Ha ha, you are funny. You agreed that the head of state position has influence and tried to minimize the influence. Now you are back to claiming it's not influential.
My equations are not wrong in my last post, and you can break down the problem in either math or symbolic logic any way you like. You will always get the same result. Deny all you like, reality is in the mathematical expression.
I should thank you though, because in this little debate I have not only proved my thoughts but increased my knowledge of British Monarchical influence, power, and money quite considerably.
I think my bigger concern is when people make a stink about performance while using the open source driver. The open source driver is not a performance driver and never has been, it's a compatibility driver. If you want performance, you are not running older hardware and not running with older drivers.
I can see running the benchmarks to find out what works, but people will complain about and ridicule the benchmarks as given. That Windows can't run worth shit without proprietary drivers does not make a difference to those people historically, and we all know how certain companies fudge benchmarks anyway.
The problem with this is that what is that even going to accomplish?
Let me ask you a question: Do you really and truly believe that taking no action will make things better, worse, or will the corruption remain the same? In the best case scenario, things remain the same (being illegal and unconstitutional). Historically however, inaction more often results in things becoming worse. Inaction never results in things improving, at least for the recipients of the abuse.
Many constitutional rights violations are felonies. Convicted felons can not hold a security clearance and can not work for an agency such as the NSA in any capacity. Other agencies, such as the CIA and FBI, do have jobs that do not require a clearance, but depending on the job classification can (and often do) restrict convicted felons from filling those positions.
Any cabinet member can be impeached by Congress, and the reasons for impeachment include misdemeanor offenses. In other words, Congress can remove the head of the NSA, CIA, FBI, DOJ, etc... by vote. The primary motivation for impeachment is very sensitive to issues of Constitutional violations (see this for a reference).
The false analogy you provide, of "no punishemtn" or "go to jail" is simply not true. Being banned from working a career you have spent your life doing is a punishment, as is being barred from holding jobs or offices in the future, loss of retirement, etc...
We would probably agree that the punishment may not be severe enough. If you believe that doing nothing is a better answer, you are not thinking very clearly. Exactly why do you think we have numerous historical quotes from people telling you to take action? Like Martin Niemöller
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me
or Edmund Burke
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Honest question. Outside of certain Linux packages/distros and kernels pissing and moaning about loading proprietary drivers why not use them? If you are simply "using" the graphics card there is nothing against this that I can tell, just not recommended by Linux developers because it's anti GPL by nature.
I developed several (3) VR centers for a company which used professional nVidia cards and proprietary Linux drivers. Using Open source drivers was not even an option, because multi-pipe graphics requires syncing which is not available in the Open source drivers (neither is the port for sync on the majority of cards people use at home). 5 hosts each with 2 graphics cards for floor, ceiling, center, left, and right walls. We used the same commercial graphics cards and drivers for CAE and CAD applications, where 3D graphics performance was essential.
As a side note, you will be happy to know that Linux outperformed Windows in every aspect for Altair, MSC, and CEI applications and not by a little bit.
I could honestly see consumers being angry if they were charged additional money to run the proprietary Linux graphics drivers, but this is not the case. Sure, proprietary drivers are not available for all distros. Sure, an RPM may or may not work outside of a Redhat system. In those cases though, why not use a supported Distro with a vendor supported driver? If you are really in need of high end performance for an application the distro should not matter as much as the core OS.
I have provided scientific papers to back my opinion, and you have provided nothing except your opinion.
If you truly think your non-fact based opinion is more valuable, you are truly a moron. Grats either way, because your argument is not an argument but a deranged rant no matter how it's perceived. Go troll someone else.
I can answer some of this since I work in security and compliance as well as architecture of secure systems (software and hardware).
Is data protected by professional protocols and HIPPAA somehow immune to MITW packet data-mining by Google, NSA, et al?
If the standards are followed the answer is "yes". Data must be encrypted at rest and again in transit, so when data is on a wire it's doubly encrypted.
That said, there is no such thing as perfect software or hardware. The majority of errors are operator errors, but still count as errors. The only difference is that ISPs can be fined for server/software errors, and operators can be fined for human errors.
Further, read the thoughts of Lavabit's founder when he closed up shop. Not only was he required to hand over data, but he was ordered to lie to people about any investigation (not just a gag order).
In other words, "protected" should be changed to an additional question of "protected from whom?".
what is wrong and foolish is to say that b/c we see P-300 light up on a screen that means we can "read emotions"
Claiming that you have to be able to read emotions to gauge true/false narrative is astoundingly idiotic. I can't critique you any further, your idiocy speaks for itself.
And wholly fuck, nothing like cherry picking a sentence to make your argument.
