Archive for the ‘technology’ Category

Twitter: Free Speech for anti-Trump gov users but shadow-bans Dilbert

April 10, 2017

Vice reports Twitter’s win against a request from DOJ to unmask the users behind a Twitter account that is appropriate used by a group of anti-Trump government employees, @ALT_uscis.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/alt-twitter-account-trump-customs-lawsuit

The report has a gleeful tone to it that some big guns lawyers lined up to oppose the “administrative warrant” against the government.

The problem here is not that the government surveillance state was pushed back, but the raging hypocrisy of Twitter executives in their justification for this “principled” stand.

Twitter’s “scathing letter of objection includes this gem:

“Attempts to unmask anonymous online speakers in the absence of a prima facie defamation claim are improper and would chill the First Amendment rights of speakers who use Twitter’s platform to express their thoughts and ideas instantly and publicly, without barriers.”

Now, that is a gem, in isolation as such. Free speech and all.

But Twitter’s actions against users who want to use Twitter as a “platform to express their thoughts and ideas instantly and publicly, without barriers.”, speak louder than these words.

Banning the expressions of effective speech by other users exposing selected crimes by Deep State operatives, including revelations of the Obama team’s illegal unmasking and surveillance of Trump campaign, and the rest of us.

And then there’s the shadow banning of dissident voices of opposition to shadow government and other instances of Deep-State crimes and ridicule against its propaganda.

So it just depends on which part of Deep State Twitter decides to support. In other words, Twitter has picked one of the two sides in the internecine tug of war inside the State.

I mean shadow-banning Dilbert, Twitter? Really? Champion of free speech?state

Nothing hidden, said Jesus,  that will not be known abroad…

 

Words Against the Empire

March 16, 2017

We can use These mind-benders’ propaganda against them. Use their books and movies against them. I noticed a long time ago that often, the very villains and villainous tyrants in their stories, were of their own operatives. The “bad” guys work for “bad” institutions but they are the very ones they plan to implement.

Panem is an example. Another example of their psy-op is the movie Mannequin. In an illusionist type trick, the focus is on the guy and his romance with the likened Mannequin. But there was a “supporting character” called “Hollywood” who was a funny, caricatures gay man. This was a step in the guided evolution of the theatrical homosexual to come through stages. A wise counselor as best friend, then central characters, and now every TV series has to have one. Oh, and references to homosexual pairings as marriages now. And white males are the stupidest characters, the clueless, and see the recent series and movies, the boss of the most kick-ass special forces teams are becoming women.

The public is not readied yet, but soon we will have a James Bond type or super hero male gay. Ugh. Too much. Although some studies of emergency intake suggest higher rates of domestic abuse among them.

They have an army of human robots programmed now to accept mindware modifications. We must release them from the mind lock using the various tools as much as possible. This use of the Matrix lesson is one, another is lobbing their own stink words back at them like we did with “fake news”. Another is to throw our own truth stinks like using words that point to outed events, subterfuges like Mockingbird Media, Jekyll Island, Doublespeak, Newspeak, MK Ultra, Operation Paperclip, Jeffrey Epstein, Gulf of Tonkin resolution, USS Liberty, Soros, Rockefeller Foundation, Tides, Verona Papers, Echelon, Al Gore’s Carnivore.

Coordination among media is easy to show in things like the collage of the spring in the Ease Bunny’s step. You gotta ask about the Big Media saying the same thing in unanimity so much. They agree so much, beyond reason.

Was it the Russians that did THIS?

January 11, 2017

Somebody must have told him, say this OR ELSE.

Who in their right mind would believe that professional state Russian cyber-hackers would make sure to leave evidence they were there? Use a script you downloaded from a hackers’ dark net web page, run it, then Done and Gone. Oh, but make sure you leave behind your signature? 

