Author Topic: Ok, I don't get it. Why is NO ONE in the IT industry exposing WTF is going on?  (Read 27364 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Scootle

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,260
I think its because when u go into ICT your conditioned to believe all this stuff is a good thing. I did a basic computing course at bournemouth university but dropped out after 1 year because i hated it. It was all about the wonders of datamining and security and future computer architectures and whatever. I joined it thinking it would be primarily practical work, programming and multimedia etc, and there was a bit of that, but most of it was theory ... security, databases, marketing, e-commerce, UML etc. The whole course was basically a soul-extraction program. Towards the end of the year when I started to wake up, I started telling my coursemates that they were on track to being the future maintainers of a nightmare world and they all just laughed at me.
The truth will set you free
From global tyranny
Wake up American slobs
9/11 was an inside job
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OntBg2qwk_M&fmt=35

Century of Manipulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mujq-C1UAw0

... Here's Tom with the weather!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CCIcjIngLA

Offline TheHouseMan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,837
I'll tell you why there's no Bob Chapman of IT.

1. The general public is not IT-literate, so you couldn't explain this in simple terms (I certainly haven't seen you explain what you think's going on in simple terms).

2. There are bigger fish to fry.

It would be really useful if you could explain your theory in about 5-6 sentences, no red text, no bold, no pasted articles.

1. What are they trying to do?

2. How are they trying to do it?

3. Who is involved?

4. What is the timeframe?

5. What is the opposition?

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
I think its because when u go into ICT your conditioned to believe all this stuff is a good thing. I did a basic computing course at bournemouth university but dropped out after 1 year because i hated it. It was all about the wonders of datamining and security and future computer architectures and whatever. I joined it thinking it would be primarily practical work, programming and multimedia etc, and there was a bit of that, but most of it was theory ... security, databases, marketing, e-commerce, UML etc. The whole course was basically a soul-extraction program. Towards the end of the year when I started to wake up, I started telling my coursemates that they were on track to being the future maintainers of a nightmare world and they all just laughed at me.

That is a very good typical description of a modern university or polytechnic ( now claiming to be a university ) computer course.

I had the fairly recent misfortune to be persuaded to attend such a course. I left a couple of years latter, knowing less about computers than when I started the course.

Much of the thinking is designed to produce obedient little cogs in the machine. Programmers are regularly described as some low life form under the umbrella smear technical, as if techies are at the bottom of the ladder.

Intelligence, Creativity, and other laudable qualities are not rewarded but will result in lower marks.






Offline James Redford

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
  • The State is the coldest of all cold monsters.
    • The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything
Let's see here.

What's the population of the Earth now, like 6.5 billion or so?

320+ million in the US give or take a few mil?

Someone have a clue why I have only heard of 2 real, non-NWO cyber experts that have exposed the NWO agenda that have had real, actual bonafide hardcore IT education like Master's degree equivalent or higher that knows exactly what the NWO is doing?

Did everyone involved in network engineering get a secret little gag order that told them if they open their mouth that their entire family will be killed followed by them?

I mean THIS MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

WHY ISN'T THERE A BOB CHAPMAN, A WEBSTER TARPLEY, A DR. MICHAEL KOFFMAN FOR THE CYBER DOMAIN THAT PUSHES TO GET ON AS A GUEST FOR AJ'S SHOW, OR ANY SHOW FOR THAT MATTER?  WTF, AJ HAD A PROMINENT GUY FROM LINUX ON ALONG TIME AGO, BUT HE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE REAL, HARDCORE NWO INTERNET TAKEOVER AGENDA FROM A PROFESSIONAL, ENGINEERING STANDPOINT TO DIVULGE THE REAL FACTS THAT WOULD PARALLEL THE LIKES OF Lordssyndicate's UNDERSTANDING.

IF YOU'RE IN THE IT INDUSTRY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, YOU BETTER SPEAK THE F*CK UP IMMEDIATELY AND TELL EVERYONE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE WTF IS GOING ON BEFORE IT IS OVER.  THE SILENCE ON THIS IS DEAFENING, SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY BS ABOUT THIS TOPIC BLACKOUT IN THE INDUSTRY.