123 Frank et al. explored in [31] feasibility of subliminal attacks, where the reaction to a short-lasting
124 information of 13.3 milliseconds was measured. Such stimuli, in theory below conscious perception,
125 could potentially be embedded multiple times in a standard, consciously perceived, stimuli and remain
126 undetected. Authors showed promising results of recovering whether participants were familiar with a
127 face, analyzing the response evoked by short-lasting stimuli hidden in the video frames.
Since you appear to be mentally retarded when it comes to reading, the reference number is in the first line of the paragraph. 680 31. Frank M, Hwu T, Jain S, Knight R, Martinovic I, et al. (2013) Subliminal probing for private
681 information via eeg-based bci devices. arXiv preprint arXiv:13126052. Do you really need me to provide a LMGTFY link so that you can find that?
No, it's not 100% perfect but to claim it needs to be 100% perfect to be abused is pure ans simple bullshit. Computer Malware is not 100% effective, yet it yields many many millions of dollars to people harvesting data illegally.
I refuse to link to all of the studies referenced in the link above because you refuse to look for answers and continue to argue from ignorance (intentionally or otherwise).
yes...show me some science to argue with (didn't see any in TFA)
If you truly read The PDF that TFA points to, then you don't know how to read. The referenced sources are all available. Skimming the summary of TFA is not doing the work and is not science. Part of my original quoted statement gave the name of one of numerous studies referenced.
polygraphs fail b/c they are not what they claim to be...and their failings are so well documented it's an insult to provide them for you...
We agree that polygraphs don't work, I have read thousands of papers and opinions on various points of failure, naming several commonly related points of failure.
At the same time, you are claiming that the use of EEGs are the same, and they are NOT the same. Read the paper and referenced scientific studies.
TFA and you are making the situation worse by projecting plot lines from science fiction onto reality
Contrary to your fabrication, scientific data is not plot line from fiction. If you wish to show proof that the science included in the paper is wrong feel free. Until you have science, you are still arguing with "nuh uh!" nonsense. It would be an insult for me to quote the scientific method to you. It would further be an insult to re-reference material from a scientific paper you claim to have read and claiming is wrong bases solely on an uneducated/unsubstantiated/unfounded opinion.
You either failed to read the article and it's references, or you are trying to deny science with statements that equate to "nuh uh!".
Polygraphs fail for numerous reasons, but most notably are the external influences such as strapping a bunch of cables to someone after stuffing them into a foreign location and being directly interviewed by people that are unknown.
EEGs in private devices used in private locations are not subject to any of those stresses. EEGs are scientifically proven to be very accurate (80-100%), and proven to be able to gather information at a subconscious level (no need to interrogate verbally). It's nothing at all like a polygraph.
If you want to argue the science with science, fine. Show me science to back your statements, not your opinion. If you are correct, you should easily be able to provide scientific studies which counter the material provided in TFA.
You are agreeing with me then, but seem to be arguing that an impossible to measure "degree of influence" changes the equation somehow. You are supposing a minimal degree, but there is no possible way to prove that. In fairness, it could not be proven at the other extreme either. (Minimal control != no control), any more than (Heavily controlled == Full control). Change those two equations and replace 'influence' and 'influenced' correspondingly if you prefer, the meaning does not change nor do the equations.
I never argued that it was full control, I stated simply that it is controlled (as in influenced). Further, I stated that the influence is legal and built into the Constitutions of the "Realms of Britain".
You are making it sound like the only person that could possibly correlate data from an EEG is a dude that is dead, instead of looking at the reality that the paper points out. Which is that much of EEG reading is fully automatic in many types of software. Sure, we have more to learn and the paper makes that clear. That aside, the portions we are sure of are very accurate. Things such as memory mapping (gauging yes/no responses by thought pattern), detecting certain disorders, detecting specific behaviors, and quite a bit more.
The only thing you could possibly claim is "wild wild west" is by looking at the lack of any regulations or controls over software that could potentially use the interface for malicious purposes, and possibly add in No possible methods for a user to know what just happened.
The paper, if you read it, also discusses the "Why" you need to do this (as most scientific papers tend to do). It is not just about building a method of giving the data anonymity, but telling people why it should be done. While a bit deep for some, I highly recommend reading the paper.
Companies are already trying to figure out how to cash in on your EEG data. What's the big deal you ask? Well...
Using more direct attacks to reveal EEG information, Martinovic et al. investigated in [28] how the
109 brain's response to a particular stimulus (so-called P300 paradigm) can be used to narrow down the space
110 of possible values of sensitive information such as PIN numbers, date of birth, or known people. The
111 tasks required the subject to follow the experimental procedure without explicitly revealing the goal of
112 the experiment: for example thinking about birth date while watching ashing numbers. Although the
113 presented attacks on the data may not be directly applicable to preexisting EEG data, as they require
114 fairly specic malicious tasks, we can expect | as the subjects participate in multiple experiments |
115 correlations violating privacy could be obtained from raw EEG signal. For example, when a large corpus
116 of the user responses to a visual stimuli is collected, it could be used in P300-based Guilty-Knowledge
117 Test, where the familiar items evoke different responses than similar but unfamiliar items [29].
In other words, and without the formatting and line numbers, people could maliciously collect personal information simply by providing you visual stimuli. They can do so at such a fast rate that you would never know what happened, such as an a series of images or questions displayed for a whopping 13.3 milliseconds per frame.