At least the Georgia elections board caught them in the act, because the Georgia Secretary of State they traced a connection back to an IP address in a range that belonged to the Department of Homeland Security in Washington, D. C. Now that is language that “techies” understand as real evidence. There is NOTHING like this anybody is talking about in the CIA report. Obama wanted a conclusion just like George W. Bush did, but the CIA I notice did not put any real proof in there that anybody could verify or verify wrong.

Did the Russians make the Clinton campaign comments that Catholics should change their religion?

Did the Russians tell Podesta’s guru witch to invite the Clinton campaign executive to a coven ceremony with disgusting bodily fluids and kids for entertainment?

Did the Russians produce “Clinton Cash”, a movie exposing the rot and corruption of the Clinton Crime Family?

Did the Russians force the Clinton gang to say Latinos are “desperate” and clingy?

Did the Russians set up an unprotected private server in the Clinton bathroom and make her send unsecured emails with State Department secrets?

Did the Russians write the talking points when Clinton called half the country names like deplorables, racists, misogynists, homophobes and worse?

Did the Russians make sure Clinton supported the HATED Obama policies?

Did the Russians hack into Clinton’s mouth and make her say she would keep Obamacare?

Did the Russians hack into Clinton’s brain and make her say she would add a trillion-dollar freebie program to make community college free for everybody, making even more indoctrinated college kids?

Did the Russians pay the Clinton campaign to pay homeless and poor to start fistfights and provoke violence at Trump rallies?

Did the Russians hire the thugs that shut down the Trump rally in Chicago in the operation personally approved by candidate Clinton?

Was it the Russians that made Clinton throw lamps at staffers after debates?

Was it the Russians that made people sick and tired and outraged at being slandered at every turn by the Administration?

Did the Russians stop the Jezebel from augmenting security in Benghazi?

Did the Russians make Hillary send arms to al Qaeda to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and obliterate the entire town of Towargah with its 10,000 blacks, a GENOCIDE, and turn it into the hellhole and ISIS turf it is today?

Did the Russians invite Hillary Clinton to send arms and support to ISIS in Russia, through Saudi and other Arab intermediates, then call for dogfights over no-fly zones in Syria?

Was it the Russians who refused to coordinate anti-terrorist strategy in Syria with the United States, or was it the Obama-Clinton administrations?

Was it the Russians who campaigned for another Cold War instead of finding a way to have peace?

Was it the Russians who wanted to get rid of Assad, the best protector of Christians in the Arab world?

Was it the Russians who staged a false flag attack by the Obama-Clinton supported “moderate” rebels in Syria against civilians and tried to blame it on Assad?

Was it the Russians who made Clinton send McCain to a photo opp with “moderate” Syrian rebels, one of which was exposed as ISIS later?

Was it the Russians that were outed as serial rapist and sex abuser married to candidate Clinton by a long parade of the husband’s victims?

WAS IT THE RUSSIANS WHO HAVE TURNED AMERICA’S BIG CORPORATE PRESS AND OUR OWN GOVERNMENT INTO SUCH OBVIOUS LIARS THAT WE CANNOT BELIEVE THEM ANYMORE?

https://www.trutherator.wordpress.com

Obamacare: Nightmare of 68,000 new diagnosis codes for ICD-10 including the bizarre

June 14, 2015

I now work for a healthcare company, and before that a hospital software company, and be it knownst that the Obamacare legal abomination carries a LOT more than just the lying insurance cover.

INTERNATIONAL STATISTICAL CLASSIFICATION OF DISEASES AND RELATED HEALTH PROBLEMS.

They are requiring more conversion by more healthcare companies, and smaller ones, to electronic claims and payments processing and other non-insurance requirements. They are requiring conversion of the electronic diagnosis codes from the ICD-9 list to a new ICD-10 list, with at least ten times more codes.

Look at this number thoughtfully: The ICD-10 requirements include some 68,000 codes for the presumably 68,000 different diagnoses that a doctor might make for a patient. Presumably each healthcare company will have to decide how much to charge for each diagnosis, and possibly negotiate rates with each insurance company separately.

