Jump to content

291 posts in this topic

Posted

What? Are you kidding me? Proof that you're dilutional and confused. Its not what we've researched, it's whats technically possible. I'll tell you now that it's technically not possible to process and store all this data, and that's coming from a solid understanding of infrastructure engineering from my profession.

 

Also, that wordy paragraph was rambling which gave absolutely no weight or evidence to your argument.

yes it's because my argument is already made. you guys keep babbling on like you have something to add.. you're making fun of something without having the evidence to refute it. it's funny, because the patents and articles I posted already elaborate on all of this. you guys on the other hand, just deny it exists, without proof or anything to contradict the information I provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

yes it's because my argument is already made. you guys keep babbling on like you have something to add.. you're making fun of something without having the evidence to refute it. it's funny, because the patents and articles I posted already elaborate on all of this. you guys on the other hand, just deny it exists, without proof or anything to contradict the information I provided.

I've just told you that to collate and process all the data from anything like this is totally unfeasible in todays technology. Also, your linking to Wikipedia articles and old websites doesn't give you an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've just told you that to collate and process all the data from anything like this is totally unfeasible in todays technology. Also, your linking to Wikipedia articles and old websites doesn't give you an argument.

In his defence though you've referenced yourself for your argument, which isn't really the best way to go about things. I'm inclined to agree with you on your point, but if you could provide a link to back it up it would certainly help your case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What? Are you kidding me? Proof that you're dilutional and confused. Its not what we've researched, it's whats technically possible. I'll tell you now that it's technically not possible to process and store all this data, and that's coming from a solid understanding of infrastructure engineering from my profession.
 
Also, that wordy paragraph was rambling which gave absolutely no weight or evidence to your argument.


What do you expect from someone who thinks Microwave Radar Imaging is the same as Magnetic Resonance Imaging? :p
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've just told you that to collate and process all the data from anything like this is totally unfeasible in todays technology. Also, your linking to Wikipedia articles and old websites doesn't give you an argument.

I disagree, because you have no proof or evidence to say what types of resources are actually needed to do it. It could be really simple, and it must be, since the technology exists and is in use today. Now when it comes to RNM/EBL, it could be that most of it is done locally, or on a group of targeted people. Maybe it can or can't watch everyone at once, but it can target large groups of people at once fo sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The guy is having a mental illness. The IQ is not in question here as the posts are highly detailed, but paranoia or other ilnesses I feel are guaranteed.

If this was true he wouldn't be free to speak of it and it would reach news agencies worldwide like Snowden's work did.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What do you expect from someone who thinks Microwave Radar Imaging is the same as Magnetic Resonance Imaging? :p

Yeah, so MRI works by broadcasting radio waves at a target, which causes atoms/cells to resonate, and broadcast radio waves in return, which the sensor picks up. In a satellite radar imaging system, radio waves of varying frequencies, including microwaves or terahertz radiation, does the same thing, which is what is done from space. In the case of a satellite, generally, the telescope is the sensor, and it is higher resolution than anything used in MRI machines I am almost certain of it. There is not a lot of difference between various radio imaging technologies...

 

Passive electromagnetic imaging technologies, they don't require the use of radio waves to scan or image material, if the imaged source requires or broadcast radio energy on it's own (such as neurons, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I disagree, because you have no proof or evidence to say what types of resources are actually needed to do it. It could be really simple, and it must be, since the technology exists and is in use today. Now when it comes to RNM/EBL, it could be that most of it is done locally, or on a group of targeted people. Maybe it can or can't watch everyone at once, but it can target large groups of people at once fo sure.


The exact storage capacity of the human brain is not fully known, but current estimates put it at approximately 2.5 petabytes, just for storage.  Now multiply that by 7 billion people, as you say everyone's brain is being copied, and you can work out how much storage you need...

 

I'd love to see a 17.5 billion petabyte hard drive. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The exact storage capacity of the human brain is not fully known, but current estimates put it at approximately 2.5 petabytes, just for storage.  Now multiply that by 7 billion people, as you say everyone's brain is being copied, and you can work out how much storage you need...

 

I'd love to see a 17.5 petabyte hard drive. :p

Yeah but that is only important if they want to store all the information in the human mind in one shot, rather than just reading it when they need access to it. The computer selectively stores the information they want to keep about the person, for example pass codes, or information with intelligence value, and discards the rest. At any given time though, the NSA/whom ever can go back and get the information they didn't save later. They might even keep a reference that it existed, and with whom. No one here can guess precisely how much storage is really required to get a good recording of everything in a persons mind, either. Because we aren't the NSA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And just what oh so astoundingly powerful computer do they use for this utterly impossible task, pray tell? A machine so powerful that it can read something emitting just a few watts, with trillions of interconnections, most of which have bog all to do with memory, scan through an entire lifetime of data, up to 2.5 petabytes worth, to extract just the little bits they're interested in, and then store it away for future reference.

