NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I saw a link on the other NS thread that just made me go... wow.

http://io9.com/5259933/germans-deny-patent-for-gpspoison-microchip

This is a really effective weapon/surveillance device. Kind of terrifying, but interesting all at the same time.

What other weapons/devices like that have you seen that are just amazingly impressive? Links would be cool. :D

that chip is cool. I hope the US grants him a patent.
We could use it on released gitmo types.

That being said I have a pet project of mine.
I want to have a bastard sword made out of Ferrium C69, except i want it to be hollow and filled with an ultra sonic vibration device. Basically I want a vibro blade.

that chip is cool. I hope the US grants him a patent.
We could use it on released gitmo types.

That being said I have a pet project of mine.
I want to have a bastard sword made out of Ferrium C69, except i want it to be hollow and filled with an ultra sonic vibration device. Basically I want a vibro blade.

So you want a dildo with sharp edges?

That being said I have a pet project of mine.
I want to have a bastard sword made out of Ferrium C69, except i want it to be hollow and filled with an ultra sonic vibration device. Basically I want a vibro blade.

We've talked about this.

I'll help you with it. I can probably design a small gas motor that would give you sufficient vibration. The trick will be wiring the switch without harming the integrity and resilience of the blade. My wiring skills are really bad.

That's really interesting, I think it would be useful for rehabilitating convicts, when you set them free or something. At least for some time. (I'm talking about those who killed or raped or something like that, not simple theives).

Just because the patent was refused doesn't mean people won't take advantage of it, it's there just waiting. Conspiracy FTW (ok now seriously, who would avoid such potential?)


Here's an awesome shotgun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c

Recoiless, I would love to have that thing :D

Creepy......

Here's an awesome shotgun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c

Recoiless, I would love to have that thing :D

Galloism wants.

Just about anyting can be made with these smaller microchips. You could make a robot insect for recon info or to take down a power line. Wars of the future are going be soldiers fighting their fights while sitting in a computer chair, eating cheesy poofs.
:D

What other weapons/devices like that have you seen that are just amazingly impressive? Links would be cool.

My Langer. I'll tg you the link, as theres no need to provoke widespread jealousy unnessecarily.

Here's an awesome shotgun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c

Recoiless, I would love to have that thing :D

Me wants! Me wants!

Me wants! Me wants!

Man, the bullet they designed for the gun... now THAT was impressive. Fin stabilizers, a warhead-like construction, detonation on impact... from a fucking shotgun.

that microchip pill thing is scary. >>

Man, the bullet they designed for the gun... now THAT was impressive. Fin stabilizers, a warhead-like construction, detonation on impact... from a fucking shotgun.

Dude, I've never been in love with a weapon before!

Dude, I've never been in love with a weapon before!

Come to the dark side... the United States.

We'll knock your socks off with our guns. :p

Come to the dark side... the United States.

We'll knock your socks off with our guns. :p

:(Wish I could.

Come to the dark side... the United States.

We'll knock your socks off with our guns. :p

And yes, that is entirely as creepily phallo-erotic as it sounds.

That's really interesting, I think it would be useful for rehabilitating convicts, when you set them free or something. At least for some time. (I'm talking about those who killed or raped or something like that, not simple theives).

Just because the patent was refused doesn't mean people won't take advantage of it, it's there just waiting. Conspiracy FTW (ok now seriously, who would avoid such potential?)


Here's an awesome shotgun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c

Recoiless, I would love to have that thing :D

Even if I liked it, Blackwater ain't getting my money.

replace the cyanide with a narcotic. hey a criminal is getting away. knock him out until law enforcement gets there.

that chip is cool. I hope the US grants him a patent.
We could use it on released gitmo types.

That being said I have a pet project of mine.
I want to have a bastard sword made out of Ferrium C69, except i want it to be hollow and filled with an ultra sonic vibration device. Basically I want a vibro blade.

Since this would be a modern tech vibro-blade, I'm guessing at most you'd get 1D4 MD. :p

Sticks and Stones have killed the most.

scary...

the best weapon? the human mind.

with the proper training, you can use ordinary objects in any room and turn it into a weapon. .

replace the cyanide with a narcotic. hey a criminal is getting away. knock him out until law enforcement gets there.

Just what I thought when I read the article. But put it in prison inmates - with an auto-dispense if the prisoner leaves the assigned regions.

No escapes. No riots. Any attempt at resistance, guard points the activator "gun" at the target, he wakes up in solitary. Absolute control of the prison population.

Sticks and Stones have killed the most.

How about words?

How about words?

They can never hurt us.

Just what I thought when I read the article. But put it in prison inmates - with an auto-dispense if the prisoner leaves the assigned regions.

No escapes. No riots. Any attempt at resistance, guard points the activator "gun" at the target, he wakes up in solitary. Absolute control of the prison population.

Even better idea - implant them in everyone at birth.

No riots. No revolutions. A very polite society that paid very very careful attention to never breaking the law.

Even better idea - implant them in everyone at birth.

No riots. No revolutions. A very polite society that paid very very careful attention to never breaking the law.

Except when they're driving. :p

Just what I thought when I read the article. But put it in prison inmates - with an auto-dispense if the prisoner leaves the assigned regions.

No escapes. No riots. Any attempt at resistance, guard points the activator "gun" at the target, he wakes up in solitary. Absolute control of the prison population.

where did I hear of this idea (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103239/)... :tongue:

Except when they're driving. :p

Hook all the chips up to remote activators on GPS sats. They'd be polite even when they were driving.

Hook all the chips up to remote activators on GPS sats. They'd be polite even when they were driving.

They won't knock out a driver at the wheel, not unless the car could also be controlled via GPS.

Even better idea - implant them in everyone at birth.

No riots. No revolutions. A very polite society that paid very very careful attention to never breaking the law.

No freedom (which is obviously what you're getting at). But in a Prison Population, you're dealing with a non-free populace, and a potentially violent one. The prisoners lose nothing except the ability to violate the rules - and unlike in a free populace, where violating the rules can be a good thing, absolute enforcement is a positive in a prison.

They won't knock out a driver at the wheel, not unless the car could also be controlled via GPS.

No reason why a car couldn't be controlled via GPS... indeed, I've heard just such ideas in the last year or so (I believe they were talking about speed limiters, but the theory is obviously extant).

where did I hear of this idea (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103239/)... :tongue:

Fortress also played with the same concept. But in both cases, the punishment didn't fit the infraction; death is not a reasonable punishment for disobedience in any circumstance.

But a few minutes' unconsciousness and a nice quiet cell at the end of it? Not unreasonable.

Even better idea - implant them in everyone at birth.

No riots. No revolutions. A very polite society that paid very very careful attention to never breaking the law.

You've clearly never been around humans much, have you?

No reason why a car couldn't be controlled via GPS... indeed, I've heard just such ideas in the last year or so (I believe they were talking about speed limiters, but the theory is obviously extant).

That is true, but if you can control the car by gps, lock the doors, and do whatever, why bother knocking the driver out? You could just take over the car and there's shit all they can do about it.

well the AUG duh but seeing as how we already know that nothing is more deadly than a well armed population
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKE6tbiag6o) :D
Here's an awesome shotgun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c

typical spam weapon large, unwieldy and pointlessly destructive :p

Even if I liked it, Blackwater ain't getting my money.

you mean your home country doesn't have any embassy work?

They can never hurt us.

doodie head *spreads vicious rumour*

that microchip pill thing is scary. >>

But sounds like every maximum security prison warden's wet dream.

No freedom (which is obviously what you're getting at). But in a Prison Population, you're dealing with a non-free populace, and a potentially violent one. The prisoners lose nothing except the ability to violate the rules - and unlike in a free populace, where violating the rules can be a good thing, absolute enforcement is a positive in a prison.

Absolute enforcement is a positive in any society.

You ask any woman if she'd like the knoweldge that she will NEVER be raped. You ask any child if they would like to know they can never be kidnapped, molested, and murdered.

We're not 'free' at the moment, in any real way. It's mythology. It's a word given to us in exchange for our subservience.

You've clearly never been around humans much, have you?

I've met them. Unpleasant creatures, by and large.

But sounds like every maximum security prison warden's wet dream.

I think that's exactly why it's scary.

*begins drawing up blueprints for a vibro-pie*

That is true, but if you can control the car by gps, lock the doors, and do whatever, why bother knocking the driver out? You could just take over the car and there's shit all they can do about it.

It's not a binary situation. You lock their doors, take over their control, and park them up ready for the cops to arrive - and then you hit the K.O. button so they don't struggle.

Absolute enforcement is a positive in any society.

You ask any woman if she'd like the knoweldge that she will NEVER be raped. You ask any child if they would like to know they can never be kidnapped, molested, and murdered.

We're not 'free' at the moment, in any real way. It's mythology. It's a word given to us in exchange for our subservience.

I cannot agree. We have the ultimate freedom, the one "chipping" such as this would take from us - the right to disobey.

doodie head *spreads vicious rumour*

The problem with rumors is - unless they are actually WORSE than the truth, you're just giving me good press... :D

I cannot agree. We have the ultimate freedom, the one "chipping" such as this would take from us - the right to disobey.

That's nonsensical. And irrelevant.

If you were chipped, you could disobey - and you'd get tranqed for it, and wake up in a small room.

In our society, you can disobey - and you get tranqed for it, and wake up in a small room.

The difference is the need for the four cops, the cuffs, and the potential harm to the peace officers.

That's nonsensical. And irrelevant.

If you were chipped, you could disobey - and you'd get tranqed for it, and wake up in a small room.

In our society, you can disobey - and you get tranqed for it, and wake up in a small room.

The difference is the need for the four cops, the cuffs, and the potential harm to the peace officers.

No. The difference is that today, if one person disobeys, he gets locked up. If a large number disobey together, political change happens.

In a "chipped" society, you'd just have larger prisons.

I've met them. Unpleasant creatures, by and large.

I like the ones with boobs. Anyway, my point is that injecting everyone with these insta-death tracking chips won't magically make people polite and orderly. Its just a matter of time before some group finds a way to remove/disable their chips and rebels. After that happens a few times, some people will infiltrate the control centre for these things and turn them all off permanently. Instant worldwide rebellion, welcome back to democracy(eventually).

No reason why a car couldn't be controlled via GPS... indeed, I've heard just such ideas in the last year or so (I believe they were talking about speed limiters, but the theory is obviously extant).

I'm sorry but have you ever used GPS in your car? we'd all be dead within the week

Absolute enforcement is a positive in any society.

unless we happen to live in a world of corrupt policemen, batshit insane lawmakers and laws that are vague with little logic

fortunately we have a perfect AI watching over us, perfect machine perfect justice

No. The difference is that today, if one person disobeys, he gets locked up. If a large number disobey together, political change happens.

In a "chipped" society, you'd just have larger prisons.

No you wouldn't. As soon as the movement went overground, you'd start tranqing agitators. There'd be a very small prison population. Most people would happily conform.

No you wouldn't. As soon as the movement went overground, you'd start tranqing agitators. There'd be a very small prison population. Most people would happily conform.

Either way, political movements unpopular with the current government get deep fried. In itself a very good argument against chipping the populace in general.

I like the ones with boobs. Anyway, my point is that injecting everyone with these insta-death tracking chips won't magically make people polite and orderly. Its just a matter of time before some group finds a way to remove/disable their chips and rebels. After that happens a few times, some people will infiltrate the control centre for these things and turn them all off permanently. Instant worldwide rebellion, welcome back to democracy(eventually).

If you paired a technology like this with some kind of demographic monitoring (Ask Phillip K Dick, he had this stuff pretty much all worked out), so that you compared headcounts to chipcounts, for example... or compared chip data to biometrics), removing or disabling chips wouldn't make a difference.

Certainly not enough to cause a big problem.

Indeed - about all you could realistically do, would be cross borders out of controlled zones, and I'm pretty sure most governments wouldn't object to a small trickle of malcontents.

unless we happen to live in a world of corrupt policemen, batshit insane lawmakers and laws that are vague with little logic

fortunately we have a perfect AI watching over us, perfect machine perfect justice

I like the way you think. Welcome aboard.

Either way, political movements unpopular with the current government get deep fried. In itself a very good argument against chipping the populace in general.

Actually, that's a very good argument FOR chipping the populace in general.

Actually, that's a very good argument FOR chipping the populace in general.

So you're claiming we can actually trust governments? That's a rather insane position.

So you're claiming we can actually trust governments? That's a rather insane position.

I made no such claims.

I made no such claims.

Yet you would give them the power to prevent any political change they dislike? Then I hate to think how much power you'd give to someone you DID trust!

Yet you would give them the power to prevent any political change they dislike? Then I hate to think how much power you'd give to someone you DID trust!

Trust or distrust is irrelevant. It wouldn't be in the interests of a society to use such technology any more than was necessary to keep peace and security.

If you paired a technology like this with some kind of demographic monitoring (Ask Phillip K Dick, he had this stuff pretty much all worked out), so that you compared headcounts to chipcounts, for example... or compared chip data to biometrics), removing or disabling chips wouldn't make a difference.
Then after failed attempts they'll skip to "Infiltrate control centre and disable all chips". If none of the chips work, then who cares if the authorities know? They can't press a button and kill you any more.

Certainly not enough to cause a big problem.

Indeed - about all you could realistically do, would be cross borders out of controlled zones, and I'm pretty sure most governments wouldn't object to a small trickle of malcontents.

Realistically it would be nigh impossible to introduce this kind of system. Lots of people would object. Not to mention it would cost billions.

Then after failed attempts they'll skip to "Infiltrate control centre and disable all chips". If none of the chips work, then who cares if the authorities know? They can't press a button and kill you any more.


That'd be your best bet - people WITH chips, infiltrating the control centre (assuming there was some such central control node) and disabling chips.

Of course, what you'd probably do (as the government) in such a situation, is have chips assigned randomly to dozens of hubs at different locations.


Realistically it would be nigh impossible to introduce this kind of system. Lots of people would object. Not to mention it would cost billions.

On the contrary, it would be painfully easy to introduce just such technology - it could already have BEEN introduced, and just be waiting to go live.

As for the cost... billions of dollars upfront, versus negligible military, security and policing costs... forever? Sounds like an easy investment to get supported.

Trust or distrust is irrelevant. It wouldn't be in the interests of a society to use such technology any more than was necessary to keep peace and security.

"The interests of Society" are not the interests of government. They would swiftly deem it "necessary for the interests of society" for everyone to be chipped, and for "disruptive influences" to be "suppressed". The only way to prevent government using power against the populace is by denying it power.

No true scotsman, are you being serious or trolling for amusement? I can never tell.

So you're claiming we can actually trust governments? That's a rather insane position.

If you place me in charge of government yes you can trust government.

Then after failed attempts they'll skip to "Infiltrate control centre and disable all chips". If none of the chips work, then who cares if the authorities know? They can't press a button and kill you any more.

pah this isn't James Bond just set it up so anyone who comes near the control centre will get the death signal if there even needs to be a center that is and use the ultimate deterrent of killing everyone if the link is severed

Realistically it would be nigh impossible to introduce this kind of system. Lots of people would object. Not to mention it would cost billions.

we could always lie and the slave labour would probably balance the budget out :)

"The interests of Society" are not the interests of government. They would swiftly deem it "necessary for the interests of society" for everyone to be chipped, and for "disruptive influences" to be "suppressed". The only way to prevent government using power against the populace is by denying it power.

and what has the populace ever done for me?

if the state wielded ultimate power society could be shaped on its ideals, think of a world free from crime and rich in morality

"The interests of Society" are not the interests of government. They would swiftly deem it "necessary for the interests of society" for everyone to be chipped, and for "disruptive influences" to be "suppressed". The only way to prevent government using power against the populace is by denying it power.

They would swiftly deem it necessary for everyone to be chipped, and for disruptive influences to be supressed.

The only way to prevent government using power... have you not been paying attention, I've been ADVOCATING them using such power. The government SHOULD chip the entire population, at birth, with devices that enable them to shut down demagogues, rebels, and malcontents.

I'd like to have one of these too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNW3EBxfhbY&feature=related

No true scotsman, are you being serious or trolling for amusement? I can never tell.