The codes include such idiotic details such “struck by a turtle”, “struck by a sea lion”, “accidental striking against or bumped into by another person, initial encounter”, “headache associated with sexual activity”, ”Pedestrian on foot injured in collision with roller-skater, subsequent encounter.”

Those were found at:

“ICD-10 involves an ‘enormous amount of complexity’”:

http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/10-most-outlandish-kinds-icd-10-codes

I’ve seen some of the more outlandish ones myself. With all the web pages a search brings up for “ICD-10 ridiculous”, it’s truly hard to tell which ones are made-up and which ones are spoofs. One listed “cat-scratch fever”, a la Ted Nugent song.

This may well create more too-big-to-fail companies. There is a mad rush in the healthcare industry to consolidate. Smaller hospitals are begging for bigger chains to buy them out. I haven’t seen specific reference to it, but I’ll bet this includes a LOT of “non-profit” medical companies selling to “profit-based” chains, or other “non-profit” organizations.

The company I work for is snapping up smaller ones everywhere in the country.

Many in the software industry are calling this “bigger than Y2K”, and I think it is. I worked for a small air conditioning equipment distribution company at that time, and changed something like over 600 tables, 1200 “views”, and 1,800 programs. This may affect more. It most certainly has involved LOTS and LOTS of typing and editing and changing going on. Every affected company, corporation and partnership affected, has to finish its own preparation enough to set up test environments so they can jointly test with EVERY other organization they do related business with.

One writer says it will cost trillions of dollars in costs to the medical industry. At my small-ish employer, it is reasonable to say it likely costs millions of dollars in developer pay, and pay for medical diagnosis coders time, and their training, plus all the accounting that goes into the use of the equipment and executives’ time. And all the extra personnel needed to both make the transition, and now the ongoing increase in costs associated with this crazy mess of codes and the multiplication of both human and programming mistakes.

See, this is the problem when people believe that a government can do better than God in sorting things out and taking care of people.

It will never be known how many people will suffer because of so many resources and so much time wasted on obeying government commands to comply with rules that bureaucrats make to justify their salaries, thinking they are helping people.

It’s not just skyrocketing medical costs that will result from this abominable law. It is the resources that are wasted in making life easier for government officials and politicians and giving them yet more socialized control over the lives of individuals. It’s easy to cry foul when a cop shoots a man in cold blood caught on video. It’s not so easy to consider the unemployed teens and unskilled poor who are locked out of the labor market by minimum wage laws. It’s not so easy to consider the invisible harm done to the sick, elderly, and disabled by laws that pretend to expand healthcare but shrink it. It’s not so easy to see the lost jobs and lost wages for the poor and under-employed that lose out to the increased tax burden imposed on their employers. It’s an easy mark to criticize giant corporate profits, but not so easy to see the way the regulations themselves benefit the biggest corporations and keep smaller competitors down. It’s easy to hear the demagogues complain about greedy corporations, but with a government-compliant big-corporation media, it’s not so easy to see how those same “greedy corporations” benefit the demagogues themselves.

Socialism is a lie. Like a friend once told me who had lived in Russia during the days of the Soviet Union, socialism does not exist, there is no such thing. It’s just a trade of one set of rulers for another one with less pretension. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.

But let’s be clear. Obamacare is a bipartisan program. It is an implementation of a “conservative” Heritage Foundation plan published in the 1990s, it is Romney-care writ large, it is Hillary-care recharged. Charged to us, making us foot the bill. Let the refrain sound throughout the land: Obamacare is Hillary’s 1993 plan, Phase One.

