p.name = (strcpy, "Manuel Augusto Antão"): "Your First Year in Code" by Isaac Lyman

“Your first year in code is a whirlwind, I know it was for me. The more you learn, the more you learn that there’s more to learn. Code is such an abstract problem that there’s no set of always-applicable rules or rock-solid advice. Code powers the planet these days, but knowledge is still passed down through our elders and cultivated via community.

There is no one true way to be a coder. Gone are the days, if ever they truly existed, of the archetypal “programmer.” We all carry supercomputers in our pockets. Cloud service outages are front page news; email servers and encryption can be everyday political topics. The nerds have won and code has become mainstream.”

By Ben Halpern in the foreword in “First Year in Code” by Isaac Lyman

If Lyman and his 15 co-authors had asked me to write a contribution to his book, this review would be it.

Newbie: "But how do computers understand the code inputed into them? How were they made to understand the code?"

Me: "they don't. it is the compiler's job to do that and turn it into an array of 1s and 0s called Machine Code. The computer's job is to execute the Machine Code."

Newbie: "So, how does the compiler know how to translate text into binary?"

Me: "It does not translate text into binary, it translates instructions into binary and it knows how to because it is programmed to do that. Every programming language has it's own compiler (unless it uses an interpreter, like PHP for example). Then the processor executes the binary code. Also if it has an interpreter it executes the code, line by line."

Newbie: "but how does it know how to translate instructions to binary?"

Me: "Because it was told by a fucking programmer."

Newbie: "two questions:

1) Was the programmer actually fucking? As in, having sexual intercourse?

And 2) how do you tell an electronic component that x=1 and y=0?"

Me: "TOO MANY QUESTIONS!"

Newbie: "so ur telling me to walk blindly? Through millions of trials and errors? When there is a shortcut?"

Me: "There is no shortcut you lazy sod,; just read the frigging documentation."

Newbie: "But how did the first programmer make a programming language? Also how did they make the keyboards that programmers use to code?"

Me: "The First Programmer codded in Machine code, so he basically typed 1s and 0s.It is programmed into the chip itself beforehand. They create sets of instructions that either turn something on and off. And theirs is a reaction which is just more things being turned on and off. Mostly just spots in memory or registers in the CPU that contain these values. They were coded to understand the code...."

Newbie: "So all of you mean that machines only understand coz of a chip inside that helps them to translate codes into other things and that chip itself contains various codes that helps it to translate? So why only codes and not simple language??"

Me: "Welcome to the Matrix!"

Newbie: "If you can teach me how to code pork chops, I’ll give u..."

Me: "Is that you Augusto??? Should have known...You #$#$%$%&%/”#!!!"

Anyone can learn to code. All you have to do is Google a tutorial for the language you want to program in. Coding takes logic and critical thinking. Some problems are easy to figure out, but some take trial and error that may put off kids to programming:

#include

#include

#include

struct Person

{

char name[];

char position[];

int age;

double income;

};

int main()

{

Person p;

p.name = (strcpy, "Manuel Augusto Antão");

p.position = (strcpy, "Systems Programmer");

p.age = 46;

p.income = 95000.00;

printf("Information on %s", p.name);

printf("Job title: %s", p.position);

printf("Age: %d", p.age);

printf("Income: %f", p.income);

return(0);

}

Declaration of interest, I first taught myself to code in the 1980s in high school as my parents bought me a ZX Spectrum. The language was a flavour of BASIC. Subsequently taught myself C, C++ and VB (in all three languages I was only doing procedural programming (I was still in high school ffs!); afterwards I moved on to OOP. When I got to college I already had a few more programming languages in the bag so to speak (DBASE, Clipper, etc.). When I finished college, I worked as a lowly coder for about 3 years before moving on to other stuff. My final college project at my corporate job (as an internee with a scholarship) was something I did adding up all the skills I had developed before: devise and build a solution to discover and store all the computer hardware they had hooked up in the Novell 3.11/12 network (project grade: 18 out of 20). Remember that in those days there were no packages to do this as there are today. After those 3 years developing software, I moved on to configuring S12 and EWSD commuting systems. A few years later I was invited to work on the brand-new SAP R/3 system being adopted at my company (one of the largest on Europe back then). I then became SAP R/3 department head, and the rest was history. Now I only code at home to my own amusement. And that’s enough. For several reasons, I was never very keen on coding/software development in a corporate ecosystem.