Do you really need to ask?

Do you really need to ask?

This is the internet. More importantly, this is NSG.

They would swiftly deem it necessary for everyone to be chipped, and for disruptive influences to be supressed.

The only way to prevent government using power... have you not been paying attention, I've been ADVOCATING them using such power. The government SHOULD chip the entire population, at birth, with devices that enable them to shut down demagogues, rebels, and malcontents.

Thus making for a stagnant, unchanging society. Ultimately, one incapable of survival.

Thus making for a stagnant, unchanging society. Ultimately, one incapable of survival.

Why would it be stagnant and unchanging? You seem to assume that such a society must be intrinsically restrictive and conservative of nature, whereas it could just as easily be permissive and liberal. It could encourage democratic governance, allow greater (real) freedoms than our current model does, and incentivise advancement and innovation.

But, permissive or restrictive - it would be secure and peaceful. You could make an empire to stand for tens of thousands of years.

NTS, stop trolling my thread.

I wanna see some weapons damnit!

I'd like to have one of these too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNW3EBxfhbY&feature=related

I'm actually surprised the show never covered this weapon: you could probably stop an army with one of these if you used it correctly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSawCPUca7Q&feature=related)

NTS, stop trolling my thread.

I wanna see some weapons damnit!

How can you accuse me of trolling?

You shot yourself in the foot by starting off with the ultimate weapon technology - the ability to shut down conflict, anywhere, at any time, bloodless.

Anything else is downhill from there.

How about this sweet little thang?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARWEN_37

NTS, stop trolling my thread.

I wanna see some weapons damnit!

http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Herold_UraniumWars_files/image004.jpg

I mean come -on-.

Why would it be stagnant and unchanging? You seem to assume that such a society must be intrinsically restrictive and conservative of nature, whereas it could just as easily be permissive and liberal. It could encourage democratic governance, allow greater (real) freedoms than our current model does, and incentivise advancement and innovation.

But, permissive or restrictive - it would be secure and peaceful. You could make an empire to stand for tens of thousands of years.

This is hopelessly idealistic. If the governing body in power has a "kill switch" in every citizen, then there can be no democracy, no meaningful opposition, no effective dissent. The party in power need never lose an election, or even worry about holding them. They need never fear public opinion. Their power is perfectly and totally secure, and the state they run based on the simplest, purest form of coercion possible.

Now, it might be true that pure authoritarianism can drive innovation and advancement, and that in most areas, the people will be relatively free. But it can never be liberal and democratic, and will always be pure slavery.

Why would it be stagnant and unchanging? You seem to assume that such a society must be intrinsically restrictive and conservative of nature, whereas it could just as easily be permissive and liberal. It could encourage democratic governance, allow greater (real) freedoms than our current model does, and incentivise advancement and innovation.

But, permissive or restrictive - it would be secure and peaceful. You could make an empire to stand for tens of thousands of years.

Unfortunately, no, you couldn't. Because it's the demagogues, rebels and malcontents that provide the lubrication that allows change and growth.

In your world, the Reverend Martin Luthor King, jr. could still have conducted his crusade for human rights, but how well would he have done without the counterexample of Malcolm X? We would have been denied the genius of van Gogh, mentally disturbed weirdo that he was. Sartre's works would be banned, alongside the Communist Manifesto (for both advocate rebellion and forcible change). Thomas Paine would write from a cell, that damned demagogue!

None of those people got just what they wanted. But through their ideas, or their example, they changed how people THINK. You can't get that from the conformist, the happy or the contented. And without it, society calcifies; be happy (and THIS is what it means to be happy); be content (and contentment comes from following THIS lifeplan); do as you like (but only within the bounds WE set). No matter how liberal and permissive it might start out, without a continuing influence of the outsider and the outre, conservative and restrictive is where you wind up.

And it would happen fast, in this scenario, since unlike societies of the past, there is more than just social disapproval to silence the dissenter - he is labeled a malcontent, and removed.

Which is all fine - until you hit a snag, some sort of real social, political or economic disaster. A natural society, even a conservative one, has the flexibility of it's rebels and refusers; it may change, but it can survive. A calcified society can do nothing but shatter.

http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Herold_UraniumWars_files/image004.jpg

I mean come -on-.

A VW Beetle with a minigun, now that would be a fun ride.

A VW Beetle with a minigun, now that would be a fun ride.

Herbie, you're the only one that can stop this renegade soviet tank column! We believe in you! Do it for AMERICA.

A VW Beetle with a minigun, now that would be a fun ride.

Yeah, backward. :p

Shades of Escape from New York. I categorically decline to have any damn electronic gizmo stuck anywhere on or in me. I don't even get flu shots.

Just what I thought when I read the article. But put it in prison inmates - with an auto-dispense if the prisoner leaves the assigned regions. No escapes. No riots. Any attempt at resistance, guard points the activator "gun" at the target, he wakes up in solitary. Absolute control of the prison population.

That's a bad road to start down, and I don't think anyone is going to want to live in athe society you end up with at the end of that road. Best just to not start in the first place.

As far as weapons go, my favorite still remains the M1911A1 Colt .45. Some things are classics for a reason.

I am and always will be partial to one particular weapon. Men and women both posses it. That's wit. Nothing else compares. The rest are just brute examples.

I am and always will be partial to one particular weapon. Men and women both posses it. That's wit. Nothing else compares. The rest are just brute examples.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if Oscar Wilde and Voltaire got involved in a teleporter accident, if humanity could survive such a force. I don't reckon odds are good.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if Oscar Wilde and Voltaire got involved in a teleporter accident, if humanity could survive such a force. I don't reckon odds are good.

I would rue the day something like that were to happen. With Wilde it's enough!:eek2:

That'd be your best bet - people WITH chips, infiltrating the control centre (assuming there was some such central control node) and disabling chips.
There would have to be if the chip numbers are to be linked to population or anything of that nature.

Of course, what you'd probably do (as the government) in such a situation, is have chips assigned randomly to dozens of hubs at different locations.
The principle is the same, though the actual rebelling would be more difficult.



On the contrary, it would be painfully easy to introduce just such technology - it could already have BEEN introduced, and just be waiting to go live.
Really? The government has already implanted most/all its citizens with these chips(which are also undetectable somehow, or we would have heard of them)? Don't be silly. Or at least try.

As for the cost... billions of dollars upfront, versus negligible military, security and policing costs... forever? Sounds like an easy investment to get supported.
But now you need people to build more of these chips, and implant them correctly, and make sure neither they don't break nor the computer system they're linked to. You've just replaced one cost with another. Instead of paying cops you're paying engineers and technicians.
pah this isn't James Bond just set it up so anyone who comes near the control centre will get the death signal if there even needs to be a center that is and use the ultimate deterrent of killing everyone if the link is severed
How will you perform maintenance on the control centre if everyone who comes near it dies? A natural disaster could cause it to instantly kill everyone, or simply cease to function, or fucking explode.



if the state wielded ultimate power society could be shaped on its ideals, think of a world free from crime and rich in morality

Oh crime would still be there. Just smarter crime.

I would rue the day something like that were to happen. With Wilde it's enough!:eek2:

Actually you'd only really be hitting the danger zone if you added Lord Byron to the mix - then you'd have someone with that savage humour -and- bisexuality.

Herbie, you're the only one that can stop this renegade soviet tank column! We believe in you! Do it for AMERICA.

"BEEP BEEP!" Vrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!

"BEEP BEEP!" Vrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!

it would be totally worth it just so a generation of russian children grow up with a pathological fear of german cars.

if the state wielded ultimate power society could be shaped on its ideals, think of a world free from crime and rich in morality

That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard anybody say on here. Well, the stupidest thing I've ever heard anybody say on here today, anyways. Yeah, we should definitely consign total power to the state, because every other time the state has wielded anything even close to ultimate power, that has worked out so well for everyone involved. That must be the reason that Soviet Russia is a flourishing utopia that people are beating the door down to get into.

A VW Beetle with a minigun, now that would be a fun ride.

Yeah, until you shoot it, and due to the recoil, it takes the back half of your Beetle with it.

Actually you'd only really be hitting the danger zone if you added Lord Byron to the mix - then you'd have someone with that savage humour -and- bisexuality.

Perhaps we should add Mary Shelly, just to throw some tits into the mix. Now, that quartet is, indeed, one amazing and powerful weapon. I approve.:)

There would have to be if the chip numbers are to be linked to population or anything of that nature.


No, not really. The operative phrase might have been 'random'. So long as you're accounted SOMEWHERE, and the systems cross-reference with each other, it's actually better to design such a system with redundancy. (And I don't just mean global monitoring systems, I mean any data holding or data exchanging system).


The principle is the same, though the actual rebelling would be more difficult.


Not exactly - if your data isn't all held i one central place, you haven't got to infiltrate one facility, you've got to simultaneously infiltrate dozens, or hundreds. And got to do so without tripping any kind of warning, and you've got to do it irreversibly.


Really? The government has already implanted most/all its citizens with these chips(which are also undetectable somehow, or we would have heard of them)? Don't be silly. Or at least try.


I'm not being silly. Most of the population has been immunized. A lot of the population has spent time in hospital. So many of us have swallowed capsule medicine.

I'm not saying we HAVE all been infiltrated. I don't believe we have. But it WOULD be easy to do. Especially as technology gets smaller - you could DRINK the bug.


But now you need people to build more of these chips, and implant them correctly, and make sure neither they don't break nor the computer system they're linked to. You've just replaced one cost with another. Instead of paying cops you're paying engineers and technicians.


Far fewer... far, far fewer. And I'm assuming chips can be massively mass-produced.... the costs would be negligible.

That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard anybody say on here. Well, the stupidest thing I've ever heard anybody say on here today, anyways. Yeah, we should definitely consign total power to the state, because every other time the state has wielded anything even close to ultimate power, that has worked out so well for everyone involved. That must be the reason that Soviet Russia is a flourishing utopia that people are beating the door down to get into.

Every single other occassion on which almost total power has been wielded... and it always comes back to the same, one, despotic cult of personality.

No, not really. The operative phrase might have been 'random'. So long as you're accounted SOMEWHERE, and the systems cross-reference with each other, it's actually better to design such a system with redundancy. (And I don't just mean global monitoring systems, I mean any data holding or data exchanging system).
A sufficiently deep cover infiltrator could negate all these redundancies through a virus or existing command.



Not exactly - if your data isn't all held i one central place, you haven't got to infiltrate one facility, you've got to simultaneously infiltrate dozens, or hundreds. And got to do so without tripping any kind of warning, and you've got to do it irreversibly.
If the systems are interconnected, which they'd have to be, they can all be controlled from one place, or infected with a virus from one place.



I'm not being silly. Most of the population has been immunized. A lot of the population has spent time in hospital. So many of us have swallowed capsule medicine.

I'm not saying we HAVE all been infiltrated. I don't believe we have. But it WOULD be easy to do. Especially as technology gets smaller - you could DRINK the bug.
And of all these people, none of them have ever had an x-ray or MRI or other scan that might show up a piece of metal about the length of your thumb. So now we need this technology to be shielded somehow from all modern medical scanning equipment, and we have to get it to transmit both to a GPS satellite and control centre undetectably.



Far fewer... far, far fewer. And I'm assuming chips can be massively mass-produced.... the costs would be negligible.

Making them would be the easy part, after you pour a few billion into R&D. Its the building and maintaining of the infrastructure to use them that would be costly.

This is hopelessly idealistic. If the governing body in power has a "kill switch" in every citizen, then there can be no democracy, no meaningful opposition, no effective dissent. The party in power need never lose an election, or even worry about holding them. They need never fear public opinion. Their power is perfectly and totally secure, and the state they run based on the simplest, purest form of coercion possible.

Now, it might be true that pure authoritarianism can drive innovation and advancement, and that in most areas, the people will be relatively free. But it can never be liberal and democratic, and will always be pure slavery.

This is hopelessly self-defeating. You claim there can be no democracy - but it's not even got a pretence of support. Youc laim there can be no dissent, but there's no reason to believe it. You talk about 'the party in power', but that's YOUR artifact... such a model doesn't need 'a party', and certainly isn't limited to it. You immediately go on to make this admission yourself - you talk about how elections could be optional - clearly you are aware that the One Party State you instantly invoke isn't the only option, the crushing opporession isn't intrinsic.

As for the assertion that it can never be liberal or democratic - that's totally unsupported by anything you can show.

As for 'pure slavery' - it's no different in REAL terms to the world of today, or any other era.

Perhaps we should add Mary Shelly, just to throw some tits into the mix. Now, that quartet is, indeed, one amazing and powerful weapon. I approve.:)

I suppose if you added Mary Shelly you'd also get the ability to create more powerful fusions by sewing the target corpses together and then ressurecting them. :P A fabulously witty reanimated horde approaches and they're making sarcastic comments about our decor whilst seducing... everyone!

I suppose if you added Mary Shelly you'd also get the ability to create more powerful fusions by sewing the target corpses together and then ressurecting them. :P A fabulously witty reanimated horde approaches and they're making sarcastic comments about our decor whilst seducing... everyone!

I really like the way you think, Jordi. I really do.:D

A sufficiently deep cover infiltrator could negate all these redundancies through a virus or existing command.


A brave assertion.. but somewhere between optimism and fantasy.

You imagine tin the system the weaknesses you WANT to see, so that you can confront them.


If the systems are interconnected, which they'd have to be, they can all be controlled from one place, or infected with a virus from one place.


They wouldn't have to be 'interconnected' in any way that makes them controllable of infectable from a single point.

Off the top of my head - if you used a technological membrane (a third party system that does the cross-referencing of different databases) your systems never have to even communicate with one another.


And of all these people, none of them have ever had an x-ray or MRI or other scan that might show up a piece of metal about the length of your thumb. So now we need this technology to be shielded somehow from all modern medical scanning equipment, and we have to get it to transmit both to a GPS satellite and control centre undetectably.


The mpiece of metal the length of your thumb' is, once again, imagining that the monster fits the form you think you can fight.


Making them would be the easy part, after you pour a few billion into R&D. Its the building and maintaining of the infrastructure to use them that would be costly.

The technology already exists to implant monitoring technology in every body, and monitor it. It's even commercially available. The R&D is nothing like the rate determining step you seem to think.

This is hopelessly self-defeating. You claim there can be no democracy - but it's not even got a pretence of support.
People can be killed instantly on the whim of those in power. The only hope of overthrowing them relies on secretly removing this ability from them. Why would the people in power ever step down when they've successfully taken the lives of the whole populace into their hands?
Youc laim there can be no dissent, but there's no reason to believe it. You talk about 'the party in power', but that's YOUR artifact... such a model doesn't need 'a party', and certainly isn't limited to it.
No, these chips will magically appear in people without government interference, and once the system has spontaneously come into being people will kowtow to it instantly, apropos of nothing. :rolleyes:
You immediately go on to make this admission yourself - you talk about how elections could be optional - clearly you are aware that the One Party State you instantly invoke isn't the only option, the crushing opporession isn't intrinsic.
The opposition, if that's what you mean, would be powerless to stop the ruling party. How do you democratically remove a group from power when they could press a button and kill everyone who doesn't vote for them, and anyone who objects to them doing this?

As for the assertion that it can never be liberal or democratic - that's totally unsupported by anything you can show.

As for 'pure slavery' - it's no different in REAL terms to the world of today, or any other era.
It quite clearly is.

A brave assertion.. but somewhere between optimism and fantasy.

You imagine tin the system the weaknesses you WANT to see, so that you can confront them.
Its the nature of computers. No amount of saying you'll build in redundancies can overcome the possibility of creating a "Turn off all redundancies" command.



They wouldn't have to be 'interconnected' in any way that makes them controllable of infectable from a single point.

Off the top of my head - if you used a technological membrane (a third party system that does the cross-referencing of different databases) your systems never have to even communicate with one another.
Off the top of my head, all the systems have to be able to communicate with the chips and vice versa. There's your interconnectedness right there.



The mpiece of metal the length of your thumb' is, once again, imagining that the monster fits the form you think you can fight.
I was referring to the device in the OP.



The technology already exists to implant monitoring technology in every body, and monitor it. It's even commercially available. The R&D is nothing like the rate determining step you seem to think.

