Re: New Agenda
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 02:55:17 + "\\0xDynamite" wrote: > >> And you're conclusion is that they could find a needle of > >> intelligence in a mountain of hay? > > > > what do you mean by 'intelligence'? are you still dreaming of > > 'terrists'? (though of course you fucking statist americans are > > terrorists) > > I see, the government just might try to acquire data of you > masterbating in the bathroom. Just so it can have control over > anyone. I really should have known that. do you think you are mocking me with the "masterbating in the bathroom" bit? > But the truth is, that > while there may be too much power in a branch that would allow such > activity, it must get counterbalanced by another. However, skeptical > you are, that's the USA's DESIGN. > You've got to use the tools given > to you by the Law otherwise the tendency is for the system to MOW YOU > DOWN. oh - and? Now you swithched to the corrupt to the core nonsense according to which you have to "work from the inside"? First become owner of goldman sachs...then spend all the trillions you stole? > > Hence, fight club. > > > now, disregarding the bullshit about non existent 'terrists', are > > you askng if the 'govt officials' are too stupid to find > > information on anywone they want to frame? Does the question even > > need to be answered? > > > > But just for you : yes, they can find all the 'intelligence' they > > want to frame anybody for any 'crime'. Among other things. > > But the thing is, you have the power fo the press. If they start > taking you down for masterbating, what - the fuck - are you talking about ? >you can point out to the people how > insipid your government is for priortizing your personal "shucking the > shim" as a matter of national defense. Or are you saying that the > people are too stupid too and they'd sit idly? > > >> In theory, yes. In practice, they don't know > >> how. Perhaps they're archiving it for some future time however > >> when they have the tech. > > > >oh sure, they don't know how > > > > > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering > > BUT is EFF just a front for creating fear and doubt? oh sorry you're right. That article and anything like that is lies from terrists who hate amerikkka and want to create 'FUD'. Maybe they're russian trolls??? > More on that > later. > > >> >> They > >> >> cultivate and harness the feelings you are expressing so they > >> >> can live in that magical moment of power you provide. > >> > > >> > if you are a surveillance state with records of people > >> > all over the planet, do you want your targets to know > >> > that you have that 'capability' or do you want them to believe > >> > you don't? > > Shit, the secret's out. YOU know and have now posted it to an > anarchist mailing list. What will you do? hmmm? > > >> > in other words what you are saying is what a government > >> > agent would say. > >> > >> SHIT. Yet, in may analysis you are analyzing from the pov of a > >> paranoiac -- not an intelligent skeptic. > > > > so you are in the cpunks mailing list telling people that they > > are tin foil hat wearing crazies because they think govt > > surveillance is a real serious threat. > > No, I believe it's just a precautionary measure against the typical > abuses of power that occur and a chance to develop some cool tech. > It's not about being probable but about being prepared. I don't know what - the fuck - you are saying. > > > and you think using jargon from the supreme scum of the earth, > > the psychiatric mafia, makes you an enlightened...what. > > No. no what? > > > if anyone is crazy here it is you. You are clearly out of touch > > with reality as illustrated by your lunatic bullshit about > > religion and now by your views on surveillance which are, again, > > detached from reality. Or you are a fucking liar. > > No. I am a little bit crazy. oh ok. So you better keep your 'enlightened' views about surveillance to your crazy self? > > >> I'm wondering about it. I'm just saying there are powers that > >> people tap into without even knowing about it and that science > >> hasn't understood. Things like quantum entanglement. > > > > so you didn't mean anything coherent by the comment on flash > > memory? Just more hand waving bullshit? > > I mean something coherent with quantum entanglement, I just don't > think industry has really learned how to tap it (cell phones witth > quantum tunneling are an unexplored hoax, as far as I'm concerned.) the pseuco philosophical quantum bullshit is completely irrelevant when making ICs. The engineering oligarchy who controls the 'industry' and foundries know how to practically make flash memory or anything else. They also know how to backdoor whatever they make. > > >> >> Yeah, and joe sixpack isn
Re: New Agenda