I was running a BBS and rewriting the hex in MS DOS command.com when I was 13 and MS didn’t let me have the source code to change it; if you know how to program, you know how to hack, and you will know that you can change the code controlled by other companies although it might take time, and there will always be exceptions, but nothing that time ultimately can’t overcome. One simple way is to use system hooks and change the windows messages, and/or bypass API calls with your own API controls. A system hook is how hackers can spy on your keyboard and mouse inputs to find out your passwords and usernames for example, but you could also use it to diagnose faulty software and loads of other things in between. You are only restricted by your imagination as to what you can and can’t do, if you really set your mind to it. Arguably every program ever written for an operating system is manipulating the underlying OS so that ultimately the user gets a program to use to manipulate their own data with.

If you want to see how windows works, download this program:

http://www.rohitab.com/apimonitor

and watch the values going into and out from the various API calls.

Giving more people an opportunity to see what’s involved in coding can only be a good thing – though I feel its potential benefits are being oversold. But, I’m not sure how much can be achieved in an hour as some people like to advertise; starting from first principles you would barely scratch the surface. I wish people would stop devaluing my profession by saying you can learn to code in an hour. It doesn't happen in any other profession:

Hello, being a chef is easy - learn to cook in an hour.

Hello, being a doctor is easy - learn to fix people in an hour.

Hello, being an engineer is easy - learn to build a bridge in an hour.

I've given not many years of my life to develop software professionally; only for people who have no understanding of software development to say: "oh could you build this for me - it should only take you a couple of hours." I think software developers should all go on strike. A colleague of mine at another firm a few years ago was made redundant and given 2 weeks to do knowledge transfer of 20 years development experience in various bank IT systems. He asked the manager if he could then spend a couple of weeks with him. The guy asked why. "I want to do what you do". The guy spluttered that you couldn't possibly learn all his knowledge and experience in 2 weeks. "Exactly!" In many organisations there’s a motto for that kind of thinking: "It's just a button." - They soon lose interest when you show them the hundreds of lines of code that clicking their button entails...I always think that if anyone describes someone else's job using the word "just" they haven't understood it fully. I did a lot of research and prototype development and being told by some manager, who really didn't understand what they were asking of me, that: "it should only take x time" used to really piss me off.

So in a nutshell, the suggestion is to spend an hour pointing to things under the bonnet of a car and then you'll be able to manufacture one from scratch and as a bonus, get one that's innovative (my least favorite buzz word de jour) too? It strikes me that the call "to get everyone coding" clashes strongly with one of the tidbits mentioned in the media. Then ask yourself: what are the chances, realistically speaking, that you can get any of these people - who have a powerful computer in front of their nose all the time but only ever use it for the bare minimum of tasks, for the simplest and least complicated of its functionalities - that you can get ever get these people to try coding?

The young, and anyone that's interested, should learn about software programming (code or coding seems like a word used by non-programmers to describe the subject. The one that makes me smile is a non-technical friend who uses his computer for word processing describes it as his "pooter-printer"). I wanted to be a Computer Engineer when I was young, so that I could be technologically creative. But after getting a degree in that subject and in my first job, computers were just becoming more accessible, and caught my interest. It started by writing programs to log data from my own electronic measuring devices, and ended up back at university and a career in software development and database technology.

The subject is huge and never stops advancing. What you learned yesterday will be obsolete tomorrow. Although the principles remain, even these get added to over time. I have found you are always in a state of learning, often applying what you have just learned. Even though I feel software development is a young person's game, it does keep your mind turning, and consequently makes you feel young if you are willing to embrace it. To me it's a modern way of being creative and expressing yourself. I would love to get involved in teaching the subject. But most of the time I am busy doing it for a living.

Kids should learn the value of programming, but they should not be forced upon it. We have bad code as it is, and need talented young minds with the ability to write and debug code to help fix this problem. But not everyone can, and they are no worse for it. There are things they can do that you and I cannot do. One size does not fit all. We should all exercise. Not everyone can learn to play even County level fast bowlers, and they shouldn't be made to try.

Someone once told me that the difference between a student and a master (of any art) is love of the art. I think in the end programming is an art. I just wish there were books like these when I started out. I have to say, I admire how Lyman and the book’s 15 co-authors implicitly say things like "if you aren't able to focus on something for long periods of time, then you need to develop that skill", instead of saying: “this career isn't for you”… they implicitly say that the person needs to work on that skill…ROTFL!

