With the exception of JFK's Presidency, Presidential candidates have long focused on simple status quo management related issues.
As a leader. You would think the President would actually forge new directions for the country.
I'd personally resolved to vote for myself in the next election just to make a statement.
But if there was ANY candidate - Republican Democratic, or otherwise who had a firm plan for the expansion, colonization, and exploration of space and made this their central platform. And actually let the managers be managers and instead focusing their sights as a leader on forward looking goals....
I'd vote for that candidate in a heartbeat.
If several did.
I'd vote for the best plan - and add weight to whoever would be most likely caught streaking in the White House during visitors hours.
In any case. Holographic projection technology has long been available.
I'd like to see Microsoft release a holographic projection based console gaming system at a short term financial loss, with the long term goal of miniaturizing the technology and making it more cost effective and simply making it available to the public.
Microsoft can learn a lesson from what it did with the XBOX 360. It was the costliest research project the company had ever developed. For the first several years it lost money. But after four years though, it quite literally dominated the industry and within seven years, the revenue from video games exceeded the revenue of Hollywood movies. The company took a gamble, but the demand was clearly there and Microsoft knew it.
Similarly. You see a great deal of demand for VR right now. But what consumers really want is interactive worlds.
Why 'enter' a simulation, why buy expensive and bulky feedback devices, goggles, and other gear when you can have it all around you?
The Kinect provides the sensory mechanism to detect interactions and position information for programmers to shape sounds accordingly.
Now build a projection mechanism and you have a limited albeit fully interactive simulation 'all around you'.
No, I am not talking about the Hololens or the screen projections on walls. I'm talking about real, 3d projections.
Projected pixels in 3d space all around you, the gamer. A virtual planet, floating above your head in your living room. A HALO ring world you physically walk through. Scantily clad Avatars with swords in a lifelike version of Skyrim 2.0 walking through your living room.
There comes a point where technology's paced introduction to the population needs to be short circuited.
I'm a fan of and real big advocate of teaching people about Quantum Physics, and the observer effect.
Now as a programmer and executive in Information Technology for 30 years, there's a base assumption that Information Stored in databases is flawlessly stored. A bit's a bit's a bit and there's no altering that information when it's committed, right?
Enter Quantum Physics. And as you investigate the smallest particles of matter, there has been consistently demonstrated 'observer effects'.
Put specifically: Sometimes it's difficult to tell if a particle is changing because this is how it behaves or this is how it behaves under observation.
In this case here. You have investigators which first look for pilot error.
Biased observers are looking for information which might lead the attention away from this being a system design flaw, and point to pilot error. Other 'observers', such as Boeing, and the Engineers. Are creating quantum bias as well which also shapes the findings.
This shapes reality itself. And somewhere, a bit flips from a zero to a one through sheer collective observer pressure which creates a butterfly effect of making it appear like one person is responsible.
And in the end.
You have the Observer Flaw argument of the greater good. the collective finds their proverbial villain.
And one person takes the hit while the collective survives.
When the truth, firmly missed, is somewhere in between.
I wish you people would brush up on recent findings in Quantum Mechanics.
Again, as Audio/Visual and sensory based stimulus, they are leveraging invisible radio waves trying to find life that may have developed down the same exact evolutionary path as you?
Doesn't make logical sense. Maybe there's other civilizations which invented computers far earlier and never made it to radio?
Or maybe there's civilizations out there who have something called 'subspace' which leverages spectrums and signals your planet hasn't discovered yet.
Seriously, you don't see the flaw in logic that says "if I am looking for something you wont tell me what it is in a haystack, then I should use a magnet?"
Efficient? Perhaps. Practical? When you don't know what you're looking for and it's a piece of thread that's not magnetic. Let's be real.
Heck no.
When you narrow the possibilities of life based on a single solitary observational method, you'll never find life.
Most people who deal with intelligence don't consider wikipedia or wikileaks or anything on the internet as truly credible sources. There's too many holes, too many ways to create authentic looking content that when investigated lacks credible sourcing, and all these web sites are open and accessible and deployable by revisionist historians and conspirators and drama queens around the world - most with very clear agendas and a very good understanding of human psychology and many who have their own interests positioned firmly before the United States and her citizen's..
