Karl Rove's confusion about capacity of NSA's Utah data center.
On Fox News 5/22/2015, Karl Rove displayed his ignorance about the data capacity of the NSA's data center, which he said was intended to store telephone metadata, not the actual audio data from phone calls or (perhaps) the content of emails. http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/05/22/rove-critics-dont-understand-ns... Rove said: "What it does is, it keeps a record of a phone number that is being called from to a phone number being called to and the date and time. So, unless the Tsarnaev brothers talked to somebody abroad to talked to the phone number of somebody who is identified as a possible terror suspect, they wouldn't -- they wouldn't have been caught by this program whatsoever.And, again, I repeat, why is it that the opponents of Section 215 feel compelled to exaggerate by saying, oh, they're listening to our conversations?""Senator Paul on the floor of the Senate said, oh, they're listening in to thousands -- I mean, to millions of conversations. I mean, if we have to build a gigantic center in Utah to keep track of these phone numbers, how big a center would we need to have in order to keep the digital tapes of everybody who is having a telephone conversation? It simply does not happen." [end of quote by Rove]Rove is clearly assuming that the size of the data center in Utah is necessary to hold the metadata alone. The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center states:"An article by Forbes estimates the storage capacity as between 3 and 12 exabytes in the near term, based on analysis of unclassified blueprints, but mentions Moore's Law, meaning that advances in technology could be expected to increase the capacity by orders of magnitude in the coming years." [3 and 12 exabytes is 3,000-12,000 petabytes, or 3 million-12 million terabytes.]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130621/03390823552/how-much-would-it-cos... There are about 900 billion telephone calls made in America per year. If it took 100 bytes to store the needed metadata per call, that would be 90 terabytes of information needed. The capacity of the center is, therefore, 33,000x to 131,000x larger than would be needed to store that data for the US alone for one year. The data stored in a single call could probably be compressed to 8,000 bits per second, so every second would require 80 times as much data to be stored as just the metadata alone. If the average phone call is 120 seconds, that would require about 9600x the data size, well within even the lower estimate above of 33,000x.So, the answer to Rove's question, "I mean, if we have to build a gigantic center in Utah to keep track of these phone numbers, how big a center would we need to have in order to keep the digital tapes of everybody who is having a telephone conversation? It simply does not happen." is simple: "No, Karl, The center is just about the right size to store not only the metadata, but in fact the audio to all phone calls made in America in one year. And in fact, a good deal larger, probably enough to store the audio of every phone call made in Europe as well, and most of Asia." Would Rove be surprised to hear THAT?!? Well, he'd probably claim to be surprised. I suspect he'd defend himself by raising a newly-found fact that at the time that data center in Utah was proposed, hard drives were probably 1000x smaller in capacity than today. In 2000, as I recall, a typical large hard drive was 2 gigabytes. Today, the largest I've heard of is 8 terabytes, 4,000x larger. http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/26/seagate-ships-an-8-terabyte-hard-drive-perf... Jim Bell
Is Fox News illegal? You'd say it's illegal to deceive people. The sheer quantity of false information on Fox News, and it's popularity, are a serious harm to America. Is it that free markets only perform properly with rational agents?
Cc: "cypherpunks@cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@cpunks.org> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 9:22 PM Subject: Re: Karl Rove's confusion about capacity of NSA's Utah data center.
Is Fox News illegal? You'd say it's illegal to deceive people. The sheer quantity of false information on Fox >News, and it's popularity, are a serious harm to America.>Is it that free markets only perform properly with rational agents?
To the contrary, I'd say it isn't 'illegal to deceive people'. (in most circumstances.) First Amendment to the US Constitution and all that. Further, I'd say that currently the claim Rove made is false, but mostly it became false because the capacity of the hard drives that would be installed in that data center increased by at least a factor of 1000x between the time the data center was proposed (I assume it was around 2001-2002). At that time, it's possible briefings merely claimed that the system would hold all American metadata, not the actual audio itself. And I wouldn't expect Fox's journalist to catch that error instantly, either. It requires a substantial amount of thought, and technical knowledge. I knew that his claim is wrong, because I'd previously considered the same calculation (very approximately) and I knew that the capacity of the buildings would at least be many hundreds, and in fact thousands, of times larger than would be required for metadata collection. Jim Bell
Considering you can put 3.6PB in a rack for under $170k ... it's quite safe to presume the NSA is storing massive amounts of content. And Utah isn't the only new datacenter they have. Cost is well under $600M for 12EB right now today. Just select your parity ratio and drop in some meta network and hardware and file management. So lets just say $1B max to fillerup on the cheap and Silicon Valley startup smart. Then add power and staff. Tis but a drop in the sea, not even a blip on the yearly budget. Y'all are fucking stupid if you think Gov and Corp doesn't have you and the entire lives of the majority of the planet on disk by now. How does it feel? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/black-budget/ http://fas.org/irp/budget/index.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center http://www.mkomo.com/cost-per-gigabyte-update
On 5/25/15, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote: ...
