Privacy? What privacy?

[shiny!]

Re: Privacy? What privacy?

What do you call a doctrine where the proponent left almost nothing written down?

Black ops.

[BadJuju]

Re: Privacy? What privacy?

Black ops.

I think that infers a little much.

[c1ue]

Re: Privacy? What privacy?

Black ops.

Incorrect. Boyd's lack of publication is acknowledged by his own apostles; there simply is no scripture to the OODA bible.

[reggie]

Re: Privacy? What privacy?

OODA was originally intended for air warfare - and your article speaks to that.

Unfortunately it doesn't apply anywhere else, nor did this article help with the point that OODA was never actually formulated by Boyd.

What do you call a doctrine where the proponent left almost nothing written down?

Oh brother, I'm dealing with a child.

1. Of course Boyd didn't formulate OODA, it came out of Control Theory, which came out of Cybernetics, which came out of the Greeks work on The Kybenetic. Numerous great scientific and philosophy thinkers have contributed to its development, including the likes of Hegel and Marx, as an example.

2. It wasn't just formulated for air war, that's ridiculous. I just posted that one doc because that's what I found first, and the PhD candidate accurately desribed OODA's impact on human behavior, which is what I wished to highlight.

3. Control theory applies everywhere. Stating that it doesn't displays such an embarrassing level of knowledge as to not need comment. All one has to do is look to the algorithms employed by the vast majority of the financial trading platforms, where one will witness implementation of the theory in the form of Genetic algorithms and various other Prediction methodologies created by PhD quants.

In summary, I really can't understand how anyone can accurately assess the risk of a global computer network if they don't even understand the fundamental design-decisions made to create said system, nor the actors who made those decisions and the influences on those decision makers.

To say that privacy is a grave threat is merely to parrot media programming. But if you're going to fret over loss of privacy, perhaps you should at least focus on the most significant threat vector, and that is not at the application or network tranport layer, but at the processing layer, built into the Intel chips that most of us rely upon. I bethca you have AMT services installed, don't you?

Those interested really should read Weiner's book on the Human Use of Human Beings if they want to start to understand the type of thinking and perspective that's gone into these systems.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Human-Use-.../dp/0306803208

[c1ue]

Re: Privacy? What privacy?

Oh brother, I'm dealing with a child.

1. Of course Boyd didn't formulate OODA, it came out of Control Theory, which came out of Cybernetics, which came out of the Greeks work on The Kybenetic. Numerous great scientific and philosophy thinkers have contributed to its development, including the likes of Hegel and Marx, as an example.

Interesting - so you're saying that Boyd, who wrote almost nothing down, was merely channeling control theory in creating OODA. Is this something documented somewhere or is this again you're seeing a nail?

2. It wasn't just formulated for air war, that's ridiculous. I just posted that one doc because that's what I found first, and the PhD candidate accurately desribed OODA's impact on human behavior, which is what I wished to highlight.

Actually, it was. It was only later in which the theory was pushed into other realms.

3. Control theory applies everywhere. Stating that it doesn't displays such an embarrassing level of knowledge as to not need comment. All one has to do is look to the algorithms employed by the vast majority of the financial trading platforms, where one will witness implementation of the theory in the form of Genetic algorithms and various other Prediction methodologies created by PhD quants.

I do find it amusing that somehow you think I'm the one that's indoctrinated, when in fact you are the one who sees control theory everywhere. You're like that kid in Sixth Sense, only it is far from clear to me whether your ghosts actually exist.

In summary, I really can't understand how anyone can accurately assess the risk of a global computer network if they don't even understand the fundamental design-decisions made to create said system, nor the actors who made those decisions and the influences on those decision makers.

That would be because I started using the internet in the '80s - it was far from a system designed for public use. ARPANet was purely an internal communication medium - it was only when the cost of switches became so low that the possibility of conversion for mass public use became feasible.

Thus to me, the Internet arose purely by accident. You, on the other hand, seem to be thinking it was designed for the purpose it is being used for today. That is categorically wrong.

To say that privacy is a grave threat is merely to parrot media programming. But if you're going to fret over loss of privacy, perhaps you should at least focus on the most significant threat vector, and that is not at the application or network tranport layer, but at the processing layer, built into the Intel chips that most of us rely upon. I bethca you have AMT services installed, don't you?

Heh, you clearly have a very poor technical background. I've actually been a CPU designer - I worked on the AMD chips directly, and later on was working closely with the Intel design teams. Your statements above are conspiracy porn. CPUs are dumb beyond imagination - the literal decades of work in designed programming languages and interfaces is why we think they do more than they do. A real CPU is very much an idiot savant with a limited vocabulary: it can do only a few, very very simple things, but can do them very fast and accurately.

As for AMT - it is purely an attempt to reduce the need for humans around servers. I don't know about you - but my attempts to use it for a remote server I have yielded very poor results. If I cannot even switch RAIDs after a crashed hard disk using AMT, I find it very difficult to believe it can be used for anything more sinister.

Are you even the least bit versed in IT?

