Wow Winstone, when you jump in you really make a splash. Good to see you here.
I wanted to elaborate just a bit on a point Winstone made in the CS section about information sharing. A question to put out there might be, how careful should we be in discussing certain techniques used in detection of treatments?
Certainly when conducting survellience on various operations, the FBI is not going to say exactly how they caught the crooks, otherwise the crooks will say "okay boys, let's set up shop at that location but we'll make it a decoy..."
If advanced gemology detects the glorp in stubbittieite by using a trifeculator and they make this public knowledge, the gem crooks will then simply add pisquaydia to foil the detectors. You get the idea....
We're off tomorrow to do a bit of research in Thailand, maybe get to stop and see Lee Little if we get up to Chiang Rai. Check you later. Bear
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:42 pm Posts: 4091 Location: the Netherlands
I'm not sure if restricted access to information will produce the desired result... It may start a hole new pile of shit. It gives power to few rather then the possibility of joining brains by many.
I kinda like the idea of full transparency of methods and science.
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:04 pm Posts: 623 Location: Southern OK/North TX
Tim wrote:
I'm not sure if restricted access to information will produce the desired result... It may start a hole new pile of shit. It gives power to few rather then the possibility of joining brains by many.
I kinda like the idea of full transparency of methods and science.
I agree wholeheartedly....that method over the years is what got us this pile of poop in the first place...
Please full transparency. Keep to a small qualified group, what would this be 100s, 1000s. How long before some one in that large group leaked information to people you did not want it to go to. My rule is once you tell 2 people it is not a secret any more, because you can not prove who leaked it.
All this would do is keep it from thousands that could make good use of the information.
I wholeheartedly agree on the transparency line.
Better to get the info out as wide as possible to make the number of "detectors" bigger.
If you wish to join the ranks of qualified persons, it would be a pretty easy task to get accredited.
It is harder to get into the police ranks to get info but as we all know money talks and corruption is widespread even in the western hemisphere.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum