The Lounge - CodeProject

jschell wrote:
I know that there are articles in "scientific" journals that show that drinking cow urine cures all types of cancer along with other ills. And that astrology works.

Not in any Peer Reviewed journals that I have ever heard of.

So, that should have made it EASIER for you to find.

But the point being made, which you were calling nonsense... Is that the opposing points of view on MANY of these arguments have been effectively silenced. Careers lost, not because of evidence or proof, but because they refused to recant sound research. (Duesberg being one of them). A professor at MSU while I was there was forced to recant his position and his own published book, because they pressured him, and all of his research grants. ("Maybe you are not the right person to continue this research.")

Some people (Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. I believe), have tried to say that SPEAKING against Climate Change should be a felony... OMG.

Global Warming is here. It started when the Glaciers that made the Great Lakes receded... And there were NO PEOPLE or CARS causing this. Does anyone know how long that cycle is? Do they account for it in their "Climate Change" projections. I laugh because we cannot predict a single WINTER season accurately, but we are supposed to believe they have models to predict the next 40 years that are correct? So, I don't believe in man-made Global Warming.

Shutting down free speech is the real issue. I had given examples that I had witnessed, either first or second hand. I took issue with you claiming they were all nonsense. As if I were making them up. So I challenged you to prove your assertion (or at least that my assertion was wrong).

jschell wrote:
Fortunately freedom of speech doesn't work like that.

But one should use the freedom wisely. If you challenge someones statements, I think that bringing some facts to the table is the way to go. Then you become a better communicator, I learn something, and the other people who might be following this learns something.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
(Duesberg being one of them).

And there we go. His claims were opinions despite having never done any actual research on HIV. And that isn't how science works.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/aids_denialism_vs._science/[^]

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
while I was there was forced to recant his position and his own published book,

And the criminal that first claimed that vaccines caused autism faced criminal indictment and the journal, peer reviewed by the way, that published his study retracted it, only one of a handful of retractions in something like 100 years that the journal has done.

Now your professor might have been in a different position but it is also quite possible that his work was in fact flawed. Badly flawed. It happens.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Shutting down free speech is the real issue

Nope. Science is a process - it isn't free speech. If you want to cure your AIDS by heating your blood up it is likely that you can do it. If you are doing it to other people and charging for it then it no longer has anything to do with free speech.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
So I challenged you to prove your assertion

See the link above. I wait with the certain expectation that you deny what it says.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I think that bringing some facts to the table is the way to go.

Facts don't make an argument. And convincing a denier, versus discussing something with a skeptic, is two entirely entirely different things.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I learn something

We will see.

Jschell,
The 2006 reference is newer than the last time I was actively reading anything on the topic
(Simon et al. 2006) from the article. In this article, I will concede that they don't exactly prove HAV causes AIDS, per se, but they indicate the potential for HIV to overwhelm and destroy the immune system to a degree that leaves it susceptible to other diseases. But in this case, it is more researched than previous assertions. Also, they finally extended the first incidence to the 1940s... Which also proves that it is not that "new" of a virus.

So, I will accept that as "proof".

As for Duesberg, he was introduced (at the time) as the foremost retrovirologist of the time, by Gallow himself. So he did have some experience in the field.

This, however, does not negate the fact that the conversation was stifled.

But 2006 was a long time after the arguments of 1990s...

The process of science is usually that those who believe in the wrong facts DIE OFF, and those remaining shift to the other view as it becomes obvious (see flat earth).

Good Job. Thank you!

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Did you know that the Air Traffic Controllers, right after 9/11 were forced to sign GAG orders, acknowledging that they would be sued by the government if they spoke EVEN ABOUT the GAG order?

Since you were actually reasonable on the last one...want to go for another?

The above comes about based solely and completely on conspiracy claims that 9/11 had other causes than the official ones and probably this specific claim is related to the "theory" that the planes running into the buildings could not cause the buildings to collapse.

Which is hokum. But the conspiracy nuts make the claim that someone is being silenced.

Two fundamental problems with that.
1. There is no reason to silence anyone unless the planes didn't the buildings to fail.
2. It requires a vast conspiracy.