Michael Connell was an Information Technology (I.T.) professional who had agreed to testify about his involvement in rigging the 2004 election for George Bush, Jr. He had been subpoenaed, but before he had given testimoney his plane crashed on December 19, 2008, killing him.

"The Mysterious Death of Bush's Cyber-Guru," Simon Worrall, Maxim, February 10, 2010 http://www.maxim.com/humor/stupid-fun/86265/mysterious-death-bushs-cyber-guru.html

"Special Report. From National Security Letters to National Security Targets: Green light for domestic assassinations exposed," Wayne Madsen Report, January 4, 2010 http://markmaynard.com/?p=6#comment-82976 (the article is copied in a comment), http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20100103

Michael Riconosciuto is another I.T. professional who was invovled in the Inslaw, Inc. and PROMIS software affair.
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761

Theophysics (a website with information on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory) http://theophysics.host56.com http://theophysics.ifastnet.com

sociostudent

  • Guest
Was he awake?  and howd you wake up?

He was semi-awake (knew that 9/11=inside job, but didn't really "care", because "that's just the way it is"), but resented my full awakening, and was always scared that my activism would threaten his career. Eventually, it was part of the reason why we split up. We're both much, MUCH happier now. We got married really young (19 years old), before either of us really knew what we even wanted to do with our lives.

I woke up around 2007, when I watched Zeitgeist and ENDGAME, and started listening to the AJS. When I got involved in exposing the H1N1 hoax last year, I was interviewed by James Corbett. Throughout the whole interview, he was sitting across the room on his computer, rolling his eyes and making a jack-off motion with his hand to show his disrespect and disdain for something I felt quite passionate about. That's kind of when I knew he didn't respect my opinion on truth-related stuff, and never would. I also made youtube videos about eugenics that he refused to watch. Sometimes, you just have to make really tough choices when two people want to take two very different paths in life. He wanted to be an engineer for the big brother machine, I was diametrically opposed to it, and wanted to separate myself from the big brother machine.

We have a child together, though, so we are still friendly with each other because we have to be. But I'm with someone now who is just as much an activist as I am and who makes me 10X happier, and we have a radio show  together. So, the story has a happy ending.  :)

Offline squarepusher

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,013
Quote
2. There are bigger fish to fry.

It would be really useful if you could explain your theory in about 5-6 sentences, no red text, no bold, no pasted articles.

1. What are they trying to do?

2. How are they trying to do it?

3. Who is involved?

4. What is the timeframe?

5. What is the opposition?

Do you want Anti_Illuminati and cohorts to apologize for the fact that this stuff is difficult to dumb down?  Because that is essentially what your criticism boils down to.

Secondly, what's with the 'there are bigger fish to fry'? That comes across as really demeaning to people like AI who have actually researched this stuff.

How about: "No, this is the biggest fish to fry, bar none"? The cyberattack is going to be the next false-flag - all the signs and indications point towards that being the case. Now's not the time to sit there complacently and mockingly make comments such as: "There are bigger fish to fry". I mean, WTF dude? What's more important than goddamn network-centric warfare - AGAINST an asymmetric threat (ie. Al-Qaeda - ie the general public) using effects-based operations (aka shock-and-awe campaigns, strategic deterrents, false-flags)???

You'd better tell me what those bigger f**king fish are that people have to fry - because I sure as hell haven't come across them so far. This is the biggest goddamn game in town.

Anyone wishing to keep a semblance of their rights better get educated on this stuff, and get educated fast. Shame on Alex and the entire crew for keeping general parlance dumbed down to to the extent that it is today - I tell you what, it's a hell of a lot more productive to reach out to Anti_Illuminati than it is to goddamn Steve Quayle. Sometimes I wonder whether it isn't just a combination of ignorance plus nearsightedness that is making Alex skirt away from this subject, but something far more unconscionable - yeah, I know that passes for innuendo, but that's how I feel about this situation - just shouting and blathering about 'Internet2' and 'shutting the Web down' does not in any way pass for a succinct explanation/catch-all synopsis of the situation. If this is the level at which people who listen to the Alex Jones show remain stuck forever, well, we don't have a fat chance in hell of battling this shit.

