If you can manage through his insufferable personality, David Ickes recently censored YT interview makes for somewhat interesting viewing. Whether a conspiracy or not, he shares information that help connect dots and develop concepts on how aspects of the world might work.. to begin with. As always with Icke there's a lot of chaff to deal with, and the longer you watch the more diffcult it becomes to continue. If little else his character offers an interesting study of schizophrenic messiah complexes or sumink.
Briefly; David Icke seems to be saying that regular expected deaths are being relabeled as covid19, and that the tests are so broad they're finding 'corona like symptoms' where there may be none. These concerns have, apparently, been raised by industry insiders. Ultimately the virus does not exist as it'd being reported and the illnesses are an effect of the increasing 5g network. He goes on a little as to why the 5g network is being errected, but focuses on the scandalous organisations and individuals involved.
He talks vaguely about nanotec, biochips, and 'what's to come' with regard to lockdown normalisation. Beyond this he just talks about acknowledged concepts in the conspiracy communities and loosely ties them to the current pandemic and a future of increased govermental control.
Perhaps he's on to something, but his seeming inability to to admit "i do not know" hinders his arguement immeasurably. Just look at him squirm and shake his shoulders as if to shrug off the burden of proof. Cassetteboy or other sampler could have as field day with this video - i would if i knew how. Getting through only the first half of this video is doing my fucking head in. David Icke; the immidiate problem, first and forrmost, is your attitude. Jesus christ his personality is enough to shut down any reasonable persons thought.
The thing is there were perfectly legitimate concerns about the health effects of 5G technology before the coronavirus came about. It's never been tested in mass-deployment, after all, and we know that there are verifiable health issues suffered by residents in close proximity to existing mobile network masts.
In the case of existing technology, nobody though about it before everyone started having nosebleeds and mystery headaches; and then when we did notice it nobody cared because it's only paupers that live in tower blocks where the masts are situated affected by it anyway. With all this nonsense, though, it's pretty safe to say all that will be buried even if there is a legitimate scientific case to be concerned.
One of my mates used to tell stories about ten years ago about his mental ex-girlfriend's dad, who wouldn't let them get broadband because of "wi-fi poisoning". I bet he's having a field day with all this stuff.
>The thing is there were perfectly legitimate concerns about the health effects of 5G technology
No there weren't.
>It's never been tested in mass-deployment
Most of 5G operates on existing 4G frequencies with very similar OFDM/QAM modulation. The new frequency bands used by 5G were previously in use by other services - TV broadcasting (at much higher power levels than 5G) for the low bands, weather radar for the high bands. There isn't anything particularly new about 5G beyond the marketing hype.
>we know that there are verifiable health issues suffered by residents in close proximity to existing mobile network masts
No we don't. Wireless radiation is listed by IARC in Group 2B as "possibly carcinogenic", but that's an incredibly broad group that includes things like aloe vera, sawdust, hip implants and several widely-used medicines. If we can't conclusively prove that something isn't carcinogenic, then it goes in Group 2B. Crucially, there's nothing special about 5G - if 5G causes negative health effects, then so does all wireless technology.
>it's only paupers that live in tower blocks where the masts are situated affected by it anyway
Mobile phone masts have a toroidal (doughnut-shaped) radiation pattern, which has a strong null directly above and below - the operators don't want to waste power by sending transmissions straight up into the sky or cause multipath interference by bouncing it off the ground. If mobile phone masts were harmful to health, then the safest place to be would be directly below a mast.
Well, I'll not claim to have a ton of evidence, but I watched a Panorama doc or something, and they were talking about it on Radio 4 once, so for me that's usually pretty much conclusive.
I wasn't trying to say it definitely gives you a brain tumour, but I was at least under the impression we don't yet know if there are negative health effects, or just other side effects in general, to prolonged exposure- Because nobody has been exposed to it for enough of a prolonged time to know. There was also something about it driving birds crazy?