On that note - a quick FYI: The NSA existed in various incarnations since 1946, but never as an organization didn't officially come into existence until 1999. Yep. their web site says otherwise. It also states that the NSA specializes in codebreaking.
But the NSA actually does not own or manage their own web site and it's content for security reasons..
This is why - to me at least - it is comical watching the former lawyer turned drama queen who thinks he's a programmer named Edward Snowden in action. Smoke and mirrors baybee. The first rule of espionage: pretend there is no espionage. This should tell you a little of the extent of the rabbit hole that well thought out information management has on public perception when it comes to the internet and that which constitutes reality.
Now prior to 2003, in response to implementing portions of the patriot act and sharing information via CS - the NSA decidedly did NOT share ANY information with anyone EXCEPT the President. They selectively share it, but it's a well known fact the FBI has long operated with an agenda which doesn't always align with the country's and her people's best interests at heart.
So going back to your document about the secret cold war.
Let's be logical. The FBI's been tapping phones since J Edgar Hoover.
The FBI wants a scapegoat to make someone else look like the bad guy when they have had a very long history of privacy invasion for no reason other than personal gain. So they might attempt to shift blame to the new agency on the block - the NSA.
Or the article's pure rubbish and a fictional writer got published on the AP and spread out disinformation which had many people around the world such as yourself swallowing hook, line and sinker as legitimate news.
Minaret, wonderful fiction that might help a foreign country or entity trace down a chain of command to understand how information flows, but simply not true.
First, if you're a US citizen or Green Card Holder, or applying for a Green Card or citizenship you're on a passive watch list by the FBI.
This is a thought of as a protective service, an insurance policy provided by the government by investing in you, as a citizen to be a part of this country, and by you choosing to be a part of this country.
What this passive watch list means is - first and foremost - if you show extreme pattern disruptions and interruptions in your behaviors which can be detrimental to your health and/or to others around you - then there could be psychological or other influences occurring to you that may be the product of things outside your control or even awareness through foreign governments and/or malicious company practices and/or any other set of indeterminate and often obscure reasons which warrant FBI investigation.
MOST of these reasons are known as domestic terrorism, it's not sold as such publicly because of the connotation terrorism has with Al Qaida and Bin Laden and the sort, but the effects can be just as detrimental to a large population if not at the very least understood, and in some cases, the risk is mitigated.
Second, this watch list also actively monitors you while you're outside the country - largely because most people aren't aware of how much of a problem human trafficking is when they travel abroad and what the FBI does to mitigate this risk - whether you travel alone or with others. There's other reasons to actively monitor you while abroad, and personally I have been requesting the FBI announces this practice publicly for years and let this be an 'opt-in' service.
The FBI maintains an active watch list for domestic citizens and internationally people and organizations for a literally ever changing variable set of reasons. Back in 2005, for instance, that watch list included keywords used in phone conversations which use 'bomb and president and kill him'. That's evolved dramatically since then, and the list of reasons that you might go from passive monitoring to active all depend on the operation within the organization. This list is not just not publicized, but is typically very dynamic and based on the agency they are dealing with (ie: IRS, Homeland Security, President and/or the Oval Office, etc)
The NSA, like the FBI, is the same way with the dynamic list, with one glaring exception: The focus for the NSA is both prevention of corporate and government espionage and support of counter espionage research, and protection of informational and intelligence assets. So if you represent a credible threat to these, then I can guarantee you you're their watch list and I can guarantee you that your cameras and microphones everywhere you go are in passive listening mode transcribing everything you say and do. Other threats that the NSA pays attention to are largely new technology threats, which has the NSA paying attention to on the wire chatter and the development of new ideas and inventions that might create a risk to the CIA, FBI or NSA.
Central Services is leveraged to disseminate technological threats. Terrorism in any form is the FBI's deal, so Central Services is used to provide intelligence information for these.