>> And you're conclusion is that they could find a needle of intelligence >> in a mountain of hay? > > what do you mean by 'intelligence'? are you still dreaming of > 'terrists'? (though of course you fucking statist americans are > terrorists) I see, the government just might try to acquire data of you masterbating in the bathroom. Just so it can have control over anyone. I really should have known that. But the truth is, that while there may be too much power in a branch that would allow such activity, it must get counterbalanced by another. However, skeptical you are, that's the USA's DESIGN. You've got to use the tools given to you by the Law otherwise the tendency is for the system to MOW YOU DOWN. Hence, fight club. > now, disregarding the bullshit about non existent 'terrists', are you > askng if the 'govt officials' are too stupid to find information on > anywone they want to frame? Does the question even need to be > answered? > > But just for you : yes, they can find all the 'intelligence' they want > to frame anybody for any 'crime'. Among other things. But the thing is, you have the power fo the press. If they start taking you down for masterbating, you can point out to the people how insipid your government is for priortizing your personal "shucking the shim" as a matter of national defense. Or are you saying that the people are too stupid too and they'd sit idly? >> In theory, yes. In practice, they don't know >> how. Perhaps they're archiving it for some future time however when >> they have the tech. > >oh sure, they don't know how > > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering BUT is EFF just a front for creating fear and doubt? More on that later. >> >> They >> >> cultivate and harness the feelings you are expressing so they can >> >> live in that magical moment of power you provide. >> > >> > if you are a surveillance state with records of people >> > all over the planet, do you want your targets to know that >> > you have that 'capability' or do you want them to believe you >> > don't? Shit, the secret's out. YOU know and have now posted it to an anarchist mailing list. What will you do? >> > in other words what you are saying is what a government >> > agent would say. >> >> SHIT. Yet, in may analysis you are analyzing from the pov of a >> paranoiac -- not an intelligent skeptic. > > so you are in the cpunks mailing list telling people that they are > tin foil hat wearing crazies because they think govt surveillance > is a real serious threat. No, I believe it's just a precautionary measure against the typical abuses of power that occur and a chance to develop some cool tech. It's not about being probable but about being prepared. > and you think using jargon from the supreme scum of the earth, the > psychiatric mafia, makes you an enlightened...what. No. > if anyone is crazy here it is you. You are clearly out of touch > with reality as illustrated by your lunatic bullshit about religion > and now by your views on surveillance which are, again, detached > from reality. Or you are a fucking liar. No. I am a little bit crazy. >> I'm wondering about it. I'm just saying there are powers that people >> tap into without even knowing about it and that science hasn't >> understood. Things like quantum entanglement. > > so you didn't mean anything coherent by the comment on flash > memory? Just more hand waving bullshit? I mean something coherent with quantum entanglement, I just don't think industry has really learned how to tap it (cell phones witth quantum tunneling are an unexplored hoax, as far as I'm concerned.) >> >> Yeah, and joe sixpack isn't generating any useful data to analyze >> >> by your super AI network. So all that work for nuthin'. >> > >> > "joe sixpack isn't generating any useful data" >> > >> > of course he is - and here you show again that you are >> > either clueless or spreading misinformation on purpose. >> > >> > I'll let you figure out why totalitarian governemnts (that >> > is all governments) find it very useful to know what their tax >> > cattle think and do. >> >> I think you are onto something, but that "something" is not >> technological in nature. > > > I simply pointed out that your comments on surveillance were > based on wrong premises. Surveillance has fuck to do with > catching any 'terrist'. Well, there is a legitimate panopticon threat, but then the paranoiac is the one generating it in partner ship with the oppressor. So what is the way to defeat the panopticon. AFAIK, no one has published a way to defeat the panopticon problem. As far as catching joe sixpack fingering his neighbot's wife, I just don't think I should care. He probalbly should get caught, right? Now, in the case of juan masterbating (again), I think his o
Re: New Agenda
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 19:58:50 -0600 "\\0xDynamite" wrote: > > >> Have you ever talked to a high-level government official? > > > > No. But I've talked to a lot of lackeys of 'high level > > officials'. > > And you're conclusion is that they could find a needle of intelligence > in a mountain of hay? what do you mean by 'intelligence'? are you still dreaming of 'terrists'? (though of course you fucking statist americans are terrorists) now, disregarding the bullshit about non existent 'terrists', are you askng if the 'govt officials' are too stupid to find information on anywone they want to frame? Does the question even need to be answered? But just for you : yes, they can find all the 'intelligence' they want to frame anybody for any 'crime'. Among other things. > In theory, yes. In practice, they don't know > how. Perhaps they're archiving it for some future time however when > they have the tech. ... oh sure, they don't know how https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering > > >> They > >> cultivate and harness the feelings you are expressing so they can > >> live in that magical moment of power you provide. > > > > if you are a surveillance state with records of people > > all over the planet, do you want your targets to know that > > you have that 