Yes, I'm cynical. That said, I also pay a lot of attention to privacy and how things are used. Because of those two things, my answer is easier. If you are worried about privacy don't use this type of product. At which point, there is no need to harvest data even anonymously. If doctors need to share data for diagnosis, there are secure protocols and methods of exchanging data which do not include having your EEG data on an internet facing computer. The best doctors in the world can't evaluate the results of an EEG in a split second, so taking a bit longer to share data is not going to change how long it takes you to get a diagnosis.
If you want to share your EEG with the world and have all your Facebook friends try and diagnose you, go for it. Educate consumers to the dangers and I have no problem with it. Every EEG device sold to a consumer needs a big old warning label "WARNING! Use of this device may result in your personal life being completely destroyed, including the loss of all financial holdings and credit(E.G. Bank accounts, credit card, social security number, etc..) as well as pertinent personal information that would allow someone to assume your identity at will." This can be done without you having any knowledge of the theft, and can be done within a few minutes of using this device..
Some may claim "Regulation", but I'll point to the TV regulations which ignores current subliminal inserts in video and audio. (You can question the results of those things all you like, but they do happen and get caught from time to time.)
Please explain given my Goldman Sachs example how that can possibly be true. Obviously I could come up with a few million more examples just as easy, covering any form of governance or commerce.
Are you really trying to claim that the Queen has no influence in Australia, or Canada? While I agree that day to day operations are not going to be influenced, as the head of state for each of those two countries you are a fool if you believe it's not an influential position. Technically "The Queen" has the same role in British Government as she does in Australia and Canada. It's not direct, I'll give you that. She's not a parliament member, I'll give you that (and by Australian and Canadian Law can not be). But her role (and the next British Monarch's role) is surely influential.
The members of the board for Goldman Sachs do not do day to day business with the peon customers either, but to claim they are not influential is buffoonery. And while I agree that this would elevate the Queen over her legal position in Canada and Australia, ask yourself how much influence a board members good friends have when dealing with Goldman Sachs and their own businesses. The answer is "substantial", and that does not change if the dealings are done subtly.
To back my original claim about violence to remove corrupt power, take a look at this map. Notice that all of the countries that are truly free of British power are all "former" colonies brought about by violent revolution. Australia, Canada, Ireland, Scotland, etc.. all still pay the royal family every year.
From a different Wiki article (emphasis mine): Australians do not pay any money to the Queen, either for personal income or to support the royal residences outside Australia. Only when the Queen is in Australia, or acting abroad as Queen of Australia, does the Australian government support her in the performance of her duties. This rule applies equally to other members of the Royal Family. Usually the Queen's Australian governments pay only for the costs associated with the governor-general and governors in their exercising of the powers of the Crown on behalf of the Queen, including travel, security, residences, offices and ceremonial occasions.. For a no power no influence person, you there in Australia are getting the royal shaft! (pun intended).
Please don't use "but the royal family gives away a million from their many more million pound salaries" as an excuse (I have actually heard people claim that the Queen's 36 million pound salary was justified because her and her family did charity work [and that salary does not include other revenue]). I tried to find out how much money the Australian government paid for the Royal family in 2013, and all I could find was politicians claiming that they were getting a bargain in the deal. You know, because the Royal family generates so much tourism for Australia and Australia has nothing else to offer. They see no choice obviously but to pay for housing, servants, lands, maintenance, utilities, travel expenses, security, and cough up a few bucks for their pockets just to have them visit every so often.
And sure, some of the money is recouped in sending tours through their estates. It sounds like a lot and may not be as much as the impression gives. It may not be the insane amount the Brits are paying them, but still cost you something.
The UI is the same thing as "usability", and you can't diminish that in the debate. If a race car has an engine and drive train that makes the car go 500MPH but it has no seats and no steering wheel, how good can it be? Okay, that's a bit harsh. The seat exists, but it has this odd protrusion that happens to mimic a butt plug, and the steering wheel is backward and hard to reach without the protrusion ride up higher. Yeah, you can drive but it's painful to do. Sure, in time your butt gets numb, but really it's not because it's pain free.
I thought of a better to word my statement after typing out the long one, at least I hope I did, and it's much simpler.
While certain former colonies of Britain (Canada/Australia) are mostly autonomous, Britain retains legal influence in those Governments. The extent of influence is varied, but does exist.
And, as I pointed out, in the vast majority of cases it wasn't violence by colonists demanding independence.