And that's all I have to say about this. You can flame me or bitch at me or whatever you want - but the audience here is not doing Alex or doing themselves any favours by giving him a pass on every goddamn thing he manages to screw up or doesn't bother investigating to the fullest extent possible...
Infowars Wiki - Help make this become the official wiki of Infowars.com - contribute!

Damascus

  • Guest
I'll tell you why there's no Bob Chapman of IT.

1. The general public is not IT-literate, so you couldn't explain this in simple terms (I certainly haven't seen you explain what you think's going on in simple terms).

2. There are bigger fish to fry.

It would be really useful if you could explain your theory in about 5-6 sentences, no red text, no bold, no pasted articles.

1. What are they trying to do?

2. How are they trying to do it?

3. Who is involved?

4. What is the timeframe?

5. What is the opposition?

Here is a simple break down that even a layman can understand. If we lose the web we will loose the one major tool that has brought all of us here today and continues to wake more and more people up every day. Comprendes Amigo?

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,061
I think its because when u go into ICT your conditioned to believe all this stuff is a good thing. I did a basic computing course at bournemouth university but dropped out after 1 year because i hated it. It was all about the wonders of datamining and security and future computer architectures and whatever. I joined it thinking it would be primarily practical work, programming and multimedia etc, and there was a bit of that, but most of it was theory ... security, databases, marketing, e-commerce, UML etc. The whole course was basically a soul-extraction program. Towards the end of the year when I started to wake up, I started telling my coursemates that they were on track to being the future maintainers of a nightmare world and they all just laughed at me.


They won't be laughing for long! Let them be stupid! They will be the first to coming crying when it smacks them in the face! Just a matter of time and they will see you were right!

Thx for being awake yourself. Maybe you need some new friends!  ;)
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline Valerius

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,865
Just generally speaking, not referencing the subject directly, there are a lot of IT people who have been invited into the low levels of Infraguard. People who think they have a role in the system are less likely to complain about it, aren't they? Nothing new.
"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck."  -Frederick Douglass

Offline Scootle

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,260
I'll tell you why there's no Bob Chapman of IT.

1. The general public is not IT-literate, so you couldn't explain this in simple terms (I certainly haven't seen you explain what you think's going on in simple terms).

I admit there's alot of Jargon and there's alot I don't understand myself but you just need to learn the terms to have a basic idea of it.

Maybe we should make a NWO to English dictionary lol.
The truth will set you free
From global tyranny
Wake up American slobs
9/11 was an inside job
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OntBg2qwk_M&fmt=35

Century of Manipulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mujq-C1UAw0

... Here's Tom with the weather!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CCIcjIngLA

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
Here is one senior-level IT professional (working for Oracle) who can see what's happening... and I doubt she's the only one. But she seems to be the only one with cojones at the moment...

I would love to see Alex interview her.


Congress Blackmailed: CYBER FALSE FLAG: Better VOTE YES on Bill - or else!!!


Mary Ann Davidson
Chief Security Officer of Oracle

http://blogs.oracle.com/maryanndavidson/

Summer R & R

By mary.ann.davidson on September 8, 2009 12:35 PM

Many of us take summer vacations to indulge in some R&R. Usually, we mean "rest and relaxation" by the abbreviation. R&R can also mean "reading and reruns" for those of us of the couch potato persuasion. I've done a lot of reading this summer (more on that below) and on those evenings when I can't concentrate on a demanding book, I sack out in front of the couch and watch reruns (e.g., NCIS and Law and Order. I find I am much better at figuring out whodunnit if I already know who did it. Less mental effort, too.).

