Inspired by some recent argument with Netesq over at Xodp I have decided to attempt to summarize the last few years into a "children's" story/fable. In spite of the abundance of inside jokes outsiders still should find it a entertaining read. ( I will be previewing new chapters at Xodp before adding them to the story page here.)

"...During the time of initial construction of the good stuff distribution engines by the good stuff distribution industry, it was noticed by a scant few that there was a crazy, smelly foul-mouthed troll who would periodically sneak up on industry construction workers and spit on them. A few workers for one of the engine companies-- who wore funny hard hats with rat ears on them--did try to smash the troll with a shovel a few times, but they soon realized he was way too hard-headed to be dissuaded that way. Eventually all the workers and subcontractors ganged together and put up a fence to stop the troll from interfering in their work. ..."

The new round of argument with Netesq went even farther-a-cowpie-field and than the first-round.

Here are some of my better quotables:

"...the Internet has just become another populist controlled communication medium with a closed narrow agenda. Like in the real-world, in cyberspace, the rich are getting richer and its not what you know it's who you know. It's true that some outsiders (out-crowd minorities) can break into the ivory towers, but they have to be willing to compromise some principles, and get kind of marketing deception dirty to do it. The name and substance of the game is Marketing/Popularity and the truth and content aren't king but just expendable pohns. I'm trying to reconcile myself with the reality that I am riding a message horse as near dead as Don Quixotes and that I have a personal manner that completes the picture of futility --but even in the moments when I can see my imbecility, just giving up and going home, still seems a greater defeat than the prospect of spectacular failure. ..."

"...One of my daydream's on the subject, is that someday, the ghosts of Internet past present and future will pay visitation upon some silly technology billionaire and he will realize that there is really no profit for humanity in allowing ignorance and want to be shamelessly exploited on the Internet. Another kind of damp daydream involves the "accidental" distribution on the Internet of a incredible sex video between me and Christina Applegate that I use as a steppingstone to achieving my rightful position as world dictator. In another dream my head explodes out of sheer frustration coincidentally spelling "google is evil" backwards in brain tissue on the wall, the resulting news story gives Internet geekdom just enough pause to realize that God probably doesn't look like a lying can of Spam... and the Internet is saved...."

"...Given 1/100th of the media exposure the google-jerks have received I believe I can persuade the vast majority of the Internet public that the system is valuable enough to spend a little effort securing its sloppily/hastily built foundation. To the controlling geekdom elite exploiting the logically appropriate ignorance of most end-users, I may seem to be worthy of description as a dangerous zealot... but that's just their self-interest and "corrupt nature" talking...."

"...We have probably been over this a dozen times. I have made the clear concise comparison of my idea, to publicly financed libraries and YOU made the analogy to museums. These aren't things built in basements, garages or dorm rooms with venture capital-- these are things built by "the people" inspired by the common sense wisdom to know their is value in such infrastructure investment...."

"...Monica Lewinsky basically changed the world with a tool as prehistoric as a blow job...."

"...The forces of nature do require a collective effort to screw with, but the forces of society are infinitely screwable you just have to find the right screwdriver. ..."

"...I think the tea leaf soup you've been doing your research in has a little too much "eye of newt" and not enough brain of rational. ..."

"...Intelligent humans, acknowledge their corrupt nature and impose rules on themselves that attempt to secure justice at the small price of some marginal individual liberty. Insane libertarians delude themselves with the preposterous theory that you build "a more level playing field" by killing the referees and letting last week's winner officiate the game. ..."

"...Maybe some artfully added "to wits'" will unjumble it for you. There are facts of life that knowledge and invention cannot change --to wit-- the fact that we are the spawn of green slime and that we were not invented to serve a purpose-- to wit-- we substitute natures crude programming "me hungry--me eat.... me scared to die--me live" for the absents of rational purpose, the purposeless crude forces of creation could not provide-- to wit-- the mere fact that we exist foolishly becomes a justification for existence, and the mere fact that we want becomes a foolish justification to take--to wit-- silly humans end up living like dumb rats, chasing stale cheese, in stupid mazes-- Fortunately to wit-- none of these liabilities of our imperfect lineage prevent the best of the human race from stepping outside the maze to learn from history and invent a better future. ..."

Recent news in the search industry really hasn't been very "Internet Search" related. All the yammer about desktop search and changes in affiliate advertising is 99% about money and marketing and maybe 1% about enhanced Internet search engine efficiency/relevancy. I'm very disappointed by last week's 60 minutes segment "glorifying google" on a pedestal of lies, it was very much as one commentator has described it, a prime-time infomercial. I stopped watching 60 Minutes about five years ago when their "reports" became almost exclusively meetless fluff, and they wasted one segment every week glorifying some stupid sports hero or celebrity.

