The Internet Becomes Sentient

[RandFan]

Can someone prove that the Unicode bug was created before 911.

Yes, done, but it doesn't matter.

 

[sinsanity2006]

You're getting closer. What's still holding you back is that word 'unbelievable'.

Yes it is.

You compared your event as finding exact text through random picking in the dictionary. Your description is intentionally misleading and incorrect unless when you thought about the various questions your mind immidiately generated a series of chinese characters that had little to no meaning. That you believe a babel translation of these responses produces relevant and accurate information is a view not shared by myself, nor by any other person I am aware of. That you alone are unable to grasp the irrelevance of these text transformations is a fault of no one but yourself, and while many here may make the effort to give you the tools to examine what has happened, it will ultimately be up to you to see.

No, I created a file with a random keyboard character in notepad of the form:

???? ??? ??? ?????

or

AAAA AAA AAA AAAAA

Saved it, reopened it. Took the symbols given by the Unicode bug and entered them into the translator located at:

http://perso.orange.fr/gaoling/hanzi/index.htm

I translated the symbols, wrote down the words and looked at them.

If anything, you have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the system of electronics you are dealing with, including your computer and the internet, possess absolutely no self will whatsoever. The results of the text transformation demonstrated are predictable based on the unicode standard created in 1993, and the IsTextUnicode bug has existed since WinNT 3.5 (1994). Therefore, your questions would have produced exactly the same response if typed into notepad in 1994. Despite having over eleven years in which to assert any self control, the internet was utterly unable to produce any other output than what it was designed to. The implications of that being almost a full 7 years before the WTC attack, and at least 6 year before your "bush" was elected to the office of president are obvious to even the computer-illiterate, and perhaps will now dawn upon even you. Failing that, I put to you this question: If some sentience (be it computer or human) is behind the text translations you experienced, did it act before or after 1994?

Sigh, again a post that says that the Unicode bug existed before 911. This bug wasn’t reported until May 18, 2006. So if indeed it has been sitting there since then, I am screwed. I wish you realize when you say as fact that the bug is pre 911, how much more weird this gets.


Thanks for the information


Sigh.

 

[sinsanity2006]

Unicode 2.0 included the "Unihan" extension, which included a lot of these characters. According to Wikipedia Unicode 2.0 was published in 1996.

(I can't post links so you have to copy and paste) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode

The Unicode 2.0 chart is here:
www dot unicode.org/Public/2.0-Update/Unihan-1.txt

For example, if you look up the ASCII code for ']' you get 93, or 5D in hex. If you look up U+5D5D in the Unihan chart, you see:
U+5D5D kDefinition goulou mountain peak in hunan

Where your dictionary just gave back 'mountain peak'. Or look at 'Z', which is 5A in hex; U+5A5A in that chart has:
U+5A5A kDefinition get married; marriage, wedding

compared to your dictionary which had "get married; marriage, wedding; woman, girl; slave, servant, crafty, villainous, false; pregnant".

Yes, the Unicode has existed for a long time, and others say the the Unicode bug was programmed befor 911.

I'm screwed.

 

[Scottie99]

Sigh, again a post that says that the Unicode bug existed before 911. This bug wasn’t reported until May 18, 2006. So if indeed it has been sitting there since then, I am screwed. I wish you realize when you say as fact that the bug is pre 911, how much more weird this gets.


Thanks for the information


Sigh.

Bug wasnt reported until May 18 2006 is DEBUNKED!

See post 403 and 404.

I am sure the more computer savvy of us can let us know that the notepad people were using in 2002 was a verison created before 9/11

 

[sinsanity2006]

sin, if nothing else you're keeping a sense of humor about this whole thing.

 

[RandFan]

I didn't come here for a social experience, or to make friends, or to be scorned, or to hang out somewhere that I show off how smart I am by insult, I came to a place where I thought I could get answers to about something I can't explain.

It has been thoroughly explained to you.

Would you please address those explanations? Why do you ignore them?

So far I am very disappointed.