The R&D would have to go to making these things undetectable, otherwise people would :O detect them.

People can be killed instantly on the whim of those in power. The only hope of overthrowing them relies on secretly removing this ability from them. Why would the people in power ever step down when they've successfully taken the lives of the whole populace into their hands?


First - I have to point out that you seem to be conflating two arguments (and that may be my fault). What I was talking about wasn't necesasrily a 'kill' switch... more of a K.O. switch. Other than that, let's carry on.

Second - you instantly go into 'overthrow' and 'secret' stuff. Why would you overthrow a totally benevolent model that cures crime and need?

Third - google Cinicnattus.


No, these chips will magically appear in people without government interference, and once the system has spontaneously come into being people will kowtow to it instantly, apropos of nothing. :rolleyes:


The chips, I assume, would eithyer be a direct product of government involvement... or the opening gambit of some new kind of government.

As for kowtowing instantly... I'd envisioned it more along the lines of Red Dwarf's "Justice Field".


The opposition, if that's what you mean, would be powerless to stop the ruling party. How do you democratically remove a group from power when they could press a button and kill everyone who doesn't vote for them, and anyone who objects to them doing this?


Again, got to point out I'm not necesarily saying that people will be remotely button-killing.

But - the asnwer to your question would be... through elections?

Theoretically, most western world governments have access to manpower and technology that could instantly dismiss the threat of election loss, and yet - they don't.


It quite clearly is.

Oh, a denial? How crushing!

How is it different, in real terms?

Its the nature of computers. No amount of saying you'll build in redundancies can overcome the possibility of creating a "Turn off all redundancies" command.


Not true.

That's not the 'nature of computers', at all - much less of systems that don't need to be (rigorously) integrated.

If every chip is allocated (somehow, randomly.. the methodology is irrelevant) to one system, and the systems only monitor those chips, you can't remotely switch off the redundancy from any remote point.

The only reason to have these systems crossreferencing, is to avoid duplication, and to ensure coverage - and both those features can be checked through third party technology - and if that technology is compromised, it doesn't actually stop the main model from functioning.


Off the top of my head, all the systems have to be able to communicate with the chips and vice versa. There's your interconnectedness right there.


First - all systems don't have to be able to communicate with ALL chips.

Second - the system has to be able to communicate with GPS systems maybe, but the onboard technology only actually needs to be able to respond to external polling.

If that.


I was referring to the device in the OP.


And assuming it was the limit of the scenario. And yet, you then talk about R&D...


The R&D would have to go to making these things undetectable, otherwise people would :O detect them.

Cool. Staple them to something important. Detecting them becomes an irrelevance.

First - I have to point out that you seem to be conflating two arguments (and that may be my fault). What I was talking about wasn't necesasrily a 'kill' switch... more of a K.O. switch. Other than that, let's carry on.
This creates another stumbling block, how will the chip be refilled? If it functions in the same way as the one in the OP, which uses a chemical to kill the target, it will eventually run out of the sedative chemical.

Second - you instantly go into 'overthrow' and 'secret' stuff. Why would you overthrow a totally benevolent model that cures crime and need?
Why do prisoners try to escape when they're in jail for the good of society?

Third - google Cinicnattus.
And how many other people in positions of such power gave it up, rather than had it taken from them?



The chips, I assume, would eithyer be a direct product of government involvement... or the opening gambit of some new kind of government.
Requiring a huge conspiracy.

As for kowtowing instantly... I'd envisioned it more along the lines of Red Dwarf's "Justice Field".
Which is what, exactly?



Again, got to point out I'm not necesarily saying that people will be remotely button-killing.

But - the asnwer to your question would be... through elections?

Theoretically, most western world governments have access to manpower and technology that could instantly dismiss the threat of election loss, and yet - they don't.
They don't because they can't because manpower is unpredictable, more so the larger it is. A head of state could give an order to the military to affect an election, and the military could turn around and tell the head of state to go fuck himself.



Oh, a denial? How crushing!

How is it different, in real terms?

Because most people today are not slaves in any meaningful sense of the word. Simple.

This creates another stumbling block, how will the chip be refilled? If it functions in the same way as the one in the OP, which uses a chemical to kill the target, it will eventually run out of the sedative chemical.


Eventually, yes.

Of course, most people wouldn't likely attempt continuous repetition.

There are other options, as well... you could 'taze' them.


Why do prisoners try to escape when they're in jail for the good of society?


Because they are bad people?

Why would the whole society try to escape the whole society?

You didn't actually even attemtp to answer the question, you just tried to shift the burden.


And how many other people in positions of such power gave it up, rather than had it taken from them?


Kind of irrelevant really. Your question was "Why would the people in power ever step down". Question answered.


Requiring a huge conspiracy.


Actually, a very small conspiracy, since it requires a fairly large fait accompli, but no protracted need for secrecy.


Which is what, exactly?


Not familiar? Rimmer is placed under the Justice Field. When Lister asks him how it works, Rimemr tells him to commit a crime. Lister sets fire to Rimmer's bedsheets, and finds his own clothing burning. Rimmer tells him to commit another one - and Lister immediately refuses.


Because most people today are not slaves in any meaningful sense of the word. Simple.

Most people today are not free in any meaningful sense. Works both ways.

If GPS chip implants (with sedative/poison injection) became mandatory, I can see a growing demand for doctors working in secret, locating and removing them from paying customers.

If GPS chip implants (with sedative/poison injection) became mandatory, I can see a growing demand for doctors working in secret, locating and removing them from paying customers.

Which will then show up on whatever cross-referencing technology there is.

The only realistic way of 'getting round' such a technology would be something like Minority Report - you'd effectively have to have someone else's chip (and possibly match their biometric data, also).

The Crossbow is the best weapon ever. However, in order to make it usable by modern standards, we'll combine the technology of the Crossbow with the Davy Crockett. Nothing will be able to stand the sheer firepower of a portable nuke... Fired froma Crossbow! *evil laughter, tugging at straight coat*

I can't be bothered to read all the pages of this thread, so if someone could please precis it would be much appreciated. Specifically, I would like to know if anyone thinks poison RDIF chips are a good idea.

I can't be bothered to read all the pages of this thread, so if someone could please precis it would be much appreciated. Specifically, I would like to know if anyone thinks poison RDIF chips are a good idea.

I prefer Doritos. *nod*

I can't be bothered to read all the pages of this thread, so if someone could please precis it would be much appreciated. Specifically, I would like to know if anyone thinks poison RDIF chips are a good idea.

Not really, but it *is* interesting.

NTS is trolling by saying it's a good idea.

No riots. No revolutions. A very polite society that paid very very careful attention to never breaking the law.

You.. you trust governments? You trust governments with insane amounts of authoritarian power?

Not really, but it *is* interesting.

NTS is trolling by saying it's a good idea.

Galloism is trolling by claiming people are trolling.

Which will then show up on whatever cross-referencing technology there is.

The only realistic way of 'getting round' such a technology would be something like Minority Report - you'd effectively have to have someone else's chip (and possibly match their biometric data, also).

What cross referencing technology?

You.. you trust governments? You trust governments with insane amounts of authoritarian power?

I don't trust anyone. Fortunately - 'trust' isn't important.

What cross referencing technology?

If you were going to tag people, you'd probably want to make sure there was some way to make sure you weren't duplicating either the records or the people.

I don't trust anyone. Fortunately - 'trust' isn't important.

Ehh, what? Unless you plan on giving the Government Ultimate Power, implanting those chips in everyone is a bad idea. And if you do that, Free Will will go. As well as Democracy. If you have total control over everyone, what's going to stop you?

If you were going to tag people, you'd probably want to make sure there was some way to make sure you weren't duplicating either the records or the people.

Like what?

I don't trust anyone. Fortunately - 'trust' isn't important.

It's not important that a government with the ability to incapacitate and track the location of all of its citizens in a split second is not corrupt, doesn't have a faulty or corrupt legal system, and doesn't have self interested rulers who would happily sacrifice the lives of innocents for political gain?

Ehh, what? Unless you plan on giving the Government Ultimate Power, implanting those chips in everyone is a bad idea.


That's not even internally consistent.


And if you do that, Free Will will go. As well as Democracy.


Bold statements. Unsupported.


If you have total control over everyone, what's going to stop you?

I think you're misunderstanding. The chips in question allow you to punish certain actions, they don't actually remotely control people.

Stop! Somebody actually thinks that the government being in charge of a suicide chip is a good idea?

Like what?

Old people with two lists and a marker pen?

You're asking for the schematics of machinery that doesn't even exist.

Stop! Somebody actually thinks that the government being in charge of a suicide chip is a good idea?

No but one that can knock any citizen out. (not me NTS does)

It's not important that a government with the ability to incapacitate and track the location of all of its citizens in a split second is not corrupt, doesn't have a faulty or corrupt legal system, and doesn't have self interested rulers who would happily sacrifice the lives of innocents for political gain?

You said 'trust'.

If you don't mean 'trust' when you say 'trust', don't say 'trust'... people will think you mean 'trust'.

Oh, the objectivity of it all.

Stop! Somebody actually thinks that the government being in charge of a suicide chip is a good idea?

No.

You.. you trust governments? You trust governments with insane amounts of authoritarian power?

What could go wrong? :p

Old people with two lists and a marker pen?

You're asking for the schematics of machinery that doesn't even exist.

No, I'm not asking for that specific an answer. I'm asking for an idea of what cross referencing technology would be used to prevent people from having their GPS implants removed.

No but one that can knock any citizen out. (not me NTS does)

Just so I am straight on the theory. We should all have chips and shit, which could take us out - IF NECESSARY - so we can all be safe.

Yeah, that's a good idea.

You said 'trust'.

If you don't mean 'trust' when you say 'trust', don't say 'trust'... people will think you mean 'trust'.

Oh, the objectivity of it all.

Trusting the government = relying on the government to not be corrupt in the ways I described. If you believe society is going to be better off, you necessarily trust the government to not be corrupt in the ways I described. If you don't, then you either don't give a shit about, well anything, the well being of people, their privacy etc... OR you're taking that the government is perfect as a given in your hypothetical, in which case you are making a totally pointless, almost meaningless statement, akin to "if the government was perfect, things would be great!".

That's not even internally consistent.

Explain.

Bold statements. Unsupported.

You deny that power corrupts and that ultimate power corrupts absolutely?
These are HUMANS in charge. As in the same people who routinely kill each other off, ban certain things because they're "Unholy" in their eyes, and allowed a monster like Uwe Boll to continue to make movies.
I think you're misunderstanding. The chips in question allow you to punish certain actions, they don't actually remotely control people.
But which actions will be punished? It is, in effect, a banishment of free will. Repeated solitary confinement would almost certainly drive someone who has a natural dislike of authority (Which will, and already does ban harmless actions) insane. Examples like that will undoubtedly drive everyone else to keep within the lines drawn. Even if the lines drawn make no sense. Hell, it'd be enough for the person to be put in solitary confinement fairly often, but not enough to drive him insane. No human contact can really mess humans up, seeing as we're social animals by nature.

Just so I am straight on the theory. We should all have chips and shit, which could take us out - IF NECESSARY - so we can all be safe.

Yeah, that's a good idea.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14810550&postcount=25

NTS is saying every single person born should have this device planted in them, that the government controls.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14810550&postcount=25

NTS is saying every single person born should have this device planted in them, that the government controls.

*whispers* I think Lacadaemon was being sarcastic.

No, I'm not asking for that specific an answer. I'm asking for an idea of what cross referencing technology would be used to prevent people from having their GPS implants removed.

As I said - and you can say 'I'm asking for an idea of what... technology would be used' all you like - you're asking for schematics of machinery that doesn't exist.

(As far as we know, of course).

People have already mentioned the fact that the devices in the OP would be fairly easy to spot with several forms of easily available technology. Checkpoints that carry out one of those methodologies to check for a device would be an easy way to see if someone had had their implant removed. Perhaps even easier, would be simply 'pinging' the devices, and finding out whether they respond, and where.

Trusting the government = relying on the government to not be corrupt in the ways I described.


And, as I clearly said I don't trust them, there's no logical inconsistency in not relying on them to not be corrupt.


If you believe society is going to be better off, you necessarily trust the government to not be corrupt in the ways I described. If you don't, then you either don't give a shit about, well anything, the well being of people, their privacy etc... OR you're taking that the government is perfect as a given in your hypothetical, in which case you are making a totally pointless, almost meaningless statement, akin to


I don't think the government is perfect, but I don't see how a society with no rape, no murder, little or no crime (maybe, no war?) can be worse than what we have.


"if the government was perfect, things would be great!".

Sure - if you believe that every evil and every crime originates in government.

NTS is saying every single person born should have this device planted in them, that the government controls.

Right. But wasn't that hyperbole to sort of make the idea of putting it in prisoners seem ridiculous?

If it wasn't it was sort of deranged.

Sure - if you believe that every evil and every crime originates in government.

All the really good ones do.

As I said - and you can say 'I'm asking for an idea of what... technology would be used' all you like - you're asking for schematics of machinery that doesn't exist.

(As far as we know, of course).

People have already mentioned the fact that the devices in the OP would be fairly easy to spot with several forms of easily available technology. Checkpoints that carry out one of those methodologies to check for a device would be an easy way to see if someone had had their implant removed. Perhaps even easier, would be simply 'pinging' the devices, and finding out whether they respond, and where.

No matter how you choose to interpret my post, I am definitely NOT asking for schematics of machinery that doesn't exist. I am asking how the government could prevent people from getting GPS implants removed. You said: "Which will then show up on whatever cross-referencing technology there is". Your statement insinuates that the technology to detect someone without a chip exists. I'm asking what that technology is.

Explain.


You said: "Unless you plan on giving the Government Ultimate Power, implanting those chips in everyone is a bad idea".

Surely, if you're arguing it is a 'bad idea', the 'unless' part is actually counter-intuitive? Surely - if it's a bad idea, it's a bad idea to give the government ultimate power?


You deny that power corrupts and that ultimate power corrupts absolutely?


Yes, of course I do.

Don't confuse cute maxims with objective reality.


These are HUMANS in charge. As in the same people who routinely kill each other off, ban certain things because they're "Unholy" in their eyes, and allowed a monster like Uwe Boll to continue to make movies.


HUMANS, the same people who give generously to charity, who offer their lives one for another, who create poetry and fine art. Yeah, them.


But which actions will be punished?


Crimes?


It is, in effect, a banishment of free will.


Only if ANY code of laws is.


Repeated solitary confinement would almost certainly drive someone who has a natural dislike of authority (Which will, and already does ban harmless actions) insane. Examples like that will undoubtedly drive everyone else to keep within the lines drawn. Even if the lines drawn make no sense. Hell, it'd be enough for the person to be put in solitary confinement fairly often, but not enough to drive him insane. No human contact can really mess humans up, seeing as we're social animals by nature.

I don't even understand what the point is supposed to be, there.

Solitary confinement drives people mad. Um. Okay?

All the really good ones do.

I'm not going to deny that evil and crime CAN originate in government, but I'm pretty sure people will rape and kill each other even in anarchies.

No matter how you choose to interpret my post, I am definitely NOT asking for schematics of machinery that doesn't exist. I am asking how the government could prevent people from getting GPS implants removed. You said: "Which will then show up on whatever cross-referencing technology there is". Your statement insinuates that the technology to detect someone without a chip exists. I'm asking what that technology is.

And I've already suggested more than one way in which some such procedure could be achieved. If you want me to be more 'specific', then you're not being realistic - or you're just being obtuse.

And, as I clearly said I don't trust them, there's no logical inconsistency in not relying on them to not be corrupt.


I'm highly disturbed by this comment. You don't trust that the government wont abuse this power, but the fact they might abuse this power doesn't bother you, it is merely irrelevant?


I don't think the government is perfect, but I don't see how a society with no rape, no murder, little or no crime (maybe, no war?) can be worse than what we have.


Don't be so obtuse. There is no reason to accept that a society that has these implants will inherently lead to this, and you deliberately missed out how the government will behave, they might merely be the ones doing the crimes, rape, murder, and at a huge scale (generally, as history shows us, governments are the most effective at crime).