The CIA doesn't have watch lists. Period end of story.
How do you determine if you're on watch list?
There's literally thousands of teams within the FBI alone each potentially operating in silos. And while the NSA is less silod, and more hierarchically based, there's no one single watch list that's maintained and largely it's hidden behind layers that even the best agent can't get to.
The short answer is: Unless you're stopped and turned away at the airport. You don't represent an immediate threat to the United States.
But you're not going to know if you're on someone's watch list within any of these agencies.
No one person knows. That's why they call it "Top Secret/ Compartmentalized Local Information"
My advice is to read the dictionary before commenting next time.
On Earth as I know it, we hear and see our environment and have structured a society based on that.
So what's the evidence of this type of society from afar?
Looking for invisible signals and scanning the sky with invisible signals that we 'discovered' and signs of development along the same evolutionary path as our own?
That's silly.
There's a question along the same lines of Shrodinger's cat hopefully you'll be able to understand:
"If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?"
If it emits no sound waves, then no.
When does it not emit sound waves?
A simulation. I believe the universe is holographic and I am in a giant simulation. I have found enough personal evidence to support this.
That being the case. If another civilization has developed the capability and understanding what a radio wave is, let alone how to properly react to it, then maybe they'll be found using those methods.
But if they don't want to be found. They as a society merely do not implement that method of discovery.
You're not a programmer are you?
For me. I would look for more direct ways to detect sound and visual organization and structure in these distant locations.
But then again. I am looking for life who thinks more like I do;-).
Thanks for putting succinctly what I said in too many words! No sarcasm, you hit the point I was trying to make on the head!
On that note, many might debate the sentience of animal life, until you see dogs and cats opening refrigerators to get food for themselves on youtube where you gotta question that logic. .
Tech branches. Let's say you have a culture where an event like World War 1 never happened. Or where they didn't have an Adam and Eve like figure who asked them to cover up.
How dramatically would technology differently had you gone down different developmental paths and never had world war OR clothes to contend with?
My guess is - dramatically different. So much so. You may not have radio or tv and may have different means and methods of communication.
Seems pretty simple logically speaking to understand this.
A brute force dictionary attack is the first method a novice hacker learns when learning to hack.
Combinations and permutations come next, followed by a little social data mining which leverages online information for numbers and to reduce the amount of words.
There are programs available to the hacker which will scrape someone's facebook and other social network accounts for data. then use this for brute force attacking which can be far quicker than a dictionary attack.
My point is: Online, the data you disclose can and will be leveraged against you if someone is that intent on hacking you.
The beauty of biometric information - finger prints, hand scanners, eye scanners - is you HAVE to have access to the physical person themselves and/or (in the case of fingerprints) things they have touched in order to perform the hack.
Now there are other ways to circumvent biometric devices, every device has it's flaws.
But t be perfectly clear: When you leverage biometric information and fingerprint scanners. You have just reduced the likelihood of someone performing a remote hack by 97%.
Now let's do the math: since the vast majority of hacks are remote and done by people you do not know or have contact with....
Let's say 99.9% of hacks are this way
And you leverage a finger print scanner to secure your information instead..
This is a no brainer. You've reduced the likelihood of any and all attacks unless the person knows you or has access to you.
Or knows how to leverage other means to access your data. (Which by the way, most hackers nowadays do)
I spent years donating my computing time to SETI, when I started to investigate how they did what they did and alien life on my own.
First and foremost - SETI leverages Radio telescopes for discovery of life on other planets.
Most human life - is visually and auditory in nature - so when I started asking questions such as 'why are they looking for radio communications and radio evidence of life, when there's a high probability that life on other planets which is like us may have gone down different developmental paths?
How do I put this in English. Radio is an imagined construct created through a collective agreement our population has with our reality.
Now what's to say - even remotely suggest - that life on other planets may have the same thought on reality, let alone have invented or messed with radio waves?
I know, I know the argument. There's certain imprints of civilization that should be searchable via radio astronomy, it draws a picture of the cosmos.
That's not entirely true.