You're disappointed? A number of people have put a lot of time demonstrating why you are wrong and you won't even look at the evidence.

I formed it as a story, the one at http://www.dreamslaughter.com/parasentient/paradoc.htm.

Which is a very confusing drug induced stream of conscious. And you refuse to answer questions to help us understand what is going on.

1.) You won't even reproduce your own questions and answers here.
2.) When we reproduce them here you want address them.

Sir, you appear to be at best disingenuous.

 

[sinsanity2006]

My information about the IsTextUnicode() history comes from the article "Why I don't like the IsTextUnicode API" at http://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archive/2005/01/30/363308.aspx and says:


This article was written before the bug was discovered, but after my version of notepad was created (thus, the bug isn't something that appeared in the code after the article). From this I deduce the bug has existed since NT 3.5

Now, I note from a page that:
(http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/UnicodeGuide). However, it also notes that Windows 2000 does, so it is likely that is where this bug will first appear (and it was indeed released in 2000, before the 911 attacks).

As far as the symbols themselves go, if you're using lower case letters or upper case letters starting at N or later, this is the range 46-7a(hex), which will land you in the large CJK block (4E00-9FFF) of unicode. The spaces always end up as the 2nd byte of the code, so they don't change the range.

The earliest mapping I could find online was 1.1.5, which was from 1995:
http://www.unicode.org/Public/1.1-Update/UnicodeData-1.1.5.txt

It lists the CJK block at 4E00, so it existed as far back as then.

Finally, character encodings do not change. Specifically, there is a stated guarantee:

http://www.unicode.org/standard/stability_policy.html

Which is valid from version 2.0 onward. (1996)

So while the encodings probably date back to 1991 with ISO 10646, I can only provide full evidence of them existing in their present state back to 1996.

ETA: Fixed url

I'm screwed.

 

[RandFan]

If some programmer manipulated the Unicode bug to output things about 911.

But you haven't demonstrated that any output was about 911. This is nonsense and this would not prove you wrong. It wouldn't prove anything except that a programmr could manipulate the unicode but to output things about 911.

You are starting with a faulty assumption. An assumption you assert but don't demonstrate.

The assumption is that the "answers" has anything whatsoever to do with 911 and it has been shown that clearty those answers could fit many things. I don't see 911 there.

 

[jraw]

Yes, the Unicode has existed for a long time, and others say the the Unicode bug was programmed befor 911.

I'm screwed.

Sinsanity,

Here's what I think you are saying:

1. You understand that the Unicode bug produces the "empty box" spaceholders whether you type "bush hid the facts" or "bish had the fucts" or anything else that fits the offending string of characters.

2. But if you type "bish had the fucts" or anything else, and then copy and paste the empty boxes into a Chinese translator, you get some random words that don't correspond to anything.

3. Whereas if you type "bush had the facts" and paste the empty boxes produced into the translator, you get some words that are eerily -- even frighteningly -- evocative of the events of September 11.

4. And your question is: Why is it that this phrase "bush had the facts" produces such eerie results?

Do I have that right? Please let me know. Thanks.

 

[RandFan]

Sinsanity,

Here's what I think you are saying:

1. You understand that the Unicode bug produces the "empty box" spaceholders whether you type "bush hid the facts" or "bish had the fucts" or anything else that fits the offending string of characters.

2. But if you type "bish had the fucts" or anything else, and then copy and paste the empty boxes into a Chinese translator, you get some random words that don't correspond to anything.

3. Whereas if you type "bush had the facts" and paste the empty boxes produced into the translator, you get some words that are eerily -- even frighteningly -- evocative of the events of September 11.

4. And your question is: Why is it that this phrase "bush had the facts" produces such eerie results?

Do I have that right? Please let me know. Thanks.

Hi Jraw, let me be the first to welcome you to jref.

I'm tempted to quote an Alice Cooper song for the welcome but I'll let that slide.

Good luck.

 

[sinsanity2006]

Yes, and has been pointed out time and again. It is very confusing. Normally when something is confusing and person A asks person B to explain, person B explains.

