Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tyson and Snowden talk encryption and more:
#11
Point of view.  
What good did he do??  How many lives did he save?  What war did he stop?  What "swamp" did he drain?  How is the world better for the knowledge that it's run by scum?  How has that improved the outlook of the common man?  What bright and shiny new future did he kick start??   ... What's changed??

You may settle for it all being worth it to out Howard and the Coalition of the Silly but it was a Pyrrhic victory. 
Historic vengeance at the price of 'normalising' the filthy games that go on.
He didn't stop the filthy games TA , he just made us realise how powerless we are to stop them.

And dunno how you reckon it cost us nothing, seems to me the extra millions poured into Indo at the time didn't come out of a Cornflake box.
Reply
#12
Well, I find that confusing.

Funny, though...this has not been a friendly season for whistle blowers.

I'm programmed to not be a 'tattle-teller" or a rat....

But there comes a time when it might be appropriate.
Snowden certainly made a sacrifice in doing what he did.

Anyway, I made the link to the talk because of how interesting it was regarding the science of surveillance and encryption.
Like i said, it's an interesting nerd conversation.

I didn't mean to raise any hackles.

In fact, I don't even know what hackles are.

One of the more interesting facets of their conversation was in regard to the nature of noise...background noise...and how we determine what is significant.

Pulsars, for instance, might be our most reliable time pieces.

I found the talk to be scientifically interesting.

Both men seemed well past petty politics.

Yet, wtf do I know?

Is that my ass, or a hole in the ground?

It could be naive, but i'm in favor of greater transparency.

I'd like to know what my tax dollars are financing...as if i had a vote.

Someone had to do what Snowden did.

The secret shit, so far, has never been up to much good.
Plus, we have laws.
Some are international.

War crimes should be taken more seriously, imho.
Take Kissenger, for instance.
There's a guy that me and Hitch (r.i.p.) feel the same about.
Reply
#13
Oh, I'll watch it Stanky, I'm not that 'hackled'. I/we? just took a different view of him down here.
Of course my lack of sjw genes probably skewed my view too.
Reply
#14
(08-02-2017, 08:04 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Point of view.  
What good did he do??  How many lives did he save?  What war did he stop?

He may well have influenced USA's decision not to get deeper into Syria, but whether he stopped wars or not isn't the point.

Truth is.

(08-02-2017, 08:04 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  How is the world better for the knowledge that it's run by scum?  How has that improved the outlook of the common man?  What bright and shiny new future did he kick start??   ... What's changed??

He hasn't changed anything on his own, but the more people who begin to understand the level of deception the west has been practising, the better chance we have of nipping it off.

(08-02-2017, 08:04 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  And dunno how you reckon it cost us nothing, seems to me the extra millions poured into Indo at the time didn't come out of a Cornflake box.

I didn't say it cost nothing - I said it was a pittance, and it was. A few mio here or there is completely irrelevant in the face of Aussie's budget. They probably spend more on lattes in Canberra in a week than the whole Snowden affair cost.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#15
(08-03-2017, 01:55 AM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Oh, I'll watch it Stanky,  I'm not that 'hackled'.  I/we? just took a different view of him down here.  
Of course my lack of sjw genes probably skewed my view too.

well, didn't mean to give you homework.
(There's almost no math in it.)
Reply
#16
I finally got around to listening to that Tyson Snowden interview and learned a few more things than I really never  wanted to know and wish I didn't.

I haven't really changed my view on what Snowden did but will concede it was probably down to good intention being oblivious to collateral damage.  .. and TA's views , there were quite a few,  especially in the cattle export industry who suffered big time from Snowden.
 
TA in an above post is confining the cost to OZ as  government outlay, but Indo was so pissed they banned a lot of imports from OZ which left thousands of cattle to have no future but starvation or being shot. 

They were those  thumping huge tough as boots desert breeds which are only saleable to the Asian market as they want stewing steak as protein for their curries and don't want fat in it.  It couldn't be sold to anyone else.  We'd only eat a fillet of it if it was on special and we were really desperate for meat.

