Slashdot Mirror
20th Anniversary of Unabomber's Arrest (abc10.com)
theodp writes: Sunday marks the 20th anniversary of the arrest of Theodore Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, at his cabin in rural Montana. Kaczynski, a brilliant mathematician turned recluse, spread destruction and death throughout the U.S by mailing bombs to his victims, most of whom worked at UNiversities or in the Airline industry -- hence the "UNAbomber" moniker -- from 1978 until his arrest in Lincoln, MT, on April 3, 1996. For years, the only clue to his identity was a single now-iconic sketch of a shadowy, hooded figure. The big break in the case came in 1995, when David Kaczynski recognized the ramblings of the Unabomber's 35,000-word anti-technology manifesto entitled Industrial Society and its Future, which was published in the Washington Post, as those of his older brother Theodore and tipped off the FBI. (Kaczynski warns of a world of intelligent machines where "the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines.") Kaczynski, now 73, is currently serving a life sentence without parole at the so-called Supermax prison in Colorado. Kaczynski's listing in the Harvard alumni directory for the class of 1962 gives his occupation as 'prisoner' and cites "eight life sentences, issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 1998" in the awards section.
That Kaczynski, while at Harvard, found himself to be the unwitting test subject of the CIA's MK ULTRA type, Prof. Murray. How this may have affected the child prodigy has never been examined --- but then NO so-called American reporter in the US of A has yet to identify the CIA stooge who overrode French airport security and ushered the underwear bomber aboard the Detroit inbound airliner that day?
of technology, disturbing.
Sirhan Sirhan's and Charles Manson's arrest anniversaries are coming up.
News for Nerds? Stuff That Matters?
First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained.
If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can’t make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all the power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.
On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite – just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they will most certainly not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.
-Theodore Kaczynski
That's right next to French Military Victories on the library shelf?
http://www.crm114.com/algore/q...
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
THE DANGER OF LEFTISM
In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those of our universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else's academic freedom. (This is "political correctness.") The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control.
THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an effort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem.) Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself. Of course, it's not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Money and status for example.
RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM IS UNAVOIDABLE IN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY
A chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo "retraining," no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity. and for good reason: If human needs were put before technical necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse.
CONTROL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR
When parents send their children to Sylvan Learning Centers to have them manipulated into becoming enthusiastic about their studies, they do so from concern for their children's welfare. It may be that some of these parents wish that one didn't have to have specialized training to get a job and that their kid didn't have to be brainwashed into becoming a computer nerd. But what can they do? They can't change society, and their child may be unemployable if he doesn't have certain skills. So they send him to Sylvan.
This guy's shack was searched multiple times and each time the police retrieved a treasure trove of incriminating documents. How all the crap would fit in the small shack and how they could have missed it in the previous searches, was never explained though.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Professor Buckley Christ was my professor at Northwestern University. He was the Unabomber's first target. I didn't know it until one day while asking him for help he started talking about it. At that point the Unabomber was well known and people weren't sure if he would ever be caught. I was weirder out by being so close to a target of such an infamous criminal.
The actual name of the case is/was UNABOM, which makes the perpetrator the Unabomer, not Unabomber.
It's not so-called when Supermax refers to an actual level of security above maximum.
You guys just have a direct news feed to Ars or are you going to try to do something original one of these days.. like the old /.?
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
It's just my opinion but this should probably be put to rest and not thought about in an anniversary like format...
Referring back to the spelling and assholes article last week, here is what pisses me off about people that should KNOW how to spell when producing content.
This is the caption from the video linked via the Slashdot description...
"On April 3, 1996 Ted Kaczinsky's rain of terror came to an end. Former FBI agent Max Noel, who helped in the Unabomber's arrest, says what Kaczynski did was "pure evil." (April 2, 2016)"
It is REIGN not RAIN....Jesus...
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
He was just trying to stop the creation of SkyNet.
The corollary being that if the shitheads all get the government they deserve, I get it, too.
I've been through that once (twice ? two great flavors...) already the last 16 years, not looking forward to another dose.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I guess that we won't be getting any help with our math homework from Ted for awhile.
I wondered if I would be one of the guys to fall to pieces from this guy. We're all still giving you the finger Ted. I bet few people understand what I even mean by that. Only if they realize what showing your middle finger really meant. It was there.