5/8/2003: Unabomber's cabin

Doesn't look like much. This is the cabin of Theodore Kaczynski, the "Unabomber". Kaczynski built the little hut himself and lived there for 25 years, going insane, writing in journals, and eventually writing long anti-technology screeds and building bombs to mail to technologists.

When they got the guy, they decided to take his cabin intact to his trial, so they could show the conditions he was living under to try to show that he was insane. Eventually Kaczynski pled guilty. For some legal purpose the cabin was kept around, but now it's no longer needed.

It was going to be dismantled, but the owner, a member of Kaczynski's legal team, was spooked when the event drew reporters. It'll probably wind up dismantled after all. Which is okay; what are you going to do, put it into the Museum of Bizarre Criminals?

I guarantee someone would pay top dollar on eBay for that.

I'm trying to figure out what the folks in front of the cabin in the upper right are doing. Looks like a photo shoot, a medium or large format camera on a tripod, couple of light stands, some gear cases, a chair for the art director or somebody, some flagging tape to keep out the curius bystanders.

I blew the shot up in Photoshop before it really fell apart and it looks like the first guy on the right is just standing there but the guy next to him is taking a picture with a smaller format camera.

Ever notice how in movies the government guys can always blow up little images infinately and just keep sharpening the images up till you can see every little detail? Perhaps there is a vesion of Photoshop we don't know about like Photoshop CIA.

This will bother me at 2am, not knowing what was going on.

I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down.

Funny. Kinda looks like my house only without the coax cable running out of it and piles of spent ammo casings under the window.

Hey, get yer shack out of my driveway!

Ever notice how in movies the government guys can always blow up little images infinately and just keep sharpening the images up till you can see every little detail? Perhaps there is a vesion of Photoshop we don't know about like Photoshop CIA.

They can do this, but you need a moving image to do it, and several frames at that. It doesn't work on stills nearly as well.

The reason that you can blow up a moving image a great deal is that you can compare something over several frames. I don't know how to put in words how it works, but it does.

To a certain degree. But in the movies it's almost always some single frame, grainy, video survalince image that they blow up 10,000X and then read the guys wristwatch or something. The information they are supposedly sharpening only exists as a couple pixels in the original at best.

Nope, sorry. It's absolutely, 100% unconstitutional.

Re: 5/8/2003: Unabomber's cabin

Bartman, are you really Dave? C'mon 'fess up?

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce Bartman, are you really Dave? C'mon 'fess up?

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce Bartman, are you really Dave? C'mon 'fess up?

No, no not the content. The HANDWRITING.
Say goodbye to Dave...never. Besides the fact that he posted 20 minutes ago, if he said he was leaving we wouldn't say goodbye. We would just whimper and pine for his return.

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce No, no not the content. The HANDWRITING. Say goodbye to Dave...never. Besides the fact that he posted 20 minutes ago, if he said he was leaving we wouldn't say goodbye. We would just whimper and pine for his return.

(I did that as a joke, Bruce.)

I thought it was funny. But I liked Bruce's joke too, so what do I know?

Bitman, Batman, Bartman, Dave. Which one is not like the others?

jeez, xoxoxoBruce is coming on to EVERYBODY!

I think this all just means that you are exceptional and unique, bitmap ...

awww..... shucks

another view

Found another picture of the cabin:
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/cr...lers/unabomer/

The Unabomber wasn't as insane as people assume. I've only read a bit of it, but I've heard that NY Times creed is a pretty consistent and reasonably well thought out argument. He has some points; arguably, our society's relationship with technology is way out of wack. I don't think he proposes a realistic scenario, and it's a bit neoluddite, but still. Sanity wise, I'd put him at least as competent as palistinean suicide bombers.

Also, he's a dead easy halloween costume; I just put on the hooded sweatshirt I always have on hand at the overly-AC'd office, slip on my magnet clip on sunglasses, and I'm good to go!

I just finished reading John Douglas' (FBI Profiler) book on the Unabomber.

Yes, he was as crazy as they were saying.

There is more to mental illness than the folks who see things and hear the voice of God telling them to run down the middle of the street naked while shouting "duct tape." Some mentally ill people are more organized than others.

Douglas' book was published shortly after the capture, but does include information on events leading up to that and some information on him while in custody awaiting trial.

I'd love to see the forensic psychologist/psychiatrist's reports on interviews with him.

I love the internet

Fished my wish!

Wolf, I bow to your observations. Interesting document there.

Still, although I am a great big technophile, I do wonder if our society could still work and be interesting if it were a lot less techcentric...

Re: I love the internet

Quote:

Originally posted by wolf I'll crochet you a brasscatcher, sweetie.