I have spent some time working on a multi browser compatible version of powercons. I think I have enough of it working to provide this BETA release. Save/ bookmark the the "bookmarklet" link below by "right clicking" and choosing "bookmark this link" (or your browsers synonym).

FoxIe Toolbox

When you apply the bookmark/favorite to any web page you are viewing, the page will be reloaded with the toolbox in a right side frame. The first time you use the bookmarklet the toolbox might be a little slow in loading... but it should load almost instantaneously in subsequent uses. This just-seeing-if-it-works version only contains a few tools ...but the select text and search tools should be useful to those who routinely browse a lot of text. This version isn't frame compatible, and it has a lot of little bugs yet to be exterminated. A problem that needs noting is that a toolbox loaded on to a web page becomes "domain dependent" meaning if you click a link on the page, that directs to content on some other domain, you should open the link and a new window or tab. Every few days or so I should be making upgrades ...but you won't have to re-bookmark the toolbox link to gain use of most of the upgrades... only when I eventually switched to a icon version, in a narrower frame, will you need to upgrade the bookmark.

Eventually, I will create a .exe installer for IE that will make the toolbox accessible from the task bar or from the (right click) context menu. The basic JavaScript should also be convertable into a "firefox extension". Regrettably, past Internet lessons have taught me this website will gain absolutely nothing for the time and energy I have or will expend on this project... so I am not going to exactly make perfection a priority. I suppose even if this innovation remains a shadow of what it could be... I have it least demonstrated more evidence that the elitist, marketing, Geekernet is functioning far below its potential.

The Darwinian theory of evolution describes a reality where crude forces decide "fitness" survival and destiny... one only need contemplate their private parts for a few moments to realize brain cells didn't have anything to do with this design. Stripped of civilization --all recorded knowledge-- a human person isn't a very impressive animal. In a practical sense not much more than a big half-hairy rodent. Stripped of language, and in essence the ability to "combine" our brains, humans aren't exactly a great evolutionary success, and they [we] would just be another stupid beast fit for farming or recreational slaughter.

The question I ask you to ponder is: How could the same crude forces that created all the mediocrity (our evening dinner) seemingly step beyond their crude nature and create something as brilliant as a brain capable of storing and building upon thousands of years of individually acquired insight and knowledge? My explanation would be, to state, that it was an aberration. The stupid crude forces did not realize that a potential symptom of brains would be the ability to step out of our natural place-- to step out of the natural cheese chasing maze so to speak-- and ponder, examine and scrutinize the very nature of our existence. Generally evolution only rewards mutations that produce direct advantage. Luckily for us, the link between being clever enough to more efficiently capture one's dinner and being able to read a Dickens novel wasn't too subtle for us to be permitted to acquire an intelligence that was no longer directly relevant to individual survival and procreation.

The point I'm getting to is that nature's greatest accomplishment-- intelligence coalesced over thousands of years-- was not really part of the system design. The system was "rewarding" the "fitness" of crude emotional programming augmented with some minor "reasoning" control skills, and It wasn't rewarding an incidental ability to step beyond our programming and essentially rewrite more rational rules. In essence we have been made great, by getting lost in nature's maze of possibility and walking a very thin thread of improbability leading out of the natural dimension.

Do you remember where I'm going with this?... oh yes, Spam-olution. Google and the rest of the search industry have algorithms that much like "natural selection" apply crude rules in defining fitness and survival. The rules of google-selection say you must have the appearance of popularity-- you could actually earn it, or you can buy it, or you can in fact just steal it with marketing tricks and deception-- but you must have it or you really don't exist and you're not likely to thrive or survive. The point I'm trying to get to --I am really trying-- is that google-selection like natural selection will likely be a preposterous failure that produces nothing but perpetual mediocrity in a ballet of carnage and cannibalism unless something can step beyond the crude rules--to rewrite the rules. The question is, do the rules make a human loophole possible, and if so, is there anything we (probably just I, myself and me) can do to help push some promising Internet hominid through it?

Playing the string of this over-stretched metaphor a bit longer.... the GoogleNet is supporting a lot of cute little "monkey" directories. Maybe one of these is a great ape in disguise, and can one day step beyond mediocrity to become something spectacularly different and profoundly better... or maybe they are all going to just stay what they are... stupid monkeys. I desperately wish I could look across the Internet and see something with the potential to rise out of Googles Spam Sea and free us from the stupid marketing carnage... but that's "Google Natures" catch 22, insuring that nothing will probably be able to find its way out of the dark scummy world it forces us to survive in, until something "accidently" falls out of line, and shows us the way.