But ... I diverge...

Snowden goes into metadata but what was released to the good ole blabberjournos at the Guardian was detailed content.  Not metadata.

But then it got interesting to me not because of the NSA and spying or the ethics of it all etc but because of an analogy that Tyson made about encryption. 

(I think in terms of 3D jigsaw puzzles, not in logical steps of scientific method, but I'm sure you're all aware of that by now. Blush )

It was when they were discussing hiding messages in the background noise that new pieces started appearing. 

I think it was Snowden mentioned that maybe all those aliens are out there communicating but we can't detect it because it's encrypted into the background noise of the universe.
 He was joking, it was an analogy, and it should be taken as that (talking to you Sparky)  but it's a damned interesting concept.
 
They discussed just how complex that would be to do as there is a pattern that would show up against the 'random' pattern.  But even randomness is impossible to generate by a computer.  That was new info to me.
Just programming it to be random prevents it from being random.  It always needs a database to work from.


But then that randomness factor led Tyson to how when  he, and presumably other scientists, are trying to focus in on one star in a cluster they are confronted with a blast of background noise and have to filter the noise from the target source from that emanating from nearby stars and the universal background buzz.

What he said opened a window on something else entirely unrelated that I've been chewing over for some time.  AI.

But back to Tyson.  He said that when they are filtering the background noise .. Sparks will hate this..  the 'noise' chosen to be filtered out is often  only that decided by the scientists to be coming from another source.  There is no way to be certain they are filtering correctly.  
Now I'm accepting that it's an exceedingly well educated guess, and am quite willing to be put  right on that if I heard it wrong .. but .. really?   It was an mmmmm? moment.

 I'm not arguing the science of that here,  only that it connected to other loose puzzle pieces, which led me to an epiphany of doom in the way AI robots are seemingly being 'programmed' to kill. 

... and that completed a circle which brought me back to the use of metada derived algorithms to gauge and more importantly predict, human behaviour.

Should I start a different thread??  

No bugger it I'd just have to repeat the above ramble as introduction and we're all confused enough already .

-----------------

I know zero about programming and robotics, but get the gist that they are building  autonomous robots to act as hit squads on targeted terrorists. 
                                                 
That's the military version, but you have to fear that like army vehicles they'll no doubt end up in some redneck SWAT squad's arsenal eventually, that's how it goes isn't it? 
So they'll just have to tweak them by taking terrorists out of the program  and inserting bank robbers or shoplifters or litterers as targets  if that bleak future looms.  ( Of course they'll only be able to do that if the robot allows them too.  ... I've read all the stories and seen Terminator, I know how that goes. )

AI boffins have hazily explained a few things which seem to indicate that the programming will incorporate algorithmic data. 

This will, as they implied, enable a robot to identify one bearded arab walking down the street with his bag of groceries whilst wearing a black robe and with his head wrapped in a black towel, from the other bearded arab walking down the street with his bag of C4 whilst wearing a black robe and with this head wrapped in a black towel 3 paces behind him.

.. no they didn't say that, it was far too nerdy and sciency for something that crass to be used as an example.
That's just how I joined the dots on what they were getting at.    How wrong am I? 

Mmmmm I wondered, how the hell are they going to do that?  

Algorithms seemed to the 'intelligence' that would enable the robot to define which arab was which.  

Here's the question about that.  Who chooses which algorithms define a terrorist?  .. not by evidence of plots and contacts, not by facial recognition, but by sight adjusted to add up algorithimic probability?

  Who filters what 'background' information out of the programming?  Tyson has a problem with it.  So, just what class of friggin' IT genius can read metadata to the degree of accuracy that can differentiate between those 2 arabs walking down the street??  Smarter than Tyson it seems.
Or do we just seriously bloody hope so??? Confused

How would those killer bots have scored in picking out a teenage girl in a Vietnamese village who was packing a grenade, from those just panicking normally?
 How would it have known which grandmother was feeding her 'cong grandson hiding in the scrub behind the village  from those who's grandsons were already blown to hell and gone in past squirmishes?