It draws a picture based on our understanding of the universe. But if our collective understanding of the universe is myopic. Then SETI is the equivalent of looking for a needle in a haystack with a remote controlled robot while blindfolded.
Sorry. I don't trust anything SETI has to say anymore.
Logic suggests we need to look for evidence of visual and auditory beings leveraging more than just radio waves.
In 2009, I went to Cuba - despite it being illegal for me to do so - and not just because it was illegal, but because I had been to thirty five countries by then and simply wanted to understand what a country held that would make it illegal for people like me to visit.
A lesson learned in law.
So let me get this straight. The author of this article is using 'it being illegal' as the chief argument about why the app is nonsense?
What about actually trying it out?
Personally. I am not a fighter. But I break laws all the time. When I can't afford to pay for something I hop the metro. When my shoe broke and I had absolutely no money to my name I stole superglue. Such a felon, right?
Laws are there to guide the population. Not to dictate orders. If some people want to fight. Let them.
To the creators or rumblr. Kudos. You may be filling a need. And if someone dies because they engage in this activity. Oh well.
I took a trip to Cuba without government approval back in 2010.
Why? I have been to 40 countries, and with that much experience, I had plenty of chances to see the United States's influence, but I wanted to see a country where that influence hasn't legally occurred since the 1960s.
I will be honest with you though. While I wasn't fully ready or expecting it, I experienced backlash from it and an education in the process.
So let's be real. Somalia has quite the reputation for being a nation led by warlords with quite the disdain for American policy. and while that's yet another place I wouldn't mind visiting one of these days, I wouldn't be naive enough to think I could go to a country like that and not experience at least a little recourse.
The government is not the enemy.
So in the case that an American is fleeing a country during an exodus, let's be reasonable.
Wouldn't you question why they were there and are there any correlation to the events which occurred, no matter how remote, and their presence there?
And with this law suit, what is the goal of this individual? To get a payday for this perceived persecution?
The JPG format and EXIF information are separate - just to be sure that's understood - and the EXIF information is typically associated with any photograph file format (TIF, BMP, etc) taken from any modern digital camera.
In some cases - the EXIF information contains orientation information - which makes it possible to have technology like Microsoft Photosynth.
Photosynth stitches 2d images together to create realistic panoramics AND 3d views leveraging 2d imagery. Having the exif information to process makes it much easier for the stitching process to correlate position and orientation to the process, but isn't necessary.
What's neat about this technology is - as Oculus VR and other forms of immersive technology become more popular, you're going to see technology like Photosynth used to form fully immersive 3d scenes from real world locations based on 2d pictures people have taken the world over.
Now need for 'new 3d cameras or expensive gear. Cities are already mapped in their entirety based on existing photos.
Wht really cool is - geo and time tagging in photo imagery makes it possible not just to paint a picture of a physical location at a single physical period of time, but over a period of time.
What this means is - once the photosynth technology matures - not only can you see what a place looks like today. but you will be able to 'rewind it' to see a complete history .
Being honest with you, I am not really concerned about privacy at all. If you want to watch me and learn about why I do what I do, then feel free.
Slashdot Mirror
First and foremost, I doubt the NSA had anything to do with this 'hopeful' news release.
It appears like someone is more interested in placing a demand on the NSA to stop by this Sunday if you asked me.
How's that working for ya?
Ok....I suppose you've won then! Congrats!
But of course they dismiss observable life 'out there'
Can't be giving you humans hope and motivation to explore more out there than yourselves, can they?
I'm curious who and what hackers wrote that press release. Certainly wasn't NASA.
I merely mentioned a perspective and provided support evidence for that perspective.
Quit projecting your issues onto others.
Personally, I think Ahmed is incredibly like Achmed, the Dead Terrorist https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'd arrest him too. Just for that horrible name, The clock makes for a better excuse.
I couldn't agree more.
With the exception of JFK's Presidency, Presidential candidates have long focused on simple status quo management related issues.
As a leader. You would think the President would actually forge new directions for the country.
I'd personally resolved to vote for myself in the next election just to make a statement.