NB1:

When you’re in deep shit coding-wise:

1. Google

2. Stackoverflow

And when desperation kicks in: 3. Indian dudes' tutorials?

No! No! No! You’re doing it wrong you lazy bugger!

I had to dock a star because one of the contributors suggested we should all use the Mighty Google to get out of a coding pit. Back in the day, I tried to spend an hour coding 'offline' a day (couldn’t touch google, stackoverflow, internet, etc. for questions or 'how to' guides). If you get stuck, you gotta just figure it out yourself putting in a bunch of logs, using the debugger, experimenting with code.  When I transitioned from C++ to Java, I kept forgetting how certain pointers functioned, so I would frequently spend time looking it up online. I realized that if I had just figured the problem out myself instead of asking for someone to hold my hand (stackoverflow lol). I would have never needed to spend a half-hour to hour looking up my issue on google every week or so. The initial discovery of what I did wrong might take an extra hour or 2 than looking it up online in that moment, but as a result of figuring it out myself I internalize the information into my brains 'long term memory' (hard drive) instead of just throwing it on my 'short-term memory' (RAM) and forgetting it a couple of days later.  In my pre-internet days, people used to have to figure shit out for themselves and as a result they internalized it into their long-term memory. I remember having to do this in grade school because internet cellphones weren't a thing. I basically stopped trying to memorize something for the long term because of google and internet.  My point is remember how to figure shit out for yourself every once in a while. It’ll help tremendously when developing the ability to focus for long periods of time.

NB2: Book’s content:

Introduction: Code is the best, code is the worst

Different learning pathways into tech

How (not) to learn

How to code (in one chapter)

Steps to better code

Programming tools (although short loved the part on the emacs vs. vim wars…)

You are an interpreter

What to learn first

Learning to learn

Make the most of side projects

Getting your first job

My first job

I got my dream job. Now what?

Burnout, part 1

Burnout, part 2

Do I fit in?

Women in code

What to do when you’re stuck

Choosing a job title

The DevOps introduction I wish I had

A coder’s code of ethics

Software development beyond the keyboard

Code reviews

Appendix A: A coder’s vocabulary

Appendix B: To make this, learn that

Appendix C: Recommended reading

Tor2Web Proxy: "The Dark Net - How to Stay Anonymous Online Even from the NSA" by Peter Johansen

Tor2Web Proxy: https://zqktlwi4fecvo6ri.onion.to/wiki/Main_Page

The darkness exists in the human mind not the technology.

Victorian Portugal was full of dark secrets that have had a negative effect on

this society ever since, far more than the internet has.

There's the "dark web" - i.e. the web you need to use Freenet or Tor or something like access (and those two are just examples, and they form distinct non-interconnected webs). And then there's the "deep web" - this is websites whose content is not indexed by search engines, because you need to register or pay to access the contents, or has Flash front ends, or is otherwise unavailable to a search engine. This is the thing that is likely much larger than the freely available web, and it's usually because there's money to be made by gate-keeping access to it. There's very little illegal, immoral or otherwise dodgy about the deep web; most of it is for-pay services, which are usually easy to clamp down on if they're illegal - just follow the money. 

Am I missing something here?

Yes. Google doesn't search every machine on the Internet. most of those don't have websites on them. Google only gets links by people who either fill out a "request for indexing" form or by following links from other pages. So if you create a website on your home machine and don't tell anyone...it's part of the dark web. It only exists to people who know about it. If you post your link inside a chat room that isn't accessible to Google (maybe because you must login with a password, like say Yahoo chat) ...then it's still part of the dark net. However, it's obscurity rather than security. no one can find it because no one can second guess your url. However, (again) Freenet users don't talk to each other. The user doesn't ask the website author for the site like the regular, it asks a friend to do so on their behalf...who may ask someone on their behalf...thus no can work out who is reading the content. A system of replication ensures the author doesn't point directly at a machine but just somewhere "generally" in the network. Thus, everyone is anonymous. Even if Google could index the content...they wouldn't know what they were indexing or where it came from. Two aspects of Freenet immediately bother me, which is why I won't be downloading or using it. First up is the distributed nature of the data storage - even if my use is perfectly legal, it could be storing material on my computer which is not only illegal but also highly offensive. Now, perhaps that doesn't bother you, but it bothers me. Secondly, per the Freenet site, "Files are encrypted, so generally the user cannot easily discover what is in his data store, and hopefully can't be held accountable for it." Did you spot that there? hopefully. I must say that I find that statement rather irresponsible; fortunately, in Portugal especially there’s no RIPA legislation where you can be sent to jail for not revealing your encryption keys, irrespective of the content you are protecting. And if this sounds far-fetched, you should be aware that it has already happened (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/). There is also no commercial element in Freenet. The developers have deliberately eschewed the creation of anonymous money. That takes the rug from under some criminal activity. On the practical side of things, Freenet is slow and not an ideal environment for swapping large files. On Freenet, most people choose to remain anonymous; that limits their interactions to a degree. On the conventional internet groups of people may work together using opaque encrypted connections and truly conspire in illegality if they wish; they sacrifice their anonymity to connect in the first place. Conspiracies are broken by their weakest link. Most (perhaps all setting aside whatever GCHQ accomplishes) clever internet police detective work begins from traditional policing methods. A suspect is brought to their attention somehow either by acting suspiciously on the internet (say a chatroom) or by coming under suspicion in the ordinary world. The suspect's computer is inspected and this may lead to new suspects. At that point the police may opt to operate a scam to catch others in the act. Freenet was developed to promote freedom of speech, particularly in places like China.