Jesse Ruderman the piece of shit, has to be one of the top-10 wimpish faggedy pieces of shit I've had the misfortune of running across on this stupid faggy shitty fuckernet. Just as I was about as low as I could get, in terms of having any hope for the future of this googlefucked Internet-- the asshole Jesse Ruderman decides to behave like the little smelly weasel prick he is and accuses me of being a spammer. Why? because I made the foolish mistake of thinking a "comment" link after a Blog post meant the author was inviting "comment".

The dick head Jesse Ruderman's original post was this:

New Firefox Extension: How'd I Get Here?

How'd I Get Here? takes you to the page on which you first clicked a link to the current page. It works in Firefox trunk (not Firefox 1.0) and will work in Firefox 1.1.

I thought this an incredibly unimpressive "New Firefox Extension" to be announcing... as the shit ball Jesse Ruderman very well knows referer bookmarklets have been around for more than five years. so I wrote this "comment":

Personally I'm very disappointed with FireFox.... and really don't understand how anyone who understands "bookmarklets" and the power of JavaScript could be happy with a "new browser" that really doesn't embrace user control. There's really no technical obstacle to allowing users to control how JavaScript is processed-- likewise there is no technical obstacle to allowing the user to inject whatever control features they would like using just one JavaScript based "toolbox" script/extension. To sacrifice the efficient power of IE's movable div's and filters to glorify a browser with rather wimpish extensions has got me thinking you're all throwing out the baby and embracing the bathwater. ... but I also don't understand electing a retard president so maybe I'm just way out of touch.

I also included a link to this Blog, figuring the commentary of my last few posts is pretty fucking relevant.

The ass hole Jesse Ruderman has deleted the link and added the word (spammer) to my "posted by:" screen name of Gary "Powercons" -- it appears he is also closed the comments to comments.

There may not be a universally applicable definition of Spam, but any rational definition has to include insincerity, irrelevancy or deception. In the New Internet Order apparently all you have to do to be labeled a spammer is to say something to one of these little wimpy nerdy-iacs doesn't like. Actually considering that I was getting banned on message boards five years ago for posting similarly "outrageous" commentary, I guess it's the same old Internet Order that dates to about 1998 when the Internet was turned to shit by the invasion of go-ogle-ing marketing nerds.

So I guess the Fucker Jesse Ruderman wins and a horrible spammer who has in five years littered the Internet with about 6 external links to his website has been stopped, thereby saving the shiternet from the horrible threat I represent to the purity of its shittyness.

Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck I hate you fuckers.

The menu to the left is a variation on a theme I've been working on lately -- namely the idea of using .js files to load customizable drop down menus. I have been working on this to get around the problem created in trying to get a bookmarklet enhanced tool/link box to display in both IE and the Netscape equivalents. After resolving the basic functional problems there were still two important obstacles to a truly useful functionality I didn't have an easy solution to, one is making the toolbox "injectable" into any web page-- a problem I think I will resolve by framing the website. The other problem was finding a way to make the menu box (whether a drop down menu, div, or image-map) scroll with the page. Netscape (W3c compliance) doesn't really provide a code efficient way to do that.

That's when the "brilliant" thing happened-- I found one of those elegantly simple yet practically complete solutions. It's so obvious I don't know how all the [us] design hacks missed it. By simply installing an invisible image above content you want to push down, and causing the image to vertically expand (resize) on an event (mouse click for example) you can force the menu to be repositioned into the visible screen area. Many web sites have long had to adjust the size of the images to compensate for the different ways Internet explorer and Netscape compatibles measure an inch of screen space-- but I've never seen (that I noticed) a website that uses image size adjustment to scroll an entire column of content. I'm not saying I'm the first or only one to make this discovery... but it does seem to me inexplicable that it isn't used in common practice.

Regarding the toolbox itself I'm going to be adding a few more important tools and then I will create variations (absent the links specific to this site) for distribution or inclusion on other web sites. The advantage of using a drop down menu is that it can be easily converted from the open variety to the left, to the closed variety near the top of the page. I eventually plan on creating a number of function specific "modules" of a dozen or so tools each that can be mixed-and-matched to a developer's preference. Ideally, I would like to persuade some high-profile "Internet power" like Yahoo, Google or MSN or Netscape to host the .js files and make them freely available. A universal access point would mean that these tools could be incorporated in to-- and injected into-- web pages without adding any (virtually none) bandwidth load. For Internet Explorer users I still think Powercons is the more powerful approach... but I do see the need for a simpler more universally compatible approach.