There are other summer reruns materializing in Washington, in particular a revamped version of S. 773, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (aka the Snowe-Rockefeller Bill, after Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)). First, the disclaimers: I've written a column for Oracle Magazine on this topic so I am stealing material from myself (otherwise known as "repurposing content"). Second, I always assume that members of Congress and their staff have the best of intentions when they draft a piece of legislation. So, no evil motives are assigned to them by me nor should be imputed. This disclaimer will be especially important when I explain why the Snowe-Rockefeller rerun is, despite good intentions, not an improvement from its original version.

I've reviewed a number of bills in my years working in cybersecurity and I have seen plenty that have become laws that best fit into the "what were they thinking?" category. I therefore offer a modest proposal: members of Congress should observe just four ironclad rules when drafting cybersecurity legislation, rules that would result in better, clearer and less ambiguous legislation, which is less subject to random interpretation and/or legal challenges (e.g., on Constitutional grounds). Here they are:

1) Set limits; don't overreach. Before writing a law, determine the problem(s) the bill is trying to solve, whether legislation will actually solve the problem(s), at what cost and with what "unintended consequences." Also, determine whether there is another remedy equally or more effective at less cost and/or reach.
2) Do no harm. The legislative remedy shouldn't kill the problem by maiming the patient.
3) Use precise language. Vague language will be misinterpreted or - worse - lead to people spending a lot of money without knowing if they are "there." In the case of cybersecurity, vague language means lawyers are more likely to be making the security decisions for companies. Worst of all are the "no auditor left behind" security bills for the amount of work they create and expenditure they require without materially improving security.
4) Uphold our current laws and values (e.g., the Constitution).


With that in mind, here are my thoughts on the Snowe-Rockefeller rerun.

First, the draft bill calls for certification of cybersecurity professionals; however, the term "cybersecurity professionals" is not defined. What, precisely does that term cover?

Someone who is a CISO? A CSO?
Someone who is a security architect?
Someone who applies patches, some of which are security patches?
Someone who configures any product (after all, some settings are security settings)?
Someone who installs AV software on mom and pop's home computer (gee, that could include their 9-year-old son Chad, the computer whiz)?
Someone who administers firewalls?
Someone who does forensic analysis?
What about software developers - after all, if their code is flawed, it may lead to security vulnerabilities that bypass security settings?

Does it mean security researchers? What about actual hackers? (It would be an interesting consequence of this bill if, in the future, someone isn't convicted for hacking (computer trespass) but is fined because (s)he does not have a CISHP (Certified Information Security Hacking Professional) certification.)

If you cannot tell based on the information in a bill to whom it applies and what "compliance" means, the likely beneficiaries are auditors, who were already given a industry boost courtesy of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, the gold standard of the "No Auditor Left Behind" bills I mentioned and the slayer of the US IPO market. More to the point, for all the money organizations could spend getting cybersecurity professional certifications for the people who don't do anything more in security than send out the "don't forget to change your password!" notices every 90 days, they could do more that actually improves security with the same funds. Getting certifications for people who don't need them crowds our more useful activity and thus could do actual harm. The lack of a clear definition in the draft bill alone runs afoul of my ironclad rules 1, 2 and 3 (and 4, as I will show later).

There is another problem with this provision: the potential for windfall profits by some (on top of not necessarily making the problem space better and possibly making it worse). Aside from product certifications (e.g., "so-and-so is a certified professional in administering product FOO"), which vendors administer, I believe that many "cyber-certification " bodies that exist now are for profit (meaning, such a bill is a mandate to spend money). The problem is made worse if the entities are effectively granted monopoly power over certifications.

To wit, a small aside here to bash ISC(2), or more correctly, a single individual within ISC(2). I and most of my team have received the new Certified Secure Software Lifecycle Professional (CSSLP) certification. I have to say, I didn't think it was that hard to get nor do you really have to demonstrate much actual expertise in development practice. The hard part of "secure software lifecycle" is doing it, not writing about it, taking exams about it, or the like. The next thing I know, I am getting a cold call from someone who I can only construe to be a sales rep for ISC(2) telling me why everybody in Oracle should take their CSSLP training classes and get the certification.

