Интересно, а как включить выключенный мобильник дистанционно? Поделитесь, плз! Очень надо! :)
|
РАЗДЕЛЫ
Архив
|
15.11.2008 14:07 | пишет Гость | ссылка
Интересно, а как включить выключенный мобильник дистанционно? Поделитесь, плз! Очень надо! :) 16.11.2008 12:14 | пишет Кулибин | ссылка
Возьми палку с тонким концом и нажми на кнопку. Величина дистанции вкл.-выкл. зависит от длины палки. )) 15.11.2008 15:39 | пишет Гость | ссылка
Наоборот, это ты мечтаешь, чтобы тобой интересовались. До наноконтроля ещё далеко. Да и не нужен он. 16.11.2008 03:00 | пишет bladerunner | ссылка
Эк тебя торкнуло. Если ты не стебаешься, то тебе нужна помощь. Я ведь тоже одно время был на грани сумашествия. Всякие там "более тонкие, чем следственно-причинные связи" видел. Трудно вырватся из симулякра, не теряя голову. Мне здорово помогла "Хроника одной трамвайной поездки" Коряковцева. 15.11.2008 01:43 | пишет Гость | ссылка
Ну вот :-) Один псих на эту статью уже слетелся ;-) 15.11.2008 18:18 | пишет Гвость | ссылка
Та ну. Он тут считай прописан, неоднократно зачитывался его телегами. Местная достопримечательность, в общем. :) 15.11.2008 16:57 | пишет Гость | ссылка
> мании расцветают в условиях постоянной подпитки; если же манию не "кормить", то со временем она затихнет или пропадёт совсем... Сколько мнений! И нифига так и не ясно, усугубляет ли интернет паранойю, является ли лекарством или же интернет-среда сама по себе ядовита, где и нормальному человеку легко свихнуться... 15.11.2008 18:40 | пишет Гвость | ссылка
> И нифига так и не ясно, усугубляет ли интернет паранойю Точно, не ясно. Значит, давайте проголосуем. Чтоб, блин, наконец-то определиться уже с этим, гм, явлением. ... Мне, кстати, тоже неясно. Является ли стремление к простым ответам на сложные вопросы с кучей неизвестных достаточным условием для диагноза "хронический консумеризм". Весь интернет перерыл, а так и не нашёл. Падскажити где мине скочать ответ. А то разорвусь от неопределённости. Забавно, что к этому так серьезно относятся люди с отслеживаемыми IP, корреспонденцией, историей поиска, личными досье относительно поведения в Сети... ;) 22.11.2008 23:03 | пишет gangstalking | ссылка
Just a quick update on the New York Times article. I have just spoken to Vaughan Bell, one of the key psychologists mentioned in the article and he was kind enough to clarify that he has never studied Gang Stalking. The research that he did, fully focuses on Mind Control sites. He has never studied Gang Stalking or the Gang Stalking World website more specifically. I think one of the things that Sarah Kershaw did in the article, that many people do is that she lumped in Gang Stalking, Electronic Harassment, and Mind Control, all together. For the record I do believe that all three happen and are happening to Targets. I know about Mk Ultra, the experiments that happened, the law-suites for mind control. I am familiar with Electronic Harassment. How many times have I gone into the shower to have patches of my skin peal off from the burns of the night before? I do however focus on the Gang Stalking aspect of it, because it comes down to what can you prove? Over the last two years, I have spoken to enough police officers, (who are no longer mentioned), health professionals, social workers, crisis centers, lawyers, Investigators, Human Rights, etc to find out what I could about what was happening with the Citizen Informants, and the programs that they are being used for. I have enough people offline and online that I have spoken to, to know that I know what I am talking about with the Gang Stalking stuff. Since the only psychologist thus far that I could find who mentioned extreme communities was again Vaughan Bell, he has not identified the Gang Stalking websites as such, since he has never studied them. The article also does make it clear that in relationship to Dr. Ralph Hoffman, his patients have "told him of visiting mind-control sites, and finding in them confirmation of their own experiences." So we have two named professionals, one psychiatrist and one psychologist, both who have not it would appear studied, or actually made mention of the Gang Stalking Websites. It seems the confusion and the lumping together of the terms might be coming from the author of the article Sarah Kershaw, and it is an easy error to make, if you are not familiar with the three phenomenons. We are all Targeted Individuals, but just because you experience or are a target of one, does not mean that you are a target of all. I just wanted to clarify this factor for anyone who still had questions about this article or how the conclusions came about. I might do a bit more follow up, on this article with at least one more person, but these are important details that I thought should be clearifed. 22.11.2008 23:04 | пишет gangstalking | ссылка
Just a quick update on the New York Times article. I have just spoken to Vaughan Bell, one of the key psychologists mentioned in the article and he was kind enough to clarify that he has never studied Gang Stalking. The research that he did, fully focuses on Mind Control sites. He has never studied Gang Stalking or the Gang Stalking World website more specifically. I think one of the things that Sarah Kershaw did in the article, that many people do is that she lumped in Gang Stalking, Electronic Harassment, and Mind Control, all together. For the record I do believe that all three happen and are happening to Targets. I know about Mk Ultra, the experiments that happened, the law-suites for mind control. I am familiar with Electronic Harassment. How many times have I gone into the shower to have patches of my skin peal off from the burns of the night before? I do however focus on the Gang Stalking aspect of it, because it comes down to what can you prove? Over the last two years, I have spoken to enough police officers, (who are no longer mentioned), health professionals, social workers, crisis centers, lawyers, Investigators, Human Rights, etc to find out what I could about what was happening with the Citizen Informants, and the programs that they are being used for. I have enough people offline and online that I have spoken to, to know that I know what I am talking about with the Gang Stalking stuff. Since the only psychologist thus far that I could find who mentioned extreme communities was again Vaughan Bell, he has not identified the Gang Stalking websites as such, since he has never studied them. The article also does make it clear that in relationship to Dr. Ralph Hoffman, his patients have "told him of visiting mind-control sites, and finding in them confirmation of their own experiences." So we have two named professionals, one psychiatrist and one psychologist, both who have not it would appear studied, or actually made mention of the Gang Stalking Websites. It seems the confusion and the lumping together of the terms might be coming from the author of the article Sarah Kershaw, and it is an easy error to make, if you are not familiar with the three phenomenons. We are all Targeted Individuals, but just because you experience or are a target of one, does not mean that you are a target of all. I just wanted to clarify this factor for anyone who still had questions about this article or how the conclusions came about. I might do a bit more follow up, on this article with at least one more person, but these are important details that I thought should be clearifed. 22.11.2008 23:05 | пишет gangstalking | ссылка