Y'all are fucking stupid
On -this- list?
if
oh ... it's conditional. Dang yung whippasnappa programmas these days!! When I wuz yur age, we only had goto statements and had ta wright raw machine code if we wanted a condition. And bro we were -grateful- for our gotos!
you think Gov and Corp doesn't have you
<1990 conversation> <cypherpunk>Ya know man, if you say it or send it on a phone line, and they want it, they got it; no prob-lemo. <know-everything>Yeah right! Yo just one a dem conspirasee nuts, aincha now?! <cypherpunk>I'll bet my 600gram Nokia pocket phone I's right! <know-everything>You mentioned tin foil hats a ways back - you just run on to momma now boy and go wear one alright. Now f*** off outa mah face, idiot! <2015 conversation> <cypherpunk>Told ya so! <know-everything>Aw c'mon! They only storin' our metal data - I heard 'em tell us on da tee vee just last month now! <cypherpunk>F*** off idiot!
On 05/25/2015 01:49 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
And bro we were -grateful- for our gotos!
GoSub(versive)s were more 'elegant' and it's "WhippERsnappERs" (Still wishing I'd followed up on that Epson HX-20's terminal program I wrote by rewriting to use Puts/Gets to it's 16k (that's 16 KILObytes) of Ram. Might have actually run faster than 1200 baud.)
On 5/26/15, Razer <Rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 05/25/2015 01:49 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
And bro we were -grateful- for our gotos!
GoSub(versive)s were more 'elegant' and it's "WhippERsnappERs"
Aww ma! Can't I not hav me no snappa now?! Dang yung spellin freeks these daze! :D
(Still wishing I'd followed up on that Epson HX-20's terminal program I wrote by rewriting to use Puts/Gets to it's 16k (that's 16 KILObytes) of Ram. Might have actually run faster than 1200 baud.)
Whoa! 16k! That's -twice- what my CoCo (Tandy color computer for all yous whippasnappas) had, and 8k wuz -twice- what I thought I was getting until I saw the box on the way home - since I'd been mowing lawns for two years to buy one, the memory had doubled, "overnight"... Yeah ... good days :) Man, kids got it good these days... nowPhones would eat thousands of our old machines for brekkiey.
On 05/26/2015 02:57 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Whoa! 16k! That's -twice- what my CoCo (Tandy color computer for all yous whippasnappas) Trashy80s had more than 8K didn't they? My Coco3 came with 128 (I upgraded to 512 but never got around to the hard drive kit nor did I ever get the thing run 9600 baud using OS9 l2 with hacked kernel and RS232pak.)
It was a "warm" Coco, not a Hot CoCo (RIP Wayne Green, 73 & Hot CoCo magazine) Kept the thing for years after MS-Dos took over the PC market just to illustrate how crappy MS-Dos was, but eventually, like the Epson, it was retired to the dustbin of (computer) history. But there's probably a number of Commodore128s sitting on remote mountaintops as ham radio repeater controllers. Someone wrote a software suite for the Commodore that did that quite well (including remote control capabilities) and until the thing took a lightning strike, why bother replacing it?