Let's face it, highly trained very intelligent 'commando/special services troops can't do it now, and couldn't do it then!
 
How much faith do we have in computer nerds and their infallible ability to choose only the correct algorithms?
That the ones they've chosen were ever correct to start with? 
That the correct 'background' metadata was accurately filtered and assessed? 

How much faith do we hold that computer programmers can define what soldiers on the spot can't?
That they can guarantee absolutely that their robot's program is superior in the ability to recognise the enemy among  the civilians?? 

Anyway if Snowden gained any value with me it was through his part in cracking my ignorance of how metadata really works.  And how even he didn't think through the ramifications within it.

Thanks for that, I think, now instead of worrying about bloody spies and government conspiracies I can worry about killer fuckin' robots shooting through the door instead.  siiiiigh.  Glad I'm old.
Reply
#17
(08-22-2017, 11:36 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Who chooses which algorithms define a terrorist?  .. not by evidence of plots and contacts, not by facial recognition, but by sight adjusted to add up algorithimic probability?

Liberals. Because they just know.

(08-22-2017, 11:36 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  How would those killer bots have scored in picking out a teenage girl in a Vietnamese village who was packing a grenade, from those just panicking normally?
 How would it have known which grandmother was feeding her 'cong grandson hiding in the scrub behind the village  from those who's grandsons were already blown to hell and gone in past squirmishes?

Let's face it, highly trained very intelligent 'commando/special services troops can't do it now, and couldn't do it then!

Just paint them all with a broad brush. Dead men/women/babies tell no tales. It's socially acceptable now. Twitter said so..

Worked fine for Obama. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/01/obama-drones-strikes-civilian-deaths
"Nobody should pin their hopes on a miracle": Vladimir Putin
Reply
#18
I'm weary.

Imho, here's how it all shakes down:

education.

thank christ for the internet.
Now, one needn't be an elitist, Ivy League snob to pretend to know anything. One only have a modicum of curiosity...and it's all there, at our finger-tips.

I have to keep tripping over myself to be pc with people that pretend to hate pc.
That's fucking ironic as shit.

Here's how it shakes down in America:

On the one side, you've got your hateful uneducated fucks that hate niggers and fags and love Trump. They tend to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, and that the Bible is the literal truth.
That listen to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly for truth. They don't read.
They love guns. They have a mess of them.

Of course, there are odd exceptions to this. There are always some exceptions.
But generally, what I just wrote is the truth.

If you find that uncomfortable, please, come visit me. I'll put you up, rent free. I'll even feed you.
Let you see for yourselves.

Meanwhile, you can't imagine how gross it is for me to hear people in far away lands, trying to equate these movements as equal.

It's not only utter horse shit...it's fucking dangerous horse shit.

And it's horse shit that will absolutely bite you in the ass if you aren't willing to shake free of this nonsense.

Our nasty assholes believe in Noah's fucking ark.
And they have lots of guns.
That don't read shit.
They have no clue what the Pythagorean theorem is.

They are stupid. That are afraid. They hate niggers and queers. They have guns...lots of guns...did I mention that?

Seriously...I can't romanticize this shit any longer just so a few Australians don't think I'm a dick.
I'd rather be a dick.

These idiots are dangerous fucks on drugs, and specifically, not psychedelic drugs.

You have no idea what it's like up here.

If you were here, the most right-leaning of you would become uber-bambi so fast,your heads would spin.

I'm done apologizing.

You need to do some study.

Or, come visit.

I'll show you around.
Reply
#19
stanky flexes his anti-Trump muscle.

I refuse to be a pussy about this shit any longer.
Seriously.

Even if Di quits speaking to me.

That's how strong I feel about this.

Fucking snap out of it.
Reply
#20
I've repeated my points over and over. You guys are arguing with shit that isn't being said. Repeatedly.

You're doing backflips over the shark. What's the point in that?
"Nobody should pin their hopes on a miracle": Vladimir Putin
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)