Regarding the tools already installed in the menu to the left here's a little descriptive information. Unlike popular "extensions" and toolbars, in the page bookmarklets can do a lot more-- the search tools for example allow you to simply Select Text and Search (you should "click" the toolbox into view, before selecting text) no typing and no menu tree to sort through. Original ( I think ) to this website the MSN search tool allows you to do the percentage adjustment thing without having to endure wasting time with Microsoft's clunky "graphical slidebar interface". The other tools currently included --font resize etc.-- really don't need explanation but I should point out that they can be clicked repeatedly... the change font tool for example cycles through fore basic font styles.

Reluctantly conceding that it's back to the multi browser double standard site design world, I installed firefox so I could "test" my JavaScript experiments in the lame, client-side week, web browser of choice of the Internet elitists (the technically literate). Considering all the hype, I was hopeful, that this new browser might give back in innovation at least half of what it was taking away by refusing to mimic the good features of the industry leader Internet explorer. Unfortunately, after letting the fox out of the box all I see is a pile of fox dump decorated in chicken feathers. In brief my criticism goes something like this: The browser is slower, uglier, more failure prone, AND completely noncompliant with the JavaScript (DHTML) code that essentially allows Internet explorer to be redesigned in the users (client) image. In other words, my first impression is that the fire storm over fireFox is really just a washout for the internet user.

I won't bother detailing, all the details, of my disappointing Internet adventures in fireFox's version of the land of OZ (ignore that man behind the curtain). The simple fact that this stupid browser couldn't render a relatively simple web page (my inmendham.com home page) without creating the blight of a substantial graphic "artifact" about sums it up for me. Two year-old Netscape 7 does better than this.

If you have done any reading here before you know I hate Microsoft, and passionately despise the regressivelly unimaginative and greedy Bill Gates. I would really like Internet explorer and Microsoft itself to become obsolete artifacts.... Unfortunately, the nerdy-iacs of the w3c and mozilla are just a bunch of wannabe naked emperors'. As pretenders to the Crown they're just playing the internet peasants, as their "standards" demonstrate a desire to keep the peasants powerless. Users want a Web browser that doesn't let anything happen they don't want to have happened, and one that lets them take complete control over how they receive content. Users don't care about standards, they care about getting what they want, and JUST what they want. If there were any real "just for the good of mankind" scientists left in the world we would in fact have a Web browser that could render a web page any way we wanted -- a browser capable of interpreting (deconstructing and constructing) HTML and JavaScript to a user's preferences is certainly a technical possibility. The problem is corporations decide who gets paid to do what, and no one is paying anyone to do the right or logical thing-- especially if right isn't consistent with the high margins and big profits of snake-oil.

As the once "idealist" google transition into a greedy mass marketing company demonstrates those pretending to be Internet idealists (W3C, Mozilla... ) or more than likely just rats in showie fox skins waiting for their turn to sheer the sheep. For example: the National Academy of Sciences has been conducting a $800,000. 1 year study of INTERNET NAVIGATION AND THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM: TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS For FORE years now! Obviously if there was any sincere desire to repair the information superhighway these jerks would not be just picking their noses while they watched the Internet become buried under tons of Spam. The fact is it's all a big sham, they're not scientists, their corporate lackeys pretending to have a social conscience. We are really living in "1984" behind a corporate fooled-you "Catch-22" facade.

If there are any creatures on earth who deserve to be used for medical experimentation the a-holes who write "screw up somebody's computer invasive-ware" have certainly earned it. If you add up all the hours of human life lost, to the disfunctionality they cause, and the time required to repair it-- they make serial killers look like j-walkers.

Last week I got infected by one of the HSR variants. It takes control of your Internet explorer browser changing the home page to a sleazy "Home Search" page that shows "about blank" in the location bar. Worse the virus redirects your browser to this Home Search page whenever you attempt to use some other search engine. Even worse-r the virus really diminishes system performance, and it blocks any effort to use any traditional "options" methods to disable it.. It apparently writes some regeneration code into the operating system which allows the virus to reinfect the system after attempts to repair affected files.

Being wise enough not to open any E-mail executable, or download just any old software, or to say yes to any active-x enhancements I have managed to survive using Internet explorer without any major virus problems. This being my first major infection I needed to get up to speed on anti-virus information. Using Google, and searching on terms relevant to the symptoms the virus caused, I was pretty disappointed with the disorganization and inconsistency of the information google deemed most relevant. Among the top results were quite a few message boards. Most were certainly subject relevant but the repair advice was mostly useless and I suppose in some cases deliberately deceptive. I did download a few anti-ad/spy ware programs that were claimed to provide a cure... but not only did they not cure the problem some of them were themselves infection-ware. ( the give-away on a couple of downloads should have been the multiple pop-ups). After spending a full day reading perhaps 100's[?] of posts I did glean enough kernels of reliable information to attempt to fix the problem myself.