Sorry about the double posting. There is just one more thing I wanted to add. After giving the New York Times article a little bit more time to settle there are three points that I wanted to review further. The first was how the article came to use the term extreme communities. I did read over the Vaughan Bell article where a reference is made to such communities.
According to what Dr Bell wrote in the article it was views considered extreme or unacceptable by the mainstream. Using this definition I wondered if things such as the 9/11 truth movement would be an extreme community? Their views are not considered mainstream. I also wondered who else might fall into this list based on Dr Bell's definition? Websites that cover conspiracy topics might well meet his definition of extreme communities. Many of the subject matters covered on websites such as would fall into this category. They would be a website of mini patches of extreme communities. Another factor that I thought should be calculated in when defining a community as an extreme community is the obvious, is the community helpful vs harmful? What kind of purpose do they serve? If I go to a website that has what by some is considered an extreme view that encourages me to kill myself, then that should be considered different than going to a website that expounds none traditional views, but steers the website viewer away from inflicting harm to themselves? There are lot's of websites that conform to traditional or more traditional mainstream views that in my opinion are probably fairly harmful to some aspects of society, but we turn a blind eye, because it does pass mainstream muster. The definition as is, in my opinion is fairly broad, and the references to the term were limited except for references to Dr Bell's work and the New York Times article. The other point that I am wondering about is who or what now defines what is mainstream or normal? In today's society we have so many different variables to consider. At one time spending all your time online might have been considered the actions of lonely desperate people. Now with websites such as Facebook, and much of web 2.0 culture, being online is considered normal, and spending many hours online as long as it's spent socialising is considered a fairly normal and healthy activity. According to a report from Mediamark Research in a 30 day period 2.5 million adults participated in online dating. I am sure they find this to be completely normal and mainstream, but I am sure there are patches of society that do not agree with this. World of WarCraft reached 11 Million monthly Subscribers. Many of them sane individuals who go online to take part in these roleplaying games. For that community, I am sure they consider themselves normal and mainstream, just by their sheer numbers. I am sure there are still many in society who would not however consider going online to roleplay normal, mainstream or even healthy. Thus what would be considered as abnormal or extreme view offline is often a normal and accepted view online, in many different circles. Eg. 9/11 conspiracy offline, might still be considered anti-government or none traditional, but online they are a fairly regular part of web culture and discussions. When defining mainstream and referencing the Internet, we might have to start finding different ways to do so. Eg. I just read an article today, that talks about a real life couple getting divorced because he is cheating online with a virtual girlfriend. Traditional definitions are having to be adapted and redefined to accommodate an online culture. A second woman in Japan was arrested because she killed her online husband. She killed his virtual self. That's right, she did not kill him, or have any intention of killing the real him, but when his online virtual self divorced her, she got even and killed him. She was arrested for hacking into the computer and other things, and now if she is formally charged, she could face up to 5 years in jail. It is becoming more and more clear that it is the offline world that is having to adapt to the new online realities and not often the other way around. Therefore what we considered traditional and mainstream yesterday for an offline reality, in many ways is being redefined, and it does not seem as if some offline structures are keeping up to date with this reality. The third point of concern with the New York Times article is that people were being considered paranoid with simple offline assessments. Are these offline assessments adequate for some of the challenges that people are facing in the modern day world to define Targeted Individuals as paranoid? Recent research has unearth a great deal of information to show that when people are being termed as paranoid, it might not be the case. Research is showing that there are in fact networks of individuals being hired by the state in various countries to track and spy on average citizens. The spying includes email and phone taps. Being followed around in public by hired Covert Human Intelligence Sources. Having these same Informants move into the houses around the target when possible. Following them around in vehicle and foot patrols, plus many other forms of intrusive surveillance. Individuals and Families under these types of surveillance are often not aware, and if they do become aware and go to seek help, they are often written off by the establishment as paranoid, psychotic, or crazy. The modern day reality is that without proper investigations, Freedom Of Information Act requests, and other proper forms of inquiry a true assessment might be impossible to determine. The secondary problem is that many of these investigations are ending up in secret databases, which the public has no access to. F.O.I.A. requests are no longer a sure fire way to determine if an individual is under surveillance.