I'm highly disturbed by this comment. You don't trust that the government wont abuse this power, but the fact they might abuse this power doesn't bother you, it is merely irrelevant?


It is irrelevant because I don't need to trust them.

The technology can have the effects i want it to have, whether or not I trust the government.

The government might abuse the systems of laws and controls we already have. The fact that that risk exists, is not an argument against the current paradigm, is it?


Don't be so obtuse. There is no reason to accept that a society that has these implants will inherently lead to this,


How is that being obtuse?

If you KNOW, for a fact, that the next crime you committed can be pinpointed, directly traced to you, and acted on with amazing rapidity - perhaps before you've even finished committing your crime - it is entirely likely that the vast bulk of major crime will be prevented.


...and you deliberately missed out how the government will behave, they might merely be the ones doing the crimes, rape, murder, and at a huge scale (generally, as history shows us, governments are the most effective at crime).

I don't deliberately miss out how the government 'will' behave - I just don't accept that you can say how they 'will' behave.

If everyone is chipped, even the government are likely to be inclined to be good.

I'm not going to deny that evil and crime CAN originate in government, but I'm pretty sure people will rape and kill each other even in anarchies.

Yeah, but they probably will do it a few at a time instead of thousands at once.

Edit: BTW, awesome vid in your signature. :D

The government might abuse the systems of laws and controls we already have. The fact that that risk exists, is not an argument against the current paradigm, is it?


What it is, is an argument to minimise the central authorities ability to influence, control and threaten other institutions that protect our rights and provide care for us. If you gave the government this power, absolutely nothing would prevent them from doing so, because absolutely NO ONE could stop them. There is no way in hell I would ever give anyone short of divine perfection that kind of power.

And I've already suggested more than one way in which some such procedure could be achieved. If you want me to be more 'specific', then you're not being realistic - or you're just being obtuse.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14810978&postcount=104

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14811011&postcount=113

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14811023&postcount=119

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14811046&postcount=130

Actually, all you've done when I asked, was dodge my question, claiming I was looking for the schematics to technology that doesn't exist yet. I've not been unrealistic or obtuse. The only thing you said that could POSSIBLY be considered a "suggestion" on technology that detects when someone had their GPS chip removed is "Old people with two lists and a marker pen?", which really wouldn't work at all.

The chip pill would at most acceptable as an incarceration tool for extreme offenders. It doesn't even have to be loaded with a toxin. After all they've most likely committed a crime and thus forfeited their freedoms. And once they served their sentence if possible, the chip gets removed. Sounds fair enough.

But try to spread its use to a society in general? Bad idea.

If you KNOW, for a fact, that the next crime you committed can be pinpointed, directly traced to you, and acted on with amazing rapidity - perhaps before you've even finished committing your crime - it is entirely likely that the vast bulk of major crime will be prevented.


So what? Possibly people don't want that kind of enforcement. Possibly the risks and abuses inherent in enforcing the legal code to that level is actually worse than the current state of affairs.

Maybe, and this is just a thought, people don't care all that much about major crime, since the government has shown fuck all interest in enforcing the legal code as it already exists.

The chip pill would at most acceptable as an incarceration tool for extreme offenders. It doesn't even have to be loaded with a toxin. After all they've most likely committed a crime and thus forfeited their freedoms. And once they served their sentence if possible, the chip gets removed. Sounds fair enough.


Well if it's only for muslims I could agree.

You said: "Unless you plan on giving the Government Ultimate Power, implanting those chips in everyone is a bad idea".

Surely, if you're arguing it is a 'bad idea', the 'unless' part is actually counter-intuitive? Surely - if it's a bad idea, it's a bad idea to give the government ultimate power?

Unless you support that kind of thing, suppression of freedom and all that.

Yes, of course I do.

Have you studied history? Ever?
HUMANS, the same people who give generously to charity, who offer their lives one for another, who create poetry and fine art. Yeah, them.

Tell me, how many people do the stated actions? Now, how many of them are in power?

Crimes?

And who defines what crimes are? The government.

Only if ANY code of laws is.

Eh, no. Only if a code of laws is twisted and corrupted, banning certain actions that have no bearing on other people. Like Gay Marriage.


Solitary confinement drives people mad. Um. Okay?
Indeed. It can. Do you think that's any better than the death penalty?

Yeah, but they probably will do it a few at a time instead of thousands at once.


Ah, that's because anyone can be evil, but really efficient evil takes planning. :)


Edit: BTW, awesome vid in your signature. :D

:) As soon as I saw it, the words I'm now using as the link text, were the first thoughts in my mind. :D

What it is, is an argument to minimise the central authorities ability to influence, control and threaten other institutions that protect our rights and provide care for us. If you gave the government this power, absolutely nothing would prevent them from doing so, because absolutely NO ONE could stop them. There is no way in hell I would ever give anyone short of divine perfection that kind of power.

No one could stop them...

...which is... bad?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14810978&postcount=104

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14811011&postcount=113

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14811023&postcount=119

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14811046&postcount=130

Actually, all you've done when I asked, was dodge my question, claiming I was looking for the schematics to technology that doesn't exist yet. I've not been unrealistic or obtuse. The only thing you said that could POSSIBLY be considered a "suggestion" on technology that detects when someone had their GPS chip removed is "Old people with two lists and a marker pen?", which really wouldn't work at all.

Or the references to the earlier poster talking about why the technology couldn't be hidden (such as x-rays)... or the reference to 'pinging' the chips...

Right there. I didn't hide it... so, yeah - I'm guessing obtuse, now.

No one could stop them...

...which is... bad?

Should the government overstep it's limits, so yeah. Very bad.

So what? Possibly people don't want that kind of enforcement.


Criminals certainly wouldn't.

If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.


Possibly the risks and abuses inherent in enforcing the legal code to that level is actually worse than the current state of affairs.


It' not.

"oh, they'll know where I am, when I'm out and about"... newsflash, they DO know where you are, that's why it's CALLED 'out and about'.

"oh, they'll be able to stop me committing crimes"... hardly a bad thing.

"oh, the security forces will be able to stop me from doing things they don't want me to do"... yes, welcome to reality... it's been that way since the first neanderthal patrolled the perimeter of the tribe.


Maybe, and this is just a thought, people don't care all that much about major crime, since the government has shown fuck all interest in enforcing the legal code as it already exists.

So, your argument isn't against the technology - it's against the system of laws and their enforcement?

Should the government overstep it's limits, so yeah. Very bad.

What if it 'oversteps it's limits' in a good way? Bringing us the dawn of a golden age of peace and prosperity?

What if it 'oversteps it's limits' in a good way? Bringing us the dawn of a golden age of peace and prosperity?
Well, whatever helps you sleep at night. If that's the way you cope with the world, blind optimism and trust, so be it.

Yeah, backward. :p

Yeah, until you shoot it, and due to the recoil, it takes the back half of your Beetle with it.

Now now, never said it would be a GAU-8/A. That's inappropriate.

An XM214 Microgun or even a M134 would be more suitable on a Bug.

"The enemy can not push a button if you have disabled his hand."
-Zim

Just about anyting can be made with these smaller microchips. You could make a robot insect for recon info or to take down a power line. Wars of the future are going be soldiers fighting their fights while sitting in a computer chair, eating cheesy poofs.
:D

You have no idea how much nanotechnology scares me. Much more than nuclear weapons or human cloning, or any of the advanced technologies which are more frequently the subject of fear and paranoia.

Imagine hordes of tiny robots crawling though our homes, through our bodies, unobserved. Privacy would no longer exist. Moreover, one use for such tiny robots would be to enter patient's bodies to destroy tumors or whatever. But suppose the government wants someone dead. There's no longer a need for assassins or thugs when you have invisible machines that can damage the insides of a person's body and make it look like a natural death.

Now, perhaps such thoughts are partly paranoia. I'm no expert on what the practical limitations of nanotechnology would be. But if it can do half the things I've heard claimed, then it would be a terrifying weapon. Silent, invisible control. And like other new technologies, what government or corporation could refuse to use it without becoming uncompetative?

This is hopelessly self-defeating. You claim there can be no democracy - but it's not even got a pretence of support. Youc laim there can be no dissent, but there's no reason to believe it. You talk about 'the party in power', but that's YOUR artifact... such a model doesn't need 'a party', and certainly isn't limited to it. You immediately go on to make this admission yourself - you talk about how elections could be optional - clearly you are aware that the One Party State you instantly invoke isn't the only option, the crushing opporession isn't intrinsic.

As for the assertion that it can never be liberal or democratic - that's totally unsupported by anything you can show.

As for 'pure slavery' - it's no different in REAL terms to the world of today, or any other era.

Ifreann ninja'd me here.

People can be killed instantly on the whim of those in power. The only hope of overthrowing them relies on secretly removing this ability from them. Why would the people in power ever step down when they've successfully taken the lives of the whole populace into their hands?

No, these chips will magically appear in people without government interference, and once the system has spontaneously come into being people will kowtow to it instantly, apropos of nothing. :rolleyes:

The opposition, if that's what you mean, would be powerless to stop the ruling party. How do you democratically remove a group from power when they could press a button and kill everyone who doesn't vote for them, and anyone who objects to them doing this?


It quite clearly is.

No one could stop them...

...which is... bad?

Well, it proves rather nicely that any semblance of "democracy" will be a sham.

Somebody is going to be in power. Even if there isn't a formal ruling party, the people who control the chips will have the power. And the power disparity in this society is very simple - 'total' and 'none'. Say, for example, I dislike some new law that has been implemented. What, exactly, can I do about it? I have no tools which can be used to coerce the government, no way to put pressure on them unless they let me do so. There is no free and open debate, no plurality of ideas, when the government has total control of every citizen. And because of that, there can be no liberal democracy.

Criminals certainly wouldn't.

If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.


That's rich, given that you were picking on CM for posting trite statements.

Anyway, I take it you therefore have nothing to hide? Would you be willing to let the government install CCTV cameras in every room of your house? After all, there's nothing you might want to keep private, eh?

What if something you do is legal now, but becomes illegal? What if it's legal, but is still objectionable for some reason? That argument assumes that the people with perfect information about you can always be trusted, will always have the same definitions of 'good' and 'bad' that you do, and will never change these.

Can't we just use the poison chip on politicians - if their popularity falls below a certain amount they either stand down, and have the chip removed, or get zapped.

Silly people..




*begins drawing up blueprints for a vibro-pie*


So here's what I've got so far.. I'm not so good with baking so I'll let you sort it out. I think the best way to go about is to simply sit the pie in a lightweight tin tray, the base of which contains a small but powerful flat panel or electrostatic speaker that provides the vibration. Power might be an issue but I was wondering that if you could generate electricity from an orange perhaps you could do the same with key lime pie? What do you think?

Criminals certainly wouldn't.

If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.
Except from sadist/sociopaths who now realize they have complete control over you.

Even better idea - implant them in everyone at birth.

No riots. No revolutions. A very polite society that paid very very careful attention to never breaking the law.

Until people figure out how to use kitchen microwaves to kill the electronics of the implants. The nature of micro-electronics, especially small enough to be implanted in the human body, is that it's small nature precludes it from being shielded from anything harsher than a stern glare. A few seconds is all you need to fry it at no lasting harm to yourself and you can always jimmy the door sensor so that it thinks it's closed. And no, don't tell me they'll produce magic circuits that run on fairy dust instead of electrons.

Next!

Until people figure out how to use kitchen microwaves to kill the electronics of the implants. The nature of micro-electronics, especially small enough to be implanted in the human body, is that it's small nature precludes it from being shielded from anything harsher than a stern glare. A few seconds is all you need to fry it at no lasting harm to yourself and you can always jimmy the door sensor so that it thinks it's closed. And no, don't tell me they'll produce magic circuits that run on fairy dust instead of electrons.

Next!

Trivially solvable. You simply design the implant so that, unless it's working, the drug is released. The circuits are there to hold it closed. Fry them, you die.

Well, whatever helps you sleep at night. If that's the way you cope with the world, blind optimism and trust, so be it.

I didn't say I was optimistic, and I've expressly denied the trust.

Still, if that's the way you cope with the world, radnomly making shit up, so be it.

Well, it proves rather nicely that any semblance of "democracy" will be a sham.


It does nothing of the like.


Somebody is going to be in power. Even if there isn't a formal ruling party, the people who control the chips will have the power. And the power disparity in this society is very simple - 'total' and 'none'. Say, for example, I dislike some new law that has been implemented. What, exactly, can I do about it? I have no tools which can be used to coerce the government, no way to put pressure on them unless they let me do so. There is no free and open debate, no plurality of ideas, when the government has total control of every citizen. And because of that, there can be no liberal democracy.


We have no way to 'apply pressure' unless we're allowed to, now. Hence the lobbyists, the various forms of permitting for peaceful protest, etc.

We have debate, despite that. There's no reason why debate would stop existing.

You're proposing a vision somewhere between pessimism, and paranoia.


That's rich, given that you were picking on CM for posting trite statements.


No, I was addressing the fact that CM was posting nonsense.

The sorts of people who worry about whether you're going to be infringed upon while you're trying to rape and murder people? Those people are the rapists and murderers. Everyone elese HOPES those people get interrupted and inconvenienced!


Anyway, I take it you therefore have nothing to hide? Would you be willing to let the government install CCTV cameras in every room of your house? After all, there's nothing you might want to keep private, eh?


Talking to the wrong person. I honestly wouldn't care.


What if something you do is legal now, but becomes illegal? What if it's legal, but is still objectionable for some reason? That argument assumes that the people with perfect information about you can always be trusted, will always have the same definitions of 'good' and 'bad' that you do, and will never change these.

If I do something that becomes illegal, I'll stop doing it.

Except from sadist/sociopaths who now realize they have complete control over you.

How do they have 'complete control' over anyone?

I think you're confused. I've not been talking about people wandering around with ariels out of their heads, being remotely steered by teams of people with joysticks in some remote office.

Until people figure out how to use kitchen microwaves to kill the electronics of the implants. The nature of micro-electronics, especially small enough to be implanted in the human body, is that it's small nature precludes it from being shielded from anything harsher than a stern glare. A few seconds is all you need to fry it at no lasting harm to yourself and you can always jimmy the door sensor so that it thinks it's closed. And no, don't tell me they'll produce magic circuits that run on fairy dust instead of electrons.

Next!

I notice UvV has already illustrated a pretty good 'Dead Man Handle' methodology for dealing with that risk.

Until people figure out how to use kitchen microwaves to kill the electronics of the implants. The nature of micro-electronics, especially small enough to be implanted in the human body, is that it's small nature precludes it from being shielded from anything harsher than a stern glare. A few seconds is all you need to fry it at no lasting harm to yourself and you can always jimmy the door sensor so that it thinks it's closed. And no, don't tell me they'll produce magic circuits that run on fairy dust instead of electrons.

Next!

Trivially solvable. You simply design the implant so that, unless it's working, the drug is released. The circuits are there to hold it closed. Fry them, you die.

That's a great idea! Until you go to nuke a bag of popcorn. :p

I notice UvV has already illustrated a pretty good 'Dead Man Handle' methodology for dealing with that risk.

Have you considered that someone, not in the government even, could crack the code for activating one? They could then use a focused dish to execute anyone from a safe distance.

Have you considered that someone, not in the government even, could crack the code for activating one? They could then use a focused dish to execute anyone from a safe distance.

Or everyone with a single high altitude nuclear detonation's electromagnetic pulse.

Have you considered that someone, not in the government even, could crack the code for activating one? They could then use a focused dish to execute anyone from a safe distance.

'Crack the code'? Ah - I see, you're not talking about the Dead Man Handle idea, you're talking about however it is they are remotely KO'ing people?

I suppose, you might be able to 'execute' someone that way... KO them in front of a bus or something.

Or everyone with a single high altitude nuclear detonation's electromagnetic pulse.

There are those would argue that, if you have a nuke to drop on a population... relying on the EMP to do the damage is a bit like stepping in front of a train, and hoping you'll be killed by the pollution.

Have you considered that someone, not in the government even, could crack the code for activating one? They could then use a focused dish to execute anyone from a safe distance.

