Skrymions: Data storage breakthough
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/04/11/scientists-tout-tout-data-storage-bre... This reminds me of magnetic-bubble technology, which was relatively big in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Intel made magnetic bubble devices up to a capacity of 1 megabits/device, which was considered large in comparison with the then-64 kilobit RAMs then in common use. http://www.wylie.org.uk/technology/computer/bubblmem/bubblmem.htm In contrast, these "skrymions" are said to have a domain size as small as 2 nanometers. Jim Bell × ×
From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>
better technology, better mass surveillance That's a rather limited way to look at things. Let's consider: Are we better off due to (computer and information) technology than, say, 1980? In 1980, home computers were little more than toys, and the Internet as the public now knows it was 15-20 years from existing. News was provided by four national networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS) and local newspapers, with no effective competition. People, generally, found it hard to talk (type) to each other, other than face-to-face speaking. If you simply accept all of the positives of the subsequent 37 years as a given, and then ignore them, and focus solely on what you see to be the negatives, yes, you will get conclusions like "better technology, better mass surveillance". But one of the results of that technology was and is that we, the public, are far better able to monitor the actions of governments, which ostensibly act in our name(s). OUR 'mass surveillance' of the governments is very, very valuable. I have no doubt that, for example, the Bush 43 administration got far more pushback on their actions than did the LBJ administration 1963-1969, in regards to the Vietnam war. And even more pushback in regards to Syria. As, I think, it ought to be and needs to be. Jim Bell
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:04:47 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>
better technology, better mass surveillance
That's a rather limited way to look at things.
Maybe limited, but do you think what I say is incorrect? Perhaps technology in general could be 'neutral' but it is a fact that technology the way it is being implemented right now shifts the balance of power away from individuals and towards the military-industrial-government organizations.
Let's consider: Are we better off due to (computer and information) technology than, say, 1980?
Better off, regarding what? Has the ability of the corporate-governmnet mafia to track its subject decreased, or wildly increased?
In 1980, home computers were little more than toys, and the Internet as the public now knows it was 15-20 years from existing. News was provided by four national networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS) and local newspapers, with no effective competition. People, generally, found it hard to talk (type) to each other, other than face-to-face speaking.
Political activism has been carried using printed media for a (long) while. Of course that same printed media has been mostly subverted by corporate-government madia. The fourth state is a branch of government. But at least printed media technology could be used against the government and it didn't allow the government to track people. Books don't spy on you. The intershit does.
If you simply accept all of the positives of the subsequent 37 years as a given, and then ignore them, and focus solely on what you see to be the negatives, yes, you will get conclusions like "better technology, better mass surveillance".
No I don't think that's how the reckoning works. Do the current systems allow waaay better surveillanece of subjects by the corporate-government mafia? The answer is yes. Whatever alleged 'positives' there are (I don't think there are any), the fact of better surveillance remains. It is a fact just like it is fact that central banks counterfeit trillions and trillions of pseudo currency and that enriches the government and corporate mafia.
But one of the results of that technology was and is that we, the public, are far better able to monitor the actions of governments,
Where's the evidence for that claim?
which ostensibly act in our name(s). OUR 'mass surveillance' of the governments is very, very valuable.
It might be useful, if it existed. But it doesn't.
I have no doubt that, for example, the Bush 43 administration got far more pushback on their actions than did the LBJ administration 1963-1969, in regards to the Vietnam war.
I don't think there's any evidence for that sort of claim. And even more pushback in regards to Syria. As, I
think, it ought to be and needs to be. Jim Bell
I said it before. Heavy industry amplifies human will. High technology amplifies the mind. They can amplify virtue or vice. Neither care. Marx0s On 4/12/17, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:04:47 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>
better technology, better mass surveillance
That's a rather limited way to look at things.
Maybe limited, but do you think what I say is incorrect?
Perhaps technology in general could be 'neutral' but it is a fact that technology the way it is being implemented right now shifts the balance of power away from individuals and towards the military-industrial-government organizations.
Let's consider: Are we better off due to (computer and information) technology than, say, 1980?
Better off, regarding what? Has the ability of the corporate-governmnet mafia to track its subject decreased, or wildly increased?
In 1980, home computers were little more than toys, and the Internet as the public now knows it was 15-20 years from existing. News was provided by four national networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS) and local newspapers, with no effective competition. People, generally, found it hard to talk (type) to each other, other than face-to-face speaking.
Political activism has been carried using printed media for a (long) while. Of course that same printed media has been mostly subverted by corporate-government madia. The fourth state is a branch of government.
But at least printed media technology could be used against the government and it didn't allow the government to track people. Books don't spy on you. The intershit does.