Those interested really should read Weiner's book on the Human Use of Human Beings if they want to start to understand the type of thinking and perspective that's gone into these systems.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Human-Use-.../dp/0306803208

Your opinion is your own; from my view, the reality of existence is a drunken walk. The idea that some cabal of hyperintelligent planners is forcing us all to dance to some deep, dark tune is attractive, but ultimately false. Even were such planners around, ultimately the tools and pawns they use simply aren't capable, smart, or controllable enough to do everything that needs to be done.

Anyone who's had employees, children, spouses, or friends recognizes this problem.

[vinoveri]

Re: Privacy? What privacy?

Your opinion is your own; from my view, the reality of existence is a drunken walk. The idea that some cabal of hyperintelligent planners is forcing us all to dance to some deep, dark tune is attractive, but ultimately false. Even were such planners around, ultimately the tools and pawns they use simply aren't capable, smart, or controllable enough to do everything that needs to be done.

...a drunken walk...looking for the key (to life/happiness/etc) under the lighted lamp post (the location, illumination and color spectrum of which is controlled by other interested parties, some well intentioned no doubt but some not and most with some agenda)

[reggie]

Re: Privacy? What privacy?

It's only a "drunken walk" for those who consume system outputs and refuse to read/investigate/understand the source material that describes the system design in intimate detail. And your characterization of "some cabal" only demonstrates your misguided indoctrinated worldview, which creates these images for the lazy ignorant public unwilling to read anything other than that what is spoon fed to them by people the system determines are credible. By the way, I've posted a video presentation by an academic trained in Critical Theory who accurately critques the issues of a Networked Society, which we are being transitioned into. For those that wish to begin to understand the bigger picture of our societal design, I urge you to watch the entire 45minute presentation, which is posted here at: http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...worked-Society

[c1ue]

Re: Privacy? What privacy?

It's only a "drunken walk" for those who consume system outputs and refuse to read/investigate/understand the source material that describes the system design in intimate detail. And your characterization of "some cabal" only demonstrates your misguided indoctrinated worldview, which creates these images for the lazy ignorant public unwilling to read anything other than that what is spoon fed to them by people the system determines are credible.

Well, all I can say is that in the areas which I do have very strong familiarity with: i.e. computers, the Internet, CPUs, and so forth - your credibility thus far has been zero.

Someone else can delve into your other beliefs, but frankly given the poor quality of fact displayed in the areas I do know and care about - I cannot give much if any credence to the areas you talk about which I don't care about or believe.

[reggie]

Re: Privacy? What privacy?

Well, all I can say is that in the areas which I do have very strong familiarity with: i.e. computers, the Internet, CPUs, and so forth - your credibility thus far has been zero.

Someone else can delve into your other beliefs, but frankly given the poor quality of fact displayed in the areas I do know and care about - I cannot give much if any credence to the areas you talk about which I don't care about or believe.

WTF kind of argument is that?... "I'm an expert in the areas that you discuss and you've been wrong in all of your statements"?

Well, if you're an expert in computers, Internet, CPU's and so forth, then certainly you have intimite familiarity with some of the following topics and important historical figures in these fields:

- John von Neuman and his work in Number Theory and AI
- Goedel's work on the Goedel number, a precursor to binary theory
- Hegel, Marx Socrates and their theories of dialectical thinking
- Vannevar Bush and his work in the Pentagon
- Weiner, Beer, Heinz von Foerster and Ross Asby's foundational work on Cybernetics
- Complex Adaptive Systems
- Control Feedback Theory
- Chaos Theory
- Complexity Theory

Of course, I have referenced material from the above figures/topics before, and you discounted all references to them, so I'm not quite sure what your expertise consists of if you do not seem to be aware of the foundations of the areas that you claim expertise in. If you're not knowledgeable in the history of your field, and you're going to dismiss references to important historical actors and development, then I'm not sure how I can conduct a conversation with you on any of these important issues, unless of course, I merely focus on the tech noise of the day authorized for mass consumption. But that's boring stuff.

FYI, I'm going to attach an overview of the history of Cybernetics, which makes reference to the Macy Conferences, which I have also referred to here before on numerous occassisions. Perhaps this will spark some interest.

2005_WAS_History_of_Cybernetics_Movement.doc

Between 1946 and 1953 the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation sponsored a series of conferences in New York City on the subject of “Circular Causal and Feedback Mechanisms in Biological and Social Systems.”

[c1ue]

Re: Privacy? What privacy?

WTF kind of argument is that?... "I'm an expert in the areas that you discuss and you've been wrong in all of your statements"?

A very simple type of argument: if you talk about stuff which I know for a fact you know nothing about, it seems less likely that with other stuff you talk about - you know anything about either.

Brandishing a bunch of theory is all nice, but some of us actually have practice to back it up.

[reggie]

Re: Privacy? What privacy?

A very simple type of argument: if you talk about stuff which I know for a fact you know nothing about, it seems less likely that with other stuff you talk about - you know anything about either.

Brandishing a bunch of theory is all nice, but some of us actually have practice to back it up.