But if there was ANY candidate - Republican Democratic, or otherwise who had a firm plan for the expansion, colonization, and exploration of space and made this their central platform. And actually let the managers be managers and instead focusing their sights as a leader on forward looking goals....
I'd vote for that candidate in a heartbeat.
If several did.
I'd vote for the best plan - and add weight to whoever would be most likely caught streaking in the White House during visitors hours.
We're all complaners? Speak for yourself.
In any case. Holographic projection technology has long been available.
I'd like to see Microsoft release a holographic projection based console gaming system at a short term financial loss, with the long term goal of miniaturizing the technology and making it more cost effective and simply making it available to the public.
Microsoft can learn a lesson from what it did with the XBOX 360. It was the costliest research project the company had ever developed. For the first several years it lost money. But after four years though, it quite literally dominated the industry and within seven years, the revenue from video games exceeded the revenue of Hollywood movies. The company took a gamble, but the demand was clearly there and Microsoft knew it.
Similarly. You see a great deal of demand for VR right now. But what consumers really want is interactive worlds.
Why 'enter' a simulation, why buy expensive and bulky feedback devices, goggles, and other gear when you can have it all around you?
The Kinect provides the sensory mechanism to detect interactions and position information for programmers to shape sounds accordingly.
Now build a projection mechanism and you have a limited albeit fully interactive simulation 'all around you'.
No, I am not talking about the Hololens or the screen projections on walls. I'm talking about real, 3d projections.
Projected pixels in 3d space all around you, the gamer. A virtual planet, floating above your head in your living room. A HALO ring world you physically walk through. Scantily clad Avatars with swords in a lifelike version of Skyrim 2.0 walking through your living room.
There comes a point where technology's paced introduction to the population needs to be short circuited.
Bizarre, cyber. A little bit of research on Isis will demonstrate she's often regarded as the goddess of the female libido.
More than once, her sanity's been questioned throughout history.
An insult to the ancient culture? Why's that? Are you uncomfortable talking about sex or does it bother you?
Or do you just not understand Egyptian history?
I've long suspected Isis is actually the mind of the sex goddess written about in Ancient Egypt.
And she's merely looking for a little stimulation in the form of a fabled sex device in a world that's gone crazy.
Then you're not understanding Quantum Mechanics. Period. You have to do more than read text to truly understand it.
I'm a fan of and real big advocate of teaching people about Quantum Physics, and the observer effect.
Now as a programmer and executive in Information Technology for 30 years, there's a base assumption that Information Stored in databases is flawlessly stored. A bit's a bit's a bit and there's no altering that information when it's committed, right?
Enter Quantum Physics. And as you investigate the smallest particles of matter, there has been consistently demonstrated 'observer effects'.
Put specifically: Sometimes it's difficult to tell if a particle is changing because this is how it behaves or this is how it behaves under observation.
In this case here. You have investigators which first look for pilot error.
Biased observers are looking for information which might lead the attention away from this being a system design flaw, and point to pilot error. Other 'observers', such as Boeing, and the Engineers. Are creating quantum bias as well which also shapes the findings.
This shapes reality itself. And somewhere, a bit flips from a zero to a one through sheer collective observer pressure which creates a butterfly effect of making it appear like one person is responsible.
And in the end.
You have the Observer Flaw argument of the greater good. the collective finds their proverbial villain.
And one person takes the hit while the collective survives.
When the truth, firmly missed, is somewhere in between.
I wish you people would brush up on recent findings in Quantum Mechanics.
You would understand this better.
Dream on, Friedman
So using your logic, since it is written on the internet, it must be true.
read the above comment i replied.
Quit assuming everything has the same evolutionary path and receptiveness to your methods of discovery that you do.
Again, as Audio/Visual and sensory based stimulus, they are leveraging invisible radio waves trying to find life that may have developed down the same exact evolutionary path as you?
Doesn't make logical sense. Maybe there's other civilizations which invented computers far earlier and never made it to radio?
Or maybe there's civilizations out there who have something called 'subspace' which leverages spectrums and signals your planet hasn't discovered yet.