I can think of a way to counter that as well. Execution commands are a timestamp, and are encrypted twice with RSA. As a result, only the intended chip will be able to read it and only the government can send it. Furthermore, you can't record a previous signal and send it again.

NTS: I'm thinking of a response to your post.

Edit: He meant that some third party could try and send the kill signal the government have to use, which would (in my way of modelling the system) simply be a "deactivate circuits" signal.

There are those would argue that, if you have a nuke to drop on a population... relying on the EMP to do the damage is a bit like stepping in front of a train, and hoping you'll be killed by the pollution.

Until you put a capsule with very delicate circuitry inside everybody that goes bonkers when tampered with. :p

Until you put a capsule with very delicate circuitry inside everybody that goes bonkers when tampered with. :p

Now what if instead of injecting a toxin, the chip triggered neural impulses that either jolted, paralyzed or terrified the subject... and the chip was triggered by a pre-programmed condition...

Like say the sound of a clown nose honking?

Now what if instead of injecting a toxin, the chip triggered neural impulses that either jolted, paralyzed or terrified the subject... and the chip was triggered by a pre-programmed condition...

Like say the sound of a clown nose honking?

Or pushbutton remote-controlled defecation. :eek:

Or pushbutton remote-controlled defecation. :eek:

Honk! Honk! Sprrrrrrrrrrt...

Trivially solvable. You simply design the implant so that, unless it's working, the drug is released. The circuits are there to hold it closed. Fry them, you die.

I notice UvV has already illustrated a pretty good 'Dead Man Handle' methodology for dealing with that risk.

This translates to extremely high fatality rate during the first batch run as the chips fail over time. Even pacemakers have to be replaced now and again. Or it could be a particularly energetic solar flare dumping a lot of energy into the magnetosphere, killing everyone with the chip.

This also translates to an easy weapon for terrorists as the construction of microwave pulse weaponry sufficient to disable unshielded electronics in a wide area is not a difficult task with household microwave components or just an EPFCG (small amount of explosive material, copper wire and magnets), which can be small, are easy to construct and hide, and impossible to detect until detonation.

Thereby, dead man triggers on lifetime implants are the worst possible idea as a means of control and will be found out and exploited very quickly.

Next!

There are those would argue that, if you have a nuke to drop on a population... relying on the EMP to do the damage is a bit like stepping in front of a train, and hoping you'll be killed by the pollution.

You don't drop nukes on a population to create the EMP pulse. Horribly inefficient. You detonate it above the magnetosphere well above the atmosphere, and like a solar flare, would pump a huge amount of energy into it. The resulting pulse would then translate down into the atmosphere a thousand times more powerful over a huge area, and fry every electronic component in the region. You only need a handful of high altitude detonations to completely black out the globe.

See the Starfish Prime tests for proof of concept.

No you wouldn't. As soon as the movement went overground, you'd start tranqing agitators. There'd be a very small prison population. Most people would happily conform.

You are one sick and deluded little man.

The inventor said the chip could be used to track terrorists, criminals, fugitives, illegal immigrants, political dissidents, domestic servants and foreigners overstaying their visas.

About bolds 1 and 3, I hope that Lega Nord doesn't hear of that (unlikely... they guys are so ignorant that they can barely read italian).

About bold 2, WTF?

Let's hope that the Germans have sense enough to send one of their 007s to kill the inventor. Just to make the point.

About bolds 1 and 3, I hope that Lega Nord doesn't hear of that (unlikely... they guys are so ignorant that they can barely read italian).

About bold 2, WTF?

Let's hope that the Germans have sense enough to send one of their 007s to kill the inventor. Just to make the point.

whats wrong with knowing where your domestic servants are ?

whats wrong with knowing where your domestic servants are ?

Because domestic servants, unlike slaves, have a right to a private life outside of their workplace?

Because domestic servants, unlike slaves, have a right to a private life outside of their workplace?

yes but if they agree to have the location ship implanted that's a choice.
No one is forcing them. Your simply agreeing to have a chip implanted as part of terms of employment.

yes but if they agree to have the location ship implanted that's a choice.
No one is forcing them. Your simply agreeing to have a chip implanted as part of terms of employment.

Except it's a kill switch. The Saudi's have a long history of abuse against their domestic help, bigger and nastier than those of Hong Kong and Singaporean residents. I don't see them not abusing this like a junkie at a cocaine buffet.

Except it's a kill switch. The Saudi's have a long history of abuse against their domestic help, bigger and nastier than those of Hong Kong and Singaporean residents. I don't see them not abusing this like a junkie at a cocaine buffet.

that's only the second model. I am sure he meant to use the first model which is tracking only for domestic servants.

Or the references to the earlier poster talking about why the technology couldn't be hidden (such as x-rays)... or the reference to 'pinging' the chips...

Right there. I didn't hide it... so, yeah - I'm guessing obtuse, now.

All you're talking about is locating people that don't have functioning GPS implants, either because the implants aren't there, or they were malfunctioning. HOW WOULD YOU STOP PEOPLE FROM REMOVING THEIR IMPLANTS?!?

HOW WOULD YOU STOP PEOPLE FROM REMOVING THEIR IMPLANTS?!?Sensitive trigger. ;)

Until people figure out how to use kitchen microwaves to kill the electronics of the implants. The nature of micro-electronics, especially small enough to be implanted in the human body, is that it's small nature precludes it from being shielded from anything harsher than a stern glare. A few seconds is all you need to fry it at no lasting harm to yourself and you can always jimmy the door sensor so that it thinks it's closed. And no, don't tell me they'll produce magic circuits that run on fairy dust instead of electrons.

Next!

I'm sure a taser or stun gun would be enough to do it, if you positioned the GPS implant between the probes. At worst, it would fire it's sedative charge, you'd fall to the ground, and wake up a little while later to find yourself free of your implant.

Sensitive trigger. ;)

Like what, a mercury switch or accelerometer? That won't work, as the trigger would go off the first time the person moved. Or the first time the implant shifted in the body. Or during insertion.

Contact with outside air pressure.

All you're talking about is locating people that don't have functioning GPS implants, either because the implants aren't there, or they were malfunctioning. HOW WOULD YOU STOP PEOPLE FROM REMOVING THEIR IMPLANTS?!?

I've actually addressed that two different ways.

One - you don't need to. They pop the chip out, they walk past the very first sensor that fails to match a chip to a biometirc signal, and Collection Squad swoops down.

Two - perhaps even more important - staple it to something delicate and important. The inside of the heart, perhaps. Inject it through the skull, maybe?

One - you don't need to. They pop the chip out, they walk past the very first sensor that fails to match a chip to a biometirc signal, and Collection Squad swoops down.

Wide area passive biometrics with RFID matching don't exist and are strictly in the field of maybe future tech. Doorway type biometric scanners do exist, but are expensive, and stupidly expensive to field on the large scale.

Fail.


Two - perhaps even more important - staple it to something delicate and important. The inside of the heart, perhaps. Inject it through the skull, maybe?

Requires surgery without consent on every living being. Only a tiny fraction of the populace would agree to it. Again, massive cost and manpower requirements drawing from very, very, very, limited numbers of neurosurgeons and heart surgeons.

Fail.

You don't think out your solutions very well do you?

Contact with outside air pressure.

So, at worst, you'd get knocked out while it's being removed (the implant would most likely be just under the skin in order to be able to function correctly, so you'd probably only need local anesthesia to remove it).

I've actually addressed that two different ways.

One - you don't need to. They pop the chip out, they walk past the very first sensor that fails to match a chip to a biometirc signal, and Collection Squad swoops down.

Two - perhaps even more important - staple it to something delicate and important. The inside of the heart, perhaps. Inject it through the skull, maybe?

"Solution" One is laughable. The costs to put the needed thousands of sensors around every city and town (if not millions, for larger cities) would be insane. Not to mention the ridiculous increase in police payroll for a "Collection Squad" that would have to be near EVERY sensor, to be able to react quick enough to catch someone without a GPS implant.

"Solution" Two won't work either, as current generation implants that transmit signals through the skin need to be just under the skin to function correctly. How would the implant be effective if it can't send or receive signals because it's too deep in the body?

ETA: And as Non Aligned States said, your "solution" would require surgery, which many people wouldn't agree to.

I've actually addressed that two different ways.

One - you don't need to. They pop the chip out, they walk past the very first sensor that fails to match a chip to a biometirc signal, and Collection Squad swoops down.

Two - perhaps even more important - staple it to something delicate and important. The inside of the heart, perhaps. Inject it through the skull, maybe?

I repeat, you are sick.

"Solution" One is laughable. The costs to put the needed thousands of sensors around every city and town (if not millions, for larger cities) would be insane. Not to mention the ridiculous increase in police payroll for a "Collection Squad" that would have to be near EVERY sensor, to be able to react quick enough to catch someone without a GPS implant.

"Solution" Two won't work either, as current generation implants that transmit signals through the skin need to be just under the skin to function correctly. How would the implant be effective if it can't send or receive signals because it's too deep in the body?

ETA: And as Non Aligned States said, your "solution" would require surgery, which many people wouldn't agree to.

Lest you join NAS in his epic-most of epic fails - I don't remember ever suggesting we should ask people if they wanted a chip. indeed, if you read back over my comments (and ignore anyone else commenting on mine, which might have confused you), I explicitly stated we should do it to everyone - not just some people we ask and they say 'okay'.

It's easy enough to do - babies are pretty well known for not being able to defend themselves - so that would be the perfect opportunity. One complicit nurse in every childrens ward with the right equipment, and you could have a tiny tag stapled into the ovaries or testes of every baby (since those parts are likely to be covered for x-raying, so... self-hiding), or punched through the skull.

You could get away with it for years before someone got a good enough case together to shut you down - and all it takes is 15-20 years and you've got an entire reproductive generation tagged.

Moving on from that - the sensory stations don't need to be infinitely broad spectrum, although they certainly could be in the future. Voting booths, government offices, schools, etc - you could pick dozens of areas that might already have some kind of coverage, and just add extra machinery.

And the collection squads don't have to be in large numbers, and don't have to be super quick to respond - although a small handful could respond pretty quickly ina dense population area - just snap a shot of the untagged person, and/or monitor them through other technologies (pinpoint their phone, capture them on satellite imagery... shoot a tiny filament of something detectable into them... hell, just taze them!)

The options are pretty much endless. The 'problems' you encounter are the reesults of a lack of imagination on your own part.

Wide area passive biometrics with RFID matching don't exist and are strictly in the field of maybe future tech.


Not really. The technologies for several fairly broad passive systems already exist, they just aren't used. A fairly comprehensive camera monitoring system, hooked up to face recognition software is a basic biometric measure, the technology already exists commercially for RFID monitoring. If it's not already being done, it is a simple matter of uniting those models.


Doorway type biometric scanners do exist, but are expensive, and stupidly expensive to field on the large scale.


I think you're (deliberately) overthinking 'biometric'. A fingerprint is biometric data... as is your height, your hair color... your retinal map. Your DNA.

Fingerprint ID is slow to be very effective, on it's own - but there are sveral ways you could speed such data sorts up, and collection of the data could be as easy as... well, the handle of a door (if you wanted to be sneaky)... but you don't have to go that far - people are increasingly looking at biometrics for their OWN security. The next few years could easily see people volunteering their own biometric data at their places of work, to replace keycards or security personnel.


Fail.


Their IS fail here... but that wasn't it.


Requires surgery without consent on every living being.


Which was my starting premise. How's that for repeating someone's argument back to them.


Only a tiny fraction of the populace would agree to it.


Which is irrelevant.


Again, massive cost and manpower requirements drawing from very, very, very, limited numbers of neurosurgeons and heart surgeons.


Massive costs and manpower?

In what way? If the government helped me get a decent paying medical job, I'd do their RFID work for them voluntary.


Fail.


Again, one of us is failing, hard - but it's not me.


You don't think out your solutions very well do you?

Yes.

When we see the 'communism' debate on this forum, it's a short amount of time before someone points out that not everyone WANTS communism, as the CLINCHING argument against it.

When someone else points out - 'hey, let's make a communism only of the people who DO want it, then'... it's always something of a shot across the bows of those arguing against - because they really COULD have got to that answer themselves, if they'd thought about what they were saying for even a very few seconds.

That's what you're doing. You're creating ghost arguments that you, yourself, could easily knock down, if you thought before you typed.

Lest you join NAS in his epic-most of epic fails - I don't remember ever suggesting we should ask people if they wanted a chip. indeed, if you read back over my comments (and ignore anyone else commenting on mine, which might have confused you), I explicitly stated we should do it to everyone - not just some people we ask and they say 'okay'.

You really don't think out your solutions. I've also pointed out the hideous vulnerabilities to them, and the sheer potential for blackmail any person with basic electrical knowledge could cook up in such an established system, which you pretended didn't exist. And let's not forget the huge cost in resources that would be required to put this into action. Bribes to shut mouths and recruit people to do the dirty work, because you know, not everyone is willing to work for miniluv. Production facilities to produce the chips and drug payloads in the billions. Distribution facilities to ship them to every hospital, the infrastructure required to set up your big brother surveillance system. Where's the money coming from? The magic sky fairy?

And then you create a global Illuminati type network of people to carry out your shadow government will in the hopes that it won't get exposed. A laughable prospect at best.

You'd have an easier time arguing the US government orchestrated 9/11.

You couldn't fail harder if you tried on purpose.


The options are pretty much endless. The 'problems' you encounter are the reesults of a lack of imagination on your own part.

The problems you brush away are the ones that can only be brushed away if you aren't concerned about petty things like facts, economics, the actual difficulty of organizing a national level infrastructure and secret monitoring system for the entire populace from scratch and reality.

But don't worry, there are plenty of conspiracy nuts who'd be happy to accommodate your reality challenged ideas.

Not really. The technologies for several fairly broad passive systems already exist, they just aren't used. A fairly comprehensive camera monitoring system, hooked up to face recognition software is a basic biometric measure, the technology already exists commercially for RFID monitoring. If it's not already being done, it is a simple matter of uniting those models.

Current face matching technology is nowhere near capable of doing what you propose and requires a very specific angle to run a comparison with any degree of accuracy. Putting it on a public road is about as workable as three legged pants. You've been watching too many spy shows.


I think you're (deliberately) overthinking 'biometric'.


You're simplifying biometric data way too much so you can squeeze your Orwellian fantasy.


Massive costs and manpower?

In what way? If the government helped me get a decent paying medical job, I'd do their RFID work for them voluntary.

Manufacture a million GPS trackers out of pocket, and have them put in one million people, babies or otherwise, without anyone finding out, ever, and then you can talk.

Otherwise, you're just spouting so much "world control is easy!!" bullcrap.

You really don't think out your solutions. I've also pointed out the hideous vulnerabilities to them, and the sheer potential for blackmail any person with basic electrical knowledge could cook up in such an established system, which you pretended didn't exist.


Like the risk of microwaves? Please.

Oh wait - were you the one who thinks Dead Man Handle means 'killswitch'?


And let's not forget the huge cost in resources that would be required to put this into action. Bribes to shut mouths and recruit people to do the dirty work, because you know, not everyone is willing to work for miniluv.


Some people might need bribing - and for most of them, the bribe level wouldn't have to be that high. So long as they either had some idological reason to buy in, or were given some kind of vested interest.


Production facilities to produce the chips


Newsflash: Facilities already produce chips.


...and drug payloads in the billions.


Newsflash: Facilities already produce drugs.


Distribution facilities to ship them to every hospital,


Newsflash: Hospitals already DO receive shipments.


...the infrastructure required to set up your big brother surveillance system.


...is apparently, largely already in place.


Where's the money coming from? The magic sky fairy?


I was thinking more along the lines of the budget, but I'm beginning to see why you are having problems.

I hate to break it to you like this... fairies aren't real.


And then you create a global Illuminati type network of people to carry out your shadow government will


Shadow governments and illuminati? If you drop the right buzzwords it's better than an argument?

What you are effectively arguing is that a universal secret observation system just couldn't happen, because it's too expensive, too hard, and people wouldn't be willing to contribute.

Unfortunately, that means you're blissfully unaware of the history of even the last century.


...in the hopes that it won't get exposed. A laughable prospect at best.