'capability' or do you want them to believe you > > don't? > > > > the answer to the rhetorical question is obviously : if you > > are a spy you don't want your victims to realize they are being > > spied on. So you lie and say you can't spy on them cause > > it's 'too expensive'. > > > > in other words what you are saying is what a government > > agent would say. > > SHIT. Yet, in may analysis you are analyzing from the pov of a > paranoiac -- not an intelligent skeptic. so you are in the cpunks mailing list telling people that they are tin foil hat wearing crazies because they think govt surveillance is a real serious threat. and you think using jargon from the supreme scum of the earth, the psychiatric mafia, makes you an enlightened...what. if anyone is crazy here it is you. You are clearly out of touch with reality as illustrated by your lunatic bullshit about religion and now by your views on surveillance which are, again, detached from reality. Or you are a fucking liar. > Which is why you'd better > making a path to enlightenment. Governments don't care much about > that activity. > > > "No one knows how to make flash memory " > > > > the hell is that supposed to mean? Do you think jesus makes > > flash memory? > > I'm wondering about it. I'm just saying there are powers that people > tap into without even knowing about it and that science hasn't > understood. Things like quantum entanglement. so you didn't mean anything coherent by the comment on flash memory? Just more hand waving bullshit? > > >> > the target of surveillance is joe-six pack, not any > >> > 'terrists' that only exist in the mind of fascist juedo-christian > >> > scum from the 'developed world'. > >> > >> Yeah, and joe sixpack isn't generating any useful data to analyze > >> by your super AI network. So all that work for nuthin'. > > > > "joe sixpack isn't generating any useful data" > > > > of course he is - and here you show again that you are > > either clueless or spreading misinformation on purpose. > > > > I'll let you figure out why totalitarian governemnts (that > > is all governments) find it very useful to know what their tax > > cattle think and do. > > I think you are onto something, but that "something" is not > technological in nature. I simply pointed out that your comments on surveillance were based on wrong premises. Surveillance has fuck to do with catching any 'terrist'. The fact that you aparently don't what surveillance is really about means you are either retarded or lying. > >> It shows I got high up at one point -- that's all. I probably got > >> it from being in jail, actually. But seriously, you're better off > >> following a path to enlightenment then getting super specialized in > >> crypto or anything else technical at this point. > > > > not sure if you're using the impersonal you, but I am not > > getting specialized in crypto anyway > > Well, what are you actually here for? i guess you don't know this but this list is supposed to be a list about crypto ANARCHISM. And so the main reason I'm here is POLITICAL. also "not specializng in crypto" doesn't mean I'm not interested in crypto and related technical issues. > > >> My writing is going to be wierd. It's true -- it comes from a very > >> unique journey across the unknown, but treat it/me like digital > >> sh
Re: New Agenda
>> No -- even though you haven't told me that you're not educated on the >> topic, which would make it seem like you can pose as a semi-expert >> without anyone getting the wise. However, I can tell through analysis >> of your writing. > > lawl - Oh wait - Are you using a super AI to do the 'analysis'? Ha, no. I wondered if you'd catch that though. >> People educated on a topic simply don't talk about >> the topic in the same way as those who aren't, except a few >> self-educated wildcards. Maybe you're one of them, but if you were, >> you'd know that it was bullshit (even AI gadgets like Alexa and such >> -- stick with Roomba-level and you'll be more accurate). so... >> > Ill spell it out for you : the AI bullshit I was > referring to is image recognition. Of course there isn't > anything 'intelligent' in it, it just works by brute force on > FASTER CHEAPER HARDWARE. Ah, you are right in theory. >> Have you ever talked to a high-level government official? > > No. But I've talked to a lot of lackeys of 'high level > officials'. And you're conclusion is that they could find a needle of intelligence in a mountain of hay? In theory, yes. In practice, they don't know how. Perhaps they're archiving it for some future time however when they have the tech. >> They >> cultivate and harness the feelings you are expressing so they can live >> in that magical moment of power you provide. > > if you are a surveillance state with records of people > all over the planet, do you want your targets to know that you > have that 'capability' or do you want them to believe you > don't? > > the answer to the rhetorical question is obviously : if you are > a spy you don't want your victims to realize they are being > spied on. So you lie and say you can't spy on them cause it's > 'too expensive'. > > in other words what you are saying is what a government agent > would say. SHIT. Yet, in may analysis you are analyzing from the pov of a paranoiac -- not an intelligent skeptic. Which is why you'd better making a path to enlightenment. Governments don't care much about that activity. > "No one knows how to make flash memory " > > the hell is that supposed to mean? Do you think jesus makes > flash memory? I'm wondering about it. I'm just saying there are powers that people tap into without even knowing about it and that science hasn't understood. Things like quantum entanglement. >> > the target of surveillance is joe-six pack, not any >> > 'terrists' that only exist in the mind of fascist juedo-christian >> > scum from the 'developed world'. >> >> Yeah, and joe sixpack isn't generating any useful data to analyze by >> your super AI network. So all that work for nuthin'. > > "joe sixpack isn't generating any useful data" > > of course he is - and here you show again that you are either > clueless or spreading misinformation on purpose. > > I'll let you figure out why totalitarian governemnts (that is > all governments) find it very useful to know what their tax > cattle think and do. I think you are onto something, but that "something" is not technological in nature. >> It shows I got high up at one point -- that's all. I probably got it >> from being in jail, actually. But seriously, you're better off >> following a path to enlightenment then getting super specialized in >> crypto or anything else technical at this point. > > not sure if you're using the impersonal you, but I am not > getting specialized in crypto anyway Well, what are you actually here for? >> My writing is going to be wierd. It's true -- it comes from a very >> unique journey across the unknown, but treat it/me like digital shaman >> -- wild but magically, technically accurate. > > though in reality you are mostly arguing for its own sake. YOU > said "the internet has been turned into the old medium" > which I take it to mean the internet has become an outlet for > the same old propaganda. No, it has become a medium for people to express their ego, not to connect to one another or motivate society. Marxos
Re: New Agenda
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:48:45 -0600 "\\0xDynamite" wrote: > >> Dude, I've done AI -- believe me, they don't know much beyond > >> keywords. Give me a break. You're still uneducated about it which > >> makes you an easy victim. > > > > okay - your first try might have been because you are > > 'uneducated' > > > > but now you are repeating the exact 'uneducated' bullshit > > so at this point you can't be just stupid, your have malicious > > intent. > > No -- even though you haven't told me that you're not educated on the > topic, which would make it seem like you can pose as a semi-expert > without anyone getting the wise. However, I can tell through analysis > of your writing. lawl - Oh wait - Are you using a super AI to do the 'analysis'? > People educated on a topic simply don't talk about > the topic in the same way as those who aren't, except a few > self-educated wildcards. Maybe you're one of them, but if you were, > you'd know that it was bullshit (even AI gadgets like Alexa and such > -- stick with Roomba-level and you'll be more accurate). so... I originally referred to AI BULLSHIT. Looks like your "writing analysis" doesn't include basic reading on your part. Ill spell it out for you : the AI bullshit I was referring to is image recognition. Of course there isn't anything 'intelligent' in it, it just works by brute force on FASTER CHEAPER HARDWARE. > > > so no, I don't believe your government propaganda of the > > form "trust me! they are inept!" > > You may believe the media hype but most of it is just that: hype. what hype - oh you mean a couple of half honest reports once in a while to keep some illusion of the 'press' being 'independent' - LMAO. such political 'education' coming from you... > Have you ever talked to a high-level government official? No. But I've talked to a lot of lackeys of 'high level officials'. > They > cultivate and harness the feelings you are expressing so they can live > in that magical moment of power you provide. if you are a surveillance state with records of people all over the planet, do you want your targets to know that you have that 'capability' or do you want them to believe you don't? the answer to the rhetorical question is obviously : if you are a spy you don't want your victims to realize they are being spied on. So you lie and say you can't spy on them cause it's 'too expensive'. in other words what you are saying is what a government agent would say. > > >> > and even without that 'neural network' bullshit, you > >> > think they can't index text? Or record audio? etc etc etc > >> > >> No, the cost is too high. > > > > thanks. I was about to made that exact point. You saved me > > half the trouble. > > > > As a matter of FUCKING, VERY IMPORTANT FACT, the price of > > electronic garbage for spying keeps going down by the > > minute. 