Subject: Re: [OT] Karl Rove's confusion about capacity of NSA's Utah data center. On 05/26/2015 02:57 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Whoa! 16k! That's -twice- what my CoCo (Tandy color computer for all yous whippasnappas) Trashy80s had more than 8K didn't they? My Coco3 came with 128 (I upgraded to 512 but never got around to the hard drive kit nor did I ever get the thing run 9600 baud using OS9 l2 with hacked kernel and RS232pak.) TRS-80 (Model 1) came with either 4 kilobytes or 16 kilobytes of DRAM, and ran a Z-80 at 1.77 MHz. Eventually, they included an optional expansion bay that could bring the capacity up to (I think) 48 kilobytes. Old trivia story: My father (Samuel Bell) bought such a TRS-80 Model 1 in (I think) in 1977. Probably eventually filled it with 48 K. Around 1983, he wrote a program to generate a machining tape to machine an aluminum blade (about 18 inch long) that was itself a very small model of what would eventually become a far larger (probably around 20 feet long) blade for a fan for a cooling tower. He did this for his company: The company he worked for was Marley. http://spxcooling.com/ The blade worked great; I still have one, 32 years after it was made, and 3 years after he died. From the "no good deed goes unpunished" department: Little known to my father, or his boss, or his boss' boss, the highest-ups at Marley had been advocating the purchase of a $100K computer for this specific task. That computer was claimed, by those people, as being the minimum necessary to generate the machining tape that would be required. Naturally, when it was discovered that my father had done the task with a $1,000 1977 computer, feathers were ruffled and great embarassment ensued. Consequently, my father, his boss, and his boss' boss got fired, for inflicting embarrassment on those who wanted to spend $100,000 on this oh-so-important task. He should have sued them, but my father was not a litigious person. Jim Bell
On May 27, 2015 9:21:00 AM Razer <Rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 05/26/2015 02:57 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Whoa! 16k! That's -twice- what my CoCo (Tandy color computer for all yous whippasnappas) Trashy80s had more than 8K didn't they? My Coco3 came with 128 (I upgraded to 512 but never got around to the hard drive kit nor did I ever get the thing run 9600 baud using OS9 l2 with hacked kernel and RS232pak.)
It was a "warm" Coco, not a Hot CoCo (RIP Wayne Green, 73 & Hot CoCo magazine)
Kept the thing for years after MS-Dos took over the PC market just to illustrate how crappy MS-Dos was, but eventually, like the Epson, it was retired to the dustbin of (computer) history.
But there's probably a number of Commodore128s sitting on remote mountaintops as ham radio repeater controllers. Someone wrote a software suite for the Commodore that did that quite well (including remote control capabilities) and until the thing took a lightning strike, why bother replacing it?
As of a couple of years ago, there was at least one Commodore being used as a repeater here in the great PNW. Can't vouch for present day as I have slacked off on my ham radio activities. My original Trash-80 had 4mb. That was the one where you could put the portable AM radio next to it and use it as a speaker! Mmm, radiation ... I had that Trash-80 and a Timex Sinclair in my cabinet 'o crap for ages, thenI somehow lost track of them during a move. How sad. -Shelley, looking for the Geritol.
On 5/28/15, Razer <Rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 05/26/2015 02:57 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Whoa! 16k! That's -twice- what my CoCo (Tandy color computer for all yous whippasnappas) Trashy80s had more than 8K didn't they?
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandy_Color_Computer I did get it wrong - but the model I thought I was getting was the very first CoCo - at only 4K, and the one I ended up getting by the time I'd saved enough was the second model, at 16K! That was quite an improvement for someone about to learn BASIC. So, I too had a grande olde 16K -whoohooo! Eventually I even managed to hook up an old cassette recorder of my mum's, since I was too impatient to wait for enough savings to buy a swanky new one from the store. By the time floppy drives began gaining real traction in our area the Apple ][ was the go - it was of course better to have a computer that others in the area had since we could of course <cough>share software. So I bought a second hand Apple ][ clone. Those were some serious gaming days! I swapped it with my brother's $1000 (!) portable XT clone with a tiny black and white VGA LCD screen a built in 720K floppy - I told him he should not buy it since he loved the games, and although it might be good as a programming machine, what he really wanted was an Apple of Commodore. After a week, he agreed that the games were what he'd really wanted. I was just happy learning MSDOS with it's directories, and a new version of basic :)
For when you don't need the entire 64k channel... http://opus-codec.org/comparison/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Signal_0
Also note that since power and cooling are in outbuildings there, the roughly 3500 racks needed would just fit in the 100k sqft advertised using a 4:1 floor ratio, not counting parity. Maybe tight, but another 900k is advertised for support which could be used. The bottom line is that 12EB is doable and systems of any sort at that scale should not be unexpected there so long as they fit within the known params of the site. And efficiencies only get better.
