Privacy is obsoleting

[Tex]

Privacy is obsoleting with the evolution of technology and sematic Networking.

Anything that can be named will have its own website...

Hi welcome to the future im Tex and ill be you're disfuctional host for the minute.

manufactures want to .com everyone of their products... give it a digital tag see anything thats commercial is open for capitalistic play.
So data mine the products life span to tell the profit analysis more

We learnt this today in forum thread "The End of Internet Privacy" in which the whistleblower clear states anything commercial is subject to tracking.

if you connect the dots "Privacy is obsoleting"
But tell me what you think.

[tommydervan]

(04-24-2012 03:30 AM)Tex Wrote:  Privacy is obsoleting with the evolution of technology and sematic Networking.

Anything that can be named will have its own website...

Hi welcome to the future im Tex and ill be you're disfuctional host for the minute.

manufactures want to .com everyone of their products... give it a digital tag see anything thats commercial is open for capitalistic play.
So data mine the products life span to tell the profit analysis more

We learnt this today in forum thread "The End of Internet Privacy" in which the whistleblower clear states anything commercial is subject to tracking.

if you connect the dots "Privacy is obsoleting"
But tell me what you think.

This is a great ass video. Reposting it on z networkz. Good one man

[(this is) john.]

i would rather feel like shit every morning and be late to class than have this guy fix everything for me

[1871]

We know this anyway but I have something buried in my garden that you still dont know about.

...............


Just because something is instrumented does not mean all data is available or that the instruments created can either obtain all data – or even that instruments have not destroyed data.
For instance the wild bee was said to have become an endangered species and extinct because of internet mobile phone technology – pesticides etc - technology could equally harm the planet –

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/228544...lling-Bees
1;43 – the DIKW paradigm presented is flawed - data cannot be collated first without intelligence – and which data you collect and how it is collated etc, there are also ideological systems which define primacy of data..

Theres is always the glitch is any given system.

Quote:3:14 – systems talking to eachother etc – therefore this means they are more efficient.

Incorrect.
A system can be planned, organised, rigged, etc to be deliberately inefficient if it propers those organising the system to plan the system that way. Just because it makes it easier for a system to work does not imply that therefore the system it is helping to work is necessarily ‘efficient’ – it could equally make an inefficient system to work for vested interests who will make the claim that this is more ‘efficient’ – and efficient for who ?
4:06 –

Quote:A matrixing of services creates a more resilient thing.’

Not necessarily – it could just as equally help somethingwork for a limited amount of time which is deeply flawed according to its own built in obsolescence.

If the claim is that the paradigm stated is less destructive because it matrixes more data to make it function , then it rests on the assumption that collecting more data to validate a destructive system will mean thatthe system becomes less destructive.

It is a technocrats argument, but not at all convincing.

The data collected could equally invalidate the system ie; to say that the system requires less validation through attempts to make it more efficient – that in fact it needs complete deconstruction.

Here is a mass of data which puts the other point of view;

[1871]

[Tex]

Google patent filing would identify faces in videos, spot the You in YouTube.



Face detection is a common sight in still photography, but it's a rarity in video outside of certain research projects. Google may be keen to take some of the mystery out of those clips through a just-published patent application: its technique uses video frames to generate clusters of face representations that are attached to a given person. By knowing what a subject looks like from various angles, Google could then attach a name to a face whenever it shows up in a clip, even at different angles and in strange lighting conditions. The most obvious purpose would be to give YouTube viewers a Flickr-like option to tag people in videos, but it could also be used to spot people in augmented reality apps and get their details -- imagine never being at a loss for information about a new friend as long as you're wearing Project Glass. As a patent, it's not a definitive roadmap for where Google is going with any of its properties, but it could be a clue as to the search giant's thinking. Don't be surprised if YouTube can eventually prove that a Google+ friend really did streak across the stage at a concert.


link