Notice that for 1 one need not even address the nut theories that the CIA or other nefarious forces were actually the ones on the plane. Just what caused the buildings to fall.

The second suffers from the same limitation as all such theories - the more people that exist in conspiracy then the more likely it is that something will cause it to be revealed. One need only look at real life attempt terror attacks which involved even just a few people and yet which are revealed by random twists of fate.

This might be interesting.
Lets talk about the building falling after being hit by airplanes.
I don't know what happened, as I was not there. I found a few things "eyebrowse" raising.

Building 7 Fell. No airplane hit it. Yet it fell in a similar fashion to the other buildings.
I believe that was a 47 story building?
Explain? Because there was no major fire engulfing the building. No Jet fuel.
http://rememberbuilding7.org/7-facts-about-building-7/
Notice 1,700 engineers want an investigation because it does NOT add up.
Watch that video. Please explain this.

Explain that one. Never before have buildings fallen like this. Even after being hit by planes.

The other thing I found interesting, because I watched the coverage live (it stopped me from going to work that morning). The numerous times I heard people on the news use the word Explosion. Yet, that word is missing in the 9/11 commission report.

Also, remember the never ending smoldering during the process of removing stuff. What was smoldering? This makes sense if Thermite were present. Rain and time would have a hard time extinguishing it. But suggesting that the Jet fuel was still burning like that for days. So, explaining that constant smoldering/burning.

The plane hitting the pentagon. What happened to the 2 engines of Six Tons each? No broken windows where the wings should have hit the building. And that plane pushed through reinforced concrete?
Superimpose the plane over he building, where it hit. This is the most amazing flying EVER of a jet that big.

Finally, I find it perposterous that the passports of the people flying the planes were found, but the black boxes were not. When I travel, I have my passport on me. At worse, in my carry on.
The plane the was smashed into the mountains was devastated. But the black box survived. They could not even find this thing? Either of them?

Oh, and the first time Bin Laden tried to blow up the buildings, via the basement. A nearby university detected an Earthquake. This time, the detected one as well. Around the time the plane hit the building. One witness said he felt the explosion below, the windows blew out, and then the plane hit the building above. The real question is. What would have caused an EARTHQUAKE to register before the building ever fell?

I am curious about your take.
It was building 7 and the pentagon that caused me pause.

And they REMOVED all the evidence and scrapped it. Saved NONE of it to be examined. Interesting. One would think that they could learn a lot by examining EXACTLY what happened to the steel?

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I don't know what happened

Nor to the conspiracy theorists. But the engineers do.

http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm[^]

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Please explain this.

I am somewhat familiar with what goes on in learning to become a structural engineer much less earning advanced degrees associated with that along with civil engineering.

And I do not have the engineering degrees nor the require experience to even start to do an analysis. Rather certain the conspiracists do not have it either. Know for a fact that some do not.

But other people do. And they do explain it.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/[^]

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/[^]

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The numerous times I heard people on the news use the word Explosion. Yet, that word is missing in the 9/11 commission report.

Those of course are not connected.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Also, remember the never ending smoldering during...But the black box survived.

If you cherry pick a single fact and use only that to build a theory then you can prove anything. The reality is that you are trying to significantly simplify something that is vastly complicated and then using that simplification to come to a conclusion while ignoring the complexity that you dismissed.

The analogy would be to find a single automobile accident where the car was totaled to an amazing degree and the driver actually survived and then use that to conclude that it was pointless to have seat belts in any vehicle. (And yes for this example I didn't provide info original on whether seat belts were in use or not.)

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
and the first time Bin Laden tried to blow up the buildings

Rather certain that is not true. Research it looking for sites that are not conspiracy based.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
One witness said he felt the explosion below, the windows blew out, and then the plane hit the building above. The real question is. What would have caused an EARTHQUAKE to register before the building ever fell?

Have you been in a multi-car pile up? Try it with 100 people, record each, and the reconcile what people remember with what happened (video.)

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Saved NONE of it to be examined. Interesting. One would think that they could learn a lot by examining EXACTLY what happened to the steel?

