[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
BOO!

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 4280)
Message
File  []
close
serveimage.jpg
428042804280
>> No. 4280 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 11:58 pm
4280 spacer
What do any resident /boo/ lads make of this study?
http://phys.org/news/2016-01-equation-large-scale-conspiracies-quickly-reveal.html
>Equation shows that large-scale conspiracies would quickly reveal themselves
>If you're thinking of creating a massive conspiracy, you may be better scaling back your plans, according to an Oxford University researcher.
>While we can all keep a secret, a study by Dr David Robert Grimes suggests that large groups of people sharing in a conspiracy will very quickly give themselves away.
Expand all images.
>> No. 4281 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 2:05 am
4281 spacer
It seems self apparent, but it's always nice to have things I already know backed up my peer reviewed studies.
>> No. 4293 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 2:31 pm
4293 spacer
I think a lot of conspiracy theories come from a tendency amongst some to elaborate where no elaboration is needed.
>> No. 4295 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 2:46 pm
4295 spacer
>>4281

>things I already know

You mean 'things you already believe'. I'm not saying your belief is wrong, but to say you already know something without a decent base of justification, is the height of arrogance.
>> No. 4296 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 3:15 pm
4296 spacer
Surely that is what they would want us to think. Dr Cancer-Research is clearly just covering his tracks.

More realistically though, his methodology appears to use conspiracies that were exposed which will obviously lead to a result where any prediction on present conspiracy theories will have a 100% failure rate. We know of course that states can keep secrets for long periods of time from those that are revealed decades later.
>> No. 4298 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 6:15 pm
4298 spacer
It's a nice idea but complete bollocks in reality.

This equation has no more factual basis than the equation made up to "prove" that the third Monday in January is the most depressing day of the year. It's barely any better than the equations which pick random numbers from the bible to predict the end of the world.

Things like this are just cherry-picking numbers to arrive at the answer you want.
>> No. 4299 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 8:40 pm
4299 spacer
http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6506148
>> No. 4301 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 9:02 pm
4301 spacer
>>4298

I was thinking that. How many thousand people must have known what Snowden knew and for how long and never said a word? What if Snowden never got that job, would the public ever know? How many morally questionable things have GCHQ and the NSA been up to for decades that the public have never heard of?
>> No. 4302 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 10:27 pm
4302 spacer
>>4301
>How many thousand people must have known what Snowden knew and for how long and never said a word?
Not many. Organisations like GCHQ and NSA are very good at compartmentalisation. You might not know what's going on in the next office unless you need to. Snowden was able to know what he knew because he was in a privileged position as a sysadmin.

They're also good at preventing cell formation, so as to ensure that a small group can't go rogue. This carries the rather dark implication that everything within the organisation happens with the proper authority and knowledge of the higher-ups. When the NSA's telephone programme was found to be partly illegal, you can be sure that whoever signed off on it knew what was going to happen and knew that it was partly illegal.

These organisations get away with this because they are in a unique legal position. They can rely on their secrecy to prevent disclosure and effectively lie in open court.
>> No. 4303 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 11:21 pm
4303 spacer
>>4301

Most of what Snowden 'revealed' was already public knowledge, in large part due to the work of Duncan Campbell. He's largely forgotten today, but he was tried for espionage in 1978 for revealing the mere existence of GCHQ. He went on to reveal the existence of Echelon and numerous other bulk interception programmes.

The Snowden files revealed a lot of technical details and brought attention to the issue, but they didn't fundamentally change our understanding of the scope of mass surveillance.
>> No. 4304 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 11:47 pm
4304 spacer
>>4303
It merely brought it to light and reminded everybody that it's still a thing. Mostly that between the 5-eyes almost all unencrypted web communication is being tapped.
>> No. 4305 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 12:04 am
4305 spacer
>>4298
>Things like this are just cherry-picking numbers to arrive at the answer you want.

The specific numbers aren't important, it's the orders of magnitude. You only need a back-of-the-envelope calculation to show that secrets held by hundreds of thousands of people aren't likely to last long.
>> No. 4306 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 12:23 am
4306 spacer
>>4303

I remember back in the 90s when talking about Echelon, carnivore, and the tinkerbell squad were enough to get you labeled as a tinfoil nutjob.
>> No. 4307 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 6:07 pm
4307 spacer
>>4306

This is something I keep coming back to when I think about stuff like this. Especially in the post-9/11 security hysteria, there was a lot of back and forth about the idea of privacy and whatnot. Those tedious posts on the primordial message boards and early social media saying 1984 WAS A WARNING NOT AN INSTRUCTION MANUAL and the equally tedious arguments in return about being paranoid and that if anything the government is surely too inept to construct such a vast surveillance state. Which side turned out to be right?

Anyone who still has an essential faith in the government and it's intentions, knowing what we know to be fact today, has got to be a bloody moron.
>> No. 4308 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 7:31 pm
4308 spacer
>>4307
>Which side turned out to be right?
If even half the stuff we've seen is to be believed, then the answer, rather worryingly, is both.
>> No. 4309 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 7:43 pm
4309 spacer
>>4307

As >>4308 says, we have the government constructing a vast inept, corrupt and leaky surveillance state. The worst of both worlds.
>> No. 4310 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 7:16 pm
4310 spacer
>>4309

The worrying thing is that everything gets recorded forever, so that if a halfway competent totalitarian state gets into power in the future, they'll know who to stick in the gulag.
>> No. 4311 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 7:35 pm
4311 spacer
>>4310
What is interesting about this though is how in the past few years the surveillance has gone from a debate over personal privacy to a debate over surveillance upon the state apparatus itself. The debate has moved on from 'should we have CCTV?' to 'how can we make sure the surveillance is done fair and accountably and how can we employ it to keep an eye on the police?'.