In the case of a few British colonies, I'll agree to an extent. As stated with Britain things get pretty complex because it was costing them more money to rule certain areas than they could recoup. There was certainly many causes for this, and some of it was due to losses of territory due violent uprising. We could also name piracy, loss of trade routes, and overall hostility (not necessarily violent) toward Britain. In other words, violence was surely a factor in all of the British colonies gaining autonomy though some were surely indirectly related (not themselves violent uprisings).
As a world wide phenomena outside of Britain's colony collapse, there are absolutely zero changes to power that were not violent directly.
Same thing I stated, but in different words, and you minimized a bit too much. It is not just a choice, there are certainly entry points into their governments that are British held, which is why I provided the link to the UK Monarchy (who has their own representation in these countries, not just ambassadors). This is not the same thing as Britain "controlling" them, but having legal influence and holding key offices has that effect to a degree.
I don't disagree about Scotland, but look at Ireland as a next step. Even though Ireland is on paper autonomous from Britain, there are many ties in politics and business back to Britain. Most aspects of their Governments are indeed their own, but Britain still has a lot of influence.
I did not say subject to, I said subjective. I realize the term is not the best, but I clarified the point in the same paragraph and provided a link to a reference. The Royal family has direct representation into the governments. Those representatives act on the British Royal families behalf, not the behalf of the Canadian or Australian citizens. That is not the only example of how these countries are tied to Britain, but an easy one to find.
And lets not forget what was already pointed out. There were hundreds of years of violence that resulted in the Brits giving up direct control of colonies. The power structure didn't just say "Fuck it, we don't want your money or resources any longer so rule yourselves." I'd agree that Britain and their former colonies is more complicated than that. Also quite interesting to study. The point remains though, that it was not completely peaceful.
Canada and Australia, while not truly British colonies still are subjective to Britain. It's called a "Realm" of Britain today and not a Colony, and sure it's more autonomous than when under British rule, but still by their own Constitutions yield to British rule in many areas. You may find this of interest and a starting point.
For the vast majority of free countries in the world, freedom was a gradual process.
Gradual has nothing to do with whether or not violence was required to remove entrenched power and move on their own accord. India as stated previously is a prime example of a Country which is no longer a British "Realm" or "Colony" and it took many years of violent revolt to get this to occur. Social reform in the UK took numerous violent revolts to accomplish, How about Ireland, and more recently Iceland.
Do you need me to mention Ukraine, Egypt, South Africa, Libya, in fact most African countries are still trying to remove entrenched corrupt power, we could say similar with much of South America.
Your gradual statement holds a shred of truth, but it does not mean that things change peacefully. It just means it may take a long string of violence to accomplish the goal..
I have no idea why you bring the sexual revolution into the conversation. Though called a "revolution" it's not! No offense intended, but this would be like discussing DPRK when trying to discuss what a Republic is.
As I said, if you want to claim it's possible to remove entrenched corruption peacefully show me historical proof that it can be done. Mafias don't just give up, even when people know they are operating. Why would corruption with money paying mafias give up? They don't.
We have numerous agencies in the US to investigate complaints against the Police. It's just as effective as the UK's IPCC, meaning not that effective. Their main job is to keep citizens quiet by pretending to do something. In the most obvious and heinous criminal acts by police they may take some action, but that's not even true with the IPCC who has a record of never convicting an officer.
It's kind of like arguing that the US needs a Parliament to manage the NSA like they do in the UK with the GCHQ.
Show me a free country that did not become free by violence, many of which were revolutions. France, USA, India are all examples. Many changes in the UK as you point out were the result of revolting citizens killing "Nobles", and this list could easily go on and on. In other words, as I stated previously, the only way to remove entrenched power is by violence. There have been no "Nobles" that gave up all their land and powers to the peasants because they were just nice guys.
I agree that not every revolution ends up as the best thing for citizens, but at the same time revolution is the only way to force change.
If you wish to disagree with that point feel free, but you need to provide historical evidence to show that revolt can happen without violence.
This actually supports the GP's point. Washington was a terrible military strategist who lost the majority of the battles that he commanded both during the Revolution and the French-Indian wars.
The point was not that Washington was a "good" or "bad" commander, but that the person I responded to said that "Army guys make great dictators". I demonstrated starting with Washington that that claim was absolutely false. I also included a great military commander (Eisenhower) in my logical proof.
In other words, you are arguing the wrong points the wrong way. Correlation != Causation and all that. If the only way to force change is by violence, the best people to do this are military, then it would be logical that most people leading after a revolt are military people. Whether or not that person is looking for dictatorship is not relevant to their military abilities (read what I stated previously on that).
Slashdot Mirror
Ha ha, you are funny. You agreed that the head of state position has influence and tried to minimize the influence. Now you are back to claiming it's not influential.
