Proving a negative..

Post #384,873 by Ashton 1/2/14 11:23:41 PM Reply	Proving a negative.. is harder; as to 'microscopic', as estimate--all here are aware that it isn't just the NSA who collects data--for biz, politics and ... whatever Anyone will finance. And next massage, fabricate-from etc. I hope you Are right re μ But the problem isn't just.. that always there have been cranks, nor that many people don't know how to 'argue' with the people-who-are-Certain!!ONE11 (Certainty I deem a pretty reliable litmus for: emotional-based view to the exclusion of all rational discourse.) My concern is, simply: whether much more/of peripheral nature? might be becoming 'organized' quite beneath usual radars. When biz or Pols, (both aware that an emotional contact must precede any serious swaying of POVs)--begin (began??) any move to mechanize, for all obvious reasons of Efficiency.. Then methinks that there are no Experts in creating huge extrapolations from say, the '30s Mastery-level' of the Nazi machine. Nor, necessarily Experts at divining: "How's it Going?" One need not go all Chicken Little, but as always: the ostrich's position is both vulgar and vulnerable.
Post #384,874 by Another Scott 1/2/14 11:44:44 PM Reply	Good point. But... The folks hoovering up all the information are (unless they're governments) are trying to figure out a way to make money with it in a reasonably short period of time. That usually means, for the moment, getting the information to advertisers who figure that they can somehow make us buy something if only they know more about us... People yelling online about the atheist muslim Kenyan usurper aren't a big demographic, I don't think. I don't see ads for power chairs and cruises and vacations in Davos and so forth in places I frequent that talk politics. Glenn Beck's big advertiser seemed to be GoldLine (and gold has tanked recently, so I assume they're lying low). Advertising still seems targeted to get people to buy stuff (or contribute during election seasons). Online arguing is small beer compared to being a party insider and a big donor. I don't think the Koch Brothers would bother, unless it was to throw a few pennies around to try to reward the true believers in the trenches. They want to use their money to install people who will vote the way they want, not to win online arguments. People arguing online are usually already in a camp. How would we know? Given the lack of disclosure these days, I assume the only way would be if someone inside squealed (as in Folkenflik's book on Murdoch's empire). But we'll see. :-) Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #384,876 by Ashton 1/3/14 1:00:52 AM 1/3/14 1:05:06 AM Reply	Think you're right about the Kochs and maybe many others--they live for more Power thus $$ and care little about hearts/minds. But some billionaires do make noises that suggest they Can think/act long-term (especially for having seen how Ronnie's homilies galvanized then and in successive generations) After Power.. and gold-plated toilets, what's next? Immortality. er, Win.. Big! I do 'worry' about these surplus-billions (Rmoney spent a pittance of his absconded Net Worth for that try..) We are on the verge of highly-automated transmutations from 'data' to tests of algorithms for persuasion; increasing (finally useful) brain comprehension is happening. As 1984 was a 'Tocsin' for (one assortment of predictable dangers, synthesized half a century ago) I think we had better pay Attention to: the now inchoate Means.. (and Ends) looming. Some people Will Be paying that attention/with more $B to implement--than were dreamt of in our popular ..aging dystopian works. Bread and Circuses 2020 style? it's not that far away. (Maybe we'll both 'See' ?) Ed: oTyp Edited by Ashton Jan. 3, 2014, 01:05:06 AM EST Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!