Sort of like vaping, there are horror stories shrieking about how it's worse than smoking, and for the time being we've no reason to suspect it's dangerous in any specific ways, but the truth is we won't know for sure for another several years because it's too new.
>the truth is we won't know for sure for another several years because it's too new.
Again, there's nothing inherently different in 5G than there has been in any other sort of non-ionising radiation we've been bathed in for decades. If twenty years of pervasive mobile phone signals and ten of wifi isn't enough, what is? How long do you think we have to be exposed to these signals to show symptoms?
>>4903 mmm, nearly 200uTesla - where a miliTesla is a weak magnet. Sort of fridge door level magnet, one of the floppy ones that barely sticks. So a fifth of a shitty fridge magnet. Probably from the power supply in the cabinet.
Illiterate credulous cunts.
And I'm not even going to rant about using an app on a phone that reads the compass. Much.
Actually, the comments on that youtube video do somewhat reassure me. That's got to be a first.
People definitely seem to have become stupider in the last ten to twenty years. Coincidence? I think not.
Also I'm a vaper myself, which I should have probably included in my post. What I'm saying is I'm happy to go with the scientific basis that it's probably harmless, but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if they discover fifteen years down the line it's been giving us all invisible super-cancer the entire time.
Like how they used to market shit like asbestos or thalidomide as perfectly safe. I mean, given the history of companies lying to us and selling us harmful things, you can see where these conspiracy nuts get their suspicions from.
>Like how they used to market shit like asbestos or thalidomide as perfectly safe. I mean, given the history of companies lying to us and selling us harmful things, you can see where these conspiracy nuts get their suspicions from.
I understand entirely and do not trust any company at all and if it was Huawei telling us that no, no, it's perfectly safe, honest, I'd be burning down towers too, but though my own research and understanding of science* it's rather obvious that it's absolutely safe.
*of course it's possible that all science is a lie and all research or experience with my own radio equipment is hobbled or misrepresentative in some way, but if that's the case, then we're being lied to on such a huge and broad scale that worrying about whether this particular use of technology is harmful would be a drop in the ocean, a bit like people worrying that the tubes plugging your brain into the matrix might cause cancer.
>>4910>>4911 People are horrifyingly susceptible to this sort of thing. At the end of Feburary I was in a car with a woman jealous yet? who told me "it says COVID-19 on the back of Dettol bottles" and sure enough I checked then and there on my phone and it referred only to a generic "coronavirus", but she'd already shared the post on Facebook and the damage was done.
>>4913 Don't, I can't even find it funny it just makes me die inside. I read an article that explained the mechanism of why 5g was dangerous and it basically opperated on buzzword bingo logic of I don't understand what these words mean so they must be scary.
>>4889 I'm not sure 5G is a primary motivator of consumer behaviour anyway. The vast majority of people will migrate to it when they would have upgraded their handsets regardless and the only way they'll even be aware of it is if there's a 5G icon in their system tray. There are so many people that don't understand the difference between Wi-Fi and cellular data.
In my city 4G is plenty fast enough already at around 100 Mbps. In that light, it doesn't seem like 5G can be anything more more than an incremental change anyway.
This has began circularing as the apparent microchip patent. Check out the description page for some really interesting reading.
As far as i (may well mis-)understand it; the link essentially details a system within which a device records bodily activity. The data from this is used to process the transactions in a blockchain, which generates cyrptocurrency.
Just like now, you'd benefit from work - conceptually rather than necessarily physical (although all types of existance would produce 'work' by the parameters described in the patent). Just by existing your body could offer processing power.
We all know that the original concept for The Matrix was that the people are used as processing units, rather than batteries. This is literally (yes) the effect of the propositions in this patent.
This seems pretty fucking cool, but as above there are some very difficult problems to consider.
I'm concerned it'll be very easy for people to fall into a lifestyle tunnel.