On 05/24/2015 09:36 PM, jim bell wrote:
To the contrary, I'd say it isn't 'illegal to deceive people'. (in most circumstances.) First Amendment to the US Constitution and all that.
Not a lawyer but off the top I'd say it's a lawsuit in the making if you can prove monetary damages. Of course this doesn't apply to politicians whom the courts have consistently ruled may lie to you in campaign promises et al nmo matter how badly they economically damage you or your country's treasury.
On Mon, 25 May 2015 13:22:14 +0900 Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
Is Fox News illegal? You'd say it's illegal to deceive people. The sheer quantity of false information on Fox News, and it's popularity, are a serious harm to America.
Is it that free markets only perform properly with rational agents?
What free markets? Oh wait. You've been studying political philosophy with the likes of grarpamp, according to whom 'you' 'own' the government?
2015-05-26 4:07 GMT+09:00 Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>:
What free markets? Oh wait. You've been studying political philosophy with the likes of grarpamp, according to whom 'you' 'own' the government?
It's more like a hideous symbiosis. "they" Play this trick on us and possibly themselves, equating me personally with the masses and deriving legitimacy from mass deception. We live among those that believe the lies. Even if we don't believe them, we are in the thick of it, and must somewhat cooperate for satisfying our own human needs like food, shelter, and, most cruelly, companionship. In fact, you can live pretty decently if you're of the right mindset. Free markets, as a model, are realistic and optimizing. But the results are not good because the agents in the system do not force it to behave well. Game theory makes it suboptimal for individual agents to create a globally better situation. Of course, there's those that say market segmentation is a good thing. But I personally believe it's "bad" to have a DIP-switch on the inside of a microwave switch it between 600 watts and 800 watts, so we can sell the 800 watts one at a higher price, when in fact everyone could have an 800 watts microwave for the same cost to society. And then there's the cost of inventing everything twice, just so the competition doesn't have it. The saddest part is that it's been working rather well, because apparently humans work well under such conditions. And then there's Juan, who's upset about something, but nobody really knows what it is, or what's he's trying to do about it.
On Tue, 26 May 2015 13:52:59 +0900
Is Fox News illegal? You'd say it's illegal to deceive people. The sheer quantity of false information on Fox News, and it's popularity, are a serious harm to America.
Is it that free markets only perform properly with rational agents?
What free markets? Oh wait. You've been studying political philosophy with the likes of grarpamp, according to whom 'you' 'own' the government?
And then there's Juan, who's upset about something, but nobody really knows what it is, or what's he's trying to do about it.
You seem to have royally missed the point. so here it goes again
Is Fox News illegal?
fox news is part of the US government, department of propaganda. It's part of the government. It can't be illegal, 'by definition'.
Is it that free markets
Again, *what* free markets are you talking about - fucks news has nothing to do with 'free markets'.
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
What free markets? 'you' 'own' the government?
That which you own you may abandon, destroy, or shape to your liking. That which you do not own may do the same to you.
DIP-switch on the inside of a microwave switch it between 600 watts and 800 watts
On Wed, 27 May 2015 17:47:52 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
What free markets? 'you' 'own' the government?
That which you own you may abandon, destroy, or shape to your liking.
That which you do not own may do the same to you.
Last time I checked the stuff that can be owned(i. e. property) like say a hamburguer a car or a house, cannot abandon me, destroy me or shape me to its liking. The stuff I own isn't 'shaping' me and even the stuff I DON'T own, like, say, my neighbor's bycicle or dog isn't trying to control me. You know, property and moral agents are two different categories. If property is shaping you to its liking grarpamp, I encourage you to lay off the drugs or at least keep your hallucinations to yourself, instead of trying to pass them as political philosophy.
DIP-switch on the inside of a microwave switch it between 600 watts and 800 watts
2015-05-28 12:59 GMT+09:00 Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>:
Last time I checked the stuff that can be owned(i. e. property) like say a hamburguer a car or a house, cannot abandon me, destroy me or shape me to its liking.
