i will do this the right way.

i will defeat you in court.

i will strike these laws down as tyrannical.

i will be compensated for what you're putting me through.

why don't you go bother some fucking criminals, you worthless, parasitic sacks of shit?

no, it's...

it's the stupidity that pisses me off, more than anything else.

i can get indignant about the oppression, self-righteous about the interference, but the thing that really gets to me is how fucking retarded the situation is, overall.

i'm trying to write some liner notes for some records i wrote 20 years ago, and the cops in this country think that's worth trying to shut down.

fucking idiots...

you will never succeed.

you are wasting your time.

you are wasting my time, which i actually care about; i don't care about you, or your time.

just read the fucking blog.

there's no answer.

deal with it.

and, fuck off.

how many times are you going to do this?

'cause i'm going to sit here and reinstall over and over and over and over again. 

and, nothing will change between each reinstall - the windows update will be broken every single time.

and, the system will never allow unsigned drivers.

ever.

you keep doing the same fucking stupid thing over and over again.

it's not working.

it's not going to work.

the system is designed so it won't work, because i don't want it to work.

so, stop.

yeah. so, it does seem like they were able to get into the update, again.

it's starting to get stupid.

listen.

you fucking idiots...

you can't run a windows update on this system without it breaking.

get the fucking point.

and fuck off.

so, i want to get back to this, now.

first, i need to see what happens when i reboot. i presume i reloaded the corrupted driver and i'll get the same errors. it could be worse....

i'm trying to think, though - did i add anything to the registry since the last reinstall? i don't think i did. so, i might be better off copying the previous one back over. 

maybe it's that easy.

i mean, i didn't realize that on the last reinstall, right. i had to boot up to learn it...

yeah. something is very wrong in the registry. so, i should go back to the last one. i think that's settled. that's why i keep backups.

so, i'll try that, first.

if it's not that easy, i want to figure out where in the registry that the msconfig reads the data from. is it just in the controlset? is it just reading the startup flag?

i will say this: i realized i had the msi server locked down, and ended up fiddling around with it to repair word. that is, on second thought, i might have created this part of the problem (the missing services) myself.

i think i still ought to rewind to fix it...

ok. up and at them...

the pipelines are unpopular in quebec, and most quebec politicians have opposed them.

it turns out that charest is the outlier.

i'm going to withdraw my cautious interest: this doesn't seem like a way out, after all.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/08/29/analysis/what-charest-affair-and-why-should-i-care

no word on if ketchup is a vegetable.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/us/2020/01/17/trump-targets-michelle-obamas-school-nutrition-guidelines-on-her-birthday.html

you think they're doing this to save money, but it's worse than that - they want to prevent these kids from being able to compete.

with these constant back and forths, maybe it's time to re-examine the issue. why, exactly, are schools being put in charge of feeding kids, anyways? shouldn't the focus be on making sure that the kids get fed at home?

i would be curious to see where jean charest comes down on certain national issues.

he might actually end up running to the left of trudeau on a number of substantive issues. would he support these pipelines, for example? that's not clear.

we haven't, to this point, seen the kind of realignment in canada that's been happening in the united states, where the upper class is swinging towards the democrats and workers are swinging towards republicans. we have seen the liberals kind of follow the democrats' lead in swinging to these ultra bourgeois positions, which, in our own historical context, places them in the place that the progressive conservatives used to be in. trudeau seems more like a joe clark or a brian mulroney than he does like a pearson or a laurier, or his own father, for that matter. so, the liberals are kind of following the democrats in their swinging towards a more conservative centre of gravity, but the conservatives aren't trying to walk into the open space, they're kind of hanging out on the margins, afraid to really react. one gets the idea that they think this is temporary.

a charest could lead the conservative party to the kind of realignment that is happening in the united states, but he would have to do it in very different ways - he would have to embrace environmentalism, embrace gender and sexual equality and stand up for the enlightenment values that the west was founded on, and the liberals and democrats don't seem to care about any more. and, charest could do that. convincingly.

as a very hard leftist, i would be exceedingly skeptical about even thinking about supporting the conservatives.

but, i really don't like trudeau.

and, charest looks like the closest thing to a way out.

none of the other candidates i've seen are remotely electable.

i would encourage him to run.

it's rare that you can articulate something better than hitchens could.

he's basically right. i would take a more fundamental position of restricting statist authority, because i'm more of an anarchist than he was, but i don't have any disagreement with him.

and, this is the position one would expect from people that call themselves "liberals".

