Computer Thread

[Fubard]

I find the last 7 words of the above post really interesting. I honestly think that's the key to solving any and all problems, be it computers the opiate epedemic of America etc etc. I'm going to have to research this further with my assistant tech @mr sunshine

Try "Extreme Disabled Midget Porn", they time it right and you get the money shot as they do a 720° off the top of a half pipe in a wheelchair....

 

[Fubard]

Oh yes, at the time it was painful. I'm far more appreciative in retrospect.

Actually the current state of data analysis is fascinating. My son, writes code that not only crawls those massive data sets but extrapolates many complex data relationships that have surprisingly accurate predictive value. So his argument, or whatever that last diatribe was is moot.

So not actually listening in on everyone every hour of every day, but only algorithms, etc, to target specific things. As I pointed out earlier, as I would expect any government to do, and nothing like what the loonspuds claim.

Thanks for confirming what I said, for that is a far cry from what the hysterical are saying...

 

[cannabineer]

Is that going to be at the same time that the country has enough electricity generation capabilities and charging points nationwide to ban diesel and gasoline powered automobiles?

Like with electricity use, the amount of data collected grows exponentially every year. If they can't do it now, they won't in the future, not at the current rate of growth. Unless they have a reason to look at you, there simply isn't the capability to monitor you, nor will there ever be.

But it's easy to ignore these small realities,.same as it's easy to cry about things whilst not realising realities. And that's why they're doing the best psy-ops op ever, they have you believing they can do things they can't.

Nice straw-man argument to take the discussion off what Annie said.

Consider two things:

1) Data are forever.
2) The techniques for vetting the data are growing at a steeper exponent than the data-gathering methods. I'll wager that inflection point came a decade or two ago.

Thus your electric straw man metaphor does not apply well.

 

[Fubard]

Nice straw-man argument to take the discussion off what Annie said.

Consider two things:

1) Data are forever.
2) The techniques for vetting the data are growing at a steeper exponent than the data-gathering methods. I'll wager that inflection point came a decade or two ago.

Thus your electric straw man metaphor does not apply well.

Except you forget that there is such a mass of data it would STILL take many a year to catch up, and your interest in midget porn a decade ago is actually meaningless, especially as someone else will most definitely have a record of it anyway.

So, once again, data collection overload is reached, there are better ways to get your hands on the necessary on the general population thanks to people being so bloody stupid in general, and the numbers being actively monitored are miniscule in comparison to what the loonspuds actually want you to believe.

 

[cannabineer]

Except you forget that there is such a mass of data it would STILL take many a year to catch up, and your interest in midget porn a decade ago is actually meaningless, especially as someone else will most definitely have a record of it anyway.

So, once again, data collection overload is reached, there are better ways to get your hands on the necessary on the general population thanks to people being so bloody stupid in general, and the numbers being actively monitored are miniscule in comparison to what the loonspuds actually want you to believe.

Your reply presupposes that the dataload is too great for our current systems to process. I challenge this. Your pejorative use of loonspud informs me that you aren't listening.

 

[Fubard]

Your reply presupposes that the dataload is too great for our current systems to process. I challenge this. Your pejorative use of loonspud informs me that you aren't listening.

Prove they can do so then, for they always admit that they cannot keep an eye on every potential terrorist suspect.

If they don't have the manpower and capability to do that, how in fuck's name can they monitor the entire population at will?

You explain that one, because someone's telling a huge fucking lie if they can monitor everyone but not be able to monitor even a small proportion of that "everyone" at any given moment.

I mean, if your "argument" can fall apart THAT easily then the use of terms such as "loonspud" are fully justified.

 

[curious2garden]

Is that going to be at the same time that the country has enough electricity generation capabilities and charging points nationwide to ban diesel and gasoline powered automobiles?

Like with electricity use, the amount of data collected grows exponentially every year. If they can't do it now, they won't in the future, not at the current rate of growth. Unless they have a reason to look at you, there simply isn't the capability to monitor you, nor will there ever be.

But it's easy to ignore these small realities,.same as it's easy to cry about things whilst not realising realities. And that's why they're doing the best psy-ops op ever, they have you believing they can do things they can't.

Let me be clear since you seem unable to stay on topic.

My job prior to retirement was working for a government contractor moving these large data sets.
My son's job now is coding to extrapolate data from these same sets.

It exists now.

 

[cannabineer]

Prove they can do so then, for they always admit that they cannot keep an eye on every potential terrorist suspect.

If they don't have the manpower and capability to do that, how in fuck's name can they monitor the entire population at will?

You explain that one, because someone's telling a huge fucking lie if they can monitor everyone but not be able to monitor even a small proportion of that "everyone" at any given moment.

I mean, if your "argument" can fall apart THAT easily then the use of terms such as "loonspud" are fully justified.

I don't need to; Annie has already given the key datum on this matter. You disregarded her argument to your detriment.

It appears to me that you like pseudo-rational arguments built upon classic fallacies some of us recognize. This makes you an unsatisfying interlocutor for either activity: arguing seriously with you, or merely having some fun.

 

[curious2garden]

I don't need to; Annie has already given the key datum on this matter. You disregarded her argument to your detriment.

It appears to me that you like pseudo-rational arguments built upon classic fallacies some of us recognize. This makes you an unsatisfying interlocutor for either activity: arguing seriously with you, or merely having some fun.