My equations are not wrong in my last post, and you can break down the problem in either math or symbolic logic any way you like. You will always get the same result. Deny all you like, reality is in the mathematical expression.
I should thank you though, because in this little debate I have not only proved my thoughts but increased my knowledge of British Monarchical influence, power, and money quite considerably.
I think my bigger concern is when people make a stink about performance while using the open source driver. The open source driver is not a performance driver and never has been, it's a compatibility driver. If you want performance, you are not running older hardware and not running with older drivers.
I can see running the benchmarks to find out what works, but people will complain about and ridicule the benchmarks as given. That Windows can't run worth shit without proprietary drivers does not make a difference to those people historically, and we all know how certain companies fudge benchmarks anyway.
The problem with this is that what is that even going to accomplish?
Let me ask you a question: Do you really and truly believe that taking no action will make things better, worse, or will the corruption remain the same? In the best case scenario, things remain the same (being illegal and unconstitutional). Historically however, inaction more often results in things becoming worse. Inaction never results in things improving, at least for the recipients of the abuse.
Many constitutional rights violations are felonies. Convicted felons can not hold a security clearance and can not work for an agency such as the NSA in any capacity. Other agencies, such as the CIA and FBI, do have jobs that do not require a clearance, but depending on the job classification can (and often do) restrict convicted felons from filling those positions.
Any cabinet member can be impeached by Congress, and the reasons for impeachment include misdemeanor offenses. In other words, Congress can remove the head of the NSA, CIA, FBI, DOJ, etc... by vote. The primary motivation for impeachment is very sensitive to issues of Constitutional violations (see this for a reference).
The false analogy you provide, of "no punishemtn" or "go to jail" is simply not true. Being banned from working a career you have spent your life doing is a punishment, as is being barred from holding jobs or offices in the future, loss of retirement, etc...
We would probably agree that the punishment may not be severe enough. If you believe that doing nothing is a better answer, you are not thinking very clearly. Exactly why do you think we have numerous historical quotes from people telling you to take action? Like Martin Niemöller
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the
Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me
or Edmund Burke
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Thanks for clarifying, I didn't get that from their post.
Honest question. Outside of certain Linux packages/distros and kernels pissing and moaning about loading proprietary drivers why not use them? If you are simply "using" the graphics card there is nothing against this that I can tell, just not recommended by Linux developers because it's anti GPL by nature.
I developed several (3) VR centers for a company which used professional nVidia cards and proprietary Linux drivers. Using Open source drivers was not even an option, because multi-pipe graphics requires syncing which is not available in the Open source drivers (neither is the port for sync on the majority of cards people use at home). 5 hosts each with 2 graphics cards for floor, ceiling, center, left, and right walls. We used the same commercial graphics cards and drivers for CAE and CAD applications, where 3D graphics performance was essential.
As a side note, you will be happy to know that Linux outperformed Windows in every aspect for Altair, MSC, and CEI applications and not by a little bit.
I could honestly see consumers being angry if they were charged additional money to run the proprietary Linux graphics drivers, but this is not the case. Sure, proprietary drivers are not available for all distros. Sure, an RPM may or may not work outside of a Redhat system. In those cases though, why not use a supported Distro with a vendor supported driver? If you are really in need of high end performance for an application the distro should not matter as much as the core OS.
I have provided scientific papers to back my opinion, and you have provided nothing except your opinion.
If you truly think your non-fact based opinion is more valuable, you are truly a moron. Grats either way, because your argument is not an argument but a deranged rant no matter how it's perceived. Go troll someone else.
No more of your idiocy, good day.
You obviously forgot to obfuscate your code.
I can answer some of this since I work in security and compliance as well as architecture of secure systems (software and hardware).
Is data protected by professional protocols and HIPPAA somehow immune to MITW packet data-mining by Google, NSA, et al?
If the standards are followed the answer is "yes". Data must be encrypted at rest and again in transit, so when data is on a wire it's doubly encrypted.
That said, there is no such thing as perfect software or hardware. The majority of errors are operator errors, but still count as errors. The only difference is that ISPs can be fined for server/software errors, and operators can be fined for human errors.
Further, read the thoughts of Lavabit's founder when he closed up shop. Not only was he required to hand over data, but he was ordered to lie to people about any investigation (not just a gag order).
In other words, "protected" should be changed to an additional question of "protected from whom?".
And here is why you are full of shit.
what is wrong and foolish is to say that b/c we see P-300 light up on a screen that means we can "read emotions"
Claiming that you have to be able to read emotions to gauge true/false narrative is astoundingly idiotic. I can't critique you any further, your idiocy speaks for itself.
And wholly fuck, nothing like cherry picking a sentence to make your argument.