Seriously, you don't see the flaw in logic that says "if I am looking for something you wont tell me what it is in a haystack, then I should use a magnet?"
Efficient? Perhaps. Practical? When you don't know what you're looking for and it's a piece of thread that's not magnetic. Let's be real.
Heck no.
When you narrow the possibilities of life based on a single solitary observational method, you'll never find life.
it's silly i tell you.
Most people who deal with intelligence don't consider wikipedia or wikileaks or anything on the internet as truly credible sources. There's too many holes, too many ways to create authentic looking content that when investigated lacks credible sourcing, and all these web sites are open and accessible and deployable by revisionist historians and conspirators and drama queens around the world - most with very clear agendas and a very good understanding of human psychology and many who have their own interests positioned firmly before the United States and her citizen's..
On that note - a quick FYI: The NSA existed in various incarnations since 1946, but never as an organization didn't officially come into existence until 1999. Yep. their web site says otherwise. It also states that the NSA specializes in codebreaking.
But the NSA actually does not own or manage their own web site and it's content for security reasons..
This is why - to me at least - it is comical watching the former lawyer turned drama queen who thinks he's a programmer named Edward Snowden in action. Smoke and mirrors baybee. The first rule of espionage: pretend there is no espionage. This should tell you a little of the extent of the rabbit hole that well thought out information management has on public perception when it comes to the internet and that which constitutes reality.
Now prior to 2003, in response to implementing portions of the patriot act and sharing information via CS - the NSA decidedly did NOT share ANY information with anyone EXCEPT the President. They selectively share it, but it's a well known fact the FBI has long operated with an agenda which doesn't always align with the country's and her people's best interests at heart.
So going back to your document about the secret cold war.
Let's be logical. The FBI's been tapping phones since J Edgar Hoover.
The FBI wants a scapegoat to make someone else look like the bad guy when they have had a very long history of privacy invasion for no reason other than personal gain. So they might attempt to shift blame to the new agency on the block - the NSA.
Or the article's pure rubbish and a fictional writer got published on the AP and spread out disinformation which had many people around the world such as yourself swallowing hook, line and sinker as legitimate news.
Minaret, wonderful fiction that might help a foreign country or entity trace down a chain of command to understand how information flows, but simply not true.
Choose better facts, my friend. That's my advice.
First, if you're a US citizen or Green Card Holder, or applying for a Green Card or citizenship you're on a passive watch list by the FBI.
This is a thought of as a protective service, an insurance policy provided by the government by investing in you, as a citizen to be a part of this country, and by you choosing to be a part of this country.
What this passive watch list means is - first and foremost - if you show extreme pattern disruptions and interruptions in your behaviors which can be detrimental to your health and/or to others around you - then there could be psychological or other influences occurring to you that may be the product of things outside your control or even awareness through foreign governments and/or malicious company practices and/or any other set of indeterminate and often obscure reasons which warrant FBI investigation.
MOST of these reasons are known as domestic terrorism, it's not sold as such publicly because of the connotation terrorism has with Al Qaida and Bin Laden and the sort, but the effects can be just as detrimental to a large population if not at the very least understood, and in some cases, the risk is mitigated.
Second, this watch list also actively monitors you while you're outside the country - largely because most people aren't aware of how much of a problem human trafficking is when they travel abroad and what the FBI does to mitigate this risk - whether you travel alone or with others. There's other reasons to actively monitor you while abroad, and personally I have been requesting the FBI announces this practice publicly for years and let this be an 'opt-in' service.
