12 Simple Steps to VeriChip the World.

Run_to_da_hills

This seems to be a regular topic in CT and more so since Barack Obama has taken up office.

We have also learned of a New Jersey Contracted RFID Evacuee Tracking Tech programme days before Sandy even formed.



Mastercard promoting NFC and cashless mobile phone payments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y_-sKf-2Aw

The dots are starting to connect.

1. Create a climate of fear.

2. Get everyone online.

3. Enable even the poor to carry a cell phone.

4. Get everyone to talk about RFID and biometrics: the first phase of acceptance is expectation.

5. Chip as many things and people as you can (phones, pets, clothing, etc.) to make it normal.

6. Set up a global ID system but keep it hush hush.

7. Promote implants for health and safety, so people think they’re good.

8. Make it so you can use your phone for everything, especially payments and proving identity.

9. How do we know it’s really you? Your biometrics please!

10. Cyber attack! Revolution! Please protect us!

11. The economy collapses….. cash is gone, and all payments are now digital.

12. Phones get lost and stolen; biometrics get spoofed; carrying a phone is such a bother – and Verichips are just easier all round….

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/11/12-simple-steps-to-verichip-world.html

Sarky

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This seems to be a regular topic in CT

It's mostly because you're constantly starting sensationalist, usually ill-informed, sometimes downright dishonest, threads about it.

CiaranMT

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

1. Create a climate of fear.

So broad and generic a statement as to be meaningless.

2. Get everyone online.

Does 'everyone' mean the world population? Or the US population? Or what? Because there are large swathes of the world sans telephone access, not to mind internet access.

3. Enable even the poor to carry a cell phone.

Walking through Dublin yesterday evening, I didn't see too many homeless people popping out their iPhones.

4. Get everyone to talk about RFID and biometrics: the first phase of acceptance is expectation.

The only place I see this being discussed is in here, almost exclusively by you.


I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but I got very bored.. That and it's a complete waste of time. You're not open to reason on this.

hooradiation

The best bit is even if we discount the inherent daftness of the theory, none of the twelve steps are "simple"

Simplistic to the point of being useless, perhaps. But certainly not simple.

Frynge

Sarky wrote: »

It's mostly because you're constantly starting sensationalist, usually ill-informed, sometimes downright dishonest, threads about it.

Is some one being a little Sarky.........

oh.......

wait.......

never mind!

inki93

These comments are highly ill informed…. To the first point, “Create a climate of fear”, you said,

“So broad and generic a statementas to be meaningless.”


This is an illogical statement; aconcept which is broad and generic is not inherently untrue, nor meaningless. Tosay ‘people laugh at jokes’ is broad and generic but in no way meaningless. A climateof fear is created by the media and politicians focusing on crime andterrorism. In fact, the phrase ‘climate of fear’ has become much clichéd throughover-use by thousands of commentators, such as this article in The Guardian: “How private firms have cashed inon the climate of fear since 9/11; the past ten years have seen the growth of anational security industrial complex that melds government and business”. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/05/private-firms-fear-9-11


The second and third points:

2. Get everyone online.

Does 'everyone' mean the worldpopulation? Or the US population? Or what? Because there are large swathes ofthe world sans telephone access, not to mind internet access.

3. Enable even the poor to carry a cell phone.

Walking through Dublin yesterdayevening, I didn't see too many homeless people popping out their iPhones.

Not seeing someone holding amobile phone in the street does not amount to evidence of poor people notowning a mobile phone. In London, over 70% of homeless people own a mobilephone http://www.ohyoon.com/homeless.html- and there’s even an app for that http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/Phone-app-help-homeless/story-14279007-detail/story.html
…………………………..

It is also true to saythat literally everyone in the world is ‘getting online’. Whilst not everyoneis online yet, currently one third of the world’s population is using theinternet regularly, and it is reported that,

“In 2012, about 2.4 billion peoplearound the world are online, out of a global population of 7 billion. In justfive more years, that will rise to about 3.5 billion online users, according toForrester.