The future is going to be recorded in go-pro.
>> No. 4312 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 7:48 pm
4312 spacer
>>4310

Yeah I guess even just having lurked here will mean getting fucked over on the basis of some teenlad rant about killing posh is and bumming the queen five years ago.
>> No. 4313 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 7:54 pm
4313 spacer
>>4311
>>The future is going to be recorded in go-pro.

I've been toying with getting one just to make Instagram a bit less wobbly and such.
>> No. 4314 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 8:12 pm
4314 spacer
>>4313

Consider toying with the idea of being less of a dick.

Regards,
You more sober flatmate.

One the off chance you are someone else. Sorry.
>> No. 4315 Anonymous
30th January 2016
Saturday 8:49 pm
4315 spacer
>>4314
>One

Not much more sober mind, m8.
>> No. 4316 Anonymous
31st January 2016
Sunday 3:41 pm
4316 spacer
>>4280

The maths was flawed: http://littleatoms.com/david-grimes-conspiracy-theory-maths
>> No. 4317 Anonymous
31st January 2016
Sunday 4:22 pm
4317 spacer
>>4316
The real question now is whether the paper was part of the grand conspiracy, or whether the revelation that it's flawed is a deliberate limited hangout to put people off digging deeper?
>> No. 4318 Anonymous
1st February 2016
Monday 12:57 pm
4318 spacer

individual_probabilities.png
431843184318
>>4316
I have to be honest that I didn't really trust the writings of a Vice columnist over an Oxford mathematician, but on reading the paper the error is plain to see in the first two equations of the paper:

L = 1 - exp(-t \phi) (1)

\phi = 1 - (1 - p)^N(t) (2)

Having a time parameter t in (1) is completely wrong on dimensional grounds, since \phi is a dimensionless quantity and exponentiating any quantity with dimension is unphysical. Secondly, in (2) he is giving time-dependence to the rate of events (in this case, the rate of whistle-blowing) which violates the key assumption of the Poisson distribution (i.e. that this quanitity is constant). Both these errors together lead his paper to have a nonsensical plot of cumulative probabilities.

As far as I can tell, the best you can do is assume the number of conspirators to be constant over some finite period and apply Poisson statistics to each period seperately. A quick calculation shows that for constant conspirators the probability of failure tends to 1, whilst for exponentially decaying conspirators the same probability tends to some finite value < 1.
>> No. 4319 Anonymous
1st February 2016
Monday 12:59 pm
4319 spacer

cumulative_probabilities.png
431943194319
>>4318
Parameters used were:

probability of individual failure = 1E-5
initial conspirators = 10000
period length = 1 year

and the half-lives of conspirators in the exponentially decaying cases are as indicated.
>> No. 4320 Anonymous
1st February 2016
Monday 2:52 pm
4320 spacer
>>4319
>failure of probability

Also, while you have a decreasing component representing what I presume to be people dying off, have you accounted for an increasing component representing new people being added (new hires, gossip, etc.)?
>> No. 4321 Anonymous
1st February 2016
Monday 3:48 pm
4321 spacer
And a contribution for deathbed confessions.
>> No. 4322 Anonymous
1st February 2016
Monday 4:13 pm
4322 spacer
>>4320
I had a bit of a failure of English there apparently.

No, I've not attempted to do anything significantly more complicated than was in the original paper. Though the decay doesn't necessarily need to be conspirators being killed off, just of them being removed from positions where they have access to the level of information needed for a credible whistle-blowing.
>> No. 4323 Anonymous
1st February 2016
Monday 6:28 pm
4323 spacer
This has nothing to do with maths though. Being "exposed" has nothing to do with actually uncovering a conspiracy There are literally hundreds of people who claim to have been involved in conspiracies of all stripes. Depending on how much of a nutter they are or how believable the story, it's incredibly easy to discredit these would be whistle-blowers, and then that's the end of it.

Someone comes out and tells us everything about how the government assassinated so and so and with a little encouragement everyone rolls their eyes in synchronisation, "What a nutter, just trying to sell a few books isn't he..." meanwhile they actually did do it but nobody believes it regardless and this little piece of maths doesn't make a difference.
>> No. 4324 Anonymous
1st February 2016
Monday 7:12 pm
4324 spacer
>>4323
>This has nothing to do with maths though.

Why are you pigeonholing 'maths' as a single thing? Everything has everything to do with mathematics, it's just a matter of having enough data and looking hard enough for a pattern.

To your second point, I think this is why we should differentiate between credible whistle-blowers such as Snowden who publish direct evidence, and any random person who can and will confess to anything for any number of reasons.
>> No. 4325 Anonymous
1st February 2016
Monday 8:40 pm
4325 spacer
>>4322
An English of failure, surely?

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password