You'd have an easier time arguing the US government orchestrated 9/11.


Sure, if 9/11 was what we were talking about.

Shifting the goalposts is dishonest, at best.


You couldn't fail harder if you tried on purpose.


The irony...


The problems you brush away are the ones that can only be brushed away if


...you think before you type.


...you aren't concerned about petty things like facts, economics, the actual difficulty of organizing a national level infrastructure from scratch and reality.


By your logic, there are no roads and no rail. No border security. No federal budgets... no nationwide agreements between environmental protection divisions, and emergency management groups. Why? Because all those things are 'difficult' to 'organize' on a national infrastructure level.


But don't worry, there are plenty of conspiracy nuts who'd be happy to accommodate your reality challenged ideas.

Talking about technologies that already exist, and ways in which they COULD be employed in the future, is not 'a conspiracy'.

You're attempting to paint it as something it isn't. I understand why - it's because you've no legitimate material.

Current face matching technology is nowhere near capable of doing what you propose


Actually, it's more than capable of doing what I propose - it just won't fit whatever strawman you're going to throw at it this time.


...and requires a very specific angle to run a comparison with any degree of accuracy.


Which is okay - I don't remember specifying angles.


Putting it on a public road


...is something I didn't say.

Strawman exposed.


You're simplifying biometric data way too much so you can squeeze your Orwellian fantasy.


You're kidding? You're going to argue that fingerprints are 'too simple' to count as biometric data?


Manufacture a million GPS trackers out of pocket, and have them put in one million people, babies or otherwise, without anyone finding out, ever, and then you can talk.


Why would one private citizen do this?

The government has much better resources and access than I do.

And 'without anyone finding out, ever' is a red herring - they are free to find out 15-20 years after the implantation - once there is an entire ID generation.

After that - people wouldn't WANT to 'go back'.


Otherwise, you're just spouting so much "world control is easy!!" bullcrap.

World control is easy. That's why we have a Constitution... to protect us from it. In theory.

Like the risk of microwaves? Please.


Here you demonstrate your utter ignorance of electronics.


Oh wait - were you the one who thinks Dead Man Handle means 'killswitch'?

Even if you loaded a KO drug instead of poison, what do you think will happen if everyone in one square kilometer of highly developed urban area fell asleep?

Massive automative pileups, industrial accidents, people falling asleep in bathtubs or just into frying pans/grills. Gas fires from unattended stoves. Industrial fires from unmanaged systems left out of control.

You want to talk about failure of imagination? Here's yours.


Some people might need bribing - and for most of them, the bribe level wouldn't have to be that high. So long as they either had some idological reason to buy in, or were given some kind of vested interest.

And magically, these people would all be in the place to do what you want, and none of them would ever expose you, oh no. You got that mind control working yet?

And don't even get me started on the specialists you'd require if you want to put it anywhere but as a subdermal implant. Putting it in the brain? The heart? you need specialist surgeons for those, and these are thin on the ground. And no, under no circumstances could something of this capability be injected via hypodermic needle.


Newsflash: Facilities already produce chips.
Newsflash: Facilities already produce drugs.


When you can retool factories to produce these specific ones without anyone finding out, with no cost for retooling, you might want to go talk to your local patent office about your production line converter.


...is apparently, largely already in place.

Your biometric sensors? No.
Your recognition systems? No.
Your capture teams? No.
Your populace monitoring supercomputer? No.

Maybe in your imagination.


I was thinking more along the lines of the budget, but I'm beginning to see why you are having problems.

Because you think multi-billion dollar secret projects encompassing the chipping of the entire populace is not only doable, but a simple matter.


Shadow governments and illuminati? If you drop the right buzzwords it's better than an argument?

What you are effectively arguing is that a universal secret observation system just couldn't happen, because it's too expensive, too hard, and people wouldn't be willing to contribute.

Echelon and it's later brothers aren't exactly secret. And this isn't remote observation by tapping into existing infrastructure. It's deliberately chipping people and making sure they never find out when a simple x-ray or sharp eye would expose it.

Of course, you also use magic tech that outlasts human lifespans and never breaks down.


Unfortunately, that means you're blissfully unaware of the history of even the last century.

I'll not argue that surveillance is what governments have done throughout time. What I'm arguing is the sheer impossibility of keeping a project of this sort secret from the general populace, or sabotage proof. There have always been exposes of this sort of behavior, if not announced by the government itself. And as for sabotage proof, have they ever made hacker proof DRM yet? No?


Sure, if 9/11 was what we were talking about.

Shifting the goalposts is dishonest, at best.

It's a comparison. And very valid.


By your logic, there are no roads and no rail. No border security. No federal budgets... no nationwide agreements between environmental protection divisions, and emergency management groups. Why? Because all those things are 'difficult' to 'organize' on a national infrastructure level.

And what part of these projects were kept secret, and conducted on the entire populace against their will with absolutely no whistle blowers whatsoever?

Oh dear. It looks like in your attempt to rush your failure of an argument, you lost sight of the central point of the argument.


Talking about technologies that already exist, and ways in which they COULD be employed in the future, is not 'a conspiracy'.

Antimatter generation exists. Whether it will ever be efficient to the point where it nets more energy than it consumes, and whether it can be contained is a matter for speculation and maybes that might never come true at all.

Your argument is the same. You're taking technology that is very limited at best, and then giving it capabilities a quantum leap above what it has.

Which is okay - I don't remember specifying angles.

...is something I didn't say.

Doesn't matter then does it? That means you have to install these sensors in every public entryway, which aren't cheap, and would bankrupt the government.


You're kidding? You're going to argue that fingerprints are 'too simple' to count as biometric data?

I was talking about face matching data, but since you want to talk about fingerprints, you going to put a scanner in every doorway now? Where's the money coming from? And no, don't talk about the budget. No government could afford this. And before you talk about previous government projects, most of them generated income from the government in the long run. Surveillance doesn't. Not comparative to the cost.


The government has much better resources and access than I do.


And still wouldn't be able to do what you propose without becoming bankrupt.


And 'without anyone finding out, ever' is a red herring - they are free to find out 15-20 years after the implantation - once there is an entire ID generation.


Laughable at best. You are hoping 15-20 years of no one ever getting an x-ray, of not one unit out of billions malfunctioning, and no one triggering the drug which would raise suspicions.


After that - people wouldn't WANT to 'go back'.


Let me know when everyone is happy with warrantless wiretapping and imprisonment.

Whoops. Look like most aren't.

whats wrong with knowing where your domestic servants are ?

Privacy, right to physical integrity, plus surgery not motivated by health needs.

And no, you CAN'T even ask for that in a contract. That would be a HUGE violation of workers' right.

Lest you join NAS in his epic-most of epic fails - I don't remember ever suggesting we should ask people if they wanted a chip. indeed, if you read back over my comments (and ignore anyone else commenting on mine, which might have confused you), I explicitly stated we should do it to everyone - not just some people we ask and they say 'okay'.

It's easy enough to do - babies are pretty well known for not being able to defend themselves - so that would be the perfect opportunity. One complicit nurse in every childrens ward with the right equipment, and you could have a tiny tag stapled into the ovaries or testes of every baby (since those parts are likely to be covered for x-raying, so... self-hiding), or punched through the skull.

You could get away with it for years before someone got a good enough case together to shut you down - and all it takes is 15-20 years and you've got an entire reproductive generation tagged.

Moving on from that - the sensory stations don't need to be infinitely broad spectrum, although they certainly could be in the future. Voting booths, government offices, schools, etc - you could pick dozens of areas that might already have some kind of coverage, and just add extra machinery.

And the collection squads don't have to be in large numbers, and don't have to be super quick to respond - although a small handful could respond pretty quickly ina dense population area - just snap a shot of the untagged person, and/or monitor them through other technologies (pinpoint their phone, capture them on satellite imagery... shoot a tiny filament of something detectable into them... hell, just taze them!)

The options are pretty much endless. The 'problems' you encounter are the reesults of a lack of imagination on your own part.

You're funny. Do you honestly think the parents won't notice a new hole appearing in their newborn (especially if it's on their head), and investigate? Not to mention that a nurse probably won't have the necessary skills to implant these like you'd want, and doctors attaching these to something vital probably won't be able to do it alone, as it'd probably require some sort of surgery (you mentioned stapling the implant in place). And from what I've googled, ovaries or testes aren't always covered when an X-ray was done. Also, an ultrasound or MRI could probably pick the implant up as well.

Schools, government buildings, voting booths, etc would need a lot of sensors, or entering these places would take hours in large population centers. According to the New York City Board of Education, there are 1518 entries for schools just in the New York City area (all 5 boroughs). According to the Wiki entry on the Los Angeles Unified School District, the LAUSD has 219 year-round schools and 439 schools, served 694,288 students, had 45,473 teachers, and 38,494 other employees in 2007-2008. So in order to get all those kids through the scanners, as well as all the employees, in a reasonable amount of time, you'd probably have to have a ton of sensors in each school. According to the US Census, in 2002 there were 128 million people registered to vote. I don't know about where you live, but it takes a while to vote at my local voting station (and I live in a relatively small town of about 15,000). If you want to add scanning technology to voting stations, then you're either going to increase the time it takes to vote, or you'll have to have a lot of sensors there. Overall, you're talking about a shitload of sensors scattered throughout cities and towns.

Not everyone has a cell phone, it'd be pretty difficult to track people via satellite in large population centers and dense foot traffic (not to mention very expensive), shooting a filament into them will be detectable, and how are you going to taze someone if the "Collection Squad" isn't omnipresent? A picture may identify someone, but it won't stop them in their tracks.

The options AREN'T endless. One thing that you seem to have forgotten is, this implantation project would have to be approved by the government. That means that before the potential bill would get voted on, the general population would know about it. I SERIOUSLY doubt that the general population would approve of this, so the senators and representatives would undoubtedly get flooded with emails, phone calls, and letters against this. Senators and representatives with any thoughts of re-election wouldn't vote for it if they were deluged so. Not to mention the infrastructure that would be needed (that I mentioned above), the options are far from endless.

You're funny. Do you honestly think the parents won't notice a new hole appearing in their newborn (especially if it's on their head), and investigate? Not to mention that a nurse probably won't have the necessary skills to implant these like you'd want, and doctors attaching these to something vital probably won't be able to do it alone, as it'd probably require some sort of surgery (you mentioned stapling the implant in place). And from what I've googled, ovaries or testes aren't always covered when an X-ray was done. Also, an ultrasound or MRI could probably pick the implant up as well.

Schools, government buildings, voting booths, etc would need a lot of sensors, or entering these places would take hours in large population centers. According to the New York City Board of Education, there are 1518 entries for schools just in the New York City area (all 5 boroughs). According to the Wiki entry on the Los Angeles Unified School District, the LAUSD has 219 year-round schools and 439 schools, served 694,288 students, had 45,473 teachers, and 38,494 other employees in 2007-2008. So in order to get all those kids through the scanners, as well as all the employees, in a reasonable amount of time, you'd probably have to have a ton of sensors in each school. According to the US Census, in 2002 there were 128 million people registered to vote. I don't know about where you live, but it takes a while to vote at my local voting station (and I live in a relatively small town of about 15,000). If you want to add scanning technology to voting stations, then you're either going to increase the time it takes to vote, or you'll have to have a lot of sensors there. Overall, you're talking about a shitload of sensors scattered throughout cities and towns.

Not everyone has a cell phone, it'd be pretty difficult to track people via satellite in large population centers and dense foot traffic (not to mention very expensive), shooting a filament into them will be detectable, and how are you going to taze someone if the "Collection Squad" isn't omnipresent? A picture may identify someone, but it won't stop them in their tracks.

The options AREN'T endless. One thing that you seem to have forgotten is, this implantation project would have to be approved by the government. That means that before the potential bill would get voted on, the general population would know about it. I SERIOUSLY doubt that the general population would approve of this, so the senators and representatives would undoubtedly get flooded with emails, phone calls, and letters against this. Senators and representatives with any thoughts of re-election wouldn't vote for it if they were deluged so. Not to mention the infrastructure that would be needed (that I mentioned above), the options are far from endless.

I wonder which part of 'likely' it was that confused you. It's not a particularly long word, so I have to assume it's connotation of probability is just alien to your local dialect. See - down our way, if I say that testes are likely to be covered for x-raying, that doesn't actually mean they are 'always' covered, but it suggests what we call 'a probability'.

A lot of schools in very urban areas already have some form of monitoring, if not biometric monitoring (yet). A video camera (which is now practically disposable tech) can capture most of the biometric data you might need, and is potentially not even a noticable addition to extant systems in many places.

The face recognition technology for something like that can be drastically simplified by organising your searches - pupils and staff first at a school, for example, before the parameters widen. As such, biometric collection and processing takes place pretty much in real time, with unexpected data automatically flagging itself as unusual and skipping to the next stage of parameters.

The beauty of a system like that is - populations are generally stable and habitual. The same people go to same Wal-Mart on the same day, close to the same time - 9 times out of 10. So most of your data handling is drawn from very small data pools, and thus, is very quick. The people that keep irregular schedules actually self-identify under this system - almost the exact opposite of most security regimes.

Someone who de-tags themselves, knowing they can't run the usual gantlet of surveillance would BREAK their own usual schedule to avoid detection... and thus automatically flag themseves.

The funny thing here is - you seem to think municipalities aren't moving in the direction of extra monitoring ANYWAY. What I'm talking about is just a variant of things that already happen. Immigrants are biometrically assayed and have to carry a record of that biometric data with them, for example... did you know that?

There are periodic pushes for 'smart cards', 'ID cards' and 'smart ID cards'. A smart ID card would actually do almost EXACTLY the same thing I've been talking about, but without the need for the original implantation of a chip. Instead - people will carry that chip with them everywhere. Hell, put the right data on it (i.e. enable it to function in place of cash) and you can get the public to PAY to carry your technology (either directly or indirectly).

Especially in very urban areas, video monitoring is not unusual. From stores monitoring themselves, cash machines filming transactors... all the way up to cameras in the streets - we're talking about an already existant and ongoing trend.

I think the real problem we have here is denial. I think you don't WANT it to be reality, so you're looking for reasons why it isn't and won't be - while ignoring the omnipresence of monitoring that IS the zeitgeist.

Doesn't matter then does it? That means you have to install these sensors in every public entryway, which aren't cheap, and would bankrupt the government.


Hey, how about you just create another strawman argument? Damn. Beat me to it.


I was talking about face matching data,


What you said was: "simplifying biometric data way too much".

Apparently, then, you think biometric data IS (definitively?) 'face matching'.


...but since you want to talk about fingerprints,


I'm a little concerned that you seem to think that's somehow different to 'biometric' data.


...you going to put a scanner in every doorway now?


No.

Killed that one before you even finished putting the straw in it.


Where's the money coming from? And no, don't talk about the budget. No government could afford this. And before you talk about previous government projects, most of them generated income from the government in the long run. Surveillance doesn't. Not comparative to the cost.


Damn, no I didn't. You went right ahead and stuffed that bugger with straw anyway. Ah well, let's watch you flail away at it.

You raise the concern that it wouldn't generate income (which is actually a hell of an assumption), and somehow overlook the simple economic fact that money you make but don't have to spend, is at least as good as extra money.


And still wouldn't be able to do what you propose without becoming bankrupt.


Based on nothing, so not worth arguing.


Laughable at best. You are hoping 15-20 years of no one ever getting an x-ray, of not one unit out of billions malfunctioning, and no one triggering the drug which would raise suspicions.


I'm not hoping that, at all.

You're going to do this with EVERYTHING I say? Create a version of it you like better?

It's understandable - it's what it takes to satisfy your arguments, so you'll change mine until yours work.


Let me know when everyone is happy with warrantless wiretapping and imprisonment.

Whoops. Look like most aren't.

Oh look. It happened anyway.

Funny thing is - the sorts of things you JUST mentioned, are indicators that the sort of thing I've been talking about CAN happen - because all the conditions of (lack of) openness, approval, secrecy - were shown to be irrelevant in our very-recent past.

Here you demonstrate your utter ignorance of electronics.


Yes. Obviously. Becuase you need to claim superiority early to try to back the nonsense you're going to spout later.