Saved it where exactly? Exactly how much physical space do you think it would have taken to store the entire remains of the buildings demolished? And retained it in such a way that
1. It could be safely stored (keeping known containments from hurting people.)
2. It could be safely examined.

And how much would that cost? Both for containment and continuing safety?

So, I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist. I am not interested in the who/why. I am interested in the what/how. The only way to know the truth is to bring ALL the facts to light. I find it hard to believe that someone was able to access those buildings and setup charges. But having wired a lot of offices for networking back in the day, I can tell you that access is available, and nobody thought twice of some guy in a t-shirt and jeans going in and out of a phone room that is usually locked, especially if he has a tool belt. And climbing through the ceiling (this proves nothing).

The point about the word Explosion missing from the 9/11 commission report, is that a LOT is missing from that report. Many people made statements, and they filed them unless they fit the narrative.

BTW, the explanation for that entire building collapsing (WT7) if ONE BEAM failed is a bit of a stretch. (and the link to the pdf is broken) The answer I am supposed to believe is "Hey, IF THIS happened, it COULD explain it". Since "IT" happened, then that beam must have failed? QED? (I tutored quite a few engineering students in college, a couple civil engineers, almost always on the math/physics side of things). I understand the concepts to a TINY degree. One of the issues is CEMENT flooring, reinforced with rebar. Cement has amazing COMPACTION strengths, but horrible cohesion (pulling). The rebar helps, and so do fibers and other things used more modernly.

As bad as it is. The speed required to fall that fast is challenging. If a CENTER BEAM SHIFTS, yes, it has the ability to stretch 1 side, but it is MIGHTILY resisted by the compaction on the other side. (The force would have to be in the direction opposite the stretching). What was delivering this force?

Again, this issue for me is that they put together a group of people to collect the information, and write the report about what happened. Anyone who says differently is a CT. Any evidence they did not review NEEDS NO REVIEW.

Focus on the pentagon. This is a strange case. This plane hit, and entered a small hole. The rough statement was that the 2 six ton engines folded in with the wings, ended up in the hole, and melted to the point that you could not see them.

Now, there were cameras there. Cameras across the screen. We get 7 frames. Really. They confiscated the video from across the street. But they had a few of their own cameras. They wont release any more footage.

Does any of this prove something else happened? Nope.
But the pentagon hit is COMPLETELY different from the towers for a similar sized plane. In this case, it looked like a missile hit it, and the "damage" from this massive amount of heat/flame that made it to the center columns of WTC 1 & 2, well... it didn't burn that hot or long there.

The FUEL is in the wings.
If you superimpose the plane over the pentagon where it was hit. Look at the wings. Consider the momentum, and the engines. One would EXPECT to see the engines hit the walls, and the fuel to end up outside of the building burning in a major way. (If that single flash burned up all the fuel, then why did not a similar flash burn up most of the fuel on the twin towers).

Also, the plane is 300 feet long. There should be a hole in the ground. Just consider the angle of attack required to hit that target. Watch the news video. Where did the plane go? (but supposedly 30 frames/second cannot pickup the plane in the released video of it hitting the building) If it was doing 600 MPH, it is going 98 feet per second. It is 300 feet long. It should take it almost 3 seconds to enter the building. If we had 7 frames taken in a 1 second time slice, we should see a bit of white plane. I would assume a 50/50 chance of the tail wing. Which disintegrated.

To the question of saving some stuff. NTSB is usually good at grabbing things that stick out or are unusual. You don't need a lot.

What would you say, if someone had saved some of it, and came back and said "Hey, there was a lot of Thermite in that smoldering metal"?

I am just curious. If there COULD be a single fact that would make you question the official story? What would it be? Would the presence of Thermite make you wonder... Would the BBC announcing that WT7 had fallen, a few minutes before it actually fell make you wonder? Would a recording of someone saying "Pull it" just before it dropped make you wonder.

Or, is your mind made up. That to question it would mean buying into a conspiracy?

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The only way to know the truth is to bring ALL the facts to light.