123 Frank et al. explored in [31] feasibility of subliminal attacks, where the reaction to a short-lasting
124 information of 13.3 milliseconds was measured. Such stimuli, in theory below conscious perception,
125 could potentially be embedded multiple times in a standard, consciously perceived, stimuli and remain
126 undetected. Authors showed promising results of recovering whether participants were familiar with a
127 face, analyzing the response evoked by short-lasting stimuli hidden in the video frames.
Since you appear to be mentally retarded when it comes to reading, the reference number is in the first line of the paragraph. 680 31. Frank M, Hwu T, Jain S, Knight R, Martinovic I, et al. (2013) Subliminal probing for private 681 information via eeg-based bci devices. arXiv preprint arXiv:13126052 . Do you really need me to provide a LMGTFY link so that you can find that?
No, it's not 100% perfect but to claim it needs to be 100% perfect to be abused is pure ans simple bullshit. Computer Malware is not 100% effective, yet it yields many many millions of dollars to people harvesting data illegally.
You obviously think that reading what I responded to you is the only possible response I could have made in the thread, which is foolish.
Link to the reference comment here.
Link to PDF here.
I refuse to link to all of the studies referenced in the link above because you refuse to look for answers and continue to argue from ignorance (intentionally or otherwise).
yes...show me some science to argue with (didn't see any in TFA)
If you truly read The PDF that TFA points to, then you don't know how to read. The referenced sources are all available. Skimming the summary of TFA is not doing the work and is not science. Part of my original quoted statement gave the name of one of numerous studies referenced.
polygraphs fail b/c they are not what they claim to be...and their failings are so well documented it's an insult to provide them for you...
We agree that polygraphs don't work, I have read thousands of papers and opinions on various points of failure, naming several commonly related points of failure.
At the same time, you are claiming that the use of EEGs are the same, and they are NOT the same. Read the paper and referenced scientific studies.
TFA and you are making the situation worse by projecting plot lines from science fiction onto reality
Contrary to your fabrication, scientific data is not plot line from fiction. If you wish to show proof that the science included in the paper is wrong feel free. Until you have science, you are still arguing with "nuh uh!" nonsense. It would be an insult for me to quote the scientific method to you. It would further be an insult to re-reference material from a scientific paper you claim to have read and claiming is wrong bases solely on an uneducated/unsubstantiated/unfounded opinion.
You either failed to read the article and it's references, or you are trying to deny science with statements that equate to "nuh uh!".
Polygraphs fail for numerous reasons, but most notably are the external influences such as strapping a bunch of cables to someone after stuffing them into a foreign location and being directly interviewed by people that are unknown.
EEGs in private devices used in private locations are not subject to any of those stresses. EEGs are scientifically proven to be very accurate (80-100%), and proven to be able to gather information at a subconscious level (no need to interrogate verbally). It's nothing at all like a polygraph.
If you want to argue the science with science, fine. Show me science to back your statements, not your opinion. If you are correct, you should easily be able to provide scientific studies which counter the material provided in TFA.
You are agreeing with me then, but seem to be arguing that an impossible to measure "degree of influence" changes the equation somehow. You are supposing a minimal degree, but there is no possible way to prove that. In fairness, it could not be proven at the other extreme either. (Minimal control != no control), any more than (Heavily controlled == Full control). Change those two equations and replace 'influence' and 'influenced' correspondingly if you prefer, the meaning does not change nor do the equations.
I never argued that it was full control, I stated simply that it is controlled (as in influenced). Further, I stated that the influence is legal and built into the Constitutions of the "Realms of Britain".
You are making it sound like the only person that could possibly correlate data from an EEG is a dude that is dead, instead of looking at the reality that the paper points out. Which is that much of EEG reading is fully automatic in many types of software. Sure, we have more to learn and the paper makes that clear. That aside, the portions we are sure of are very accurate. Things such as memory mapping (gauging yes/no responses by thought pattern), detecting certain disorders, detecting specific behaviors, and quite a bit more.
The only thing you could possibly claim is "wild wild west" is by looking at the lack of any regulations or controls over software that could potentially use the interface for malicious purposes, and possibly add in No possible methods for a user to know what just happened.
The paper, if you read it, also discusses the "Why" you need to do this (as most scientific papers tend to do). It is not just about building a method of giving the data anonymity, but telling people why it should be done. While a bit deep for some, I highly recommend reading the paper.
Companies are already trying to figure out how to cash in on your EEG data. What's the big deal you ask? Well...
Using more direct attacks to reveal EEG information, Martinovic et al. investigated in [28] how the
109 brain's response to a particular stimulus (so-called P300 paradigm) can be used to narrow down the space
110 of possible values of sensitive information such as PIN numbers, date of birth, or known people. The
111 tasks required the subject to follow the experimental procedure without explicitly revealing the goal of
112 the experiment: for example thinking about birth date while watching ashing numbers. Although the
113 presented attacks on the data may not be directly applicable to preexisting EEG data, as they require
114 fairly specic malicious tasks, we can expect | as the subjects participate in multiple experiments |
115 correlations violating privacy could be obtained from raw EEG signal. For example, when a large corpus
116 of the user responses to a visual stimuli is collected, it could be used in P300-based Guilty-Knowledge
117 Test, where the familiar items evoke different responses than similar but unfamiliar items [29].
In other words, and without the formatting and line numbers, people could maliciously collect personal information simply by providing you visual stimuli. They can do so at such a fast rate that you would never know what happened, such as an a series of images or questions displayed for a whopping 13.3 milliseconds per frame.