My response was what I outlined above: I did not see the value for the money. The hard part is doing secure development, not getting a CSSLP certification and anyway, for the amount of money we'd spend to do massive CSSLP training (and by the way, we actually do secure development so I don't see the need for ISC(2) training on top of what we already do in practice or the training we provide to developers), we could do more valuable things towards, oh, actually improving Oracle product security. I'd rather improve product security than line ISC(2)'s pockets. Customers would prefer I do that, too.

In response, I received what I can only construe as a "policy threat," which was Slimy Sales Guy saying that the Defense Department was going to start requiring CSSLPs as a condition of procurement so I needed to talk to him. (Gee, I bet ISC(2)'s lobbyists were busy.) My response was "hey, good to know, because that sounds like you've been handed a monopoly by DoD, which is inherently anticompetitive - who in the IT industry made you the arbiters of what constitutes 'secure development skill?'" I also said that I would work to oppose that provision - if it exists - on public policy grounds. ISC(2)'s certification wasn't broadly enough arrived at (full disclosure: I was asked about the utility of such a certification before ISC(2) developed it and I said I did not see the need for it). More to the point, you could get a CSSLP and still work for an organization that does not (technical, secure development terminology follows) give a rat's behind about actually building secure software so who the bleep cares?

I shouldn't single ISC(2) out in the sense that a lot of entities want to get legislation passed that allows them to get government-mandated money by, say, requiring someone to get their certification, or buy their product, or use their services.* If Slimy Sales Guy does not speak for ISC(2), my apologies to them, but I did not appreciate Oracle being "shaken down" as thanks for my team being an early adopter of CSSLP.

Back to the Snowe-Rockefeller rerun: it's bad enough that one out of every five people in the US has a licensing or certification requirement for his job** but if we are going to add one more requirement and license cybersecurity professionals, then at least figure out who "cybersecurity professionals" are, why we need to do that, how we will do it and constrain the problem.

The bill compounds the vague definition of "cybersecurity professional" by requiring that "3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, it shall be unlawful for an individual who is not certified under the program to represent himself or herself as a cybersecurity professional." Why does the federal government want to directly regulate cybersecurity professionals to a degree that arguably exceeds medical licensing, professional engineers' licensing, architects' licensing and so forth? Even in professions that have licensing requirements, there are state-by-state requirements that differ (e.g., California has more stringent licensing for structural engineers because there is a requirement for seismic design in CA that other, less earthquake-prone states do not have). Also, such a hands-on role for the federal government raises real constitutional concerns. Where in the Constitution is the Federal government authority as the licensing and regulatory body for all cybersecurity? (See ironclad rule number 4.)

The draft bill also would allow the president to exert control over "critical infrastructure information systems and networks" in the event of a "national emergency" - including private networks - without defining what either of those things are, which would leave the discretion to the executive branch. I read this to mean the President would be able (in an "emergency") to exert authority over private networks based on whatever criteria he/she wants to use to declare them "critical." *** If "critical infrastructure information systems and networks" are so critical, why can't we define what they are before legislating them?
Are those networks pertaining to:

Utilities?
Financial services?
Manufacturing? (What kind of manufacturing - someone's toy making control systems or are we talking about heavy industry?)
Health care?
Agriculture?
Other?

I have concerns - because I am a student of history - about giving anyone too much power in what we think is a good cause and watching that power turned against us. Vague terms combined with explicit presidential authority over these ill-defined terms can be a dangerous legislative formula.

There is also a provision that requires "...real time cybersecurity status and vulnerability information of all Federal Government information systems and networks managed by the Department of Commerce, including an inventory of such, vulnerabilities of such systems and networks, and corrective action plans for those vulnerabilities..." Of course, it makes sense for any owner of a network to know what's on their network and its state of "mission readiness," which in this context could include the state of its security configuration and whether security patches have been applied. However - and I made the same comment on the first draft bill - "vulnerabilities" is not defined and there is almost no such thing as "real time vulnerability information" if "vulnerability" includes defects in software that are not publicly known and for which no workaround or patch exists. Most vendors do not provide real time vulnerability information because there is nothing that increases the risk to customers like telling them of a vulnerability with no fix (or other threat mitigation) available.