The joke's on you! Ownership is defined in constitutions, and is not a real thing at all! News businesses are supposed to operate in a market environment, meaning that a shitty newscaster will disappear due to market effects. Fox is not disappearing, yet it's exceedingly shitty. What's up? It's also still getting decent views. What's up? I'd like to to be illegal so that someone can just put an end to the bs.
On Thu, 28 May 2015 13:00:25 +0900 Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
2015-05-28 12:59 GMT+09:00 Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>:
Last time I checked the stuff that can be owned(i. e. property) like say a hamburguer a car or a house, cannot abandon me, destroy me or shape me to its liking.
The joke's on you! Ownership is defined in constitutions, and is not a real thing at all!
Sure. Since your knowlege of legal systems and moral philosophy doesn't go beyond crass, mainstream, legal positivism then your nonsense must be right.
News businesses are supposed to operate in a market environment, meaning that a shitty newscaster will disappear due to market effects. Fox is not disappearing, yet it's exceedingly shitty. What's up? It's also still getting decent views. What's up?
I'd like to to be illegal so that someone can just put an end to the bs.
So there isn't any real standard for property but you think that the government must stop something you don't like on TV? Wait. And you dishonestly ignored the fact I just mentioned. Fox news IS the government. Why would they outlaw themselves? You don't like the real outcome of (your) stupid government theories? =)
2015-05-28 13:29 GMT+09:00 Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>:
Sure. Since your knowlege of legal systems and moral philosophy doesn't go beyond crass, mainstream, legal positivism then your nonsense must be right.
This doesn't seem to contain a response. If I squint it seems you declared my answer to be nonsense, which I assure you it isn't. Ownership isn't real. We don't need it to do anything. Furthermore, the lines are blurring between owned and not-owned because of complications through contract. It may be that one day we should abandon the idea of ownership, simply because it doesn't mean jack. When you look upon a person their wealth is not apparent in any way. Some people have serious skills, but no currency. Some people have currency but no serious skills. Some people fit a norm and some don't. Capacity to earn currency is the great selector, but in an economic reality detached from reality by countless systems and arbitrary human judgement, the selector is detached and arbitrary too. It is well imaginable that ownership and currency are ineffective; but it is so ingrained in society that we never consider it anymore. Possessiveness is human, and the human being is not calibrated for today's society.
I'd like to to be illegal so that someone can just put an end to the
bs.
So there isn't any real standard for property but you think that the government must stop something you don't like on TV?
I said what I said, I'm not sure what you're asking.
Wait. And you dishonestly ignored the fact I just mentioned. Fox news IS the government. Why would they outlaw themselves?
I didn't really feel like responding to such a vague comment. It's pretty nonconstructive. If the gov == fox, then I still want fox to stop. It just doesn't matter if fox == gov or not. I also don't see how they are gov, but you have a tendency towards such claims. You don't like the real outcome of (your) stupid government
theories? =)
There's that familiar senseless anger again. Why do you do that? Where does it help you go? Can you control it?
On 5/28/15, Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
Capacity to earn currency is the great selector,
-a- great selector -the- current great selector Our language can shape our thinking - the reason I comment here, not to be picky. And on that note, I'm sure you can come up with even "better" variations on the phrase.
but in an economic reality detached from reality by countless systems and arbitrary human judgement, the selector is detached and arbitrary too.
Detached yes. Arbitrary in some sense, but certainly not absolutely.
It is well imaginable that ownership and currency are ineffective;
Don't agree with that. Sub-optimal for certain "desired outcomes" perhaps.
but it is so ingrained in society that we never consider it anymore.
s/never/don't often/ s/consider it/challenge it/
Possessiveness is human, and the human being is not calibrated for today's society.
This sounds potentially very interesting. A concept on the tip of my mind but can't quite get. Please elaborate here if you will.
There's that familiar senseless anger again. Why do you do that? Where does it help you go? Can you control it?
These are good questions. I can relate with them for myself. Thank you for patiently asking. Regards Zenaan
On 05/28/2015 12:04 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On 5/28/15, Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
<SNIP>
There's that familiar senseless anger again. Why do you do that? Where does it help you go? Can you control it?
Juan already answered (not that he needs my help): | You seem to have royally missed the point. so here it goes | again As I understand Juan, he considers just about everyone to be compromised in one way or another by governments. Arguably, his job is to keep the rest of us awake ;)
These are good questions. I can relate with them for myself. Thank you for patiently asking.