That right there is a fallacy. In anything involving humans
1. There is no way to bring "ALL" of anything forward.
2 "fact" are very often subjective opinions.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I find it hard to believe that someone was able to access those buildings and setup charges.

That is trivial. The hard parts are why they would do that and then the subsequent involvement of a vast chain of people to to 'support' the reason where it falls apart.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The point about the word Explosion missing from the 9/11 commission report

You missed the point. You connected what news commentators said to what actually happened.

The point is those two items are not connected. Do you have structure engineer with years of experience in investigating explosions in buildings who was part of the investigation and that person said that there was an unaccounted for explosion?

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
if ONE BEAM failed is a bit of a stretch

As I said although I am not a structural engineer and I do not have the years of experience related to forensic analysis I know for a fact that that is possible.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The speed required to fall that fast is challenging.

And this is based on your own structural engineering background and forensic explosion experience or because your read a ignorant opinion that someone else posted? Or worse because you read it second or even third hand? Because that statement is false.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Now, there were cameras there.. Which disintegrated.

All conspiracy nonsense, based on cherry picking results and ignoring the complexity of scenarios like this.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Or, is your mind made up. That to question it would mean buying into a conspiracy

The reality is quite simple.

The conspiracy nuts would have you believe that a conspiracy of thousands of people is involved in hiding something.
1. Hiding what?
2. Thousands of people and yet all of them have perfect records at hiding the truth. That isn't how people work.
3. Thousands of people means someone needs to infallibly coordinate this conspiracy. Again a human cannot do that.

So unless you are positing that a alien from another planet or some other being with power far beyond normal humans is in charge how do you explain the ability to coordinate the vast number of details and activities necessary to do this?

Okay,
So your mind is made up and unless someone came forward and said this is how we did it, and had the list of people who knew, showed the plan... [and the media would say they were unreliable and psycho]

Nobody in their right mind would start with a Thousand person conspiracy! That is a straw man argument.

But, I ask you, what if it could be COMPLETED with less than 50 people involved who knew about it?
The decision makers, a few people to set charges. A few people encouraged to take the planes over. With 1/4 of them dying in the process. Now how many are keeping secrets?

You don't need many people to pull it off. You need the right people, to me, that is the hardest argument. How do you get the right people?

Keep it small.
Close up any lose ends.
Misdirection.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
So your mind is made up and unless someone came forward and said this is how we did it, and had the list of people who knew, showed the plan

My mind is also made up that the earth is round. And there are in fact fervent believers who believe it is flat.

It matters in that the alternative scenario involves so many implausibilities that one need not consider it.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Nobody in their right mind would start with a Thousand person conspiracy!

How many people do you think were involved with the real way in which 9/11 occurred?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks#Financing_the_attacks[^]

And your conclusion would be that providing all of that evidence from very disparate sources and then covering up that operation would have required how many people?

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
But, I ask you, what if it could be COMPLETED with less than 50 people involved who knew about it?

I can only conclude that either you do not know of the other people involved in the actual plot and the evidence that ties that together or that you think that it is trivial to construct such scenarios.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
You don't need many people to pull it off.

That is an incorrect statement. There were probably hundreds involved either directly or indirectly in the actual plot. A conspiracy to provide information about all of those people in the many different ways that were involved would require many more people. Do the math.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
How do you get the right people?

You posit aliens. Or real demons. Or humans with supernatural abilities.

Humans, real humans, can't pull it off. As evidence by the vast (enormous) number of actual small conspiracies that fail all the time.

Conspiracies fail when someone has a vested interest in the truth, and actually digs in.

There is a definition problem. When is a Ponzi Scheme a conspiracy? (Madoff, for example).
We are standing here, finding out that the LIBOR Rates were rigged. Just now, they were
forced to admit they rigged the FOREX markets. We only found out, because those that were
actually injured demanded that it be looked into, and along the way, the evidence is questionable,
and leads to more questions, and digging deeper. After admitting to laundering money (illegally).

The AMAZING thing is that considering how much work they had to do to EXPLAIN the buildings falling, that these "terrorists" somehow calculated it? They knew the planes would bring the towers down. Otherwise, it would have been a minor incident, by comparison.