“But be not deceived. God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

 

So many dead scientists, too many microbiologists

October 11, 2014

Dead scientists list, 2004-2014:
http://www.stevequayle.com/?s=146

(a lot of “apparent suicides in the list seems like)
and more from before, 1994-2003: http://www.stevequayle.com/index.php?s=147

A list of 115 scientists dead:
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2011/12/a-list-of-115-dead-scientists-assassinated-1468927.html

and more:
http://www.rense.com/general62/list.htm

Dr. Eugene F. Mallove was one of them in 2004:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/whoarewe/gene.html

He was a many-lettered professor at MIT and enraged by MIT’s press conference on the Pons-Fleichmann experiments, he told the press and anybody who would listen that the results had been promising, that MIT lied to protect billions in research, and started a new energy foundation to fund LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions) research. It is finally creeping -slowly- into “mainstream” labs. (I use it to expose the leadership of the enviro-racket).

Wired article about so-called “cold fusion” (Mallove preferred LENR):

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-01/15/cold-fusion-moves-into-mainstream

The ever-lit light bulb and intellectual property

March 23, 2014

“Friend”, I didn’t mean for the SF bulb to be THE proof, and the other was a meme going around among us of the student rebellion days.

The point is, that if there is or if there were such a patent for a light bulb as one that never burnt out, would anybody *at all* be surprised if we found out that indeed, GE had bought it up and squelched it? A good example how that it is intuitively rational to see the “moral hazard” of a patent regime, however designed.

Your examples do not show an “unreasonable” application of the idea of copyright or patents. There are at least as many stories about the abuse of IP laws as there are about the abuse without them or outside them like your about Edgar Allan Poe’s.

I know of another where somebody rushed to copyright a song that had been in use for many years by fellow missionaries.

Such laws make IP theft and abuse much easier, in fact. Courtney Love wrote a scathing rebuke at the owners who dominated the music industry for their abuse of the system, leaving the real artists out in the cold. My son produces music in Miami Beach. He formed a band with his older brother and a friend and they had five offers he said made sure the big guys made all the money, for which reason the lawyer they got nixed the first four. The fifth one was okay (maybe word got around), but by that time one of them was tired of personality clashes.

There is another instance. The uncle of the founder of a well-known missionary association is the true writer of the movie Cimarron. The Hollywood studio rejected it, sent it back to him, then went ahead and put it on the big screen.

Without IP laws, these examples demonstrate how creators have a better chance of actually reliably enjoying the profit denied them today, especially if we have a true anarcho-capitalist society.

About this comment:

Our current legal structure around intellectual property is the result of political calculations by legislators who are often being influenced by lobbyists from the large media companies and other companies seeking to gain advantage over competitors. The result is confusing and even contradictory laws, but that does not negate the basic fairness of allowing a creator to benefit from his or her creation.

That is absolutely true and NO WAY you make that go away unless you abolish the custom of supporting a gang of any description, call it an IP Court, with the power to impose commercial and trade restrictions on anybody and everybody in the world or any other jurisdictional boundary.

A dictatorship to enforce “fair compensation” for anybody who creates any new anything is to invite oppression. Ayn-randian suicide by a band of “Mouchers”.

I believe in credit where credit is due and do like to see creative power awarded. That is why the mere idea of IP enforcement has made Microsoft one of the biggest parasite organizations in the world.

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

Intellectual Property Monopolies Clarified

March 22, 2014

Tibor Machan always has something interesting to say in his columns at the Daily Bell web site. For example, his article “Intellectual Property, Anyone?”.

One comment pointed out that one reason that many intellectuals, even some libertarians, defend “intellectual property” monopolies, is “the envy that the intellectual suffer for the successful, troglodyte businessman”…

That may be true for many, but not for all.. But there is at least an idea that other parties who use someone’s new idea are somehow “freeloading”. I do believe in “credit where credit is due”, but this is impossible to do “justly” in the long run when you create incentives for “rent-seeking”. That’s what a copyright and patent regime does , especially in a land of corporations, or, the present land of corporations.

It inevitably becomes a battle of wits and trickery. Two people who have the same idea, but one of them lives closer to the patent office. Is that “fair”? I’m a software engineer, but some of my code is generic functions that I’ve written before. Whose code is that?