 

All from thousands of miles away and done for the every single of the 7 billion humans alive on this planet, obviously in seconds, without also reading the billions of OTHER mammals on the planet that they wouldn't actually be able to differentiate us from...

 

Edit: Forgot to add, even if the scan took JUST ONE second for each human, it would take approximately 221.9685 YEARS to scan those 7 billion people...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

In his defence though you've referenced yourself for your argument, which isn't really the best way to go about things. I'm inclined to agree with you on your point, but if you could provide a link to back it up it would certainly help your case.

I've just tried to look up the specifics around MRI data sets to try and come back with an educated reply to how much computing power it needs, but unfortunately all I've got is that it often returns 128x128 3d grids, but that's after processing whatever the magnets collect so, I can't say anything constructive here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah but that is only important if they want to store all the information in the human mind in one shot, rather than just reading it when they need access to it. The computer selectively stores the information they want to keep about the person, for example pass codes, or information with intelligence value, and discards the rest. At any given time though, the NSA/whom ever can go back and get the information they didn't save later. They might even keep a reference that it existed, and with whom. No one can presume precisely how much storage is really required to get a good idea of what is in a persons mind, and keep a recording of it all. Because we aren't the NSA.

But that makes no sense.

Let's run with your idea for a second, that they don't need to store every thought from every person, they just want to keep selective thoughts. How do they manage that? Do they have one person reading another person's thoughts 24/7 until a piece of information comes along that they file away (and if we estimate that there are 7 billion people in the world, that would mean 3.5 billion of them would have to work for the NSA 24/7, one NSA member for each person being watched)?

If not then there would have to first be storage for all the thoughts, then someone to go through all the thoughts and remove the unnecessary bits. In order to do that, FloatingFatMan is right in that you would need an incredible amount of temporary storage even if you weren't going to keep everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And just what oh so astoundingly powerful computer do they use for this utterly impossible task, pray tell?

who said it requires anything more than an AMD StreamCompute capable GPU (at least for local stuff, that requires speed, and it only targeting a few people)? these GPUs are already 100x times faster a typical Intel/AMD processor at huge parallel tasks like this. I am sure they could handle the task of processing memory, video, and audio very quickly.

 

the NSA also has many super computers .. I am saying, maybe the information is handled at a central location, capable of processing it all very fast and efficiently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

But that makes no sense.

Let's run with your idea for a second, that they don't need to store every thought from every person, they just want to keep selective thoughts. How do they manage that? Do they have one person reading another person's thoughts 24/7 until a piece of information comes along that they file away (and if we estimate that there are 7 billion people in the world, that would mean 3.5 billion of them would have to work for the NSA 24/7, one NSA member for each person being watched)?

If not then there would have to first be storage for all the thoughts, then someone to go through all the thoughts and remove the unnecessary bits. In order to do that, FloatingFatMan is right in that you would need an incredible amount of temporary storage even if you weren't going to keep everything.

This is seriously all done automatically, once the thoughts of a person is digitized, it is automatically processed and interpreted by computer. There is no limit into how the computer processes or separates information from the mind, and it is done faster than real time. They also have that program NSA AQUAINT, which uses artificial intelligence to process and sort all information that the NSA stores, of past or present situations. It even tries to guess the future for them. They have some information on that over on PBS.. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/nsa-police.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"Stand back! Brain protected by Truecrypt...Stand back!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"Stand back! Brain protected by Truecrypt...Stand back!"

What happens if you lose the password?

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

who said it requires anything more than an AMD StreamCompute capable GPU? these GPUs are already 100x times faster a typical Intel/AMD processor at huge parallel tasks like this. I am sure they could handle the task of processing memory, video, and audio very quickly.

Your honestly clutching straws here. AMD Stream Compute is an SDK for using the GPU to process large mathematical calculations due to their stream computing, hence the name. That doesn't mean we've magically got computing power we don't have. This is actually a similar technology being used in todays consumer applications like Nvidia Cloudlight, Azure for the X1 and Amazon EC2 but over the web. 

Source: http://www.ele.uri.edu/courses/ele408/StreamGPU.pdf

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

who said it requires anything more than an AMD StreamCompute capable GPU (at least for local stuff, that requires speed, and it only targeting a few people)? these GPUs are already 100x times faster a typical Intel/AMD processor at huge parallel tasks like this. I am sure they could handle the task of processing memory, video, and audio very quickly.

 

the NSA also has many super computers .. I am saying, maybe the information is handled at a central location, capable of processing it all very fast and efficiently.

 

 

You completely ignored the rest of my post. Answer the question.  What you describe is utterly physically impossible to do.  Even with the resources of the entire planet, it would be impossible to scan all 7 billion people within a single lifetime. By the time you're 25% of the way in, 100% of your subjects are dead and a bunch more have been born, so you have to start again.

 

It. Cannot. Be. Done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Your honestly clutching straws here. AMD Stream Compute is an SDK for using the GPU to process large mathematical calculations due to their stream computing, hence the name. That doesn't mean we've magically got computing power we don't have. This is actually a similar technology being used in todays consumer applications like Nvidia Cloudlight, Azure for the X1 and Amazon EC2 but over the web. 

