I used to drive a Toyota pickup whose non-functioning ignition switch I replaced with an array of 3 ordinary household toggle switches for: engine, starter, dashboard. Not what you'd call advanced security; anyone could start my truck and drive off without a key (if they could figure out which switch was which.) At the same time, I lived in a farm house with 4 exterior doors, only one of which had a working keyed lock, and that one key was a big skeleton key, too cumbersome to carry about with me. For eleven years I lived a completely key-less life. And never had a problem with auto theft nor home burglary nor vandalism.

Not that I lived in a crime-free area. I'm sure there were many instances of auto theft and burglary in those same eleven years. For example, my neighbor Dave was the victim of a break-in theft, in spite of the fact that his home was equipped with a state-of-the art security system. Or - was it because he had hi-tech security that he was victimized, and not I?

Imagine a would-be burglar coming to my house when I'm not home and finding the door unlocked. "Yikes!," he might say to himself, "this guy must be nearby, or he wouldn't leave his house open like this!" Or someone in a darkened parking lot thinking about hot-wiring my truck - but how do you hot-wire a vehicle that has no keyed ignition? The unusual and unexpected lack of security would be alarming to most criminals. By contrast, the presence of a state-of-the-art security system is an attraction to the modern burglar. The system's presence indicates that there must be something worth stealing, probably there are no other significant safeguards, and the system's familiarity is a green light to bypass its well-known security measures and proceed with the theft.

Such has become the internet. Long gone is the early concept of a free and simple exchange of information. The web is increasingly overrun with spammers, hackers, and identity thieves. So protective protocols were developed, but as these have grown more complex, the hackers' expertise has kept pace. Don't be fooled: each new security protocol is certain to be deciphered and exploited in short order, probably even before your browser and your favorite website are upgraded to take advantage of its promised security.

The problem, as I see it, is three-fold. First, each new protocol adds greatly to the 'handshake' exchanged between your computer and the server, which makes the initial connection slower and slower, adds to your monthly internet bill if you have metered service, and makes it nearly impossible to access some web pages if you have a slow connection. Meanwhile, rest assured that the hackers all have modern high-speed equipment. The increased traffic overhead is a problem for legitimate surfers, but not for the bad guys!

Secondly, as noted above, the 'https' protocol becomes, not a deterrent, but an invitation to hackers, a promise that there's some valuable encrypted information, free for the hacking.

Thirdly, and most seriously, ask yourself who are the bad guys? When you post personal information to your Facebook page, are you comforted by the fact that you are using an up-to-date security protocol? That your secure browser is 'approved' by Facebook? Or that your 'secure' browser approves of Facebook's security protocols? Do you really trust Facebook itself? Really? Facebook doesn't need to hack your personal data; you've handed it to them willingly, like a docile, trusting lamb. How many people must sacrifice their identity before people understand that Facebook is one of the wolves?

Who are the engineers of the increasingly complex security measures? Google. Microsoft. Do you trust them? And the baddest wolf of all: the National Security Administration. Remember the Snowden leaks? Yet the NSA continues to contribute to the design of each new protocol, specifically so that they may more easily exploit them and harvest people's internet data.

My response: let Facebook and Microsoft and the NSA chase one another's tails. Welcome to Jerry's Blog. When you navigate here, or anywhere on my CyberJerry site, that's all you're doing. Here there are no Google ads, no links to Facebook. (I suppose you could 'Like' CyberJerry on Facebook, but there are no links here to do so.)

Obviously, if you post a comment, it will be openly published to the world; that's the whole point. But if you want to send me a private message, or create a member profile telling me your real name and email address, rest assured that your data will never be given to the wolves. Even if Google or Microsoft were to track you here, they won't be able to harvest any information, because CyberJerry does not transmit your data via an 'approved' encryption protocol. I use my own encryption techniques, unpublished, and subject to my own revision. Your identity and personal data are safe here at CyberJerry, regardless of your browser's dire warning that the site is insecure. In fact, if your browser is warning you that Jerry's Blog is (gasp!) not secure, perhaps that's a sign that you ought to be careful with your browser, especially when visiting sites that it considers 'secure'!

Besides Jerry's Blog, this site contains a private message board available only to Lenore and myself, at least two data bases for my own personal use, and at least three other places where visitors may post private (unpublished) information. Here's a challenge to any would-be hacker: demonstrate to me that you can steal or intercept any of these private data, and I will openly admit defeat, and will publish my admission right here. Am confident that my challenge will go unanswered, or that any attempt to answer the challenge will result in failure. How confident? I will share more technical details upon request. Just ask! CyberJerry is neither running with the pack, nor running in fear away from it; just let the wolves chase their own tails. You, the legitimate CyberJerry surfer, have navigated away from the bad guys.

An essential element of the Catholic Faith is the conviction that the Church will abide, that the Lord Jesus will never abandon his bride (cf.Mt.28:20b).

Likewise the chosen people of the Old Covenant knew that the Almighty would never forsake Israel (Is.44:21). But that firm belief didn't prevent the prophet Jeremiah (±600 B.C.) from foretelling the fall of Jerusalem and the captivity in Babylon. Many prophets in Jeremiah's day were boldly predicting victory and blessings for Israel. They were wrong; Jeremiah was true.