If you simply accept all of the positives of the subsequent 37 years as a given, and then ignore them, and focus solely on what you see to be the negatives, yes, you will get conclusions like "better technology, better mass surveillance".
No I don't think that's how the reckoning works.
Do the current systems allow waaay better surveillanece of subjects by the corporate-government mafia? The answer is yes. Whatever alleged 'positives' there are (I don't think there are any), the fact of better surveillance remains.
It is a fact just like it is fact that central banks counterfeit trillions and trillions of pseudo currency and that enriches the government and corporate mafia.
But one of the results of that technology was and is that we, the public, are far better able to monitor the actions of governments,
Where's the evidence for that claim?
which ostensibly act in our name(s). OUR 'mass surveillance' of the governments is very, very valuable.
It might be useful, if it existed. But it doesn't.
I have no doubt that, for example, the Bush 43 administration got far more pushback on their actions than did the LBJ administration 1963-1969, in regards to the Vietnam war.
I don't think there's any evidence for that sort of claim.
And even more pushback in regards to Syria. As, I
think, it ought to be and needs to be. Jim Bell
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:59:22 -0400 "\\0xDynamite" <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
I said it before. Heavy industry amplifies human will. High technology amplifies the mind. They can amplify virtue or vice.
True, but not really what I am getting at. It seems to me that 'you guys' the cypherpunks/technology optimists have a naive or shallow understanding of the very technology you are selling or promoting.
Neither care.
Marx0s
On 4/12/17, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:04:47 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>
better technology, better mass surveillance
That's a rather limited way to look at things.
Maybe limited, but do you think what I say is incorrect?
Perhaps technology in general could be 'neutral' but it is a fact that technology the way it is being implemented right now shifts the balance of power away from individuals and towards the military-industrial-government organizations.
Let's consider: Are we better off due to (computer and information) technology than, say, 1980?
Better off, regarding what? Has the ability of the corporate-governmnet mafia to track its subject decreased, or wildly increased?
In 1980, home computers were little more than toys, and the Internet as the public now knows it was 15-20 years from existing. News was provided by four national networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS) and local newspapers, with no effective competition. People, generally, found it hard to talk (type) to each other, other than face-to-face speaking.
Political activism has been carried using printed media for a (long) while. Of course that same printed media has been mostly subverted by corporate-government madia. The fourth state is a branch of government.
But at least printed media technology could be used against the government and it didn't allow the government to track people. Books don't spy on you. The intershit does.
If you simply accept all of the positives of the subsequent 37 years as a given, and then ignore them, and focus solely on what you see to be the negatives, yes, you will get conclusions like "better technology, better mass surveillance".
No I don't think that's how the reckoning works.
Do the current systems allow waaay better surveillanece of subjects by the corporate-government mafia? The answer is yes. Whatever alleged 'positives' there are (I don't think there are any), the fact of better surveillance remains.
It is a fact just like it is fact that central banks counterfeit trillions and trillions of pseudo currency and that enriches the government and corporate mafia.
But one of the results of that technology was and is that we, the public, are far better able to monitor the actions of governments,
Where's the evidence for that claim?
which ostensibly act in our name(s). OUR 'mass surveillance' of the governments is very, very valuable.
It might be useful, if it existed. But it doesn't.
I have no doubt that, for example, the Bush 43 administration got far more pushback on their actions than did the LBJ administration 1963-1969, in regards to the Vietnam war.
I don't think there's any evidence for that sort of claim.
And even more pushback in regards to Syria. As, I
think, it ought to be and needs to be. Jim Bell
I said it before. Heavy industry amplifies human will. High technology amplifies the mind. They can amplify virtue or vice.
True, but not really what I am getting at.
It seems to me that 'you guys' the cypherpunks/technology optimists have a naive or shallow understanding of the very technology you are selling or promoting.
I doubt it. By "shallow" do you mean "how technology is used to take our righst/oppress us/fart in our faces?" Or is there something more we should know. I mean, the urgency you might feel is real, it's just that it's neither technology nor action that will create the solution. It's something deeper, like a need for love. The people activists paint as "evil empire" are comical, as in literally something mythological and from a comic book. They are wizars behind a curtain with a loud booming voice. The curtain is main of the constitution and it faces their direction. But if only people would turn it towards themselves, they'd see the power of that booming voice wither. But then, so might the love... Marxos
On 04/13/2017 07:11 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
The people activists paint as "evil empire" are comical, as in literally something mythological and from a comic book.
