quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


Well, if you and Ken want to look into it, you will find that they have a different mechanism for error correction for large drive arrays. Don't let me stop you guys from going and educating yourself.

As for indexing - again commercial indexes were doing 43 billion files in an hour. I don't know how that scales.

Ken already explained RAID, but yeah, I am aware of the different error mechanisms having been a computer programmer that geeked in places the depth and breath of this country, for over twenty years and creating (not alone) the E911 system (among other things) for verizon, and oh, and voice compression and recognition for automated operators for verizon. And have done most of my work in telephony and computing gizmos. Yanno, like telemarketing stuff. Hooking telephones and computers together to transform that stuff.


Yeah, cute shit on indexing, you ain't in the universe, let alone the galaxy.0

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


Well, if you and Ken want to look into it, you will find that they have a different mechanism for error correction for large drive arrays. Don't let me stop you guys from going and educating yourself.

As for indexing - again commercial indexes were doing 43 billion files in an hour. I don't know how that scales.

Ken already explained RAID, but yeah, I am aware of the different error mechanisms having been a computer programmer that geeked in places the depth and breath of this country, for over twenty years and creating (not alone) the E911 system (among other things) for verizon, and oh, and voice compression and recognition for automated operators for verizon. And have done most of my work in telephony and computing gizmos. Yanno, like telemarketing stuff. Hooking telephones and computers together to transform that stuff.


Yeah, cute shit on indexing, you ain't in the universe, let alone the galaxy.0

And I've been in the IT industry for longer than that. And I can tell you quite interesting stories about the e911 and the ESS switches as well as the 4.0 switches.

And I've implimented literally hundred of raids systems. And again, I can tell you regardless of what FactlessKen thinks that Raid is not the methodology used for very large arrays. Doesn't meet the requirements for scaleable and time response, as well as the addressing requirements.

And if you have the experience you claim with voice compression - you know that the data rate for a voice line is miniscule.

Regarding indexing - no one ever said they are indexing by conversation content - nor are they. The indexes are #, date, time. With the voice recorded for analyst playback. Likewise for the internet by ip address.

Additionally, google and others cache huge amounts of web page data. Once a cached image is tokenized it compression is huge. You don't have to analyze and store packet traffic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
And I've implimented literally hundred of raids systems. And again, I can tell you regardless of what FactlessKen thinks that Raid is not the methodology used for very large arrays. Doesn't meet the requirements for scaleable and time response, as well as the addressing requirements.

quote:

Additionally, google and others cache huge amounts of web page data. Once a cached image is tokenized it compression is huge. You don't have to analyze and store packet traffic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
And I've implimented literally hundred of raids systems. And again, I can tell you regardless of what FactlessKen thinks that Raid is not the methodology used for very large arrays. Doesn't meet the requirements for scaleable and time response, as well as the addressing requirements.

This is the amusing thing about this "tech" discussion. Some folks who think they know what they are talking about are using technologies like "RAID" and "router" to describe what is "possible" here. A more knowledgeable tech person would be speaking in terms of SAN frames, prisms and fiber. An even more knowledgeable person would know that the NSA is seriously cutting edge tech so it's a safe bet that they've got some shit going on that nobody else has heard of.

quote:

quote:

Additionally, google and others cache huge amounts of web page data. Once a cached image is tokenized it compression is huge. You don't have to analyze and store packet traffic.

... a point which has already been made on this thread. The vast majority of internet traffic is stuff which is known and repeated (eg: highly tokenizable and compressible. When someone watches a netflix movie there's no need to capture the movie stream itself. Ditto with a ton of other very common and very normal internet traffic.

All of which misses the real point. Whether or not current tech as of this moment allows them to "capture the internet", it is absolutely their goal... their stated goal if you dig a bit. If they can't do it today then they are building out that capability as fast as they can... on my tax dollar. Nor would some seriously scary data mining even require anything like 100% capture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I hacked up a louie just now, in fact. Dusty out there in the yard, and raising hell with my allergies.

I will text it to the NSA.

Nevermind, they already got it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I hacked up a louie just now, in fact. Dusty out there in the yard, and raising hell with my allergies.

I will text it to the NSA.

Nevermind, they already got it.

Stop putting keywords out there, they just shut down my computer. Its all your fault.

quote:


I've done quite a bit of reading on this matter and have never seen a source for these vague claims that some NSA official has stated their goal is capturing all internet traffic. Since the idea is fairly ludicrous I really doubt anyone at NSA has ever said anything like that.