1.) I'm person A.
2.) I don't understand.
3.) You are being rude by not explaining.

So you are confused by what I said. You see it is possible to be confused. I'm confused with your article. In any event, I think I finally understand what you are doing. Please correct where I'm wrong.

1.) You telepathically ask a question.
2.) The computer exploits the computer bug to formulate an answer and communicates the answer to you telepathically with a letter, say "x".
3.) You use this letter to get the answer by putting the letter in the following format: xxxx-xxx-xxx-xxxxx
4.) The computer bug returns a Chinese character.
5.) Using a translator you translate the Chinese characters to get the answer.

There are two different processes that took place. The first was:

Enter the letters of the alphabet into the bug in the form aaaa aaa aaa aaaaa and using the bug create the nine Unicode symbols. Do that with all the letters of the alphabet. Translate these symbols and look at the words. Say wow.


Second method.


1. You telepathically ask a question.
2. You enter a random character in the form **** *** *** *****
3. The bug returns nine Unicode symbols
4. Using a translator you translate the Chinese characters to get the answer.

So, the procedure you are following is a feedback loop where the first two steps are telepathic. Right?

I don't understand your answer. It is very frustrating when you respond in such a way. I am trying to be as clear and respectful as I can. Would you please show me the same?

Neither, it is an error in logic.

To date no empirical data has been given to show otherwise. You don't need to take my word for it. However to change my mind you would have to provide empirical data to the contrary.

This is simply a claim and one that is easily dispelled.

I seriously doubt anyone in this thread will ever agree with you. It is clear that you are simply Cherry picking your data. It is conformation bias. A way to prove that it is not data mining or that it is not cherry picking your data has been provided. The experiment is a good one and should it be successful would demonstrate empirically that you are correct.

Are you willing to perform the experiment?

ETA: I have formulated an experiment that can be performed pro hoc (after the fact) on the available data. Would you be willing to consider the experiment?

I’ll be glad to look at anything. That’s why I am here.

 

[jraw]

Hi Jraw, let me be the first to welcome you to jref.

I'm tempted to quote an Alice Cooper song for the welcome but I'll let that slide.

Good luck.

Thanks, RandFan. It is of course good to be with you all.

 

[sinsanity2006]

It looks like wybili made a similar note on the 1996 date while I was posting. I take too long sometimes.

Yes, this is very discouraging.

 

[sinsanity2006]

Sinsanity, do you now understand how it works?
Do you understand that the date the software was created has nothing to do with it?
If any date need to be considered, it would be the date unicode mapping for chinese characters was first implemented, and I assure you it was before 2001.

It's as if you translated your english sentnece into numbers, and then the numbers into chinese.

Yes, I think I understand now. I'm screwed

 

[sinsanity2006]

It's cool, I'm a huge Randi fan.

Holy somke, lol, yes, I saw that as Randi Fan,

Wow, sorry.

 

[sinsanity2006]

It doesn't rule 8 matter if they were released prior to 911 or not. I know you are desperately trying to ignore this, but ASCII code was invented sometime before 1970 and Unicode was created sometime before 1990, and EVER SINCE THEN, anybody with both codelists on a piece of paper could have found your "message". It had absolutely nothing to do with Notepad, Windows, or the internet (and you never even came close to explain how the internet could be involved at all). The only slightly startling coincidence in all this is that a mundane software bug happened to expose this particular combination, but even that is hardly amazing; there must be millions of possible ASCII strings that happen to translate into a Unicode sequence that, with sufficient imaginative interpretation, could be seen as a "secret message".

... Oh, why do I bother?

Hans

Yeah, I'm screwed

 

[sinsanity2006]

So how are we lacking?

And please, do explain our shortcoming here, in simple turns. It should be obvious that pointing at the same website over and over again isn't working.



1) The article isn't written very clear
2) You missundersood the article
3) Those two posters understood the article
4) All of the rest of us are missunderstanding the article.
5) All of the rest of us aren't just able to show you that we understood the article
6) any combination thereof.

I think it would be best to forget all about the article. Using the article here clearly isn't very useful.