The US Constitution included the mention of copyright and patent, with a parenthetical clause that says the purpose was utilitarian. It a land of individual artisans, maybe, maybe not.

The most convincing argument, though, against “intellectual property”, in my opinion, is the total, absolute, unequivocal requirement by definition of an agency (government, mob, dictator, etc.) with powers to violate the non-aggression principle, PLUS the total, absolute, unequivocal arbitrary and capricious nature of where the boundaries are on “intellectual property”. That is, how far does it reach? How many years?

One science fiction writer, Robert Sawyer I think, wrote once that he thought copyrights should be limitless, without expiration, and inheritable to all generations!

This is all because we have come to think of copyright in this way. I have read that before the introduction of the printing press, there was no such thing as copyright, and copyright itself was “invented” by kings and authorities for the purposes of censorship. Think the “stamp act”. Think permits for the First Amendment akin to permits for the Second.

Although Thomas Cahill in his book “How the Irish Saved Civilization” pointed out that the reverence for books that the Irish learned from St. Patrick led to a noble’s exile for sneaking into his neighbor’s palace in the dark of night to copy the neighbor’s books in the dark!

The idea of monopoly rights for inventions for utilitarian purposes is also part and parcel with the idea that a monopoly of force over a bounded geographical area –or unbounded, as some world dictatorship advocates would have it– is necessary for scientific, artistic, and technological advancement.

One example demonstrates the lie of the collective utilitarian argument used in the USA Constitution. Tim Berners-Lee, and hypertext (and related ideas), and his colleagues, public-domaining the Web, and we all can see the results.

A more expansive article of evidence is the “open source” movement (as in the Open Source Foundation, which grew out of the idea of “free software”, with “free as in free speech, not free beer”, Richard Stallman’s preaching point. Tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of programmers are contributing to projects that by now ALL of us use.

Linux servers dominate the nodes used to carry the Internet. Firefox and Chrome and other freely shared browsers are pushing Internet Explorer out of the way. More and more of us are using Open Office or Libre Office or the Google applications to do their documents. This has inspired a parallel movement to do the same thing with hardware inventions, but not just computer hardware, but physical inventions. Open Source programs for 3-D printing for example.

And note that the barriers for entry into the class of patent-holders also holds back new inventions. With the new law Obama recently signed, it’s also a matter of who gets to the patent office first, and no matter if you had prior art, no matter if it was already in the public market. Get the patent and start trolling.

Another argument against patents as incentives for invention is the obvious fact of incentives to suppress them. A new energy patent holder (see infinite-energy.com, and use the hyphen!) might be tempted to sell it to an oil company for a billion bucks, and the oil company might consider it a bargain! And don’t forget the rumor of the light bulb that never burns out. Amazing how long those lights last in your car’s dashboard. And remember Tesla’s suppressed inventions. He might have been able to continue some of that today, with crowd-sourcing.

But the clincher, in my opinion, is the fact that no matter how you might enforce copyright or patent monopoly in the real world, there is no “natural” way at all, no “self-evident” way at all, to do it without arbitrary and capricious decree by somebody against any and all others.

//

Maryland moves back in the right direction, but true paper ballots are better

November 29, 2013
English: Fractional Cumulative Voting ballot s...

English: Fractional Cumulative Voting ballot sample Created for Wikipedia, by Tom Ruen, May 2004 with MSPaint (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Maryland Will Return To Paper Ballots In 2016 – found at Liberty Crier
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/11/20/maryland-will-return-to-paper-ballots-in-2016/

 

Paper receipts for a vote are not enough. Make the ballot to be THE OFFICIAL ballot, and then the electronic count is just a count that is verifiable by going back to the hard copy.

 

Going back and re-reading an electronic store of a vote tally and calling that a “recount” is an outrageous scam. Whenever the elections officials talk about these changes, they say that they have increase the “confidence” of the voters in the elections “results”, which just means they have to fool enough people with the announced figures to get away with it.