The FBI maintains an active watch list for domestic citizens and internationally people and organizations for a literally ever changing variable set of reasons. Back in 2005, for instance, that watch list included keywords used in phone conversations which use 'bomb and president and kill him'. That's evolved dramatically since then, and the list of reasons that you might go from passive monitoring to active all depend on the operation within the organization. This list is not just not publicized, but is typically very dynamic and based on the agency they are dealing with (ie: IRS, Homeland Security, President and/or the Oval Office, etc)
The NSA, like the FBI, is the same way with the dynamic list, with one glaring exception: The focus for the NSA is both prevention of corporate and government espionage and support of counter espionage research, and protection of informational and intelligence assets. So if you represent a credible threat to these, then I can guarantee you you're their watch list and I can guarantee you that your cameras and microphones everywhere you go are in passive listening mode transcribing everything you say and do. Other threats that the NSA pays attention to are largely new technology threats, which has the NSA paying attention to on the wire chatter and the development of new ideas and inventions that might create a risk to the CIA, FBI or NSA.
Central Services is leveraged to disseminate technological threats. Terrorism in any form is the FBI's deal, so Central Services is used to provide intelligence information for these.
The CIA doesn't have watch lists. Period end of story.
How do you determine if you're on watch list?
There's literally thousands of teams within the FBI alone each potentially operating in silos. And while the NSA is less silod, and more hierarchically based, there's no one single watch list that's maintained and largely it's hidden behind layers that even the best agent can't get to.
The short answer is: Unless you're stopped and turned away at the airport. You don't represent an immediate threat to the United States.
But you're not going to know if you're on someone's watch list within any of these agencies.
No one person knows. That's why they call it "Top Secret/ Compartmentalized Local Information"
Compartmentalized.
Read: No one knows.
My advice is to read the dictionary before commenting next time.
On Earth as I know it, we hear and see our environment and have structured a society based on that.
So what's the evidence of this type of society from afar?
Looking for invisible signals and scanning the sky with invisible signals that we 'discovered' and signs of development along the same evolutionary path as our own?
That's silly.
There's a question along the same lines of Shrodinger's cat hopefully you'll be able to understand:
"If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?"
If it emits no sound waves, then no.
When does it not emit sound waves?
A simulation. I believe the universe is holographic and I am in a giant simulation. I have found enough personal evidence to support this.
That being the case. If another civilization has developed the capability and understanding what a radio wave is, let alone how to properly react to it, then maybe they'll be found using those methods.
But if they don't want to be found. They as a society merely do not implement that method of discovery.
You're not a programmer are you?
For me. I would look for more direct ways to detect sound and visual organization and structure in these distant locations.
But then again. I am looking for life who thinks more like I do ;-).
Thanks for putting succinctly what I said in too many words! No sarcasm, you hit the point I was trying to make on the head!
On that note, many might debate the sentience of animal life, until you see dogs and cats opening refrigerators to get food for themselves on youtube where you gotta question that logic. .
Don't think of this as a level of tech...
Tech branches. Let's say you have a culture where an event like World War 1 never happened. Or where they didn't have an Adam and Eve like figure who asked them to cover up.
How dramatically would technology differently had you gone down different developmental paths and never had world war OR clothes to contend with?
My guess is - dramatically different. So much so. You may not have radio or tv and may have different means and methods of communication.
Seems pretty simple logically speaking to understand this.
A brute force dictionary attack is the first method a novice hacker learns when learning to hack.
Combinations and permutations come next, followed by a little social data mining which leverages online information for numbers and to reduce the amount of words.
There are programs available to the hacker which will scrape someone's facebook and other social network accounts for data. then use this for brute force attacking which can be far quicker than a dictionary attack.
My point is: Online, the data you disclose can and will be leveraged against you if someone is that intent on hacking you.
The beauty of biometric information - finger prints, hand scanners, eye scanners - is you HAVE to have access to the physical person themselves and/or (in the case of fingerprints) things they have touched in order to perform the hack.
Now there are other ways to circumvent biometric devices, every device has it's flaws.
But t be perfectly clear: When you leverage biometric information and fingerprint scanners. You have just reduced the likelihood of someone performing a remote hack by 97%.
Now let's do the math: since the vast majority of hacks are remote and done by people you do not know or have contact with....
Let's say 99.9% of hacks are this way
And you leverage a finger print scanner to secure your information instead..
This is a no brainer. You've reduced the likelihood of any and all attacks unless the person knows you or has access to you.