Basically what the virus does is create randomly named fore letter .exe, .dll and .dat files in the system directory. These files can't be deleted the standard way (with Windows running) because they will copy themselves before they are deleted. In short what worked "for me" was to rename the recently created four-letter system files and to delete the renamed files after booting to DOS (deleting the renamed files and safe mode might also work). There are some less critical registry references that also need to be deleted but the anti-ware will take of care that.

Background Information: The available corporate run search engines use formulated algorithms to evaluate what they see on the Internet. These algorithms effectively judge what content is "valuable" and therefore should prominently place in search engine results. A primary factor used in making this "evaluation" is an assessment of "link popularity" which is determined based on the number and quality of web page links pointing to a web page. A web page with high link popularity is considered an "authority" and links it provides to other content are more meaningful to the algorithm. In general terms it is a popularity contest that in practical effect obligates web content to be networked or affiliated with a "in crowd " to be easily accessed through the available search devices.

The good news is ... .... ... ok, I guess there isn't any good news... Democracy basically sucks... it takes a lot of diverse and unique-- yet universally stupid-- opinions, and consolidates them in to one big preposterously stupid opinion, in this case, the opinion that George Bush deserves another four years controlling the most powerful nation on earth.

A logical observer might say "why don't we refine this system to be a little more explicit" I mean did most of America really vote for more lies, more war, more tax breaks for billionaires, more religious dogma as law...-- that might be the effect but I don't think it was the intention of "most" of the American people. "Instant runoff" or "second choice" voting would do a lot to enhance and improve our democracy. In many cases the basic outcome would not change but with that outcome would be a much more explicit message regarding what people are really voting for and against, and presidents would be denied the convenient dilution of converting a vote against the other guy, as a vote for them. The fact that improving our democracy isn't a priority, or even on the popular media radar screen indicates that we may be a nation too retarded for reform-- at least to retarded to demand it, without waiting for leaders or "authorities" willing to inspire and guide us their.

The Internet "democracy" as defined by the google style algorithm is similarly, yet much more extensively, broken. Candidates for the position of leader or "authority" are required to sell their soul to ither the existing authority (the party and all its entrenched affiliates and constituencies ) or to some factions, to whom they have no logical or meaningful connection (other than the mutual need to artificially enhance power by "exchanging" insincere compliments). Combine this with what could be termed as the extensive open bribery of "marketing" and the instant permanent tenure given to all declared "authorities" and you have a system doomed to enshrine mediocrity, and overlook the new and the unconventionally innovative.

This system is not the only way, or the best way, to index the Internet and apportion power and relevance. Simple improvements can be made that would dramatically improve core functionality (which is to shorten distance between those who want, and those who offer). For example:

• Google could make at least some element of "page rank" keyword specific, and stop making authorities on pig farming, authorities on flying.
• Google could make hard-wired edits to the database that would enable it to adjust for irregularities (distortions) of the algorithm. One possibility, might be to allow websites to challenge the ranking of a higher-ranking website within their keyword category. For say a $10 fee a claimed to be, yet not "popularly" perceive to be, exceptional site listed in the 60s or even 600s on a specific keyword could challenge a website ranked in the top-10 and obligate google to switch the site rankings if the lesser listed site is obviously substantially more relevant or state with some "accountability" that they can discern no logical reason for correction.
• Google could permit/solicit ( for a fee) extra, more explicit, and certainly reliable meta-data to augment and improve its algorithms' understanding of a websites true relevance, context, and meaning. The right of a website to be properly understood by google, may not be a law of the land, but it really is a practical necessity if the Internet is to function at anywhere near peak efficiency. It seems reasonable that this right should either be imposed by minor regulation, or provided by government as a basic support of Internet infrastructure.
• Google could make a minor concession to its fallibility and make some effort to ensure that every "dog has its day" or at least it's 15 minutes of fame. Google could easily inject a little randomness in to the results it produces which would allow the new, obscure, and unknown to gain enough exposure to be provided some opportunity to "prove" to the electorate (the voting networks) that they have unrecognized merit.

"Authority" is one of those ugly English words with too many meanings. On the Internet the google style democracy would like you to believe "authority" is a recognition of expertise ...when in practical fact the "authority" it gives means dictator-for-life who will tell you what will be reasonably accessible on the Internet. Under this regime the searchable Internet is neither representative or free and is functioning in third-world cyberspace.

My one and only one election post. (nettakeaway)
Four More Years of Living on the Other Side of A Country (cre8pc)