The number of Internet usersaround the world is soaring and will total about 3.5 billion-or about half the Earth'sestimated population of about 7.4 billion in 2017, according to a Sept. 4report from Forrester Research. That means that about 1.1 billion additionalpeople around the world will be online in the next five years, up from about2.4 billion people who are online in 2012.

The report, Forrester Research World Online PopulationForecast, 2012 To 2017 (Global), "found that 2.4 billion people acrossthe world use the Internet on a regular basis-i.e., at least once a month-fromhome, school, work, or any other location via a PC or a non-PC (mobile)Internet access device," wrote Forrester analyst Jitender Miglani on hisForrester blog. The forecast looks at the growth of the Internet population in56 countries across five regions.

…. One year ago, an IDC reportpredicted that mobile Internet usage will top desktop usage by 2015. Thereport noted that the impact of smartphones and tablet computer adoption wouldbe so great that the number of users accessing the Internet through PCs wouldfirst stagnate and then slowly decline.” http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/Forrester-Finds-Half-of-Worlds-Population-Will-Be-Online-by-2012-319389/



Mobile phone use has acceleratedrapidly around the world, including the poorest countries; indeed, this article notes:

“Between2000 and 2010, the number of mobile users in developing countries surpassedthose in high-income nations, jumping from 29 per cent to 77 in less-developedareas.

Already,between 80 and 95 per cent of the population of Kenya, Mexico, and Indonesiasend text messages.

Inthe 12 years since the turn of the century, mobile phones have multiplied theworld over, growing from less than 1 billion in use, to 6 billion this year – apace that is unmatched in the history of technology, the World Bank said.” http://www.itproportal.com/2012/07/19/mobile-use-in-developing-nations-rockets-past-developed-world/

A report released by the ITU,

“called Measuringthe Information Society 2012, looked at 155 countries, assessing theiraccess to and use of information and communication technology (ICT)…. TheGeneva-based agency also said almost two billion people - about one-third of the world's population - had been internetusers by the end of 2011.

In developed countries, 70% of the population was online,compared with 24% in developing regions, it said.

There were almost twice as many mobile broadband subscriptionsglobally as fixed broadband ones, said the agency.

The director of ITU's Telecommunication Development Bureau,Brahima Sanou, said: "The surge in numbers of mobile-broadbandsubscriptions in developing countries has brought the internet to a multitudeof new users. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19925506

What is more, anumber of organisations and financiers have joined together to form the BetterThan Cash Alliance, which is promoting the use of electronic payments in thedeveloping world using mobile phones. http://betterthancash.org/?s=mobile+phoneand here http://mobilemoneyfordevelopment.wordpress.com/category/better-than-cash-initiative/

Not wishing to labour each andevery point, suffice it to say the following points are thoroughly explicatedand evidenced here http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_64945.shtmland here http://getmindsmart.com/Smart-UK-ID.html

4. Get everyone to talk about RFID and biometrics: the first phase of acceptance is expectation.

The only place I see this being discussed is inhere, almost exclusively by you.

Perhaps you’re notreading in the right places …. RFID is becoming integral to many aspects of ourlives, and will soon be incorporated into almost every product we buy.Biometrics are already in widespread use (passports are one of manyapplications) and are now being integrated into computers and mobile phones to authenticatethe user’s identity to the device. Biometrics are also planned to be used toadd an extra layer of security to users who sign up with an online IdentityProvider.

………………………………………..

The best bit is even if we discountthe inherent daftness of the theory, none of the twelve steps are"simple"

Simplistic to the point of being useless, perhaps. But certainly not simple.

……………………………..

A title cannot invalidate the logic of an argument, thoughit can illicit an emotional/biased reaction.

Run_to_da_hills

inki93 wrote: »

Walking through Dublin yesterdayevening, I didn't see too many homeless people popping out their iPhones.

At e675 for the basic fifth generation model you are hardly going to see many of anyone popping them out.

CiaranMT

inki93 wrote: »

These comments are highly ill informed…. To the first point, “Create a climate of fear”, you said,

“So broad and generic a statementas to be meaningless.”