Self-awareness is always a good thing :)
On Thu, 28 May 2015 00:37:41 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
As I understand Juan, he considers just about everyone to be compromised in one way or another by governments. Arguably, his job is to keep the rest of us awake ;)
Well, at any rate, it should be obvious that fox news is compromised. But no. Fox news is a natural rights abiding, mutualist cooperative, operating in a natural rights abiding, free society. I learned something today =)
These are good questions. I can relate with them for myself. Thank you for patiently asking.
Self-awareness is always a good thing :)
On Thu, 28 May 2015 00:37:41 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
just about everyone [is] compromised in one way or another by governments.
Actually, after a little bit of tweaking, yours is a pretty good description of the current state of affairs. Just about everyone sees government as legitimate, so yes their software is compromised.
You have to earn those pentagon checks eh?
Keepin it real bro. You got my number (and that of a lot of people on cpunks heh) anytime you want to talk politic man, just call me. It's been a while, shall I expect you on the old 202? Because I don't feel like picking up on anybody else out there, you know that deal.
It can't even leave my neighbor's house (poor dog)
Well duh, if Mills didn't flip out at the party and shoot the damn thing after you went all PETA on him, you'd still be happily shit cleaning after it to this day, lol.
On Thu, 28 May 2015 19:35:01 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> threw up:
Well duh, if Mills didn't flip out at the party and shoot the damn thing after you went all PETA on him, you'd still be happily shit cleaning after it to this day, lol.
Like I said, your mental vomit, drug induced or not, has, like zero relevance. Now, go get your check from the tor mafia and spend it wisely.
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> regurgitated his usual:
While I may respect your opinions / philosophies, whatever they may be... I find your consistent lack of depth and breadth rather boring, and your interpersonal skills in need of improvement. Others have mentioned similar. Goodbye Juan.
On Fri, 29 May 2015 12:05:33 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> regurgitated his usual:
While I may respect your opinions / philosophies, whatever they may be... I find your consistent lack of depth and breadth rather boring, and your interpersonal skills in need of improvement. Others have mentioned similar. Goodbye Juan.
You mean the sacks of shit who write your checks?
On Fri, 29 May 2015 18:18:11 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
You mean the sacks of shit who write your checks?
Get money.
Also, maildrop is cool, and you've just been demoted... if (/^From: .*juan\.g71@gmail\.com.*$/) to Mail/trolls
Isn't this cute? You are not the first government asshole who claim that people who are not government assholes must be trolls. Vomit stupid nonsense about 'representative' government (like you do) in an allegedly cypherpunk mailing list? That means you are a 'respected' 'member' of the 'community' Laugh at assholes like you? Ah that's trolling. Yes! self parody at its best.
lol! I got this either from 'grarpamp' or a similar tor-tard ---------------------- From: <1d09sg+qklt5v8@guerrillamail.com> To: "juan.g71@gmail.com" <juan.g71@gmail.com> Subject: you Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 07:39:31 +0000 i hear you like sucking prepubescent 4yo boy penis. what a fucking loser. die already. From: <1d09sg+qklt5v8@guerrillamail.com> To: "juan.g71@gmail.com" <juan.g71@gmail.com> Subject: you Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 07:43:23 +0000 stop watching kiddie porn you sicko.
On 05/28/2015 02:12 PM, Juan wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2015 00:37:41 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
just about everyone [is] compromised in one way or another by governments.
Actually, after a little bit of tweaking, yours is a pretty good description of the current state of affairs. Just about everyone sees government as legitimate, so yes their software is compromised.
:)
On 05/27/2015 10:00 PM, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
2015-05-28 12:59 GMT+09:00 Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>:
Last time I checked the stuff that can be owned(i. e. property) like say a hamburguer a car or a house, cannot abandon me, destroy me or shape me to its liking.
The joke's on you! Ownership is defined in constitutions, and is not a real thing at all!
According to governments, yes. But according to me, I own anything that I can fuck with :) That is, "ownership" is defined operationally.
News businesses are supposed to operate in a market environment, meaning that a shitty newscaster will disappear due to market effects. Fox is not disappearing, yet it's exceedingly shitty. What's up? It's also still getting decent views. What's up?
You have it backwards. Fox is successful in its market, and by that measure is clearly not shitty. What you think doesn't matter much.