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." - chomsky

my mom didn't tell me much of value when i was a kid, and i don't often cite her for wisdom, but she did tell me this, and i think it's good advice in determining what harm is, in context:

sticks and stones may break my bones,

but words can never hurt me

governments and politicians that seek to police speech need to be fought against and removed from power.

it's a red line they can't cross.

now, that said, free speech is about the limitations of government actions, it doesn't apply to behaviour between private individuals in personal communication, or over any kind of market.

so, when i say that the state has no grounds for interference, that doesn't extend to the behaviour of private individuals, who also maintain freedom of association.

what that means is that if you don't like somebody's facebook posts about the prime minister or "muslims", the proper thing to do is, in fact, fuck off - which could mean deleting them from facebook, not inviting them to parties, generally snubbing them in public, not sending them christmas cards, etc. you don't have an obligation to be nice to them, or associate with them in any way. that's your own right. saying certain things in public over a platform may lead to social consequences, and it's up to the people saying them to weigh that before they do it.

but, it's not the role of government to police speech.

and, that view is at the very crux of our culture and our civilization, and is something worth holding on to and fighting for.

i'm not a strict free speech literalist in the tradition of somebody like chomsky or hitchens, but i'm about as close to it as you can get to it without actually being it, and i do tend to go directly to mill in my arguments.

so, following mill, the only justification for state intervention on the question of speech is to prevent imminent harm. chomsky doesn't even believe in libel; i do believe in it abstractly, but i think the standard needs to be pretty high, and you have to demonstrate a clear financial injury - that is, you have to demonstrate actual harm.

i would reject the competing "offense principle" on it's face, and argue that people promoting it are perpetuating a kind of backwards, statist barbarism.

if you threaten to hurt somebody, that would be creating harm, but the threat has to be actually real. it's not enough to imagine that you might hurt somebody, or abstractly ponder hurting somebody - it has to be clear and actionable.

so, unless there were actual concrete threats to harm somebody, i would consider running one's mouth off about the prime minister or "muslims" on facebook to be protected speech, even if it offends virtually everybody. arresting somebody over this would be a breakdown in the rule of law, and an infringement of constitutionally protected rights. that person deserves compensation.

in the modern world, in north america, the internet is far too ubiquitous to conceive of actually getting anybody off of it.

it's like banning kids from bicycling on the sidewalk.

it's a completely unenforceable fantasy reality.

and, i happen to be both particularly hardheaded and particularly anti-authoritarian....and particularly nerdy. if it's a crazy idea a priori, i'm about the worst person you could imagine applying it towards....

could they be trying to stop me from responding to one of the cases?

that would be stupid.

if i have to, i can type on one of the other computers - or at the library.

as mentioned, i have this backed up all over the place. i'm not going to tell you exactly where. but i have at least ten backups, in random places that should survive any kind of takedown.

and, i could be sending email from the chromebook if i have to, too.

if that's the intent, it's a stupid waste of time. there is a 0% possibility of success...

but, it would kind of speak to the scenario, wouldn't it? first, arrest somebody on bullshit charges. then, delay for months to try to stop it from getting to court. then, try to hack into the machine to delete the evidence.

i need them to own up to it and take responsibility for their oppression and compensate me for the infringement of my rights.

and, the longer it goes on, the more they'll have to pay out, in the end...

turns out that i got my form 68 from the court, after all. i was expecting to have to wait for the factum. so be it. it was dated to tuesday, so i'm guessing it got here yesterday.

the form is empty, and i'm going to have to read up on how to fill it out. they're suggesting that the hearing should be in april or may.

no response from the landlord, and at this point i should probably give up.

so, this is what i want to do, if i can figure it out.

1) i want to finish the rebuild for december and get the pdfs up to noise trade. there's only a few posts left.

2) i'll need to work this form out for monday and figure out what i need to do, exactly. i believe i need to reach out to schedule; i understand the general idea, i just need to get the formalities down, i've never done this, remember. i don't think it's that complicated.

3) i'll need to write up the request to defer and send it to the human rights tribunal by the end of the day on monday.

i would not expect there to be any further concerns for the rest of the month.

and, as mentioned, i don't expect to actually go anywhere for weeks, if not months. there are shows in march...but i need to make sure i can get to the hearing...

you are getting a far greater volume to this blog when my machine is broken than you are when it isn't.

this will continue for as long as i have to keep fixing the computer for.

