Women Hifi owners...

[Marco]

Any views on post 104, particularly in reference to my points about being "connected" and "Smart, mostly for whom"?

Marco.

[struth]

I completely agree, Adrian (and also with the rest of your post). The bit above, however, is partly the point I've been trying to make to Martin (and also Joe) - and crucially - get them both to acknowledge, as unfortunately it's reality.

The fact is, both the Internet and other forms of modern technology (especially smartphones), have made it easier to subliminally brainwash people, by connecting to them via their smart devices. Think about that for a moment... Martin has admitted that it has made it easier for a brand to influence, and so quite simply, if it's easier for them to influence, then it's also easier for them to control your behaviour, for whatever purpose they desire, especially if you're easily led/susceptible to being brainwashed, as touched upon earlier.

And THAT, my friends, whether you care to admit it or not, is precisely (and ever-increasingly) what's been happening for years, ever since the dawn of said technology - and those behind the mind-control are getting ever better at it and less scrupulous! It's how the virtual world works, and indeed can also be misused.

The phrase "being connected" (as outlined above) is continually bandied around, whenever today's smart technology is discussed, but have you ever taken a step back, applied some lateral thinking, and wondered what they [the powers that be] might actually want you connected to...?

And therefore also why being 'off grid' [thus disconnected] is often frowned upon these days, perhaps because the powers that be are actively trying so hard to 'connect' everyone, and because being 'off grid' helps prevent the brainwash, and also acts as a possible antidote to it..?

Quite simply because, if you're 'off-grid' then you can't be connected to and perhaps controlled. "Smart devices" indeed, and of course everyone wants to make the smart choice, and be considered as smart [great subliminal mind-control there, which is why they play on the word 'smart'] - but one wonders mostly "smart" for whom?

Food for thought perhaps...

Marco.

I would say its more, "wanting to have the ability to place anyone, anywhere, if they want" and that is more incieous that any ad.

[Marco]

So you agree that there's something insidious going on? What about my points about "connected" to what, and "Smart" mostly for whom?

Marco.

[struth]

So you agree that there's something insidious going on? What about my points about "connected" to what, and "Smart" for whom?

Marco.

I agree there could be, and may be more in future as tech moves on and Govts get more freedom. It was a phone that caught Bin Laden I think, and others too. Now maybe at moment we are just seeing the tip of a pretty massive iceberg.

[Gaz]

Mrs Gaz is oblivious to sound quality, according to her the only difference between her Pure dab radio/alarm and my system is that mine is louder.
The weird thing is that her hearing is so good that, in a restaurant, she can hold a conversation whilst listening to two others on adjacent tables.
Odd

[Macca]

Google for [key exactly the following into your search box] "How the world really works - Rothschild". And do some research into the subject - with an open mind - and a genuine willingness to challenge and question your current beliefs.

Marco.

I don't think the idea that wealthy people have influence over politics is a surprise to anyone. Nor is it a new thing.

It's one thing to say that the internet enables people to advertise their tat more selectively. (although see my previous post where I linked to an article about the relative ineffectiveness of internet advertising compared to advertising in the press or television).

It's more of a leap to suggest that it could be used to control behaviour in a wider sense. On balance I'm more inclined to agree with Joe that it's more of a threat to governments - by enabling large numbers of people to instantly communicate and organise, and by providing alternative viewpoints to the 'party line'. Isn't this why the internet is heavily controlled and censored in authoritarian regimes like China?

[Pharos]

Firstly, I apologise Mike if my use of inverted commas is wrong.

I use a double quotation mark in a direct quote, for example, he said "I'm happy", and a single one to denote a metaphorical term, for example; She is 'hot'. this latter is not referring to her temperature, and it is demanding that the reader do work in order to understand it, (parentheses).

From Marco;
"That's why it pays in some ways to be 'off grid'. Quite simply, I refuse to be a 'brainwashed sheep', one of the downtrodden masses caught up in today's rat race, or a puppet for the Establishment! I've fortunately also always been rather perceptive towards that"

I do not have a mobile phone, (roars of laughter), I muse a PC and a Mac, and receive and make important calls by landline.

In my view capitalism is now extremely predatory. It is not any longer based on a provider merely fulfilling the needs of the public consumer and in so doing making a profit. It is increasingly trying to get us to release our money in any way it can, and control of us by influence resulting from constant 'nudging' is rampant. (See the commas Mike?).

It is insidious because our mobiles are really rather intimate and personal devices, and just after we have said to our wife "I'll be ten minutes late darling" we get a recommendation to buy something, and this is invasive.

We also have seen what Cambridge Analytica has done with regard to 'mining' our data and hence our lives, and this extends now to personality profiling; they are building up a picture of each of us, and our geographical position is monitored.

As a species we tend to want the approval of the group, and Solomon Asch did experiments to see to what degree we are individual in our choices and remain so under pressure, even if that pressure is only that of feeling alienated by having a view differing from others. This is ontological (in)security, and has enormous social and political implications and ramifications.

Money, and all we buy with it, are tools for living, and IMO we should make internal decisions about our lives and how we want to live them, and then buy what is needed to facilitate that. I have beautiful speakers not to show off to the world - no public exposure - very few will see them, but because I love music well reproduced so much.

The ecology is telling us that we cannot go on turning the earth into a vast rubbish tip, and the very young are realising this more than the rest of us, thank God, but I hope it is not too late.

[Macca]

, But it doesnt take much stretch of imagination to see modern tech improvements being used against us, the people as well.

Can you provide a hypothetical scenario of how that might work?

[Joe]

Google for [key exactly the following into your search box] "How the world really works - Rothschild". And do some research into the subject - with an open mind - and a genuine willingness to challenge and question your current beliefs.

Marco.

It's a confused mish-mash of quotes from here there and everywhere, with few references to check. Some quotes are just plain wrong. To pick one at random:

'During a war you will never see the Vatican, City of London or Switzerland get attacked. On the grand chessboard these are considered neutral ground because it is where all the money flows. Without money to fund war, there is no war."

The City Of London was bombed to buggery in WW2; see http://bombsight.org/explore/greater...ity-of-london/

[struth]

To an extent its all already there on a phone and other devices and is being used. It wouldn't be too difficult to make it work even when off too. And all the profiles go yo a central computer system etc