I'd like to to be illegal so that someone can just put an end to the bs.
You want Fox to be illegal? Good luck with that ;)
2015-05-28 13:46 GMT+09:00 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net>:
You have it backwards. Fox is successful in its market, and by that measure is clearly not shitty. What you think doesn't matter much.
Nope, pretty sure it's just the tragedy of the commons. What I think is all that matters to me. Insanity 101.
On Thu, 28 May 2015 14:04:22 +0900 Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
2015-05-28 13:46 GMT+09:00 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net>:
You have it backwards. Fox is successful in its market, and by that measure is clearly not shitty. What you think doesn't matter much.
Nope, pretty sure it's just the tragedy of the commons. What I think is all that matters to me. Insanity 101.
I rest my case.
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:46:28PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
On 05/27/2015 10:00 PM, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
2015-05-28 12:59 GMT+09:00 Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>:
Last time I checked the stuff that can be owned(i. e. property) like say a hamburguer a car or a house, cannot abandon me, destroy me or shape me to its liking.
The joke's on you! Ownership is defined in constitutions, and is not a real thing at all!
According to governments, yes. But according to me, I own anything that I can fuck with :) That is, "ownership" is defined operationally.
This appears complicated to me. Are you familiar with "nationalisation"? ==== https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization Nationalization (American English), (British and Commonwealth spelling nationalisation) is the process of taking a private industry or private assets into public ownership by a national government or state. ==== It already happened on at least several occasions in the real world. -- cheers
On 05/30/2015 09:00 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:46:28PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
On 05/27/2015 10:00 PM, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
2015-05-28 12:59 GMT+09:00 Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>:
Last time I checked the stuff that can be owned(i. e. property) like say a hamburguer a car or a house, cannot abandon me, destroy me or shape me to its liking.
The joke's on you! Ownership is defined in constitutions, and is not a real thing at all!
According to governments, yes. But according to me, I own anything that I can fuck with :) That is, "ownership" is defined operationally.
This appears complicated to me.
Not at all.
Are you familiar with "nationalisation"?
Yes, of course.
==== https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization
Nationalization (American English), (British and Commonwealth spelling nationalisation) is the process of taking a private industry or private assets into public ownership by a national government or state. ====
It already happened on at least several occasions in the real world.
If government gangbangers can fuck with stuff, they own it. If government gangbangers can fuck with people, they own them.
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 04:13:36PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization
Nationalization (American English), (British and Commonwealth spelling nationalisation) is the process of taking a private industry or private assets into public ownership by a national government or state. ====
It already happened on at least several occasions in the real world.
If government gangbangers can fuck with stuff, they own it. If government gangbangers can fuck with people, they own them.
I suspect they broke the so called "social contract" (if it really exists) first...
On Thu, 28 May 2015 00:57:20 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
my neighbor's dog isn't trying to control me.
Nieghbor dog shits on your lawn, you clean it up every time like puppet. Big Juan, 0wn3d by itty bitty chihuahua ;-)
Sorry no. The dog can't enter my lawn. It can't even leave my neighbor's house (poor dog) Any more pro government bullshit you'd like to spew? You have to earn those pentagon checks eh?
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 01:22:14PM +0900, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
Is Fox News illegal? You'd say it's illegal to deceive people. The sheer quantity of false information on Fox News, and it's popularity, are a serious harm to America.
Is it that free markets only perform properly with rational agents?