Now. For the "Near Free Fall", yes, my experience with physics makes me question this. The fastest ANYTHING can fall is at freefall (which has to be adjusted for SIMPLE WIND RESISTANCE). These guys are positing that with ENOUGH downard force, cement and steel, is moved to the side, exploded and has a NET EFFECT of BARELY slowing the fall for 40+ Stories (specifically WTC7). So, one beam, taken out WITHOUT a drop of jet fuel, causes this amazing situation where LITERALLY BEFORE forces act on the stuff, it moves out of the way (near perfectly, with VERY LITTLE resistance) and follows the SAME pattern as a professionally demolished building (Center Dropping, Sides folding in) which requires blasts, engineering calculations, etc. And this happened because of an OFFICE FIRE. Keeping in mind, that the STATIC forces with PEOPLE in the building were more than covered by the strength of the cement/steel. 99% of the building has no structural damage. Is ACCUSTOMED to supporting the weight above it. And suddenly, it becomes viscous and lets everything above it drop and gets out of the way. It doesnt fail JUST NEAR the failure point, it fails EVERYWHERE within seconds, on nearly every floor, even at the furthest points from the failing beam.

To me, believing that, requires believing Aliens were involved. I could see if there were EVER evidence of cement/steel structures falling this way from fires in the past. And if the building fell slower. Suffice it to say that they did not PROVE anything, they explained a possible way given very specific conditions and assumptions. If you read the paper, one of their CONSTANT assumptions is that the failure was UNIFORM everywhere, because this represents the WORSE case for overcoming the strength of the material. It also flies in the face of reality. Ever play jenga? Forces are ONLY PERFECTLY EQUAL in Physics problems. Not real life. Take the assumption that it was NOT perfect, that it listed to either side. Suddenly, the physics change. Cos() of the deflection angles kick in, and the percent of downward force and momentum is reduced as things shift, causing an apparent slowdown.

One second before the buckle happened ALL those bottom floors had NOT problem supporting EVERY FLOOR above it. Not just one floor above it. Every floor. The argument that this buckling caused the floors to drop is great. HOW FAR did the drop happen? And what percentage of the building gave way so well, that it resulted in FREE FALL, so that the floors below it, were NO LONGER supporting that weight, and were SUDDENLY Traumatized by the impact of all that weight. BTW, during demolition, this is achieved by SLICING all the core beams at a 45 (or more) degree angle and staggering the direction of the slicing, (So they stair step out of each others ways, but still pancake). And if you have seen them get it wrong, the parts of the building the "trigger" late, fall late, and affect the part that was falling first. All of these 45 degree slices removes ALL of the support and things just DROP, at near free fall speeds. At all the floors, in a precise manner.

But, we have ONE column that failed and it caused the same basic reaction? The building failed to find an equilibrium point without that column. Again, if that column failed and the failure started there, and spread to the furthest parts of the building in a normal way (like a failed demolition), it would be more believable. My favorite part is that this is too complicated to simulate. I bet it is to complicated to reproduce!

You posit there are no evil, greedy people who foment wars and spin public opinion for profit.
I am sure you believe our REAL Unemployment is only 5% and that there is no REAL inflation,
and that the banks are healthy now.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Conspiracies fail when someone has a vested interest in the truth, and actually digs in.

False. Most conspiracies fail due to human frailties and chance.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
They knew the planes would bring the towers down.

Exactly which hijacker was interviewed who admitted that they thought the towers would fall?

And conversely have you ever seen a video of someone attempting to open a ATM with a sledge hammer? Presumably those people always 'think' that the sledge hammer will work. Presumably you are aware that it does not. A random success does not mean that the 'logic' used to make the initial judgement is sound.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
For the "Near Free Fall", yes, my experience with physics makes me question this...[etc, etc, etc]

All of your conjectures are false. There are explanations, real ones, as to how the towers did disintegrate and explanations for each part. There are refutations of the incorrect ones.

If the links that I posted did not explain what did happen and how the alternatives are wrong then search out ones that do explain it.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
You posit there are no evil, greedy people who foment wars and spin public opinion for profit.