"Everybody knows what we mean" is not good enough if cybersecurity is truly a national security problem, which it clearly is. At a minimum, for purposes of this bill, "vulnerability" should be explicitly defined as either a configuration weakness or a defect in software that has been publicly disclosed and for which a patch or other remediation exists. Otherwise, someone will construe this draft bill to require vendors to notify customers about security problems with no solutions as soon as they find the problems - real time, no less. Uh, no, not going to happen.

We do not need legislation or regulation for the sake of regulation, especially when it is not clear what and who is being "regulated" and what "compliance" means and at what cost. And, most importantly, I need to be convinced that the cost of regulation - the all in cost - is worth a clear benefit and that benefit could not be derived in a better or more economical or less draconian way. Most importantly, I want this bill - or any bill - to uphold our values and specifically the values enumerated in the Constitution. Good motives are not enough to create good public policy. I truly hope the next remake of Snowe-Rockefeller is worthy of its intentions, and advances our nation's cybersecurity posture.

* Here's mine: I would like a bill passed called the Hawaiian Language Preservation Act. As part of that act, I'd like to require musicians to (in addition to paying authors of works their royalties if the work is performed in public) obtain a certification that they pronounce the lyrics of the song correctly. You won't be able to perform in public (or at least, sing Hawaiian music) unless you have a Correct Hawaiian Lyrics Pronunciation (CHLP) certification. This is a bigger problem than you would think, according to my 'ukulele teacher, Saichi (who insists we pronounce the language correctly as we sing and "good on him"). Because I am a straight up gal, I won't even be greedy - I'll just require CHLP certification for anyone publicly performing any of the Rev. Dennis Kamakahi's songs (he's written about 400 or so songs, as far as I can tell he has never written a bad song, they are very popular and often played). Now, everybody will have to come to me to get a piece of paper that asserts they can pronounce "hāwanawana" correctly (it shows up in the second verse of Koke'e). See how easy that was? I figure I can use the proceeds of my CHLP certification program to buy a house in Honolulu (and improve everyone's Hawaiian pronunciation, too).

** Source: The Dirty Dozen, more about which below.

*** A colleague who reviewed this blog entry for me raised some even scarier concerns I thought were spot-on. Consider that some elements of our country have been at "heightened alert status" since 9/11/01 (e.g., air transportation). Some networks (e.g., DoD) are being probed daily so it's conceivable that a similar "heightened alert status" for cyber could be put in place in some sectors and left "on." Would the government be able to search any records, at any time, in a sector once a (semi-permanent) cyberalert exists? It's sometimes happened that a company that works with a law enforcement entity after a cyberincident is asked for "everything": logs, machines, access to people. Perhaps an experienced person knows how to ask for the minimum information needed to investigate an incident, but the law can't require that an "experienced, reasonable person with judgment" would be the enforcement mechanism. No company wants to face having to hand over all their data, their servers and their people because of an "alert." What would the government really accomplish if every company in that sector flooded them with records? Also, would companies receive some immunity or could data obtained under an "alert" be used for another purpose by the government?
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline zdux0012

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
get linux
Get off of Windows / Mac!! You are not safe.
Get an OS you can trust. Linux, Free BSD. Ask for help!

Offline Gandalf

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
Great!   I've got a question.    :D

What's the big deal about Ruby on Rails?   Some people seem to swear by it.  Yet to me it seems like yet another computer language.  Like we really need another one.

It just depends on the application and what you're used to, and especially how important performance is. I don't really know about Ruby though. But here is a picture that might exlpain it:


Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,832
I think there are several causative factors at play.

In some cases they don't speak out because they've been "compartmentalized" for so long that they simply don't see the big picture.

In other cases it's because their upper-middle class incomes and lifestyles have deluded them into believing they're part of the "establishment."

In still others it's simply because they have a "wife, kids and mortgage," and are consequently more concerned with keeping their jobs than with being the nail that sticks out above the rest.