Dude, this is a rant. Why do you want "free markets" when the real world is rooted? The majority of actors are just "rooted", so they are not rational, irrational, ... hyper-transcendental, they are "rooted". Capitalism is good on paper. Socialism is good on paper. It is the realword implementation that matters, not the ad. About "free markets": "free market" is a buzzword, commonly used for spam. Are banks "free market"? IMHO banks are pyramids (AKA ponzi scheme). It is tempting to make a change by going banks go boom, but this likely will have too much collateral damage for people and not for "rooters". Are "stock markets" free markets? They are clearly just a gambling place. -- cheers
Oops! Error.Somewhere between bits and bytes, I made an error which I identify inline below. The upshot is the capacity of the NSA data center (in terms of phone calls and time) is actually 10x larger than I'd previously calculated. It could probably hold the telephone audio of much of the world (America, Europe, and most of Asia) for 10 years. Jim Bell From: jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> To: "cypherpunks@cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@cpunks.org> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 1:49 PM Subject: Karl Rove's confusion about capacity of NSA's Utah data center. On Fox News 5/22/2015, Karl Rove displayed his ignorance about the data capacity of the NSA's data center, which he said was intended to store telephone metadata, not the actual audio data from phone calls or (perhaps) the content of emails. http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/05/22/rove-critics-dont-understand-ns... Rove said: "What it does is, it keeps a record of a phone number that is being called from to a phone number being called to and the date and time. So, unless the Tsarnaev brothers talked to somebody abroad to talked to the phone number of somebody who is identified as a possible terror suspect, they wouldn't -- they wouldn't have been caught by this program whatsoever.And, again, I repeat, why is it that the opponents of Section 215 feel compelled to exaggerate by saying, oh, they're listening to our conversations?""Senator Paul on the floor of the Senate said, oh, they're listening in to thousands -- I mean, to millions of conversations. I mean, if we have to build a gigantic center in Utah to keep track of these phone numbers, how big a center would we need to have in order to keep the digital tapes of everybody who is having a telephone conversation? It simply does not happen." [end of quote by Rove]Rove is clearly assuming that the size of the data center in Utah is necessary to hold the metadata alone. The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center states:"An article by Forbes estimates the storage capacity as between 3 and 12 exabytes in the near term, based on analysis of unclassified blueprints, but mentions Moore's Law, meaning that advances in technology could be expected to increase the capacity by orders of magnitude in the coming years." [3 and 12 exabytes is 3,000-12,000 petabytes, or 3 million-12 million terabytes.]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130621/03390823552/how-much-would-it-cos... There are about 900 billion telephone calls made in America per year. If it took 100 bytes to store the needed metadata per call, that would be 90 terabytes of information needed. The capacity of the center is, therefore, 33,000x to 131,000x larger than would be needed to store that data for the US alone for one year. The data stored in a single call could probably be compressed to 8,000 bits per second, so every second would require 80 times as much data to be stored as just the metadata alone. [Correction: The data stored in a single call could probably be compressed to 8,000 bits (1,000 bytes) per second, so every second would require 8 times as much data to be stored as just the metadata alone.} If the average phone call is 120 seconds, that would require about 9600x [Correction: 960x] the data size, well within even the lower estimate above of 33,000x.So, the answer to Rove's question, "I mean, if we have to build a gigantic center in Utah to keep track of these phone numbers, how big a center would we need to have in order to keep the digital tapes of everybody who is having a telephone conversation? It simply does not happen." is simple: "No, Karl, The center is just about the right size to store not only the metadata, but in fact the audio to all phone calls made in America in one year [correction: 10 years). And in fact, a good deal larger, probably enough to store the audio of every phone call made in Europe as well, and most of Asia. [correction: for 10 years]" Would Rove be surprised to hear THAT?!? Well, he'd probably claim to be surprised. I suspect he'd defend himself by raising a newly-found fact that at the time that data center in Utah was proposed, hard drives were probably 1000x smaller in capacity than today. In 2000, as I recall, a typical large hard drive was 2 gigabytes. Today, the largest I've heard of is 8 terabytes, 4,000x larger. http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/26/seagate-ships-an-8-terabyte-hard-drive-perf... Jim Bell
On 5/26/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oops! Error.Somewhere between bits and bytes, I made an error which I ... US alone for one year. The data stored in a single call could probably be compressed to 8,000 bits per second, so every second would require 80 times as much data to be stored as just the metadata alone. [Correction: The data stored in a single call could probably be compressed to 8,000 bits (1,000 bytes) per second, so every second would require 8 times as much data to be stored as just the metadata alone.} If the average phone call is 120 seconds, that would require about 9600x [Correction: 960x] the data size, ...
http://www.speex.org/ "Speex is based on CELP and is designed to compress voice at bitrates ranging from 2 to 44 kbps." And add another 4x storage density improvement without blinking if you take 2kbps as "minimal but adequate".
participants (9)
-
Georgi Guninski -
grarpamp -
jim bell -
Juan -
Lodewijk andré de la porte -
Mirimir -
Razer -
Shelley -
Zenaan Harkness