I simply don't understand how an "expert" can be so unacquainted with the thinkers, events and "science" that I regular refer, and who forumulated signficant portions of the backbone the industry for which you claim expertise.

Anyway, those interested can view this academic's talk, who actually describes some of the key design attributes of the Networked Society (that we are currently building), and how these attributes will impact society on a meta level. Posted here at:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...worked-Society

"managing the population means managing it in
depth, in all its fine points and details.“

Michel Foucault
Security, Territory, Population

[c1ue]

Re: Privacy? What privacy?

"managing the population means managing it in
depth, in all its fine points and details.“

Michel Foucault
Security, Territory, Population

Heh heh, I had a bet with myself to see when you'd pull out Foucault: the last refuge of the conspiracy minded.

Thank you for neatly summarizing your 'thoughts'.

As for experts - what makes you an expert?

Were you certified by an organization?

Have you practiced what you've preached and observed causative results?

Or are you merely an armchair theoretician swimming in a sea of information which you've self selected?

[reggie]

Re: Privacy? What privacy?

Heh heh, I had a bet with myself to see when you'd pull out Foucault: the last refuge of the conspiracy minded.

I've quoted almost 50 different thinkers, scientists, philosophers, etc. over the course of my posting here, and this is the quote that you pick out? The fact of the matter is that I'm discussing aspects of science/philosopy/sociology/etc. that are well known, well researched, well funded and extremely well documented over the last 100+ years. Why this discussion takes on this air of discredibility just blows my mind. What do American Secular Institutions teach these days?

As for experts - what makes you an expert?

Upon reflection, I've decided to remove references to my personal background, even in general form, as it is not for public consumption.

Ultimately, this information is irrlevant to our discussion, as the experts that I cite are well know, with impeccable credibility. It is this information, that is all in the public domain, that is relevant, and accurately describes the social systems under deployment for which I describe and discuss.

[c1ue]

Re: Privacy? What privacy?

I've quoted almost 50 different thinkers, scientists, philosophers, etc. over the course of my posting here, and this is the quote that you pick out? The fact of the matter is that I'm discussing aspects of science/philosopy/sociology/etc. that are well known, well researched, well funded and extremely well documented over the last 100+ years. Why this discussion takes on this air of discredibility just blows my mind. What do American Secular Institutions teach these days?

Quoting others is the refuge of those who can't think for themselves.

Learning from others is great, parroting them - not so much.

Upon reflection, I've decided to remove references to my personal background, even in general form, as it is not for public consumption.

Ultimately, this information is irrlevant to our discussion, as the experts that I cite are well know, with impeccable credibility. It is this information, that is all in the public domain, that is relevant, and accurately describes the social systems under deployment for which I describe and discuss.

Your privacy is certainly to be respected, but in the absence of information - my previous comments still stand.

[reggie]

Re: Privacy? What privacy?

You're just so mean spirited that I can only conclude that you must obtain pleasure from this behvaior. But what's so comical or sad (depending on how you perceive it) is that the boundary of your view is just so limited, and guided, as to prevent any meaningful discussion. History, the System Designers who architected the systems, that you claim expertise in, and larger social goals are all to be dismissed. In short, engaging with you is like playing tennis with a horrible tennis player where the game's rules are rendered irrelevant on your part. In this situation, both players look bad to the outsider, no matter how capable the player is on the other side of the net.

Let's get down to business and discuss what's reallly relevant. What we have here is a Systems Boundary and Requisite Variety threat to individuals and all of our existing social systems. As neo-social globally-deployed-systems amplify variety, society tends toward chaos, or at least more variety than individual humans can deal with, creating a social system where variety grows at n to the power of (n-1), where n is equal to the number of objects (humans, sensors, feedback mechanisms, etc.) connected to the global grid (ie. Internet). Instead of using this Grid to attenuate variety so that humans may maintain control, the opposite is occuring. This is particularly relevant here at iTulip because this is precisely what the banks/USGov did to create the "financial crisis", leveraging computer technology in order to team-up against the public in such a way that the public could not defend itself from (attenuate) the immense variety being thrown at them.

Sure, Privacy is an issue to be concerned with. But let's put this discussion in perspective, and focus on the real threat that we are facing, and which is far more grave. But you don't see this threat, because the media (industry journalis, mass media, etc.) almost eclusively focus on Privacy as the primary threat, and therefore this is the vast majority's frame of reference, and probably why you stated this thread on the subject. illustrating the boundary limits placed upon you by your secular science education and adherence to authorized media sources.

Quoting others is the refuge of those who can't think for themselves.

And this is a preprogrammed slogan used when nothing meaningful can be uttered. Respond to the merit of the quotes in relation to the context that they are employed.

Learning from others is great, parroting them - not so much.

So, is your argument that the historical figures (who made the design decisions that created the technology you work on) and what they say is irrelevant and it not to be relied upon when making points about said technology.

Your privacy is certainly to be respected, but in the absence of information - my previous comments still stand.

You're bully tactics won't work with me.

Back to my ignore list with you.