Imagine the TV ads that your conciousness is cruching all day to pay for a meagre subsistance. The advertisers are going to develop techniques to optimise your bodily response to their material, to better squeeze processing power out of you. So they start to insert subliminals and hypnotic techniques into their work, to keep you hooked and generating those sweet stats. Ofcourse they're geting paid to do that, too, by a different value of their bodily activity.
The idea of bitcoin was, apparently, so great because it was a de-centralised system - noone had absolute control of it. But the proposed system in this patent is openly stated as centralised. I don't really know what that means, but i'm guessing the network could be shaped and affected in any which way the controllers desire. They'd have the encryption key at the very least.
Indeed, it seems like this might mean they would only pay people who 'behave themselves', but that'd be taking a giant step back when what we have already is a progress like no other we've known. We're on the doorstep of a cultural rebirth - with greater capacities for good and evil - it'd be stupid of anyone vying for power to turn back this progress in the name of blunt tyranny when so much more potential could be realised by looking ahead.
We're under a system of control now, so what difference does it make if the rein change hands? Still progress, right? Who knows, we might even get VR headsets that can read bodily processes and contributions to the almighty blockchain. Auras, yo!
Protip: when someone applies for a patent, they don't have to prove that their invention works, is vaguely plausible or is even compatible with the laws of physics, e.g.:
>>4920 >the proposed system in this patent is openly stated as centralised. I don't really know what that means
Any time someone proposes a blockchain that's centralised, all they've got is an over-complicated database. It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of a blockchain: the entire notion and purpose is completely dependent on the inviolability of its distributed, decentralised state.
The best excuse I ever heard for a blockchain being implemented in a centralised system was a fintech engineer who said (paraphrasing) "our old system ran on a DEC mainframe that we paid millions in the early 00's to emulate on Itanium rather than build again from scratch. This new blockchain is inefficient and unnecessary, but "blockchain" was the buzzword we needed to get the suits to pay up for a proper new system." I'd guess this is pretty common. If you've never worked in corporate IT, you probably don't realise just how decrepit a lot of live systems actually are. If they aren't broken, and it's cheaper to pay for patches than to uproot and move to something better, then that's what most companies will go for. Before you know it you've got a 20-year-old system that's woefully inefficient and incompatible with just about everything around it but is too expensive to replace. I've loaded Amiga emulators for finance databases, spent days forcing half-broken NT 4.0 software to run on Win7, and worked on a network of thousands of computers that were running on Novel Netware 4.something, over IPX, in the early 2010s, and were only transitioning away because Win7 literally couldn't support IPX - and they were only transitioning to Win7 because Microsoft were ending support for XP. It's real "path of least resistance" stuff.
Nothing really useful to add other than I experience this directly in the air travel industry. Most airlines are running on mainframes still, which isn't bad in itself, unless they don't bother to build an actual frontend for people who need to use these systems quickly and efficiently to ensure the safety and security of the entire fucking operation.
Should it take a six minute video to explain how to add a passenger to a flight? It absolutely should not, especially when you consider the fucking idiots you get working on check-in desks.
But GUIs cost money, so the cheaper the airline the worse it is. (actually some of the cheap airlines use decent frontend solutions these days, you can do a loadsheet for TUI all in a browser window, it's lovely)
Also, unrelated really, but in Aer Lingus' version of this, ASTRAL, if you have the user permissions to access a flight like this, you have permissions to access any flight on the system. Don't see how that could ever be an issue.
>>4926 >Any time someone proposes a blockchain that's centralised, all they've got is an over-complicated database.
Albeit it one that still provides the mathematical guarantees of a blockchain. There are scenarios where that is useful, but yeah, most applications don't fit those and are using it pointlessly.
>>4929 >one that still provides the mathematical guarantees of a blockchain.
If it's centralised then there's no guarantee. That's the whole point of a blockchain. If someone has central control and can monkey around with it then you might as well just have a database with user restrictions, like IBM mainframes in the '60s.
I'll put it like this: if your blockchain isn't solving the byzantine generals, then it's just an over-engineered database.