A million and a half... perhaps twice that number, of dead Iraqis, would debate that point. Rr
It's a fine point, but this problem is far more subtle than oppressive forces. In the issue of Iraqis, for example, there is an issue of ignorance. If someone in the West would have taken the time to teach them and cross-ferilize cultures, these things wouldn't happen. But no one did that. There are serious scriptural holes, between the Christian and Islam, that can be united if someone were to take the effort. Strangely, no one did. So they were discarded by the West. But that event isn't just an issue of guns, it's an issue of everyday people not giving a damn about anyone outside our culture. The problem is always in the mirror. Marxos On 4/13/17, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 04/13/2017 07:11 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
The people activists paint as "evil empire" are comical, as in literally something mythological and from a comic book.
A million and a half... perhaps twice that number, of dead Iraqis, would debate that point.
Rr
On 04/13/2017 08:11 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
It's a fine point, but this problem is far more subtle than oppressive forces. In the issue of Iraqis, for example, there is an issue of ignorance. If someone in the West would have taken the time to teach them and cross-ferilize cultures, these things wouldn't happen. But no one did that. There are serious scriptural holes, between the Christian and Islam, that can be united if someone were to take the effort. Strangely, no one did. So they were discarded by the West. But that event isn't just an issue of guns, it's an issue of everyday people not giving a damn about anyone outside our culture.
The problem is always in the mirror.
Marxos
On 4/13/17, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 04/13/2017 07:11 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
The people activists paint as "evil empire" are comical, as in literally something mythological and from a comic book.
A million and a half... perhaps twice that number, of dead Iraqis, would debate that point.
Rr
So... You're saying if they culturally assimilated (cf. self-inflicted cultural genocide <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_genocide>) to that 'evil empire' that you consider so 'comical' and 'mythological', everything would be hunky dory because they assimilated to a funny myth. Do you actually read what you write? Rr
No, you see, you did it. I said cross-fertilize to fill each other's scriptural gaps, but you turned it into cultural annihilation. How did you reason that one? Marxos On 4/13/17, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 04/13/2017 08:11 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
It's a fine point, but this problem is far more subtle than oppressive forces. In the issue of Iraqis, for example, there is an issue of ignorance. If someone in the West would have taken the time to teach them and cross-ferilize cultures, these things wouldn't happen. But no one did that. There are serious scriptural holes, between the Christian and Islam, that can be united if someone were to take the effort. Strangely, no one did. So they were discarded by the West. But that event isn't just an issue of guns, it's an issue of everyday people not giving a damn about anyone outside our culture.
The problem is always in the mirror.
Marxos
On 4/13/17, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 04/13/2017 07:11 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
The people activists paint as "evil empire" are comical, as in literally something mythological and from a comic book.
A million and a half... perhaps twice that number, of dead Iraqis, would debate that point.
Rr
So... You're saying if they culturally assimilated (cf. self-inflicted cultural genocide <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_genocide>) to that 'evil empire' that you consider so 'comical' and 'mythological', everything would be hunky dory because they assimilated to a funny myth.
Do you actually read what you write?
Rr
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 03:22:54 -0400 "\\0xDynamite" <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
No, you see, you did it. I said cross-fertilize to fill each other's scriptural gaps, but you turned it into cultural annihilation. How did you reason that one?
so you are hijacking 'my' completely relevant points/thread with your sick, criminal and insane bullshit. Like I said fucking joo-kkkristian assholes like you are the very source of all our problems. Your fucking joo-kkkristian criminal delusions surely have to annihilated. Now, back to a cypherpunks-relevant topic : I am waiting for any cypherpunk or non-cypherpunk to provide any evidence to support the optimistic, false and highly dangerous, pro-technology stance.
Now, back to a cypherpunks-relevant topic :
Fine.
I am waiting for any cypherpunk or non-cypherpunk to provide any evidence to support the optimistic, false and highly dangerous, pro-technology stance.
Here one: The Internet provides the last hope of actually producing the systemic change required to save the world from itself, absent a Messiah prophesy (from the joos). It's just being co-opted by both Left and the Right -- because neither don't know how to resolve the primary dischord: religion vs. science. Marxos
On 04/14/2017 08:57 AM, \0xDynamite wrote:
Now, back to a cypherpunks-relevant topic : Fine.
I am waiting for any cypherpunk or non-cypherpunk to provide any evidence to support the optimistic, false and highly dangerous, pro-technology stance. Here one: The Internet provides the last hope of actually producing the systemic change required to save the world from itself, absent a Messiah prophesy (from the joos). It's just being co-opted by both Left and the Right --
Ya think? Mastodon looks like every kid on the planet who skipped 4th grade today is on. Appliance operators. That IS the fewchure of the intertubz (the graphic wubbleuwubbleuwubbleu v of it anyway) It's already here. Rr
participants (4)
-
\0xDynamite -
jim bell -
juan -
Razer