...because what else am i going to do?

as pointed out repeatedly, knocking my main laptop offline will not affect my ability to post to this blog.

what it will do is slow down my progress on my art projects.

it will also put me in situations where i'm waiting for the electrical to turnover, or otherwise wasting time. this will lead to procrastination, or just plain out shitposting.

so, it should be obvious at this point that attempts to knock me offline have not been successful, and are actually even irrational.

what i want to do is focus on my art. i'd be spending far less time ranting on the internet if i was able to actually focus on what i actually care about...

again: there is no actual evidence that biden is failing.

and, there is no actual evidence that sanders is rising.

this is a curious media spin. but, it's actually a sign of desperation.

unless something changes - and it could. clearly. - i would still expect biden to run the table. he is ahead everywhere.

that's how it is.

the police have way too much power right now, and they're using it in ridiculously inappropriate ways that shit all over the rule of law.

and, liberals are cheering it on when they should be pushing back against it.

i do hope, however, that this person seeks proper financial compensation for the trouble that the police are putting them through.

we are developing a serious problem with a police state in this country, and if the legislature won't address it then we will need the courts to.

technically speaking, what i'm doing is public, clearly.

but, a facebook post should actually be considered private conversation, and that's probably the easiest away around this kind of authoritarian bullshit.

it's a shame, because i'd like to see the laws torn down completely. it probably won't be necessary for this case....

if you don't like what i think, then fuck off.

you think you can tell me what i can or can't say in public?

that my expression should be policed by whether or not you find it offensive? that that matters? that i should care?

no. that is backwards. that is barbaric. and, that kind of attitude cannot be tolerated in a free society - that must be struggled against by appeals to freedom of expression, until it is educated out of the most ignorant of the ignorant.

freedom must win this debate, and there can be no compromising on it - the state has no place in the facebook feeds, or blogspot posts, of the nation.

we have some of the most backwards speech laws in the western world, laws that are more reflective of a backwards country like iran, and that has to change.

canada's restrictive and authoritarian speech laws have been an embarrassment to this country for far too long, and it is far past time that they are struck down as unconstitutional.

i, for one, will stand up for freedom in the face of tyranny until i'm struck down in cold blood, as i no doubt will be.

i will not be silenced.

i will stand for what is right.

these kinds of laws have no place in a free society, and i hope that he fights for his rights to freedom of expression and has the laws torn down as unconstitutional.

islam is a system of organized violence, and there are legitimate grounds to speak out against it.

but, i'm actually more concerned about the threats to speech that come from fake liberals like justin trudeau, that align with these authoritarian systems of violence so willingly. this is a threat to democracy that we need to take seriously and we need to defeat through education and appeals to the rule of law under civilized discourse. we cannot be led into religious or authoritarian backwardsness. 

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/01/17/man-charged-in-connection-to-online-threats-aimed-at-trudeau-and-muslims.html

i mean, send me an email.

i have the address.

to be clear.

i first set up death.to.koalas@gmail.com as a temporary email address to send logfiles back and forth to myself from work when i was doing vista tech support for microsoft in early 2007. i was mostly posting at the cbc site under various plays on dsfgfxtfkdrfililguilddka over these years - the names changed fairly randomly. those accounts would have been connected to my rogers address.

i didn't start using the deathtokoalas address more regularly until i got evicted in late 2011 and lost access to the rogers pop server. after the cbc tried to shut me down for being an anarchist, i switched to mostly posting over facebook from about 2010-2013 or so. then i switched to youtube in early 2014 and starting using the deathtokoalas handle because it was my google+ name.

i believe that the kid in new york is currently about 20 years old, meaning they would have been about 6-8 or so when i set the account up in 2007 and about 12-14 when i started posting in early 2014. say what you want about my maturity level, but it's obvious that i wasn't 13 years old at the time. 

to an extent, i should be flattered, maybe.

but, i wonder if this might have something to do with the person that's stalking me.

if i search for deathtokoalas, the following sites come up in order:

1) https://bandcamp.com/deathtokoalas. this is me.

2) https://soundcloud.com/deathtokoalas. this is me.

3) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChFC3O4nKgg5zGbqoqkmBSA. this is not me. i presume it's the teenager from new york, who is too unoriginal to get their own site. maybe it's some idiots on reddit. i don't know. but, it should be obvious that it's not me...

i have a number of youtube sites and i cross-reference myself on them. there's nothing stopping somebody else from setting up a site using my name, so i could not have copyrighted this, if it was worthwhile.

but what happens if you click this: youtube.com/deathtokoalas? that is me. and, it's the best i can do in protecting my name.