Source: http://www.ele.uri.edu/courses/ele408/StreamGPU.pdf

What I do know, is that my old AMD Radeon 6990 box, literally runs Bitcoin at about 250x my CPU. it is even faster than on my NVidia GeForce GTX 580 by about 10x. I also literally tear through Folding@Home work loads on the GPU, which take ages on the CPU (which even gets smaller work loads).

 

They also use GPUs for 3D imaging of the ground and aiding in the discovery of new oil and underwater wells. This capability would not exist if it weren't for GPU scaling and offloading. CPUs are weak. But I do also mention the fact that the NSA has many very large data centers, and they are sorting through 75% of all US Internet traffic, along with other data, all automatically, without issue. they must be fairly capable when it comes to brain mapping and decoding, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Also, I just saw in the reply that I quoted that you said that the computer will discard the information that is not deemed relevant/useful, but the NSA can then go and get that information back. How does this magical tool work, as I have quite a lot of people here that could use it?

Data is either stored or it isn't. If everything is stored, we are still facing our initial problem of size restrictions. If the computer discards stuff in an attempt to reduce the amount of storage necessary, how do the NSA get the information back?
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What I do know, is that my old AMD Radeon 6990 box, literally runs Bitcoin at about 250x my CPU. it is even faster than on my NVidia GeForce GTX 580 by about 10x. I also literally tear through Folding@Home work loads on the GPU, which take ages on the CPU (which even gets smaller work loads).

 

They also use GPUs for 3D imaging of the ground and aiding in the discovery of new oil and underwater wells. This capability would not exist if it weren't for GPU scaling and offloading. CPUs are weak. But I do also mention the fact that the NSA has many very large data centers, and they are sorting through 75% of all US Internet traffic, along with other data, all automatically, without issue. they must be fairly capable when it comes to brain mapping and decoding, too.

 

How long does it take to scan, read through and then extract relevant data from ONE person.  Answer the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Also, I just saw in the reply that I quoted that you said that the computer will discard the information that is not deemed relevant/useful, but the NSA can then go and get that information back. How does this magical tool work, as I have quite a lot of people here that could use it?

Data is either stored or it isn't. If everything is stored, we are still facing our initial problem of size restrictions. If the computer discards stuff in an attempt to reduce the amount of storage necessary, how do the NSA get the information back?

Your brain is a remote storage apparatus to the NSA. It doesn't need to save a full copy of something that is stored in your mind, it can just look at you and accesses it again. It might store a partial memory of something that it saw in your mind, so for later, it can be fully extracted, along with other memories of association if they find it needed. All of this is done passively, because your subconscious and conscious mind is always sharing itself with the NSA. This just means that you wouldn't have any way of controlling it or nothing if you were being remotely tapped. Consider the RNM platform an extension of peoples brains, a wireless gateway to the information stored therein, it works that seamlessly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How long does it take to scan, read through and then extract relevant data from ONE person.  Answer the question.

It's all done in real time. As a person being monitored, they would immediately see what you see, hear, think, or feel. The information might be passed directly to the mind of an agent,  or stored in the computer. The computer of course puts it in a format that is useable by the person or computer, for example, the agent might experience the sensation of the other person, or a sort of "tunnel" vision of what the other person is feeling, seeing or experiencing, if they are directly relaying this information to an agent. Or it can just be meaninglessly discarded without use, depending on their goal. Information can be accessed via a computer interface, or an agent might think of something, or pull the information up with their thought. When police officers or government agents are in the field, the information is made available, like through thought insertion, or audible/visual message. There is no delay, because that would make it pretty boring and useless. Agents seriously use this out on the field to link up, spy and receive covert communication and information as it's happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What happens if you lose the password?

 

;)

Sad face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Your brain is a remote storage apparatus to the NSA. It doesn't need to save a full copy of something that is stored in your mind, it can just look at you and access it again. It might store a partial memory of something that it saw in your mind, so for later, it can be fully extracted, along with other memories of association if they find it needed. All of this is done passively, because your subconscious and conscious mind is always sharing itself with the NSA. Consider the RNM platform an extension of peoples brains, a wireless gateway to the information stored therein, it works that seamlessly.

Considering I have a hard time remembering where I left my phone half the time, I would say that I'm a pretty poor storage medium for any reliable information.

Not to mention that memories have been proven to change over time. I see it in myself when recounting stories to people. The first few times, right after the event, the memories are vivid and detailed. As time continues and the story gets told again, the details become vague, maybe the story becomes exaggerated, maybe my mind thinks that something happened which really didn't.

How do dreams factor in to this, as well? Let's say that they monitor my dreams because I have a code in my head that they want. In the dream, I go thinking about the code and my brain makes up A4b827, but in reality the code is B82n38712. How does the NSA know which information is the correct one? Or would they just keep both to be sure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.