TOR, at present, is anonymous only in some internet transmission modalities.

There is much distasteful material on the internet and doubtless on Freenet. I suspect that much of this is the same stuff cycling round and round. The priority for law enforcement should not be the relatively easy option of identifying people in possession of this material but rather at grabbing those who create it in the first place. This is where the traditional internet is so important because only on it is there commerce. Cabals sharing a criminal interest, operating covertly and not putting the product of their activities for sale on the internet will be broken only by serendipity arising from traditional policing methods.

ToR causes a marked slowing of browser response. That's because the number of people using it are relatively few. What would make these technologies sit up and work is the introduction of millions of new non-combatant users motivated to avoid governmental surveillance and copyright controls. These dark side technologies are relatively immature, yet I can see at least one design that links ToR, Kademlia and strong cryptography that would present an intractable file sharing system and alternative email backbone. The question is this: given that relatively few malcontent users are using simple technologies, is it desirable to obfuscate them behind millions of benign users deploying strong technologies because of incontinent legislation? If I were employed by the Portuguese secret service, I'd be rather concerned about losing the ability to see the bad guys from the trees.

Ugh. Ok, so who is creating all this dark content? Are there 400-500 times more people creating content than we 'know' about? On the net content is king. There is unlinked content, mostly image files, but frankly most of that is probably illegal sexual stuff and while there is some truly unpleasant stuff out there in the hard to find places there are an awful lot more legal porn images (because it's a vast business) and teenagers on youtube putting up clips of them taking the piss out of their mates, because it's easier than videoing the construction of homemade nuclear devices.

Google doesn't simply search JSTOR - publishers are required to provide google with something called an abstract to crawl before their content can be indexed (basically the non-subscriber landing page). I create content on the darkweb (silly term) everyday such as hidden back content to support published websites, and none of it is crawled by google or anyone else for that matter. And none of it is in the least bit illegal or even morally dubious. Most of the unknown web is full of boring web infrastructures, and certainly not child pornography.

Predictive searches never show porn related stuff (or so I have read); I guess that would conflict with Google's public image, but if you type rotten you get rotten.com before you've typed tomatoes; some time ago Google courted some controversy by refusing to take down a racist photoshopped pic of Michelle Obama - citing rules that they only removed content when legally required to do so, all of which makes their ethics seem a little patchy. The point I'm trying to make is that I would gladly trade free albums for the loss of sites like rotten.

I'll probably get criticised for this and I'm aware that there is no perfect solution. No-one wants an internet with little free content and a big buy button on the top of the screen, but I am concerned about the excesses of the internet (never mind the dark web freenet thing) and its influence on peoples' morality and behaviour. I think the idea of "public" content being in the minority is a complete fantasy and the percentages plucked from the air, also I think it should be made clearer that there is a big difference between actively hidden content and activity for clandestine, political or paranoid reasons, and content that is simply defunct, old outdated websites that no one links to any more but aren't deleted, abandoned personal websites or free websites for companies that have gone out of business. Hard drive space is cheap these days and older websites don't take up much room. Also important is separating traffic from actual useful available web content, files or communication; no doubt a huge amount of traffic is taken up by spam and automated programs like trojans and the like. The idea of a huge goldmine of interesting secret information that dwarfs the public web makes no sense, the number of users and content publishers in these "sub nets" are by their very nature minuscule.