4) https://na.op.gg/summoner/userName=DeathToKoalas. this is not me. i guess it's that kid in new york. but, again - it should be obvious that this isn't me, and i wouldn't go to a site like that.

5) https://www.twitch.tv/deathtokoalas. this is not me. again - it should be obvious that it is not me. i don't play games. i've been clear....so, i guess, it's that kid in new york, again. i don't care about twitch. remotely.

6) https://medium.com/@deathtokoalas. this is me, but it was a drive-by post from, like, years ago. i haven't been there in years. i don't intend to go back.

7) https://amp.pastemagazine.com/noisetrade/books/j/082013-deathtokoalas. this is me.

8) https://www.pastemagazine.com/noisetrade/books/j/082013-deathtokoalas. this is me.

9) http://deathtokoalas.blogspot.com/. this is me.

10) http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2017_06_24_archive.html. this is me.

11) https://twitter.com/deathtokoalas?lang=gl. this is not me, it's the kid in new york. i don't use twitter and don't care about it any more than twitch. my twitter handle is @dgkfgjklgjkgjka, which is the handle i was actually using in 2010 or whenever i set that up. i didn't start using deathtokoalas as a youtube handle until around 2013/2014. and, i'd already decided against using twitter. i had no idea that my name would go viral or that i'd need to protect it, either. i spend quite a bit of time attacking twitter, actually. i kind of hate it, to be frank. so, it's an annoyance, but i don't actually care, i'm happy enough to just get the point across - that is not me, and i do not use that website.

12) https://www.reddit.com/user/deathtokoalas/. that is me, actually. but, i post to reddit very infrequently.

13) https://books.noisetrade.com/service/widgetv2book/61af5b3e-2c7f-4ce0-ada0-197d5b7b55bc. this is me.

14) https://books.noisetrade.com/service/widgetv2book/420a9381-0845-40a4-85cf-c13fb869020f. this is me.

15) https://lolchess.gg/search?region=na&name=deathtokoalas. not me. don't game. don't know what this is.

16)  http://www.angelfire.com/comics/fuzzieblue160/TheGORD.html. i don't know what this is, but i don't expect it has anything to do with me directly. it might be some kind of joke. i'm not privy to it.

17) https://support.mozilla.org/gl/questions/1159404. this is me.

18) http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2018/06/without-significant-changes-doug-ford-on-track-for-majority-government/. this is me.

19) http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/help-support/8xwibYJa-lost-lp-after-winning?sort_type=best. not me. don't know what this is.

20) https://zh-cn.facebook.com/pages/category/Musician-Band/41134747113/posts/. this would be me, but i don't know why it comes up in chinese.

a general rule is that, while you can't be sure that deathtokoalas in all lower case is always me, you can be sure that something like DeathToKoalas or DeathtoKoalas would absolutely never be me. i am an alphabetical egalitarian, i reject capitalism....

anywhere that i post regularly is on the side.

but, if you really think those league of legends sites are me, i can't be bothered with you.

all of my youtube sites are on the side.

my only twitter site is also on the side.

i do not have a twitch account.

and, i do not play any games. ever. at all.

i don't play shoot 'em 'up cowboys 'n' indians type games, or whatever you call them.

i don't play dungeons 'n' dragons style strategy games.

i don't play board games. i don't play apps on phones. i don' play tetris, or minesweeper or solitaire or pong.

i play no games.

ever.

at all.

i think it's better to tell the stalker what the systems in my house are. i don't have anything to hide, here. i'm better off trying to convince them that they're wasting their time.

so, i have three computers that connect to the internet, and they are all laptops.

- i am typing this from a thinkpad chromebook that i log into as a guest. this machine is intended solely for mobile use. it's also an emergency backup. this machine would have to use trashy apps like google docs, and isn't acceptable for any kind of serious word processing. i connect via a wired connection.

- i have a 90s compaq evo with a winlited windows xp on it. this is an extremely minimal image with very old hardwire. this is a laptop that is so old that it shipped without a wireless card in it. i use this laptop strictly to watch youtube videos when i'm eating. there is nothing on this machine. i could in theory use this machine for blogging, but it is very slow and several of the keys are broken. it has, like, 512 mb of ddr2 ram or something.