Even if you loaded a KO drug instead of poison, what do you think will happen if everyone in one square kilometer of highly developed urban area fell asleep?

Massive automative pileups, industrial accidents, people falling asleep in bathtubs or just into frying pans/grills. Gas fires from unattended stoves. Industrial fires from unmanaged systems left out of control.


So... that's a 'yes', then?


And magically, these people would all be in the place to do what you want, and none of them would ever expose you, oh no. You got that mind control working yet?


Another strawman.


And don't even get me started on the specialists you'd require if you want to put it anywhere but as a subdermal implant. Putting it in the brain? The heart? you need specialist surgeons for those, and these are thin on the ground. And no, under no circumstances could something of this capability be injected via hypodermic needle.


Specialists wouldn't be needed. A technology that you pressed to the skin that automatically punched a chip to the right depth would pay for itself pretty quickly, in the reduction of cost of specialists.


When you can retool factories to produce these specific ones without anyone finding out, with no cost for retooling, you might want to go talk to your local patent office about your production line converter.


Unnecessary. Factories already exist that make RFID chips, why would they need to be retooled?


Your biometric sensors? No.
Your recognition systems? No.
Your capture teams? No.
Your populace monitoring supercomputer? No.


Biometric systems already exist. recognition systems already exist. Recovery teams could easily be formed from the huge reductions to the police forces (and probably, military). 'Populace monitoring supercomputer' is a strawman.


Because you think multi-billion dollar secret projects encompassing the chipping of the entire populace is not only doable, but a simple matter.


The fact that they already happen shows they are doable.


Echelon and it's later brothers aren't exactly secret. And this isn't remote observation by tapping into existing infrastructure.


Actually, a lot of it probably would be.


It's deliberately chipping people and making sure they never find out when a simple x-ray or sharp eye would expose it.


More strawmen. I've repeatedly said I don't care about people finding out.


Of course, you also use magic tech that outlasts human lifespans and never breaks down.


Wow. Close to an actual argument. We should frame it, since it's your first one.

That is a weakness. It could be overcome by replacing the technology periodically, if it needs it.


I'll not argue that surveillance is what governments have done throughout time. What I'm arguing is the sheer impossibility of keeping a project of this sort secret from the general populace, or sabotage proof.


More strawmen.

So - someone sabotages a load of units... a load of people die, and then the perps are rapidly tracked and (perhaps messily) executed.

Game goes on.


It's a comparison. And very valid.


Hijacking a plane, and flying it into a building... is a comparison to using already existing technologies to keep closer tabs on the populace?

Did you take your medication?


And what part of these projects were kept secret, and conducted on the entire populace against their will with absolutely no whistle blowers whatsoever?


The importance would be that you said such things were 'difficult to organize on a national level'. Apparently, organizing fairly complex concepts over fairly broad geographical spectra isn't all that far beyond us as a species after all.


Oh dear. It looks like in your attempt to rush your failure of an argument, you lost sight of the central point of the argument.


Oh dear, it looks like you forgot your OWN post.


Your argument is the same. You're taking technology that is very limited at best, and then giving it capabilities a quantum leap above what it has.

Amusingly you now admit the technology exists.

No true scotsman, how would you fund this project without the general population finding out? How would you implant these GPS implants into people without their knowledge (remember, parents are probably going to notice surgical scars on their brand new infant)? How would the government pass a law requiring this, without citizens finding out?

Also, the only monitoring that I know of that some urban schools use, is metal detectors and student IDs. I think the real problem we have here is you wanting so badly for this to work, that you're dismissing any concerns or opinions that don't mirror your own.

No true scotsman, how would you fund this project without the general population finding out?


I'd suggest it was filed under some kind of umbrella that didn't require explicit accountability. Pop it in a CIA budget request, or something.


How would you implant these GPS implants into people without their knowledge (remember, parents are probably going to notice surgical scars on their brand new infant)?


"Oh yes, Mrs Brown - that's just the marks from the bloodtest. It'll heal in just a couple of days".

Maybe?

Do the injection in the roof of the mouth?


How would the government pass a law requiring this, without citizens finding out?


Have you been asleep for the last decade?


Also, the only monitoring that I know of that some urban schools use, is metal detectors and student IDs.


There's a start.


I think the real problem we have here is you wanting so badly for this to work, that you're dismissing any concerns or opinions that don't mirror your own.

I have no need to take account of opinions. And I'm not convinced that 'concerns' you might have, are likely to effect the overall probability.

So, at worst, you'd get knocked out while it's being removed (the implant would most likely be just under the skin in order to be able to function correctly, so you'd probably only need local anesthesia to remove it).Cyanide doesn't knock you out. It kills you. Or are you talking about something else than the original chip/device thing in the thread? (I didn't quite follow it, I don't have that much free time :()

Amusingly you now admit the technology exists.

I've said that wide area passive biometric scanners don't exist. The emphasis on wide area. Same with wide area facial recognition technologies. They don't. That doesn't mean very limited versions of biometric scanners and facial recognition scanners don't exist. Do try to pay attention when you make your flawed arguments.

The rest of your argument is the same old, same old. Especially your laughable implication that micro electronics can't be effected by homebuilt EM/microwave pulses and the idea that you can conduct something like that on the populace without anyone finding out. Building a secret spyplane in a hanger in the middle of nowhere is nowhere near the same as chipping the entire populace.

And let's not get started on you pulling technologies that don't exist out of your ass. A subdermal chip injector? Through the roof of the mouth? Please.

And then you agree with me that the idea is bad because it has huge terrorist potential, which you then take it to mean I agree with you that it's a good thing.

Of course, you also completely failed to address the requirements of lifetime function, which doesn't exist for implants, not even pacemakers.

I'd suggest it was filed under some kind of umbrella that didn't require explicit accountability. Pop it in a CIA budget request, or something.



"Oh yes, Mrs Brown - that's just the marks from the bloodtest. It'll heal in just a couple of days".

Maybe?

Do the injection in the roof of the mouth?



Have you been asleep for the last decade?



There's a start.



I have no need to take account of opinions. And I'm not convinced that 'concerns' you might have, are likely to effect the overall probability.

I think a CIA budget increase of multiple BILLIONS of dollars would be noticed.

As to your "blood test" idea, how would you account for the lump the implant would create? And you mentioned stapling it to something important. That would be more than a needle mark, that would be a surgical scar that no blood test could explain.

Have YOU been asleep the last decade? This is the information age. Bills can be viewed online while they're still in committee. A bill authorizing the implantation of citizens with a GPS implant (without their knowledge or consent) would probably be very contested due to constitutionality concerns.

Metal detectors and student IDs won't verify if someone has a GPS implant.

And I'm not convinced that the 'optimism' you have is likely to effect the overall feasibility or success of this.

Cyanide doesn't knock you out. It kills you. Or are you talking about something else than the original chip/device thing in the thread? (I didn't quite follow it, I don't have that much free time :()

No true scotsman was talking about replacing the cyanide with some sort of sedative, to use to knock out anyone that commits a crime, disagrees with the government, is late with a library book, steps on a crack and breaks their momma's back, etc.

Of course, you also completely failed to address the requirements of lifetime function, which doesn't exist for implants, not even pacemakers.

Considering the average digital pacemaker lasts 9 years, we're talking about massive cost just to maintain this system.

Even granting that the implants last 20 years (which is more than generous), you're looking at doing 15 million replacements per year in the United States, or 41,096 replacements (not new births - replacements) per day.

The cost would be staggering beyond all belief, and there's no way a reduction in police would ever make up for this outrageous cost.

Okay, let's see how you do this time. Can you produce anything that isn't a major logical fallacy?

I've said that wide area passive biometric scanners don't exist.


Ooh, not a good start - straight in with a strawman.

You've raised this one before, despite the fact that I've not one time called for 'wide area passive biometric scanners'.


Same with wide area facial recognition technologies.


Oh dear. Fell at the second hurdle too, and for the same reason. Two strawmen in as many sentences.

I appreciate that maybe you WANT me to have said certain things, so you can direct fairly easy arguments against those ideas, but it's intellectually dishonest - not to mention a logical fallacy - to just PRETEND I did.


That doesn't mean very limited versions of biometric scanners and facial recognition scanners don't exist.


Right. The technology exists.


The rest of your argument is the same old, same old. Especially your laughable implication that micro electronics can't be effected by homebuilt EM/microwave pulses


...which I didn't say.


...and the idea that you can conduct something like that on the populace without anyone finding out.


...which I specifically said was kind of irrelevant. I said there would be some people who found out, but there wouldn't be enough of a movement to actually stop the program.


Building a secret spyplane in a hanger in the middle of nowhere is nowhere near the same as chipping the entire populace.


No, but wiretapping populations through third parties is much closer.


And let's not get started on you pulling technologies that don't exist out of your ass. A subdermal chip injector? Through the roof of the mouth? Please.


So hard to imagine?


And then you agree with me that the idea is bad because it has huge terrorist potential,


I didn't say it was bad because it had huge terrorist potential.


Of course, you also completely failed to address the requirements of lifetime function, which doesn't exist for implants, not even pacemakers.

I didn't fail to address that, at all.

I said they'd wear out, and be replaced.

So - not ALL logical fallacies... some was just a failure to read my responses (I'm being charitable).

The cost would be staggering beyond all belief, and there's no way a reduction in police would ever make up for this outrageous cost.

Just because you say so?

I'd imagine you could mass produce the technology for pennies. Let's be extravagant and say it's $10 a unit.

That's $150 million dollars a year - which is hardly "staggering beyond all belief", and is FAR less than the cost in policing.

You know, I feel bad about not discussing the question asked in the OP. To make up for that, I offer up the Walther WA-2000. I wish they'd re-release them at a decent price, because I'd save up the money to buy one.

http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn15-e.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_WA_2000

There's also a chassis for the Ruger 10/22 that looks similar to the WA-2000, located here: http://www.ironwooddesigns.com/2aprod/11022prod.html

I mean, doesn't this look awesome? http://www.ironwooddesigns.com/SGpics/SGNsideLB.jpg

Just because you say so?

I'd imagine you could mass produce the technology for pennies. Let's be extravagant and say it's $10 a unit.

That's $150 million dollars a year - which is hardly "staggering beyond all belief", and is FAR less than the cost in policing.

You forgot the part where they have to surgically remove the old one and insert the new one, you know, using a trained surgeon and hospital facilities, which can cost upwards of $10,000 per incident. Even if we say it's minimally invasive surgery (hard to even argue as you said you would staple it to something important), you're still looking at $2,000 per person each time.

Now, take your $150,000,000 per year and multiply it by about 200. That would make it $30,000,000,000 per year to maintain if the system were already in place today.

You know, I feel bad about not discussing the question asked in the OP. To make up for that, I offer up the Walther WA-2000. I wish they'd re-release them at a decent price, because I'd save up the money to buy one.

Those were great. Classic guns. I like.

I think a CIA budget increase of multiple BILLIONS of dollars would be noticed.


Maybe in 1980. Nowadays the mantra is 'a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money'.


As to your "blood test" idea, how would you account for the lump the implant would create?


I don't account for that. I was throwing out on of many possible responses that would, to be honest, satisfy practically all parents.


And you mentioned stapling it to something important. That would be more than a needle mark, that would be a surgical scar that no blood test could explain.


Different options being discussed.


Have YOU been asleep the last decade?


No, I've been well aware of the sorts of intelligence games that have been played for the best part of the last decade, often in direct violation of our Constitution.

You apparently believe that sort of thing can't happen.


This is the information age. Bills can be viewed online while they're still in committee. A bill authorizing the implantation of citizens with a GPS implant (without their knowledge or consent) would probably be very contested due to constitutionality concerns.


Again, look at the last 8 years. Detention without charge, warrantless wiretapping, torture, secret black op facilities, suspension of constitutional rights at whim...

I don't find it at all hard to imagine that a very small group of people in government, could use the power of our intelligence organisations to circumvent law and constitution, and maneuveur third parties into assisting with some kind of invasive monitoring.

Why? Because I've seen it happen.


Metal detectors and student IDs won't verify if someone has a GPS implant.


Which is good... but irrelevant, since I didn't claim they would.


And I'm not convinced that the 'optimism' you have is likely to effect the overall feasibility or success of this.

I didn't say I was 'optimistic' about it.

I think it's inevitable, and I think that's realistic, not 'optimisitic'.

You forgot the part where they have to surgically remove the old one and insert the new one, you know, using a trained surgeon and hospital facilities, which can cost upwards of $10,000 per incident. Even if we say it's minimally invasive surgery (hard to even argue as you said you would staple it to something important), you're still looking at $2,000 per person each time.

Now, take your $150,000,000 per year and multiply it by about 200. That would make it $30,000,000,000 per year to maintain if the system were already in place today.

I didn't 'forget the part where'... anything.

Why do they have to surgically remove the old one? It wears down, it stops operating. You can just leave it there. And inserting a new one doesn't need a trained surgeon or hospital facilities, so the cost is pennies on the product.

You could allot another - say - $15 million to cover the costs of labor.

Oh my, this thread has become a huge pissing match.

I didn't 'forget the part where'... anything.

Why do they have to surgically remove the old one? It wears down, it stops operating. You can just leave it there.

Yes, now we're inserting metal objects in peoples' bodies that are breaking down with a toxic chemical that could release at any moment and cause unconsciousness - while they're driving a car, operating a forklift, or flying an airplane. This all makes perfect sense.

And inserting a new one doesn't need a trained surgeon or hospital facilities, so the cost is pennies on the product.

Look, you got two choices on this:

A) You put it somewhere important that can't be easily removed. For this you will need a trained surgeon, and they aren't cheap at all.

B) You inject it with a dumbfuck that has a specialized gun and then just bandage the wound, which any person with a pair of tweezers and a basic medical knowledge could remove it just as easily as you put it in.

So, A, it's expensive as hell, or B, it's ineffective.

You could allot another - say - $15 million to cover the costs of labor.

See above.

I didn't 'forget the part where'... anything.

Why do they have to surgically remove the old one? It wears down, it stops operating. You can just leave it there. And inserting a new one doesn't need a trained surgeon or hospital facilities, so the cost is pennies on the product.

You could allot another - say - $15 million to cover the costs of labor.

Maybe you can hide them in muffins too. ;)

Maybe in 1980. Nowadays the mantra is 'a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money'.

A billion dollar increase in funding is still a very noticeable sum on a budget, especially when it goes to a federal office, and not a business for a bailout.

I don't account for that. I was throwing out on of many possible responses that would, to be honest, satisfy practically all parents.

So basically what you're saying is, you're full of it. If I had a newborn, and a mysterious lump appeared on its body just under the skin, I'd be concerned and I doubt I'd be satisfied with the claim that it was caused by a blood test.

Different options being discussed.

As unfooled as I'd be by a mysterious lump showing up on my newborn being attributed to a blood test, a surgical scar would cause me even more concern, and I would be demanding to know exactly WHY someone decided to cut into my child WITHOUT MY CONSENT. If I didn't get an answer from the doctor that satisfied EVERY one of my concerns, I would be seeking another doctor.

No, I've been well aware of the sorts of intelligence games that have been played for the best part of the last decade, often in direct violation of our Constitution.

You apparently believe that sort of thing can't happen.

I know that intelligence gathering methods contrary to the Constitution can happen, we've been hearing about it for quite a while now.

Again, look at the last 8 years. Detention without charge, warrantless wiretapping, torture, secret black op facilities, suspension of constitutional rights at whim...

I don't find it at all hard to imagine that a very small group of people in government, could use the power of our intelligence organisations to circumvent law and constitution, and maneuveur third parties into assisting with some kind of invasive monitoring.

Why? Because I've seen it happen.

The number of people needed to implant and monitor EVERYONE in the US, would make keeping that a secret impossible. After all, we were monitoring a small quantity of people, and it was discovered.

Which is good... but irrelevant, since I didn't claim they would.

You said it was a start. Since metal detectors and student IDs CAN'T detect an implanted GPS, it's NOT a start to the type of monitoring you talked about putting into schools.

I didn't say I was 'optimistic' about it.

I think it's inevitable, and I think that's realistic, not 'optimisitic'.