'Processing power' gets cheaper and cheaper by the minute > > while the amount of people to surveil remains pretty much > > constant. Do you get that, you 'expert' on 'artificial > > intelligence' from 'mit' ? > > It sure seems like it. because it is like it. Again, do you have any basic grasp of simple counting, trends and historical data? Hardware is ridiculously cheap and there are spying devices everywhere. Fucktards even use them 'voluntarily'. > But a lot of it works on pixie dust -- people, > like you, who believe in the enormous power of it all. No one knows > how to make flash memory for example. Research it. "No one knows how to make flash memory " the hell is that supposed to mean? Do you think jesus makes flash memory? > > >> Once they filter all of the data with the > >> best AI, they still have months of work to do which mostly ends up > >> as worthless because in the end terrorists aren't using the > >> network. > > > > you can't be so fuking stupid? What TERRORISTS are you > > talking about? There are NONE. > > > > the target of surveillance is joe-six pack, not any > > 'terrists' that only exist in the mind of fascist juedo-christian > > scum from the 'developed world'. > > Yeah, and joe sixpack isn't generating any useful data to analyze by > your super AI network. So all that work for nuthin'. I first mentioned "AI bullshit" (not super network) and now I further clarified what I meant by that. "joe sixpack isn't generating any useful data" of course he is - and here you show again that you are either clueless or spreading misinformation on purpose. I'll let you figure out why totalitarian governemnts (that is al
Re: New Agenda
> On Feb 22, 2018, at 3:58 PM, \0xDynamite wrote: > > You have a point, but the truth that no one wants to admit is that > they don't have the resources nor the expertise to create "complete > global surveillance". Don't get paranoid -- get educated & get HARD. Which website will get me HARD? I didn’t see any porn or anything else substantive on the link you gave... I will say this for newer protocols over stuff like email: there is often the option for encryption (you can obviously encrypt your direct pop or imap or even smtp connection to your outgoing mail server, but almost certainly it will be transferred in the clear between mail servers). HTTPS is end to end encrypted without any need to bounce the web page around the net in the clear. > The website I gave you will do exactly that. > > \0xd
Re: New Agenda
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 16:31:17 -0600 "\\0xDynamite" wrote: > >> You have a point, but the truth that no one wants to admit is that > >> they don't have the resources nor the expertise to create "complete > >> global surveillance". > > > > of course they do - what do you think the 'artificial > > intelligence' bullshit is all about? > > Dude, I've done AI -- believe me, they don't know much beyond > keywords. Give me a break. You're still uneducated about it which > makes you an easy victim. okay - your first try might have been because you are 'uneducated' but now you are repeating the exact 'uneducated' bullshit so at this point you can't be just stupid, your have malicious intent. so no, I don't believe your government propaganda of the form "trust me! they are inept!" > > > and even without that 'neural network' bullshit, you think > > they can't index text? Or record audio? etc etc etc > > No, the cost is too high. thanks. I was about to made that exact point. You saved me half the trouble. As a matter of FUCKING, VERY IMPORTANT FACT, the price of electronic garbage for spying keeps going down by the minute. 'Processing power' gets cheaper and cheaper by the minute while the amount of people to surveil remains pretty much constant. Do you get that, you 'expert' on 'artificial intelligence' from 'mit' ? > Once they filter all of the data with the > best AI, they still have months of work to do which mostly ends up as > worthless because in the end terrorists aren't using the network. you can't be so fuking stupid? What TERRORISTS are you talking about? There are NONE. the target of surveillance is joe-six pack, not any 'terrists' that only exist in the mind of fascist juedo-christian scum from the 'developed world'. > > >> Don't get paranoid -- get educated & get HARD. > > > > get educated about what? the true nature and scope of > > surveillance and government? > > Yes, you're still living on 90's level understanding. sure that coming from an american statist, lunatic jew-kkkristian who has written a bunch of nonsense straight out from the pentagon. oh don't worry, just don't forget to "open a New Private Window". > And government > you seem not to understand at all (but then neither do the > incumbants). > > Marxos
Re: New Agenda
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:58:17 -0600 "\\0xDynamite" wrote: > You have a point, but the truth that no one wants to admit is that > they don't have the resources nor the expertise to create "complete > global surveillance". of course they do - what do you think the 'artificial intelligence' bullshit is all about? and even without that 'neural network' bullshit, you think they can't index text? Or record audio? etc etc etc > Don't get paranoid -- get educated & get HARD. get educated about what? the true nature and scope of surveillance and government? > The website I gave you will do exactly that. > > \0xd
Re: New Agenda
You have a point, but the truth that no one wants to admit is that they don't have the resources nor the expertise to create "complete global surveillance". Don't get paranoid -- get educated & get HARD. The website I gave you will do exactly that. \0xd
Re: New Agenda
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:32:12 -0600 "\\0xDynamite" wrote: > the internet has been effectively turned into the old medium > JUST AS PREDICTED (by Marshall McLuhan). not really. The internet is a LOT WORSE than the old medium since, you know, the internet also implies complete global surveillance. > > The website given will take the revolution out of the virtual and > INTO THE REAL. > > Marxos > > P/S Punks and cyberpunks only. LOL