Nor did Paul's lament that a blindness had come upon his fellow Jews mean that he had lost faith in their status as God's chosen race. That privileged status is irrevocable (Rom.11:29). God does not break his promises.

Suppose we view the crisis in the Church in a similar way: neither losing faith in God's unalterable promises, nor pretending that everything is OK. The man they call Pope Francis is a humanist at best. Bishops, priests, and theologians are neglecting to preach the Truth, many openly doubting the very existence of unchanging Truth. As with Jeremiah, as with St Paul's honest lament, we ought to acknowledge - and lament - that a great blindness has come upon the Church.

Let there be no doubt - Israel, especially her leaders, were unfaithful, the majority broke faith with the Almighty. But God does not break faith; his promises are sure, and the Jewish people are still his chosen race. As it turned out, the blindness that came upon the Jewish clergy 2000 years ago signaled a sort of changing of the guard, when God's focus gradually turned from the chosen Semitic people to the Gentiles. One door (apparently) closed that another greater one might open. But notice - what Jesus prophesied, what Paul recognized - they both said 'until...'. Which is to say, the changing of the guard they spoke of is temporary, and will one day end.

When, precisely, might this happen? When will 'the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled'? Might not the current blindness in the Church portend another great change? Could we be seeing the fulfillment of the great 'Until' of which both Jesus and Paul spoke? The age of the Gentiles may be drawing to its close before our eyes. If this is so, what greater door might be about to open? The same Jeremiah who foretold the defeat of Jerusalem at the hands of Babylon also saw farther ahead, that if they would repent of their faithlessness, God would deliver his people and bring them back again (Jer.29:10-14). At the coming of Jesus, when the Old Covenant was nearing its completion, there were a faithful few who recognized and welcomed their long-awaited Messiah (Lk.2:25, Lk.23:51). In those first years, many Jewish leaders remained blind, but many others repented and believed (Acts 2:41, 4:4). They saw a greater door opening, the fulfillment of their religion and of God's promises.

The Church is failing, that much is clear. Ought this realization fill us with trepidation? On the other hand, the Lord's promise to remain with his Church is rock solid. Ought we then be filled with hope as we anticipate the greater door that may soon open? My opinion: we ought to be filled with holy fear (Rom.11:20ff), and with a spirit of repentance, repentance for our personal sins and for the part we have played in the collective blindness and unfaithfulness. So as to be prepared, Until...

From previous 'Rant' posts it should be clear that this Roman Catholic no longer believes that the fellow they call Pope Francis can possibly be the vicar of Christ here on earth. (For this reason I may often refer to him as 'Señor Bergoglio', his proper name.) But how have we arrived at this point - where we have no Pope, or where the Pope is not Catholic?

One idea, popularly called Sedevacantism, theorizes that since Vatican II, the heresy of modernism has infected the Church and has rendered all recent conclaves invalid so that we haven't had a true Pope in 50 or 60 years. Thus the term 'sede vacant', which means the chair (of Peter) is vacant. Moreover, most sedevacantists (read article)

I revel in riddles and logic puzzles, especially the kind that at first seem nonsensical or unsolvable. I might puzzle and noodle for several minutes, or hours, to no avail. Can't write an algebraic equation or a computer program to solve it; there seems no answer. I put it aside; have things to do, a life to live. But the noodling continues as a 'background' process within my frontal lobe, perhaps for weeks or months or even years, as I go about my daily business.

Then suddenly - a flash of intuition, a spark of creative thinking, and the answer jumps out. I shout aloud, "I'VE GOT IT!" to no one in particular. (If there are people within earshot, they may suspect that I definitely (read article)

7-plus months ago this blog unveiled the great CyberJerry Sudoku Challenge. (See Jerry's Blog article of Dec 14 2017 for details.) In brief, the challenge is to provide a step-by-step analytical solution to a Sudoku that has CyberJerry's Sudoku Analyzer stumped. To meet the Challenge, the Sudoku must qualify thus:

• 1. The Sudoku has exactly one solution.
• 2. CyberJerry's 'Analyze' button reports that the Sudoku cannot be rated, and at some point the 'Hint' button fails to provide a Hint.
• 3. You can describe a step-by-step analytical way to solve the Sudoku. You need only do so at the point(s) where the Sudoku Analyzer fails to provide a Hint. Note

(read article)

It started out in April as a peaceful protest of Daniel Ortega's proposal to cut social security benefits, and of his tyrannical repression of dissent. So say the news reports. But from the beginning it has involved looting, burning, and extracting 'donations' from motorists who want to pass through. And when Ortega quickly renounced his social security proposals, the protests only intensified. For a couple months now these 'peaceful' demonstrations have been occupying marketplaces and interfering with transportation (including transportation to and from the hospital). Many of the youth manning the roadblocks are recognized as local thieves and loafers, no job, no schooling, still living (read article)

Having complained about "a massive, collective clerical desertion" in the Church, it would be reasonable to detail a few specifics. Let me start with some quotes from the papal press conference of 28 July 2013 following the WYD in Brazil:

A French correspondent at that meeting asked Pope Francis about concrete measures he would offer women in the Church. In part, his answer was, "...The role of women in the Church is not simply that of maternity, being mothers, but much greater... the role of women in the Church must not be limited to being mothers, workers, a limited role..."    WHAT?!?    Motherhood - that radical vocation of bringing (read article)