 

But people are learning..

 

Check out the work done by Black Box Voting, and read founder Bev Harris‘ book “Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century: Bev Harris”:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Box-Voting-Tampering-Century/dp/1890916900

 

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

 

 

 

Related articles

 

 

 

▶ Big Brains. Small Films. Benoît Mandelbrot, The Father of Fractals

November 26, 2013
English: Benoît Mandelbrot at the EPFL, on the...

English: Benoît Mandelbrot at the EPFL, on the 14h of March 2007 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

▶ Big Brains. Small Films. Benoît Mandelbrot, The Father of Fractals | IBMYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehwy4Gq27uY

Wow, one amazing dude. Big brains, indeed.. His advance in mathematics has been applied to a great number of science and engineering applications.

And how much elegant simplicity God has wrought in the universe to weave such an amazing complex of phenomena.

Occasionally, he lets us see a bit more of it…

//

Patent law does more harm than good now

October 19, 2013
Tim Berners-Lee at a Podcast Interview

Tim Berners-Lee at a Podcast Interview (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now comes Paul Jacobs, major beneficiary (with reason) of “the patent system” as chairman and CEO, Qualcomm:

http://www.politico.com/sponsor-content/2013/10/congress-dont-destroy-the-patent-system-in-order-to-save-it/?ml=tb&ml=tb

He makes the usual case for protecting the patent system, and says a bill proposed in Congress “aimed at curbing patent infringement lawsuits” would “put at risk” those “patent protections”.

He says his firm “works with companies on both sides of some headline-making patent lawsuits”. And as usual, instead of talking about the cost to his own company, he invokes the image of the little guy. What he doesn’t say is that little guys are the ones most hurt by patent litigation in general:

If the laws are changed to weaken patent protections, many small inventors, like university researchers and start-up innovators burning the midnight oil in their garage, could find themselves unable to protect the fruits of their hard work and investments. In addition, the value of standard essential patents should not be diminished by those who haven’t had a hand in contributing to the standard. They are leveraging the R&D investment of others to build standards compliant products which is healthy for the industry. However, arbitrarily devaluing patents to favor their own commercial interests unfairly tips the scale against the inventor. Who will make the future investments if companies like Qualcomm can’t get a fair return and stop investing and inventing?

What’s missing from the debate is the point-of-view of the inventor.

Really? It would be very interesting to see how much credit is really given to the actual inventors in labs and technology firms –in the form of the revenue differential that comes due to this monopoly grant system.

Did he complain about the bill that kept inventors out in the cold if a really big firm like Paul Jacobs’ can beat him to the Patent Office?

It’s called the “Leahy-Smit American Invents Act”, that changed the patent system from a “first to invent” to a “first to file” system. Under this law, it matters not that YOU invented it, it matters not that somebody stole the idea from YOU, if Qualcomm files first, YOU are screwed. YOU can PROVE that you invented it and they stole it, but they still get the monopoly rights.

Did he complain about that law? Maybe the bill he’s complaining about repeals it?

Here’s what that one did:

(1) It doesn’t matter if you invented it first, if some company that specializes in technology, especially patents, can file the claim first, the guy who got there first is nixed, and the guy who got there first cannot even profit from his own invention.

(2) Some companies might take some technique already in use, some kind of constructed device, in a niche market, for example, and if that company files a patent on it, everybody else has to pay tribute. Including the people who used it first.

(3) The guy who invented the Web, Tim Berners-Lee, communication protocol is not patented. No company would destroy its own PR by doing this, but legally anybody –that means anybody could file the patent and get it. I’m sure they wouldn’t grant it, because it would invite a loud roar from across the land, the techs would give them an earful, and most of all, almost every tech company would have to pay up. Ain’t gonna happen.

Read more on the subject from Stephen Kinsella, a guy on the right side of this issue.