In fairness the GUIs companies usually end up getting to cover their wierd ancient hyperterminal based systems are invariably awful, and wherever I've worked that has both, I've always preferred to just memorise all the archaic codes or whatever to do it the old way. It's always faster and more reliable when you get the hang of it, and they always leave something out of the GUI to idiot proof it but it causes more problems than it solves, etc etc. The only trouble is you have to invest in training your Gemmas and your Sandras to be able to do it.
You know it really pisses me off how the world is more or less just run by whatever is the cheapest, easiest way to do anything. People wonder why everything is shit and they're always so surprised when a parcel they ordered is late, or a product they bought doesn't work exactly as advertised. Maybe I'm just cynical but it really should be obvious that, on a macro-social scale, you get what you pay for.
>>4930 >If it's centralised then there's no guarantee.
Maths doesn't work like that.
Any non-leaf block becomes immutable, and therefore you can't retroactively edit the contents of a previous block. If you wish to replace the contents of the chain, you need to truncate and fork it, with the consequence that none of the signatures on the new blocks will match the previous version of the chain. The chain is therefore tamper-evident (up to collisions). This has applications in things like establishing chain-of-custody.
We end up having to learn to use fifteen different systems because of all the competing companies trying to get the lowest bid in. The most comprehensive GUIs are still complicated, and like you say, difficult for a certain type of employee to fathom. I think in certain fields you really, really need visual elements, from what I have seen everything presented in terminal plaintext format inspires complacency, and also makes it impossible for you to just figure out something on the spot, which happens quite often, and if you're clever you can just poke about the menus until you find something - not really possible with archaic, none intuitive commands even for nerds like me. There is no man page here.
An extreme example but the difference between reading "375.75 TOW" in green text and looking at an image like this one, can really be an important and compelling reason to spend the money. We also see things like loads of passengers not being charged extra when they should be, or even worse taking extra weight on board that is not accounted for, and I suspect it's because gate staff are too thick to know how to update the system properly.
Anyway that's enough blathering on about my dead fucking industry, carry on.
>>4934 The railway network currently suffers from everything being dependent on a system built in the mid 1970s. The system doesn't provide any real-time information, but if so much as a single wheel is moving anywhere on the network the information it does hold needs to be accessible. Over the decades, various things have been bolted onto it to provide additional functions but that original system under the hood comes up at some point on Boxing Day and has to stay up until Christmas Eve the following year.
>>4933 >therefore you can't retroactively edit the contents of a previous block
Have you actually looked at how blockchains are being implemented by big corporations like Pfizer and Nestle, using Kitchain etc? Many of them proudly declare that the ledger is private and the user never gets to see their transaction on the net. They aren't just forking Bitcoin and calling it a day. Retroactively editing blocks is exactly the reason corporations centralise it in the first place - so they can "correct" previous entries in the chain. (It may take the form of a hard fork, depending on implementation, but that doesn't matter if you're in control of it in the first place. The maths won't "work" in the sense that the cryptographic chain is broken and replaced, but that is irrelevant.)
>>4936 >It may take the form of a hard fork, depending on implementation
Or, in other words, you can't retroactively edit the contents of a previous block without rebuilding the chain and changing all the signatures as a result. Which can be a useful feature in non-bumcoin applications.
>>4937 >Or, in other words, you can't retroactively edit the contents of a previous block without rebuilding the chain and changing all the signatures as a result.
That's exactly what I said, yes.
>>4942 Not me, I'm loving it.
WFH, quiet shops, spring in the air, fantastic weather (I love this sunny cool breezy stuff), everything running at 80% of normal speed, catching up on stuff rather than running flat out and still falling behind.
If it wasn't for the shit that other people are putting up with, and the shit we're lining up in the future, I could happily stay like this forever.
>>4943 Exactly. If it wasn't for the undercurrent of imminent death and total economic collapse I'd be having the time of my life. I'm trying not to let the negative aspects spoil my lockdown too much.