Yes, I'm cynical. That said, I also pay a lot of attention to privacy and how things are used. Because of those two things, my answer is easier. If you are worried about privacy don't use this type of product. At which point, there is no need to harvest data even anonymously. If doctors need to share data for diagnosis, there are secure protocols and methods of exchanging data which do not include having your EEG data on an internet facing computer. The best doctors in the world can't evaluate the results of an EEG in a split second, so taking a bit longer to share data is not going to change how long it takes you to get a diagnosis.
If you want to share your EEG with the world and have all your Facebook friends try and diagnose you, go for it. Educate consumers to the dangers and I have no problem with it. Every EEG device sold to a consumer needs a big old warning label "WARNING! Use of this device may result in your personal life being completely destroyed, including the loss of all financial holdings and credit(E.G. Bank accounts, credit card, social security number, etc..) as well as pertinent personal information that would allow someone to assume your identity at will." This can be done without you having any knowledge of the theft, and can be done within a few minutes of using this device..
Some may claim "Regulation", but I'll point to the TV regulations which ignores current subliminal inserts in video and audio. (You can question the results of those things all you like, but they do happen and get caught from time to time.)
Please explain given my Goldman Sachs example how that can possibly be true. Obviously I could come up with a few million more examples just as easy, covering any form of governance or commerce.
Are you really trying to claim that the Queen has no influence in Australia, or Canada? While I agree that day to day operations are not going to be influenced, as the head of state for each of those two countries you are a fool if you believe it's not an influential position. Technically "The Queen" has the same role in British Government as she does in Australia and Canada. It's not direct, I'll give you that. She's not a parliament member, I'll give you that (and by Australian and Canadian Law can not be). But her role (and the next British Monarch's role) is surely influential.
The members of the board for Goldman Sachs do not do day to day business with the peon customers either, but to claim they are not influential is buffoonery. And while I agree that this would elevate the Queen over her legal position in Canada and Australia, ask yourself how much influence a board members good friends have when dealing with Goldman Sachs and their own businesses. The answer is "substantial", and that does not change if the dealings are done subtly.
To back my original claim about violence to remove corrupt power, take a look at this map. Notice that all of the countries that are truly free of British power are all "former" colonies brought about by violent revolution. Australia, Canada, Ireland, Scotland, etc.. all still pay the royal family every year.
From a different Wiki article (emphasis mine): Australians do not pay any money to the Queen, either for personal income or to support the royal residences outside Australia. Only when the Queen is in Australia, or acting abroad as Queen of Australia, does the Australian government support her in the performance of her duties. This rule applies equally to other members of the Royal Family. Usually the Queen's Australian governments pay only for the costs associated with the governor-general and governors in their exercising of the powers of the Crown on behalf of the Queen, including travel, security, residences, offices and ceremonial occasions. . For a no power no influence person, you there in Australia are getting the royal shaft! (pun intended).
Please don't use "but the royal family gives away a million from their many more million pound salaries" as an excuse (I have actually heard people claim that the Queen's 36 million pound salary was justified because her and her family did charity work [and that salary does not include other revenue]). I tried to find out how much money the Australian government paid for the Royal family in 2013, and all I could find was politicians claiming that they were getting a bargain in the deal. You know, because the Royal family generates so much tourism for Australia and Australia has nothing else to offer. They see no choice obviously but to pay for housing, servants, lands, maintenance, utilities, travel expenses, security, and cough up a few bucks for their pockets just to have them visit every so often.
And sure, some of the money is recouped in sending tours through their estates. It sounds like a lot and may not be as much as the impression gives. It may not be the insane amount the Brits are paying them, but still cost you something.
Ouch! No! Ow! Make it stop!!
The UI is the same thing as "usability", and you can't diminish that in the debate. If a race car has an engine and drive train that makes the car go 500MPH but it has no seats and no steering wheel, how good can it be? Okay, that's a bit harsh. The seat exists, but it has this odd protrusion that happens to mimic a butt plug, and the steering wheel is backward and hard to reach without the protrusion ride up higher. Yeah, you can drive but it's painful to do. Sure, in time your butt gets numb, but really it's not because it's pain free.
I thought of a better to word my statement after typing out the long one, at least I hope I did, and it's much simpler.
While certain former colonies of Britain (Canada/Australia) are mostly autonomous, Britain retains legal influence in those Governments. The extent of influence is varied, but does exist.
