can't be
used for stem cell research on any piece of equipment that has been
bought with one cent of public monies.

Have Fun,
Sends Steve

setup

> Right-to-Life
>
> The term "Virus" is meant to associate a dead thing (and not really dead
> having never been living) with a living biological body. A so-called
> computer virus is linked to biology in language (and in reality) only
> insofar as biology is made dependent on digital technology. The virus is
> not neutral, and is seen as an attack on supposed life systems which are
> widely viewed as, but are not either, neutral (techno culture). The
> CorporateState defines the virus (with help from lots of technophiles),
> while claiming that its own technology is a natural living organism with
> an inherent right-to-life. It is interesting to note the ongoing case in
> Florida involving a Husband's attempts to disconnect his wife's feeding
> tube. Jeb Bush, the State and other interests have stepped into the
> matter by declaring the case an issue of right-to-life vs. the so-called
> right-to-die interests. What is omnipresent, but largely invisible to
> mainstream debate (at least within the conservative bound!
> s of mainstream media) is the tendency to naturalize medical technology
> itself. The technology itself becomes an invisible life force to which
> bodies must obey (or defy). The feeding machine is viewed as a neutral
> (and natural) necessity, and in the minds of right-to-lifers stands in
> for God itself. To cut the body from the machine, that in fact lives for
> the body, is seen as cutting the body itself. To kill the machine
> becomes confused with (and then practiced as) killing the body. Computers
> are not alive, they are not human, they cannot contract "viruses," they
> cannot be "attacked," "terrorized," or "infected," unless they are alive,
> unless they are human, unless their "infections," and "attacks" are
> indistinguishable from human infections, attacks, etc. Techno culture
> makes it possible for the murder of thousands of humans to be discussed
> in the language of "surgical strikes," and "smart bomb technology."
> Techno culture also makes it possible for the pentagon to use!
> the language of "Terrorism" when speaking of a virtual sit-in!
> , or sim
> ple hacker prank.
>
> Vampirism
>
> "Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living
> labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks." - Karl Marx
>
> Computer networks are reproduced and modified continuously to work with
> and to facilitate the trading of information (Capital) to predefined and
> often highly secure locations. In this narrow system anything that slows
> the speed of supply and demand is perceived as an attack on the body of
> capital, therefore, dominance is needed, the body must be regulated to
> ensure the continuity of power relationships within the system. The blood
> supply must not be interrupted for vampires are relentless, don't die very
> easily, and often have very little sense of humor.
>
> Sweden’s not a target
>
> Technophobia is often described as an irrational fear of technology, and
> yet a hammer is technology. Technophilia is described (much less often)
> as an irrational adoration for technology, and yet a needle and thimble
> are technology. The fact that fears aroused by forks and spoons, or
> driving a car for that matter, are not spoken of as technophobia (any more
> than irrational love for these things are spoken of as technophilia)
> reveals a primary myth about technology: Namely, that technology acts
> independent from human social systems, that technology is “out there”
> working for us (or against us) toward some utopia (or dystopia). A hammer
> or needle and thread are pretty benign in their effects on global power
> structures, but if they were not we’d have reverse-hammer-engineers and
> needle hackers. A network "attack" is possible only when the power
> relationships guarding a network are so solidified, predictable and
> controlled that anything counter to it is defined as dang!
> erous and alien. Dangerous? perhaps, alien no. Violent Domination and
> violent resistance always work hand-in-hand, which goes along way toward
> explaining why the U.S. is a primary target for terrorism and Sweden’s
> not, why the New York Times web site is a target for hackers and
> crackers “Joe’s homepage” is not.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Bush feces gaffe untrue


This is interesting. I think I may have posted it, whoops.
Of course this is something one feels weirded about. Like should
I check things that my activist friends send me. The answer is
probably I should check sources, sometimes. Maybe all the time?

It was silly of me, because President's are supposed to have
speech writers and minders to make sure none of these things
every happen. Of course there have been things that happen like
the Reagan "the bombimg begins in 5 minutes" is true, but that
happened over a course of a minute, not 30 minutes.