People have told you what was happening. At least as far as the observable universe is concerned, there has been an objective breakdown of every little step of the things that have been happening. (Regardless of whether anyone shares your interpretation of the outcome.)

Hence, so long as your interpretation/explanantion of the whole affair does not match the observable facts, you have nothing of merit to say on the subject. Alternatively, you could question our view of the process as far as it is observable/explainable.

Your theory/explanation has got to account for the fact that the described phenomena would have occurred prior to 9/11 if anyone had bothered to try. It has to account for the fact the described procedures would have yielded the exact same results if nothing remarkable hat ever happened on 9/11.

Forget whether the answers are accurate or relevant. Forget that we disagree on this, or that posters here dispute that you asked any "questions". (At least for a moment.) And the explain why any of this is meaningful, when it is obvious that the results are independent of what happened on 9/11, that the results would have been available years before 9/11 and that computers and the internet are not a necessary part of what has been observed.

Please explain, how despite all of this, you can reach the conclusions that you did.

The results were the same before 9/11 and they would be the same if there had never been a 9/11.



A rhetorical question doesn't always require an answer - but often a reply nonetheless.

Not all the questions that have been labelled by you as such did come from people that knew the answer. And instead of just giving plain answers, you preferred to dance around your accusations that other people did know the answers.



For what it's worth,m your style is starting to bother me. I appreciate a bit of teasing on all sides. But you seem to be unwilling to help with certain questions. It would possibly be more productive if you could at least just ignore those, or maybe tell us once that you won't/can't answer them.

Rasmus.

Sorry, what questions, would you like asked?

 

[sinsanity2006]

For the 100th time:

ASCII and Unicode have existed long before the bug has been detected.
the bug has most likely existed long before a version of notepad used it, and only that version of notepad - which isn't buggy in itself - appears to be past 911.

If that is not good enough for you, I suggest you do your own research.



Poor little sinsanity2006 is the only one who believes that there is meaning behind this. Everybody else thinks it's an amusing bug or easteregg. Everybody that bothers to look into it understands it's not even an amusing bug, but a plain boring bug.

The fact that millions of people can replicate a result using identical software and identical procedures is hardly surprising at all. If 2 million peolpe watch the same TV channel at the same time, they will see the same thing. But even if t's a joint stage show of Randi, David Copperfield, Siegfried and Roy it doesn#t make the magic that you see real.



Why



Can we add to the record that you are biased?



I guess that means "yes".

Then why can't yousee that just maybe you are more likely to see a connection to 911 where none exists? (Not even here, but in general)

Yeah

 

[RandFan]

1. You telepathically ask a question.
2. You enter a random character in the form **** *** *** *****
3. The bug returns nine Unicode symbols
4. Using a translator you translate the Chinese characters to get the answer.

Why a random charachter? I don't understand this?

 

[sinsanity2006]

Sinsanity2006, if you really feel that only one post in this thread helped you, that's just too bad.

Your perception of reality and how to approach it obviously varies greatly from most of the other participants in this thread.

I also point out that you want to examine your imagined "problem" as thoroughly as possible - yet you seem to generalize the behaviour of the other 37 (!) thread posters.

Yes, I have made some generalizations that prolly were off base some. I've been a little preoccupied the last couple of weeks. Please everyone. Accept my apology for being short or frustrated. This place has been very good for me, In fact the amount of concern and genuine effort by people here was outstanding. I wanted answers instantly. That was unrealistic. BUt we plodded forward.


I now realize that most of what I came here for has been answered.

I now know that all the programming was before 911, This is such a big hit. I'm so screwed. This was my biggest hope.

And I know now the process of setting up models of similar but different events. Like conspiracies about the Titanic.

Sigh.

"What if" questions do not appeal to me. Especially when there is very little chance of finding a satisfactory answer - or when that answer very likely can be found in the data around you.



You owe it to your son to ditch the first three letters of your forum nick.

Thanks

The nick doesn't have anything to do with sin, It has to do with the way it sounds when you say it.