Or knows how to leverage other means to access your data. (Which by the way, most hackers nowadays do)
I spent years donating my computing time to SETI, when I started to investigate how they did what they did and alien life on my own.
First and foremost - SETI leverages Radio telescopes for discovery of life on other planets.
Most human life - is visually and auditory in nature - so when I started asking questions such as 'why are they looking for radio communications and radio evidence of life, when there's a high probability that life on other planets which is like us may have gone down different developmental paths?
How do I put this in English. Radio is an imagined construct created through a collective agreement our population has with our reality.
Now what's to say - even remotely suggest - that life on other planets may have the same thought on reality, let alone have invented or messed with radio waves?
I know, I know the argument. There's certain imprints of civilization that should be searchable via radio astronomy, it draws a picture of the cosmos.
That's not entirely true.
It draws a picture based on our understanding of the universe. But if our collective understanding of the universe is myopic. Then SETI is the equivalent of looking for a needle in a haystack with a remote controlled robot while blindfolded.
Sorry. I don't trust anything SETI has to say anymore.
Logic suggests we need to look for evidence of visual and auditory beings leveraging more than just radio waves.
In 2009, I went to Cuba - despite it being illegal for me to do so - and not just because it was illegal, but because I had been to thirty five countries by then and simply wanted to understand what a country held that would make it illegal for people like me to visit.
A lesson learned in law.
So let me get this straight. The author of this article is using 'it being illegal' as the chief argument about why the app is nonsense?
What about actually trying it out?
Personally. I am not a fighter. But I break laws all the time. When I can't afford to pay for something I hop the metro. When my shoe broke and I had absolutely no money to my name I stole superglue. Such a felon, right?
Laws are there to guide the population. Not to dictate orders. If some people want to fight. Let them.
To the creators or rumblr. Kudos. You may be filling a need. And if someone dies because they engage in this activity. Oh well.
Like anyone would admit to who did it.
Remember the first rule.
Let's be realistic here.
I took a trip to Cuba without government approval back in 2010.
Why? I have been to 40 countries, and with that much experience, I had plenty of chances to see the United States's influence, but I wanted to see a country where that influence hasn't legally occurred since the 1960s.
I will be honest with you though. While I wasn't fully ready or expecting it, I experienced backlash from it and an education in the process.
So let's be real. Somalia has quite the reputation for being a nation led by warlords with quite the disdain for American policy. and while that's yet another place I wouldn't mind visiting one of these days, I wouldn't be naive enough to think I could go to a country like that and not experience at least a little recourse.
The government is not the enemy.
So in the case that an American is fleeing a country during an exodus, let's be reasonable.
Wouldn't you question why they were there and are there any correlation to the events which occurred, no matter how remote, and their presence there?
And with this law suit, what is the goal of this individual? To get a payday for this perceived persecution?
Sounds contrived to me.
Read: Fishy.
The JPG format and EXIF information are separate - just to be sure that's understood - and the EXIF information is typically associated with any photograph file format (TIF, BMP, etc) taken from any modern digital camera.
In some cases - the EXIF information contains orientation information - which makes it possible to have technology like Microsoft Photosynth.
Photosynth stitches 2d images together to create realistic panoramics AND 3d views leveraging 2d imagery. Having the exif information to process makes it much easier for the stitching process to correlate position and orientation to the process, but isn't necessary.
Here's the link: http://www.microsoft.com/web/s...
What's neat about this technology is - as Oculus VR and other forms of immersive technology become more popular, you're going to see technology like Photosynth used to form fully immersive 3d scenes from real world locations based on 2d pictures people have taken the world over.
Now need for 'new 3d cameras or expensive gear. Cities are already mapped in their entirety based on existing photos.
Wht really cool is - geo and time tagging in photo imagery makes it possible not just to paint a picture of a physical location at a single physical period of time, but over a period of time.
What this means is - once the photosynth technology matures - not only can you see what a place looks like today. but you will be able to 'rewind it' to see a complete history .
Being honest with you, I am not really concerned about privacy at all. If you want to watch me and learn about why I do what I do, then feel free.