And, as I pointed out, in the vast majority of cases it wasn't violence by colonists demanding independence.
In the case of a few British colonies, I'll agree to an extent. As stated with Britain things get pretty complex because it was costing them more money to rule certain areas than they could recoup. There was certainly many causes for this, and some of it was due to losses of territory due violent uprising. We could also name piracy, loss of trade routes, and overall hostility (not necessarily violent) toward Britain. In other words, violence was surely a factor in all of the British colonies gaining autonomy though some were surely indirectly related (not themselves violent uprisings).
As a world wide phenomena outside of Britain's colony collapse, there are absolutely zero changes to power that were not violent directly.
Sort of but not really.
Same thing I stated, but in different words, and you minimized a bit too much. It is not just a choice, there are certainly entry points into their governments that are British held, which is why I provided the link to the UK Monarchy (who has their own representation in these countries, not just ambassadors). This is not the same thing as Britain "controlling" them, but having legal influence and holding key offices has that effect to a degree.
I don't disagree about Scotland, but look at Ireland as a next step. Even though Ireland is on paper autonomous from Britain, there are many ties in politics and business back to Britain. Most aspects of their Governments are indeed their own, but Britain still has a lot of influence.
I did not say subject to, I said subjective. I realize the term is not the best, but I clarified the point in the same paragraph and provided a link to a reference. The Royal family has direct representation into the governments. Those representatives act on the British Royal families behalf, not the behalf of the Canadian or Australian citizens. That is not the only example of how these countries are tied to Britain, but an easy one to find.
And lets not forget what was already pointed out. There were hundreds of years of violence that resulted in the Brits giving up direct control of colonies. The power structure didn't just say "Fuck it, we don't want your money or resources any longer so rule yourselves." I'd agree that Britain and their former colonies is more complicated than that. Also quite interesting to study. The point remains though, that it was not completely peaceful.
Canada and Australia, while not truly British colonies still are subjective to Britain. It's called a "Realm" of Britain today and not a Colony, and sure it's more autonomous than when under British rule, but still by their own Constitutions yield to British rule in many areas. You may find this of interest and a starting point.
For the vast majority of free countries in the world, freedom was a gradual process.
Gradual has nothing to do with whether or not violence was required to remove entrenched power and move on their own accord. India as stated previously is a prime example of a Country which is no longer a British "Realm" or "Colony" and it took many years of violent revolt to get this to occur. Social reform in the UK took numerous violent revolts to accomplish, How about Ireland, and more recently Iceland.
Do you need me to mention Ukraine, Egypt, South Africa, Libya, in fact most African countries are still trying to remove entrenched corrupt power, we could say similar with much of South America.
Your gradual statement holds a shred of truth, but it does not mean that things change peacefully. It just means it may take a long string of violence to accomplish the goal..
I have no idea why you bring the sexual revolution into the conversation. Though called a "revolution" it's not! No offense intended, but this would be like discussing DPRK when trying to discuss what a Republic is.
As I said, if you want to claim it's possible to remove entrenched corruption peacefully show me historical proof that it can be done. Mafias don't just give up, even when people know they are operating. Why would corruption with money paying mafias give up? They don't.
We have numerous agencies in the US to investigate complaints against the Police. It's just as effective as the UK's IPCC, meaning not that effective. Their main job is to keep citizens quiet by pretending to do something. In the most obvious and heinous criminal acts by police they may take some action, but that's not even true with the IPCC who has a record of never convicting an officer.
It's kind of like arguing that the US needs a Parliament to manage the NSA like they do in the UK with the GCHQ.
The US is one of the very few which succeeded
Show me a free country that did not become free by violence, many of which were revolutions. France, USA, India are all examples. Many changes in the UK as you point out were the result of revolting citizens killing "Nobles", and this list could easily go on and on. In other words, as I stated previously, the only way to remove entrenched power is by violence. There have been no "Nobles" that gave up all their land and powers to the peasants because they were just nice guys.
I agree that not every revolution ends up as the best thing for citizens, but at the same time revolution is the only way to force change.
If you wish to disagree with that point feel free, but you need to provide historical evidence to show that revolt can happen without violence.
This actually supports the GP's point. Washington was a terrible military strategist who lost the majority of the battles that he commanded both during the Revolution and the French-Indian wars.
The point was not that Washington was a "good" or "bad" commander, but that the person I responded to said that "Army guys make great dictators". I demonstrated starting with Washington that that claim was absolutely false. I also included a great military commander (Eisenhower) in my logical proof.
In other words, you are arguing the wrong points the wrong way. Correlation != Causation and all that. If the only way to force change is by violence, the best people to do this are military, then it would be logical that most people leading after a revolt are military people. Whether or not that person is looking for dictatorship is not relevant to their military abilities (read what I stated previously on that).