From the attitude you were taking, it seemed that you were optimistic about the idea. "...Golden age of peace and prosperity" is one phrase I heard you mention. Another phrase I heard you say was "...a society with no rape, no murder, little or no crime (maybe, no war?)...". That's optimism in most people's books.

I didn't 'forget the part where'... anything.

Why do they have to surgically remove the old one? It wears down, it stops operating. You can just leave it there. And inserting a new one doesn't need a trained surgeon or hospital facilities, so the cost is pennies on the product.

You could allot another - say - $15 million to cover the costs of labor.

So, instead of one unexplainable lump under the skin, you want anywhere between 3-5 lumps over the course of a person's life? Yeah, nobody will question that! [/Sarcasm]

Those were great. Classic guns. I like.

Here's something else that caught my eye. Not something I'm likely to get though (I would imagine that it sucks for skeet/trap shooting).

http://c3arms.com/catalog/images/super_shorty_870.jpg

So, instead of one unexplainable lump under the skin, you want anywhere between 3-5 lumps over the course of a person's life? Yeah, nobody will question that! [/Sarcasm]

They'll probably go to get it x-rayed. I'm sure those tiny electronic devices will be fine with that. ;)

Here's something else that caught my eye. Not something I'm likely to get though (I would imagine that it sucks for skeet/trap shooting).

http://c3arms.com/catalog/images/super_shorty_870.jpg

Unless you plan on shooting skeet indoors. ;)

Maybe you can hide them in muffins too. ;)

Ooh, that's a good plan... and pies. People would self-medicate!

Yes, now we're inserting metal objects in peoples' bodies that are breaking down with a toxic chemical that could release at any moment and cause unconsciousness - while they're driving a car, operating a forklift, or flying an airplane. This all makes perfect sense.


Ah, shit happens all the time.

You'd have to PROVE that the technology was responsible for the accidents, if they happened.

Give it just a couple of years of establishment, and public opinion would quickly turn, and people who didn't make sure THEIR OWN implants were still valid would be held accoutnable.


Look, you got two choices on this:

A) You put it somewhere important that can't be easily removed. For this you will need a trained surgeon, and they aren't cheap at all.

B) You inject it with a dumbfuck that has a specialized gun and then just bandage the wound, which any person with a pair of tweezers and a basic medical knowledge could remove it just as easily as you put it in.

So, A, it's expensive as hell, or B, it's ineffective.


How are these people going to get their implants removed? It would be far too expensive - it would need surgeons and hospital facilities to remove them. No, wait - you're arguing that that's not true any more...

Since guns put bullets in people, all it takes to remove a bullet is an idiot and a pair of tweezers, right? No, wait - it depends WHERE the bullet ends up, doesn't it. Historically, it's always been easier to put foreign bodies IN people, than to remove them.

Ooh, that's a good plan... and pies. People would self-medicate!

Not to mention that the colon is an excellent place to hide a device and very difficult to remove safely. All you'd need to do is find a way to get them to stay. For extra credit, you can figure out how to get them to detach when they stop functioning so they'll be evacuated naturally thus removing the necessity of removing it surgically. Perhaps some sort of electrostatic charge.

Of course it's entirely a moot point because they'd most likely get chewed. :p

Ah, shit happens all the time.

You'd have to PROVE that the technology was responsible for the accidents, if they happened.

Give it just a couple of years of establishment, and public opinion would quickly turn, and people who didn't make sure THEIR OWN implants were still valid would be held accoutnable.



How are these people going to get their implants removed? It would be far too expensive - it would need surgeons and hospital facilities to remove them. No, wait - you're arguing that that's not true any more...

Since guns put bullets in people, all it takes to remove a bullet is an idiot and a pair of tweezers, right? No, wait - it depends WHERE the bullet ends up, doesn't it. Historically, it's always been easier to put foreign bodies IN people, than to remove them.

What Galloism is saying is, either you pay a lot of money to have specialists place the implants somewhere important (like you suggested, attached to an organ or punched through the skull) where they're hard to remove, or you cheap out by paying Joe Schmuckatelli to insert it just under the skin, where it is easy to get at with tweezers (like a sliver).

Not to mention that the colon is an excellent place to hide a device and very difficult to remove safely. All you'd need to do is find a way to get them to stay. For extra credit, you can figure out how to get them to detach when they stop functioning so they'll be evacuated naturally thus removing the necessity of removing it surgically. Perhaps some sort of electrostatic charge.

Of course it's entirely a moot point because they'd most likely get chewed. :p

Mmmmm, lacerated gums or broken teeth. And don't forget, the microchips add extra flavor.

A billion dollar increase in funding is still a very noticeable sum on a budget, especially when it goes to a federal office, and not a business for a bailout.


If the budget allocated a billion dollars to the CIA, and phrased it right, it might get some kind of review by a very small group of people... but it wouldn't even raise eyebrows, in general.


So basically what you're saying is, you're full of it. If I had a newborn, and a mysterious lump appeared on its body just under the skin, I'd be concerned and I doubt I'd be satisfied with the claim that it was caused by a blood test.


People tend to be clueless and easily led. Most people would accept 'bloodtest'. Trot out something a little more esoteric... use a word like 'biopsy'... and 99% of people would be thanking you for tagging their baby.


As unfooled as I'd be by a mysterious lump showing up on my newborn being attributed to a blood test, a surgical scar would cause me even more concern, and I would be demanding to know exactly WHY someone decided to cut into my child WITHOUT MY CONSENT. If I didn't get an answer from the doctor that satisfied EVERY one of my concerns, I would be seeking another doctor.


I think you're all talk.

I also think you'd accept what the doctors said. People do. If you do actually hold your hospital accountable for something, they're so unfamiliar with it, they don't know what to do with you.


I know that intelligence gathering methods contrary to the Constitution can happen, we've been hearing about it for quite a while now.


So why have you been pretending otherwise? Secret monitoring is not new. The things you keep trotting out as reasons it couldn't happen, have, in VERY recent history, been shown to not do so.


The number of people needed to implant and monitor EVERYONE in the US, would make keeping that a secret impossible. After all, we were monitoring a small quantity of people, and it was discovered.


It was discovered afetr it had been going on for a while, mainly because it was being kept secret from the general public, but was openly operating through third party players.

Not to mention - even after it was discovered... it continued.


You said it was a start. Since metal detectors and student IDs CAN'T detect an implanted GPS, it's NOT a start to the type of monitoring you talked about putting into schools.


I said it was a start. We have the biasics of security and biometric assay in our schools (courts, airports... lots of places, really).

I didn't say that photo ID or metal detectors track RFID.


From the attitude you were taking, it seemed that you were optimistic about the idea. "...Golden age of peace and prosperity" is one phrase I heard you mention. Another phrase I heard you say was "...a society with no rape, no murder, little or no crime (maybe, no war?)...". That's optimism in most people's books.

"Golden age of peace and prosperity" is a good thing.

"society with no rape, no murder, little or no crime (maybe, no war)" is a good thing.

That doesn't mean I'm optimistic about RFID'ing people - but that would be a small price to pay.

Mmmmm, lacerated gums or broken teeth. And don't forget, the microchips add extra flavor.

Don't forget the cool liquid narcotic center. ;)

Don't forget the cool liquid narcotic center. ;)

How many licks does it take to get to the cool liquid narcotic center of a GPS implant?

What Galloism is saying is, either you pay a lot of money to have specialists place the implants somewhere important (like you suggested, attached to an organ or punched through the skull) where they're hard to remove, or you cheap out by paying Joe Schmuckatelli to insert it just under the skin, where it is easy to get at with tweezers (like a sliver).

But it was donkeynuts when Galloism said it the first time. If you had machinery to implant a tiny device through the skull, Joe couldn't just whip it out because he had tweezers.

It's totally a false dichotomy.

How many licks does it take to get to the cool liquid narcotic center of a GPS implant?

The world may never know. :D

Not to mention that the colon is an excellent place to hide a device and very difficult to remove safely. All you'd need to do is find a way to get them to stay. For extra credit, you can figure out how to get them to detach when they stop functioning so they'll be evacuated naturally thus removing the necessity of removing it surgically. Perhaps some sort of electrostatic charge.

Of course it's entirely a moot point because they'd most likely get chewed. :p

That's why you actually put the devices in something like a Tylenol caplet that people just swallow.

I like the idea of the electrostatic charge though.

The world may never know. :D

Um... aren't these the ones that someone else has already swallowed?

:o

That's why you actually put the devices in something like a Tylenol caplet that people just swallow.

I like the idea of the electrostatic charge though.

Not everybody swallows them.

Not everybody swallows them.

Put it in a suppository?

You have to hope most people use those the same way.

But it was donkeynuts when Galloism said it the first time. If you had machinery to implant a tiny device through the skull, Joe couldn't just whip it out because he had tweezers.

So you're going to crack their skull now?

That wouldn't have any medical complications.

It's totally a false dichotomy.

No it really isn't. A bullet is fired at a high speed with the intent to damage or destroy whatever is in its way. That's why it frequently causes something very important the day they discussed surgery in medical school - internal bleeding.

If you're going to use a gun-like tool to implant it deep inside a person and hard to get to with tweezers, a large number of them (perhaps not the majority, but a large minority) will die within hours of you doing so. Why? Because blood loss has a tendency to do that, especially in babies (when you're suggesting doing it).

So, I'm sorry. You've got 3 choices:

1) Pay Joe Smuckall to put it under the skin. Another Joe Smuckall can get it out like a sliver without too much difficulty and just a basic medical degree. It's outpatient surgery, really.

2) Hire a very expensive surgeon who can place it in a spot almost impossible to reach. This will cost lots of $$$.

3) Hire Joe Smuckall to shoot the victims with the implant. A vast number of them die within hours of the implantation "surgery". Bonus points for bribing/threatening the coroner into not telling what caused the death.

If the budget allocated a billion dollars to the CIA, and phrased it right, it might get some kind of review by a very small group of people... but it wouldn't even raise eyebrows, in general.

You can believe a HUGE increase in the CIAs budget won't raise eyebrows, but since the increase would have to be approved as part of the federal budget, it would show up on reports. Especially if it meant an increase in taxes.

People tend to be clueless and easily led. Most people would accept 'bloodtest'. Trot out something a little more esoteric... use a word like 'biopsy'... and 99% of people would be thanking you for tagging their baby.

The hospital needs permission from the parents to do a biopsy on a child. So if someone working at the hospital cut into a baby without parental consent, then questions would be asked.

I think you're all talk.

I also think you'd accept what the doctors said. People do. If you do actually hold your hospital accountable for something, they're so unfamiliar with it, they don't know what to do with you.

And I think you're making things up. You know NOTHING about me, so YOU can't honestly hypothesize what I might or might not do/think/believe. If I didn't authorize surgery for my newborn, I wouldn't let a mysterious surgical scar on my newborn go unchallenged. If the hospital we're at can't/won't do anything to find out where it came from and why, then we'll go to another hospital.

So why have you been pretending otherwise? Secret monitoring is not new. The things you keep trotting out as reasons it couldn't happen, have, in VERY recent history, been shown to not do so.

I haven't been pretending. I'm stating that these secret monitoring programs have been discovered every time. There's no way to KEEP it secret long enough to implant an entire generation of people.

It was discovered afetr it had been going on for a while, mainly because it was being kept secret from the general public, but was openly operating through third party players.

Not to mention - even after it was discovered... it continued.

Those programs were operated through third party players, just as you suggested happen with this program. And listening to someone's international phone call is significantly different than forcing non-essential medical procedures on everyone without their consent or knowledge.

I said it was a start. We have the biasics of security and biometric assay in our schools (courts, airports... lots of places, really).

I didn't say that photo ID or metal detectors track RFID.

Metal detectors aren't biometric devices. Therefore, biometric security isn't in court buildings, airports, schools, etc.

"Golden age of peace and prosperity" is a good thing.

"society with no rape, no murder, little or no crime (maybe, no war)" is a good thing.

That doesn't mean I'm optimistic about RFID'ing people - but that would be a small price to pay.

Your attitude towards the idea make you sound optimistic about it.

BTW, I really hate responding this way, splitting each post into separate quotes. It's a pain in the ass.

But it was donkeynuts when Galloism said it the first time. If you had machinery to implant a tiny device through the skull, Joe couldn't just whip it out because he had tweezers.

It's totally a false dichotomy.

If you're punching an implant through the skull, you WILL need a specialist, or you risk causing brain damage to the implant's recipient. That will cost a lot of money to do. Therefore, the implantation of an entire generation will cost too much to keep covert.

It's totally you not admitting you're wrong.

You've raised this one before, despite the fact that I've not one time called for 'wide area passive biometric scanners'.

Then your idea of scanning the entire populace fails. Hard. You call for the technology by outlining the idea, but when it comes to the implementation, you say you don't need the technology which is required to make it work.


Right. The technology exists.


Nowhere near the capacity you want it to, which you seem to be deliberately ignoring.


...which I didn't say.


You implied it by ignoring the vulnerabilities, and then laughing at it.


...which I specifically said was kind of irrelevant. I said there would be some people who found out, but there wouldn't be enough of a movement to actually stop the program.

Laughable considering how many people opposed warrantless wiretapping. They might not be able to stop the program, but they sure as hell will spread awareness, and everyone who opposes being implanted with government trackers, and that's a lot of people, will have it removed.

Expect lawsuits, media circuses, and lynch mobs.

You might be the first one to be strung up, being easier to get to than most government higher ups and an unabashed advocate of an Orwellian society.


So hard to imagine?

Why don't you invent one then you can talk? All mentions of non-existent technology are exactly that. Non-existent and not guaranteed to ever will. You might as well yak about FTL engines for all the sense you're making.

And if you do build it? Make sure it works without causing obtrusive wounds or bleeding that would give it away. Oh, and deep enough that it's not removable with a pair of tweezers. But you'd probably try and bullshit your way out of that too. Especially given that you know nothing about surgery and want a machine that can do that factory line style in places only highly trained surgeons can.


I didn't say it was bad because it had huge terrorist potential.


Then why did you quote that bit and say I agreed with you?


I didn't fail to address that, at all.

I said they'd wear out, and be replaced.


Then you've failed to address how you're going to sneak up and implant this in everyone without causing a huge stink.

And lets not forget that there are plenty of dead zones where GPS systems cannot track and radio cannot enter. What happens then hmmm?

So once again, you demonstrate an inability to think things through.

I wouldn't trust you to organize a pep rally, much less a nation wide monitoring system. You'd screw it up colossally at the concept stage.

If you're punching an implant through the skull, you WILL need a specialist, or you risk causing brain damage to the implant's recipient. That will cost a lot of money to do. Therefore, the implantation of an entire generation will cost too much to keep covert.


Are you a doctor?

Then your idea of scanning the entire populace fails. Hard. You call for the technology by outlining the idea, but when it comes to the implementation, you say you don't need the technology which is required to make it work.


I outline the idea and YOU decided what YOU thought I meant, and what YOU thought would be necessary.

My lack of inclination to accept your premise is not a failure of my concept.


Nowhere near the capacity you want it to, which you seem to be deliberately ignoring.


Nowhere near the capacity YOU want it to, is more to the point.


Laughable considering how many people opposed warrantless wiretapping. They might not be able to stop the program...


And there's where you shot yourself in the foot.


Why don't you invent one then you can talk? All mentions of non-existent technology are exactly that.


You could actually use the USP 6958054 Catheter Device to insert a small RFID.

Your lack of knowledge of existing technology is hardly a mark against anything I might say.


And lets not forget that there are plenty of dead zones where GPS systems cannot track and radio cannot enter. What happens then hmmm?


Where GPS can't track? Where are you, under a mountain?


So once again, you demonstrate an inability to think things through.


No, the fact that you keep throwing out tiny little molehills, and imagining them to be mountains, says nothing to whether or not I've 'thought it through'.

I'll admit, it's not a plan, it's just a concept, so there are still areas that allow for fine tuning, but you haven't rpesented anything that really contests the concept.


I wouldn't trust you to organize a pep rally, much less a nation wide monitoring system. You'd screw it up colossally at the concept stage.

I honestly don't care what YOU would 'trust me to organize'. (Not that I'd be organizing it, anyway - me not being the government).