You are incorrect. What I said is that people cannot pull of conspiracies. Conspiracies involve people. Vast conspiracies involve vast numbers of people. Each single person represents a single point of failure with multiple failure options. The action of each of those people represent a failure point. There are too many. Which is obvious when one looks at real conspiracies which fail and when one looks at why they failed.

Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I am sure you believe our REAL Unemployment is only 5% and that there is no REAL inflation,
and that the banks are healthy now.

That of course only demonstrates my point. Individual humans cannot comprehend much less influence the entire global economics. Even understanding it is restricted to very, very small parts. And because of that humans attempt to generalize and consolidate knowledge into pieces that are understandable. (And often to rationalize that generality into claims that has explained it.)

So as one example, and only one example, the unemployment rate as never been and never will be an accurate measure of anything except in the grossest manner. When the unemployment rate is 20% one can be sure that something is much worse for most people than if it is 3%. But attempting to glean anything day to day from miniscule changes is pointless. But it also false to attempt to claim that the way that unemployment is measured should never change. That fails to recognize even the broad concepts that economics does in fact entail such as when employment patterns do change.

I can tell you don't care.

Member since Sat 2 Oct 2004
(10 years, 6 months)

No Bio. No Picture. No . . . anything. What's the big secret(s)?
Obviously, privacy doesn't matter to you.

With over ten years to do some revelations, I don't think you try the 'too busy' version of why not.

So - we await your photo, bio, family details, phone numbers, etc.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert

"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

Windows phone, with Wifi, bluetooth and GPS turned off. Never added the number to an email as authentication. Never received email on the device.

One cannot be paranoid enough.

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

Now aluminum companies will be considered "friendly to terrorists".

Wore an iPatch once, close as I got!

New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.1 new web site.
I know the voices in my head are not real but damn they come up with some good ideas!

W∴ Balboos wrote:
I'd chastise everyone I know with hearty ~~I-Told-You-So~~ iToldYouSo. They'd respond that it doesn't bother them and then, when I'm safely out of sight, fret about it.

FTFY

Once you lose your pride the rest is easy.

In the end, only three things matter: how much you loved, how gently you lived, and how gracefully you let go of things not meant for you. – Buddha

Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs

So Apple and Google are also part of the conspiracy to make us buy more tin (aluminum) foil. This is bigger than I thought!

Wink | ;)

If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.

--Winston Churchill

I laughed so hard at this one. Thumbs Up | :thumbsup:

Privacy was a dream in the past. Here is another one: how-old.net.

TOMZ_KV

For me, I don't give a bugger, and even consider parts of it useful.

For children, it's another matter altogether.

While it may be nice to have a real-time location thingy, to know where your children are, I see storage of such data as unwanted, and potentially harmful.

If some loony targets a child, all they have to do is steal or clone their phone, and instantly gain access to their regular habits -- where they go, and when.

I don't like it. Disable it for kids; make it opt-in, not opt-out.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

It should always be only opt-in. For adults, it let's someone determine when they'd be away from home (if they're lucky, only for burglary).

It's a stalker's delight. Adults can be hurt if their whereabouts are monitored, as well.

Aside from that, we seem to agree.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert

"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

W∴ Balboos wrote:
it let's someone determine when they'd be away from home

If a burglar's looking for targets, they can just use twatter perfectly legally, which requires almost zero effort or planning, so you only need to opt out if there is a personal risk that you already know about.

Bank managers and politicians should opt out, for example, because everyone hates them, but your average Joe? Nah. The only people who might want to use such information are marketing morons, but even they have easier routes to take.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

Quote:
If some loony targets a child, all they have to do is steal or clone their phone, and instantly gain access to their regular habits -- where they go, and when.

Ah yes, because that's so much simpler than simply knowing what school they attend five days a week - something which, if they are targeting the child, they already have locked in their brains. Are you for real?

Surveillance takes time and effort.

Your average monster could steal or clone the phones of a hundred potential victims in less time than it would take to watch just one.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

Welcome to the Lounge