I think it's fair and safe to say that before a community is considered extreme many factors should be considered, and the definition itself should factor into consideration what's considered normal online as well as offline. Assessing if a community or individual is paranoid or psychotic in today's modern surveillance society should be done with care and caution. It's been shown time and time again that anti-terror laws are being abused, National Security Letters are being handed out left right and center, with over 30,000 being issued per year, and many groups and individuals are being spied upon and placed on watch lists, unfairly. In a society as the one described above, it is not only normal to have concerns about surveillance, but when there is a suspicion of such, the job of therapists in the future might not be first subscribing the patient to medication, it might be first asking if they have placed a F.O.I.A. request. Society might even have to make it a mandatory law for psychiatrist to be notified if a person is under surveillance so that they are not falsely labelled, committed or medicated. This does not happen, the culture and society have changed within the last decade, but the methods used for determining paranoia, psychosis, and mental illness, in regards to the belief that one is under surveillance are still fairly antiquated in many cases, and might not pass muster for the realities of a modern day surveillance society. |
Последние комментарии
Гость про Суд велел "Твиттеру" сдать сторонников WikiLeaks (12)
Гость про Книгоиздатели начали судиться с торрентами (2)
l_e_x_a про "ВКонтакте" принудительно протестирует пользователей (35)
andrey_kadetov про Google назвал Facebook "ловушкой без выхода" (6)
volv про День папуасского робошахтёра (14)
l_e_x_a про Русские кликботы признаны самыми активными (11)
looli спрашивает: Земля вампиров смотреть онлайн в HD качестве looli спрашивает: Зеленый Фонарь смотреть онлайн в HD качестве looli спрашивает: Защитник смотреть онлайн в HD качестве looli спрашивает: Запретная зона смотреть онлайн в HD качестве looli спрашивает: Закон доблести смотреть онлайн в HD качестве looli спрашивает: Вышибала смотреть онлайн в HD качестве looli спрашивает: Встречный ветер смотреть онлайн в HD качестве looli спрашивает: Все любят китов смотреть онлайн в HD качестве |
Copyright © 2001-2020 «Вебпланета». При перепечатке ссылка на «Вебпланету» обязательна.
>общения между людьми, страдающими манией преследования.
Если у вас мания преследования, это еще не значит, что Большой Брат не наблюдает за вами.
Ведь ваш любимый зомбофон - идеальное орудие круглосуточной прослушки и GPS-подобной слежки за вашими перемещениями (точность очень высокая благодаря наличию десятков передатчиков - по силе сигнала и времени его прохождения с каждого из них можно определить расстояние до вас с точностью до метра).
Причем, телефон выполняет эти функции даже тогда, когда он "как бы выключен" - это было доказано во время грузинской войны, когда грузины дистанционно включали "выключенные" мобильники мирных граждан и... посылали туда ракеты, наводящиеся по радиоизлучению этих самых мобильников.
А еще LCD-экран мобильника позволяет вас снимать (не говоря уже о встроенной камере, которая вас тоже снимает в любое время и отсылает ваши интимные фото "кому надо" - ведь компромат им еще пригодится, когда вас будут вербовать в Моссад). Всё видео и аудио сохраняется неограниченно долго, для этого ведь и выпускаются огромные винчестеры в огромных количествах.
Иначе говоря, телефон - он же "начертание на правую руку", он же (всем, малым и великим, богатым и нищим, свободным и рабам, положено будет начертание на правую руку их или на чело их) - это орудие мирового правительства, которое позволяет ему контролировать нас непрерывно, крглосуточно и автоматически. Оруэл об этом даже не мечтал (или мечтал?).
P.S. и все-таки, я не параноик, а скорее реалист - докажите, что написанное выше - ложь :*)