nature of the computer contrary to the attributes ascribed to it by industry, which, in advertisements, has elevated the machine to mythic levels of capabilities and possibilities. The program is efficiently written and so fulfils the requirement of a ‹normal› computer program. In the way it works however, it overturns the paradigm of functioning. In principle, it is programmed taboo breaking. If an attempt were made to use the program in a productive context, there would be no more productivity because, most likely, the system would have to be restarted again and again. In this respect, it is something very different, something other than that which, by means of norms and other controls, is brought under control and classified as art and, at least in theory, remains controllable. [64] In the digital day-to-day world, it is tempting to compare this to a virus. [65] By placing the section of code in an artistic context, another arrangement for both the code and its developer is appropriate. As a rule, if the legal system steps in quickly to arrange the safeguarding of normalcy, lawsuits will be brought against programmers who do not follow the dominant paradigms of the respective

programming languages, but rather use these languages intentionally for destructive purposes. [66] If the functionality is described metaphorically as a virus, and is interpreted as such, then there is room for discussion. For this, only a limited analysis of the code, such as is undertaken above is needed. But here the work falls apart into code/effects and the context noted above, without there being any conclusions drawn concerning possibly significant formalisms or conventional subjects. On the positive side, this would, however, contradict the definition of computer code which, being clear and unambiguous, excludes any semantic relationship to its elements. [67] In a way, every higher language possesses the possibility of semantically charging symbols. These are the variables the naming of which is arbitrary. McLean calls the core variable of the program ‹strength.› As described earlier, a ‹my› has to stand in front of this variable since all variables must be declared accurately. This produces the phrase ‹my strength.› If a lyrical ‹I› were put into the text, then some interpretation would be needed to provide meaning. The instruction ‹twist› could also be viewed similarly, a word that, in the