That was beautiful ::wipes tear, sniff::. I hope he enjoyed the cool breeze as it sailed past his cranium.

 

[cannabineer]

That was beautiful ::wipes tear, sniff::. I hope he enjoyed the cool breeze as it sailed past his cranium.

All I'm getting is the strangely soft smell of hot Bakelite.

 

[Fubard]

Let me be clear since you seem unable to stay on topic.

My job prior to retirement was working for a government contractor moving these large data sets.
My son's job now is coding to extrapolate data from these same sets.

It exists now.

No, I'm not moving anything.

There are simple points made that none of you have answered yet.

Please do so.

 

[cannabineer]

No, I'm not moving anything.

There are simple points made that none of you have answered yet.

Please do so.

Please specify and list these simple points that we have missed.

A simple point
1) must hew to the rules of logic: no fallacious pseudo-arguments
2) must pertain to the topic
3) Must contain actual, checkable facts, not conspiracist insinuations

Otherwise we are left with me asking you:
Hey, how did you fare at beating up your wife's child-molester?

 

[Fubard]

I don't need to; Annie has already given the key datum on this matter. You disregarded her argument to your detriment.

It appears to me that you like pseudo-rational arguments built upon classic fallacies some of us recognize. This makes you an unsatisfying interlocutor for either activity: arguing seriously with you, or merely having some fun.

No, she's only confirmed what I said earlier and what has been known about for many a year.

Which is a huge difference from the lunatic claims that every single bit of data in the US can be collected and analysed in real time at any given moment.

Of note is how you did not answer the part about how the entire population can be monitored, yet known potential terrorist suspects, a tiny part of that entire population, cannot. Neither will Annie. Nor will anyone else.

For you cannot without admitting your entire premise is built upon chicanery, paranoia, obfuscation and outright lies.

Or it's a conspiracy where the Government allows that to happen so they can impose more laws allowing them to do what you are alleging they are already openly doing.

Hmmm... I wonder which one will be the choice made...

 

[WeedFreak78]

The NSA’s Hidden Spy Hubs in Eight U.S. Cities
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/25/att-internet-nsa-spy-hubs/

Fuck em. Let em read that

 

[curious2garden]

Fuck em. Let em read that

LOL they already have, they own this site

 

[WeedFreak78]

Only to a point, with the absolute shite that the average idiot posts on social media in a day you realise that not all information is useful, not all data is equal, you have to sort the wheat from the chaff or you do end up with true information overload. The reality is people freely and willingly give the likes of Google, Apple, Twitter, PayPal and Facebook more useful info than the "Man" could ever hope of collecting as that collection of data is targeted.

The reality is that unless you say you want to "Scalp President Trump" (that's easy, throw a stick and his hair will chase it) or that you will "Sneak a SNUKE up Shillary's snatch" then, frankly, anything they MIGHT have on you, yourself, is what they use to cure insomnia, it is of no value, your midget porn fetish does not interest them.

As Americans, we have constitutional rights, such as the 4th amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It's a blatant constitutional violation.

 

[Fubard]

Please specify and list these simple points that we have missed.

A simple point
1) must hew to the rules of logic: no fallacious pseudo-arguments
2) must pertain to the topic
3) Must contain actual, checkable facts, not conspiracist insinuations

Otherwise we are left with me asking you:
Hey, how did you fare at beating up your wife's child-molester?

Still no answer to the very simple question you are avoiding, and he got his just desserts, shall we say.

So nice of you to take an interest in such a matter, shows how desperate you are to avoid explaining why they can monitor the entire population but cannot monitor every terrorist suspect.

Which is a known fact, admitted by every level of law enforcement up to Government.

Or we can apply it to narcotics trafficking, human trafficking, organised crime, and so on. They can monitor the entire population yet cannot get a grip on any of these groups? Hmm.

 

[Fubard]

As Americans, we have constitutional rights, such as the 4th amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It's a blatant constitutional violation.

That's one of these ones that's very much open to question as the 4th has not kept up with the advances in technology since that time.

What is a byte of data flowing across someone else's network?

That's why we all end up with clusterfucks called "Data Protection" laws which generally don't do that.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

.....3) Must contain actual, checkable facts, not conspiracist insinuations....

OK, we're pretty much done here.

 

[cannabineer]

No, she's only confirmed what I said earlier and what has been known about for many a year.

Which is a huge difference from the lunatic claims that every single bit of data in the US can be collected and analysed in real time at any given moment.

Of note is how you did not answer the part about how the entire population can be monitored, yet known potential terrorist suspects, a tiny part of that entire population, cannot. Neither will Annie. Nor will anyone else.

For you cannot without admitting your entire premise is built upon chicanery, paranoia, obfuscation and outright lies.

Or it's a conspiracy where the Government allows that to happen so they can impose more laws allowing them to do what you are alleging they are already openly doing.

Hmmm... I wonder which one will be the choice made...

Here is one place where you're slyly refocusing the argument from data analysis to data interpretation. Who decides who is a suspected terrorist and by what criteria?

This shifts the goalposts away from the purely technical argument I thought we were having, into the morass of a matter of policy.

ceterum censeo simply because you say repeatedly that claiming [that] the capability [is real] makes me and your other interlocutors "lunatics" (a lovely example of argumentum ad hominem) does not make it so. Aristotle would have never countenanced such a plain departure from rational discourse.