Ignorance, self-righteousness or fear -- it comes down to one of those three.
Hi GEO, Bumped++++++++++++

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Geo comes and goes like the wind!
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

sc10000

  • Guest
IF YOU'RE IN THE IT INDUSTRY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, YOU BETTER SPEAK THE F*CK UP IMMEDIATELY AND TELL EVERYONE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE WTF IS GOING ON BEFORE IT IS OVER.  THE SILENCE ON THIS IS DEAFENING, SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY BS ABOUT THIS TOPIC BLACKOUT IN THE INDUSTRY.
Why? Why show your hand before the call? We know how to get around any technological landmine they throw at us...but we're not going to play that card until the time it's needed. So I suggest you start cracking open some books & learn how to be self sufficient in this area, and maybe even stop trying to paint targets on those who do know how to save your axx wtshtf.  ::)

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Concerning Geo (who is very missed)...

I think there are several causative factors at play.

In some cases they don't speak out because they've been "compartmentalized" for so long that they simply don't see the big picture.

In other cases it's because their upper-middle class incomes and lifestyles have deluded them into believing they're part of the "establishment."

In still others it's simply because they have a "wife, kids and mortgage," and are consequently more concerned with keeping their jobs than with being the nail that sticks out above the rest.

Ignorance, self-righteousness or fear -- it comes down to one of those three.

Those 3 are fading after almost 50 years of the IT industry slowly becoming an owned arm of the Pentagon (which is owned by the G7 banksters). Anyone in IT in my opinion is either blinded by their faux power over zeros and ones or are realizing that they are a tool for an MIC run amuck.

There is another factor that ObWan has brought up (if you see through the testosterone)...

Why? Why show your hand before the call? We know how to get around any technological landmine they throw at us...but we're not going to play that card until the time it's needed. So I suggest you start cracking open some books & learn how to be self sufficient in this area, and maybe even stop trying to paint targets on those who do know how to save your axx wtshtf.  ::)

If you look back at the Roman Empire and the French invasion of Vietnam or the final years of Nazi Germany, a common theme is apparent...

The useful idiots and slave laborers will sabotage the elites' toys. Behavioral Modification strategies are seeing a huge backlash as humans hate to be manipulated and controlled. Once awake, they use all efforts to destroy those who have imprisoned them through deception.

All of humanity will feel the pain of the NWO, either by extermination or by perpetual intergenerational slavery. It is up to everyone to wake up to this fact. The morale at the big IT firms could not be any lower. The banksters have consolidated all of them and their time is spent 80% in corporate messaging and less than 20% actually doing any work. They are seeing their 401K's being evaporated, their kids vaccined to autism, TV mind control so apparent it is beyond surreal, and collapsing political parties that front for the priveate federal reserve ponzi scheme.

Although we may not be satisfied with those insiders, there are many that have come forward (like former CEO of Sun Microsystems and former IT czars) and I suspect many others that know exactly where ad when to engage in Beastie Boys songs. I suspect that most of the board members of the major IT corporations are already under so much surveillance by the DoD and Banksters that they have already committed to destroying the NWO from within. I hate to be the DoD guys infiltrating these CEO's because they know exactly how to blowback the DoD and then those geek soldiers with be sacrificed for the Pentagon gods. As Kissinger said...“Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy."

And for all of you Ken Lay and Barry Seal assassins...watch Smokin Aces 2...the NWO has a plan for you guys also.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline nustada

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,249
Great!   I've got a question.    :D

What's the big deal about Ruby on Rails?   Some people seem to swear by it.  Yet to me it seems like yet another computer language.  Like we really need another one.

It is for people to sell poor programmer to non-technical CEO in a less than saturated niche.  ;D

Offline Col3_11n12

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Quote
It is for people to sell poor programmer to non-technical CEO in a less than saturated niche.

Then what is PHP?   Besides evidence that the New World Order is attempting to waterboard every bulletin board on the internet?   :D ;

sc10000

  • Guest
Please stick to the topic; the nwo isn't wasting time & neither should we.