Virtually everyone I know with a computer does or has at some point downloaded music or films through Limewire or rapidshare or whatever, and those who haven't have at the very least watched unlicensed rips of shows on youtube for example - and none of those people would consider themselves criminal, even remotely. It's one of the odd things I've always thought about the whole filesharing thing - it's right there, hugely visible and you don't need to search far to get to it - just post the name of a record in google and you're likely to get to a rapidshare link or an equivalent within two or three pages of results. Google will probably lead you to thousands more pirated works than I imagine you'd ever find on freenet.

Johansen’s book is not earth-shattering, but it gives all the basic necessary ingredients for you to dip your toes in the water dark-web-wise.

European Union: "Artificial Inteligence" by Noah Berlastsky

(Original Review, 2014-10-31)

Dear Barroso, Dear Malstrom and other commissioners,

If you want to achieve economic growth in Europe, you should stop bribing politicians as the Governments of Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Czech, Hungary ...and the Central Bankers. We all know you thought-control them on the nets of Telecom Austria, Telenor ... with implants ...to quote European Parliament "converging technologies, shaping the future of european societies" - "there will be politicians with implants and control in this manner". We all know Commissioners, ECB, EC, EBRD employees have such implants and act together. We know you offer a "better life" to the CEE servants if the betray their countries, a little bit. We all know how you manipulate Ukraine and media.

There is a doubling in M1 for 5-6 year in the EUROZONE, which led to high Stock Prices only without significant growth. There is declining inflation, and according to the quantitative theory of money prices should nearly follow the quantity of money in the long run. The USA economy is growing, the EU not. So if prices do not increase, the competitiveness is not good and there will not be profits for the companies so the Stock Exchange Index may be a bubble. I am not sure how much you earn from stealing from CEE, but it is not enough for growth. I am also not aware how thought control influence the economic growth theories, but I suppose as Greenspan says if there is leverage and bubble the crisis may be substantial due to animal spirit. So we do not need bluff for economic growth but fair game from now onward to some extent.

Now, as you Barroso sent people to bribe me, implanted me with a device for though-control involuntary and threatened me to earn 50 BLN from the crisis you organized in Bulgaria, I will dare to give some advices. Do not sent Draghi to ask why people do not believe the european institutions and there is only 30% support. Why 50% believe there will not be EU which is suspiciously stable figure in the eurobarometer? Do not organize cartels on the domestic companies in EU, do not use though-control above law and industry and do not control communications of the aforementioned countries Central Banks and Banking System. Do not organize speculative crises hiding behind Sorors or other speculators. Do not steal resources from these countries. Is the expression "the information is the new oil" origination from EU? Establish fact in economics is that the stability and law lead to economic growth. You can't take 3 BLN EUR from Bulgaria, 1.5 BLN EUR with Austria Banks cartel in Bulgaria and thought-control on the net of Telecom Austria.

What is the last and only value of EU - the profit. Even Marx says, that if you still want the same return on capital, which concentrates in 10% of the people, there will be a revolution because employees do not receive enough output. If there is not technological progress, there is not going to be more output and we can expect revolution in one or another form. Think for sharing knowledge with CEE such as thought-control technologies. You are not a businessman, do not strive for short term profits. Do you risk trillions of EUR if bribing, thought-control and cheating of companies as Siemens, Telecom Austria (a nice experiment example), SAP, Microsoft, Google, IBM, Apple is revealed to act together with EU authorities to control the EU (I have proofs for some of them only). Do not steal from small countries with companies and cheap PR for some EU funds (some of them stolen from EU). Do not make fun of us, or every European Citizen sooner or latter [2018 EDIT: sic] will know what are you doing and will interpret the information correctly. In particular, do not extinct the Bulgarian nation for the simple reason of economic profits.

We can't shake hands with you, because you do not know if I will hold a check for 1,500 EUR and you for 1 million EUR as it seems to be the established practice in EU. The odds of this game are trillions to 1, think what chance I have and decide if you want to play "music-lover ". Tell Malstrom not to kill people as in Perm, or Burgas as ultimatum or probably the Mall in Latvia, or Smolenks for which I receive info in advance because Stalin and USSR was another union. Strive for knowledge, values with higher return not bribing. Information nowadays is everywhere and EU citizens have about 100BLN EUR, not neurons in neural networks to interpret the information correctly.

[2018 EDIT: Eduardo Barroso is a Portuguese Politician who for 10 years lead the EU.]