So remind me not to post after medical procedures in which I have
been given "stuff" too.;)

Have Fun,
Sends Steve

> Posted yesterday was misinformation regarding Bush misusing the word
> 'feces' instead of 'fetus' in a speech.
>
> It doesn't seem to be true,
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/fetal.asp
>
> http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_bush_feces_speech.htm
>
> Most on this list know that I hate Bush as much as anyone but
> misinformation is misinformation.
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

DISCUSSION

Re: clarification


I think a lot of this is exteremely speculative and highly
questionable. It is certainly laden with stereotypes. The whole
idea of the "maladjusted male who hasn't quite grown up" is
a persistent piece of cultural mythology. There is probably
some truth to it, but it is overblown.

With the fact that viruses (Latin Plurals get cumbersome here;)
With some viruses getting very sophisticated and perhaps being
used to be spread spam makes it unlikely that it is all that
simple. Without having a larger number of people who make viruses
to talk about it we can only guess.

It will be intetresting if viruses evolve in the direction of doing
very little to disturb the computer user but steal idle cycles to
accomplish the virus makers wishes, like distributing email etc.

What I am saying this is an interesting question but usually a
few stereotypes are trotted out and that it is about it. it must be
admitted that I have known some people who they how to would get
great joy of upsetting the hyper-capitalist, anti-nature technical
world. I am somewhat biased, since I used it, see more postive than
negative from it I don't agree with their ideas, but those I know of
this ilk are so negative towards it, they know little about it and
how it works. Besides Hummers makes much more visible targets to
dump gasoline on and torch. Although most of my close friends even of
the anti-tech ilk would prefer to sticker offending vehicles or at worse
ruining the paint job, tho none have got even to the spray paint phase.
they haven't burnt my workstation, nor do I think they plan to do do.
Now if I worked in a lab with experimental animals it might be different.

Have Fun,
Sends Steve

>
> The clarification for today is rather longish and documentary-like.
>
> With my love for computers,
>
> Ana
>
>
>
> * * *
>
>
>
> -WHO CREATES VIRUSES?
> http://www.crime-research.org/news/2003/05/Mess3004.html
>
> By Timofey Saytarly
> Date: May 30, 2003
>
>
> Viruses are known well, but "virus-makers" are not. According to Sarah
> Gordon from Symantec the generalized nature of virus-makers is the
> following. They are men of 13-26 years, rather clever or overwhelmed with
> desire of self-assertion and to become members of certain society; as a
> rule
> they are encouraged with revenge, sociopolitical motives, desire to show
> weakness of technologies, and just with mere curiosity. As a rule, such
> "virus-maker" creates viruses not with the purpose of causing harm, but to
> be in "advance of technologies ".
>
> Often "virus-makers" do not aim to do harm to someone intentionally; they
> dispatch viruses as "experiment". They do not realize that damage which is
> done by their "creations" and do not understand that they became
> initiators
> of lots of problems. Frequently they are estranged from a real life and
> live
> in own illusory world.
>
> Sarah Gordon thinks that even toughening legislation cannot stop
> "virus-makers". Interrogation has shown that "virus-makers" would not
> refuse
> the business even knowing about criminal prosecution for virus
> distribution.
>
> Sarah Gordon doesn't consider virus-makers as hackers. Hackers aspire to
> get
> the control over computer systems, virus-makers only send a virus by
> e-mail.
>
> "Virus-makers" believe they do something "cool" and high-end. But actually
> it is not so. Computer viruses are rather simple programs and it is not
> necessary to have profound knowledge for virus-making. And at the age of
> 24-25 years most of them understand it, lose interest and give up this
> business.
>
>
>
>
> * * *
>
>
>
>
> -I LOVE YOU
> http://www.digitalcraft.org/index.php?artikel\_id(4
>
> By Franziska Nori, digitalcraft
>
> [only excerpts]
>
>
> What exactly are computer viruses? Who programs them and why? What kind of
> world is hidden behind this daily phenomenon