5G - Are We Safe Or Insane?

[Jud]

43 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Point is simple that use of precise, 3D, treatment of cancers has been in clinical use for many many decades, Gamma Knife, as you also note, as well as proton beam, so that in fact none of this is new, rather, as you also note, the advances in computer processing speed has brought these technologies into routine clinical use. 

 

IIRC, the inventor of the Gamma Knife (multiple cobalt sources) as you note: 1967, first stereotactic targeted x-ray in 1949! and the first known proton beam therapy 1954! So not new ...

 

again my point is simply that use of various types of both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, directed at 3D targets has been very well studied and used to treat cancer for many many decades. These are well known, well studied, well developed technologies that continue to be studied and further developed.

 

Yes.  But the use of infrared to heat a tumor without affecting the intervening tissue was not one of these.

[Jud]

8 hours ago, jabbr said:

Uh ok? Is there something unique about that wavelength range of photons?

 

... no, which AIUI is one reason quarks (proton beams) became popular, they don't expend as much energy in intervening tissue.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Its the FISA court, and in its entire history it has never turned down a government application for a warrant.

 

They have, but not many. I wouldn't know what percentage were denied vs. granted.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Admittedly it's been a while since I checked, they must be recent.

 

By 2013 there were a dozen or so.

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

When it's all secret, does it even make a difference? Is it a crime if nobody is allowed to know it's illegal?

 

I suppose it does to the people who never knew they weren't surveilled.    And just a technical point, we're not talking about crimes, but warrants for surveillance.

 

That being said (mostly just wanting to be a stickler for accuracy, since any slight inaccuracy provides too convenient a lever for dismissal), and I am no fan of these sorts of "dragnet" surveillances in general, nor of the Patriot Act specifically.

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

"Also rare is for FISA warrant requests to be turned down. During the 25 years from 1979 to 2004, 18,742 warrants were granted, while only four were rejected. Fewer than 200 requests had to be modified before being accepted, almost all of them in 2003 and 2004. The four rejected requests were all from 2003, and all four were partially granted after being submitted for reconsideration by the government. Of the requests that had to be modified, few were before the year 2000. During the next eight years, from 2004 to 2012, there were over 15,100 additional warrants granted, and another seven being rejected. Over the entire 33-year period, the FISA court granted 33,942 warrants, with only 12 denials – a rejection rate of 0.03 percent of the total requests.^[5] This does not include the number of warrants that were modified by the FISA court."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court

 

which makes me wonder, considering the likelihood of getting an approval, how bad must that .03% be...

 

Wonder what the percentage of warrants denied for surveillance of non-violent drug "offenders" is.

[Jud]

Just now, AudioDoctor said:

 

No idea. I have a feeling sometimes that the police really don't care about warrants that much.

 

They should, for the sake of their own success.  I watched the OJ trial.  The first four prosecution witnesses were police, who all testified they didn't wait for a warrant to scale a 10-foot wall and search his property and home because they didn't want OJ to find out about the death of his ex-wife through the media or a phone call, they wanted to tell him in person.

 

Of course any juror hearing that would (as they did) understand these cops were liars and completely dismiss the credibility of anything else that came out of their mouths.  Then when it turned out these same officers had "borrowed" OJ's blood samples against procedure, there went the blood/DNA evidence, and it was over.  Because these guys couldn't wait (not long) to get the warrant that would easily have issued.

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

If the targets can never know, why should the NSA care about the ruling?

 

Why should they bother getting a ruling then?  (Not that anyone would know whether they always have, but apparently they have in ~35,000 or more instances.)

 

Edit: Not always the NSA, but the same principle applies no matter who is seeking the FISA warrant.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

To cover their asses most of the time. They're unlikely to get caught either way, and if only 0.03% of those instances are deemed wrongful, they're pretty much untouchable.

 

I think people may have an erroneous idea of the FISA process.  There's enough interaction, and enough people knowing about what goes on, to make it rather stupid to go through the process if the intent is not to abide by the results.

 

See generally https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-fisa-court-really-works .

[Jud]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

Satellite has too high latency.

 

Yep, but I've been in @esldude's position (area without reasonable ground-based internet service), which can make even satellite with its latency start to look attractive.

 

(In my case, where we used to live had the added pleasure of a plan to provide high speed fiber optic based internet by the small college town we lived near getting quashed by Verizon lobbying and lawsuit.  Lovely.)

[Jud]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

Six G.  Go bigly.

 

 

 

 

Holding out for 11G.

 

 

[Jud]

6 minutes ago, esldude said:

My AT&T DSL functions as if there has been a nuclear attack.  I think they must have the wrong idea. 

 

Two orders of magnitude over what I have still isn't gigabit.  My service peaks in wee hours of the morning with 5 meg down and .5 meg up speeds.   At one time the up speed would sometimes reach 1 meg, but in the past year they've changed it so you never get over 500 kbps. 

 

I suppose Musk's system would have redundancy as there will be several thousand satellites with at least a few visible to your receiving station at any time. 

 

Damn! No wonder you're a curmudgeonly objectivist!

 

😉

[Jud]

8 hours ago, Em2016 said:

I haven't made a claim that the shareholder is influencing the news coverage in this case.. I'm just saying it's something to think about.

 

At least have the courage of your convictions. Presumably you raised the point for a reason. Are you saying you think it influenced the coverage or not?