- the machine that i have been using as my access point for the last several years - since mid-2017 - is a compaq from the mid 00s with a broken backlight screen on it. this is an old dual core with windows 7 (although it shipped with vista) and a 50 gb install drive. this machine is designed to break and rebuild; i keep everything important in a series of external drives. there is no wireless in this machine.

i also have an hp with 8 gb of ram, a broken backlight and a fried system board. i am hoping to fix this, eventually.

i have three pcs. 

one of them shipped with windows 98 and used to be my tv, but it's been phased out. i will eventually put 98 back on there and use it for obscure sound design. this will never connect to the internet ever again.

one of them shipped with vista, but currently runs xp and is my main recording pc. it is currently half disassembled and used mostly for troubleshooting these cyberattacks. it does not have a network card and will never connect to the internet again.

there is a third pc that i bought parts for in mid 2017 and haven't assembled yet because i haven't had time. i will put a 64 bit os on this machine and use it for recording. it does not have a wireless card in it, and i will disable the network card in the bios. i will never, ever, ever connect this computer to the internet.

there is also a phone that i wish i never bought and never turn on.

so, what i have exposed to the network are these three laptops - the chromebook, the 90s laptop with xp and the 00s laptop with windows 7. none of them would be very useful to a hacker. and, none of them have any data on them.

clearly, it would not be very bright for me to connect my data to the internet, would it? some horrible asshole wants to destroy my art...

so, i tried to run over the currentcontrolset with a different control set that appeared to have the service states in a better configuration and the system instantly rebooted.

i think this is the first time i've seen the system reboot without being connected to the internet. did i reinstall a bad driver?

i'm not sure what to do about this. there's actually only about 30 services in the msconfig list, and close to 100 in the services list. how did that happen? there's a large number of services that i do not want running at startup. period.

i suppose i could always just delete them outright. but, that could create some problems...

i'm also considering cloning the machine to a different hard drive. i have several backups, actually. i just don't think this is actually the problem, and i don't think i'm going to solve anything with it.

stated another way, this appears to be a decision that is emotionally driven rather than one that is intellectually driven, and that's a problem for a democratic state. that's how despotic states behave. constitutional governments cannot operate on passion, they must legislate by appealing to reason.

ok.

so, he's presenting it as emergency funding, under the argument that they can't wait. i don't know if that's true or not. but, it's presenting the situation as an exception.

i would like to see a general policy - a set of rules for the government to abide by. canada is not a monarchy and should not have decisions made on a whim by the prime minister; constitutional states require adherence to a rule of law, and a set of protocols and procedures.

i don't believe in making space for exceptions, or in governing from the back of a napkin.

i'd like to see an actual policy.

i don't exactly want to oppose funding for the crash victims. i think everybody can agree that the situation is unfortunate, and if the government is going to offer them money, it would be a little bit harsh to get in between that. i think they deserve compensation from the iranian government, at least, even if the basis of compensation from the canadian government is....legally unclear.

it's more like i have a few questions.

is this a new policy, generally? i think i would be more likely to get behind comprehensive legislation that presents the government as an insurance body in the case of accidents, more generally. it's the piece meal approach to this that is rubbing me the wrong way a little bit, because it's suggesting that the government is giving these victims special treatment in the face of what it sees as a political win. that is, it seems like the government is essentially politicizing this. and, while i'm sure the victims appreciate the cash, that's actually kind of slimy, and kind of slimy in a way that is consistent with this government.

so, is it going to be the policy of this government to offer insurance to the victims of certain kinds of accidents, moving forwards? are there going to be delineated grounds for compensation? if so, i'd actually lean towards supporting this.

or, is this going to be an ad hoc case-by-case thing where the government decides to fund specific victims for political purposes? i could not, in good conscience, support the politicization of tragedy in that manner, and i might call on the victims to reject the funds.

the compensation should come from the iranian state.

i'm dealing with a migraine again, so i'm going to spend the day sleeping, but i just need to point out a few things.

- they seem to have disabled the ability to turn off certain services in msconfig. i'll have to fix that before i consider reconnecting to the internet.

- i do not have a raid controller, anywhere. raid is for gamers. i don't game. i'm a musician. i have multiple hard drives because i need a lot of space to store all of the data. the drives are not the same. further, the pc with the multiple drives has no network card in it. the laptop that i use to connect to the internet has one sata drive in it.

i'll be back up when the headache goes away.