This is an illogical statement; aconcept which is broad and generic is not inherently untrue, nor meaningless. Tosay ‘people laugh at jokes’ is broad and generic but in no way meaningless. A climateof fear is created by the media and politicians focusing on crime andterrorism. In fact, the phrase ‘climate of fear’ has become much clichéd throughover-use by thousands of commentators, such as this article in The Guardian: “How private firms have cashed inon the climate of fear since 9/11; the past ten years have seen the growth of anational security industrial complex that melds government and business”. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/05/private-firms-fear-9-11


The second and third points:

2. Get everyone online.

Does 'everyone' mean the worldpopulation? Or the US population? Or what? Because there are large swathes ofthe world sans telephone access, not to mind internet access.

3. Enable even the poor to carry a cell phone.

Walking through Dublin yesterdayevening, I didn't see too many homeless people popping out their iPhones.

Not seeing someone holding amobile phone in the street does not amount to evidence of poor people notowning a mobile phone. In London, over 70% of homeless people own a mobilephone http://www.ohyoon.com/homeless.html- and there’s even an app for that http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/Phone-app-help-homeless/story-14279007-detail/story.html
…………………………..

It is also true to saythat literally everyone in the world is ‘getting online’. Whilst not everyoneis online yet, currently one third of the world’s population is using theinternet regularly, and it is reported that,

“In 2012, about 2.4 billion peoplearound the world are online, out of a global population of 7 billion. In justfive more years, that will rise to about 3.5 billion online users, according toForrester.


The number of Internet usersaround the world is soaring and will total about 3.5 billion-or about half the Earth'sestimated population of about 7.4 billion in 2017, according to a Sept. 4report from Forrester Research. That means that about 1.1 billion additionalpeople around the world will be online in the next five years, up from about2.4 billion people who are online in 2012.

The report, Forrester Research World Online PopulationForecast, 2012 To 2017 (Global), "found that 2.4 billion people acrossthe world use the Internet on a regular basis-i.e., at least once a month-fromhome, school, work, or any other location via a PC or a non-PC (mobile)Internet access device," wrote Forrester analyst Jitender Miglani on hisForrester blog. The forecast looks at the growth of the Internet population in56 countries across five regions.

…. One year ago, an IDC reportpredicted that mobile Internet usage will top desktop usage by 2015. Thereport noted that the impact of smartphones and tablet computer adoption wouldbe so great that the number of users accessing the Internet through PCs wouldfirst stagnate and then slowly decline.” http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/Forrester-Finds-Half-of-Worlds-Population-Will-Be-Online-by-2012-319389/



Mobile phone use has acceleratedrapidly around the world, including the poorest countries; indeed, this article notes:

“Between2000 and 2010, the number of mobile users in developing countries surpassedthose in high-income nations, jumping from 29 per cent to 77 in less-developedareas.

Already,between 80 and 95 per cent of the population of Kenya, Mexico, and Indonesiasend text messages.

Inthe 12 years since the turn of the century, mobile phones have multiplied theworld over, growing from less than 1 billion in use, to 6 billion this year – apace that is unmatched in the history of technology, the World Bank said.” http://www.itproportal.com/2012/07/19/mobile-use-in-developing-nations-rockets-past-developed-world/

A report released by the ITU,

“called Measuringthe Information Society 2012, looked at 155 countries, assessing theiraccess to and use of information and communication technology (ICT)…. TheGeneva-based agency also said almost two billion people - about one-third of the world's population - had been internetusers by the end of 2011.

In developed countries, 70% of the population was online,compared with 24% in developing regions, it said.

There were almost twice as many mobile broadband subscriptionsglobally as fixed broadband ones, said the agency.

The director of ITU's Telecommunication Development Bureau,Brahima Sanou, said: "The surge in numbers of mobile-broadbandsubscriptions in developing countries has brought the internet to a multitudeof new users. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19925506

What is more, anumber of organisations and financiers have joined together to form the BetterThan Cash Alliance, which is promoting the use of electronic payments in thedeveloping world using mobile phones. http://betterthancash.org/?s=mobile+phoneand here http://mobilemoneyfordevelopment.wordpress.com/category/better-than-cash-initiative/

Not wishing to labour each andevery point, suffice it to say the following points are thoroughly explicatedand evidenced here http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_64945.shtmland here http://getmindsmart.com/Smart-UK-ID.html

4. Get everyone to talk about RFID and biometrics: the first phase of acceptance is expectation.

The only place I see this being discussed is inhere, almost exclusively by you.

Perhaps you’re notreading in the right places …. RFID is becoming integral to many aspects of ourlives, and will soon be incorporated into almost every product we buy.Biometrics are already in widespread use (passports are one of manyapplications) and are now being integrated into computers and mobile phones to authenticatethe user’s identity to the device. Biometrics are also planned to be used toadd an extra layer of security to users who sign up with an online IdentityProvider.

………………………………………..

The best bit is even if we discountthe inherent daftness of the theory, none of the twelve steps are"simple"

Simplistic to the point of being useless, perhaps. But certainly not simple.

……………………………..

A title cannot invalidate the logic of an argument, thoughit can illicit an emotional/biased reaction.

Jesus that hurts my eyes. Not gonna bother to respond.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

At e675 for the basic fifth generation model you are hardly going to see many of anyone popping them out.

So what was your point about the even the poor having access to a 'cell' phone, as you're inclined to call them? Given that even the cheapest phones you can buy are about €20/25, you won't see the majority of homeless people popping out their mobile to find out if the local hostel is full for the night. And even apart from that, what percentage of people in the 3rd world own a phone, mobile or landline? 50? Less?

Run_to_da_hills

CiaranMT wrote: »

So what was your point about the even the poor having access to a 'cell' phone, as you're inclined to call them? Given that even the cheapest phones you can buy are about €20/25, you won't see the majority of homeless people popping out their mobile to find out if the local hostel is full for the night. And even apart from that, what percentage of people in the 3rd world own a phone, mobile or landline? 50? Less?

Wasn't there a proposal not too long ago about having mobile phones used as an electronic certification device to those claiming benefits?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-bill-will-allow-jobless-to-sign-on-by-mobile-2427300.html

CiaranMT

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Wasn't there a proposal not too long ago about having mobile phones used as an electronic certification device to those claiming benefits?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-bill-will-allow-jobless-to-sign-on-by-mobile-2427300.html

Still so irrelevant to the point I'm making. Try again.

inki93

The article is forward looking. If your eyes hurt, best see a doctor.

hooradiation

inki93 wrote: »

These comments are highly ill informed…. To the first point, “Create a climate of fear”, you said,

“So broad and generic a statementas to be meaningless.”


This is an illogical statement; aconcept which is broad and generic is not inherently untrue, nor meaningless. Tosay ‘people laugh at jokes’ is broad and generic but in no way meaningless.

No
Wrong.

Claiming that a single broad statement holds true, therefore it's impossible for other broad statements to be false makes no sense.
All statements are not equal.

You shouldn't throw around the word "logic" when you don't know what it is.

inki93

To say a statement is not inherently untrue is not the same as saying the statement must be true.

hooradiation

inki93 wrote: »

To say a statement is not inherently untrue is not the same as saying the statement must be true.

Saying a statement is not inherently untrue does mean it is true. Double negatives and all that.

Also, it's still based on the idea that because you can find a broad statement that is not 'meaningless' (though I would question just how much meaning one could actually take from your example) therefore another broad statement must also not be "meaningless"
Which is wrong.

inki93

I offered an example, not a deduction.

Brown Bomber

CiaranMT wrote: »

Jesus that hurts my eyes. Not gonna bother to respond

Shame. He/she destroyed your argument.

hooradiation

inki93 wrote: »

I offered an example, not a deduction.

And this example was then supposed to show that the original statement was "illogical"?
oh dear.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Shame. He/she destroyed your argument.

oh, If only this was remotely true...

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

oh, If only this was remotely true...

It is.

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is.

Given the poor grasp they have on how logic works you'd want to be pretty careful about such bold claims.

Tzar Chasm

hooradiation wrote: »

Given the poor grasp they have on how logic works you'd want to be pretty careful about such bold claims.

well then, it should be fairly straightforward to counter their argument

hooradiation

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

well then, it should be fairly straightforward to counter their argument

I have started, I am waiting for inki93's reply.