Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kmfkewm

Pages: 1 ... 49 50 [51] 52 53 ... 249
751
Security / massive fake ID sting by secret service
« on: July 22, 2013, 06:14 pm »
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/open-market/

thankfully I never ordered anything from celtic but I know several who did. In fact it makes me think that this might have been what led to Enelysions bust, as I am pretty sure he obtained fake ID's from celtic, after which he had semi-legal shipments of research chemicals intercepted, after which he was put under surveillance and eventually raided etc. I don't find it much of a stretch that the original intelligence that got his bulk research chemical shipment flagged is that it was to a box opened with a celtic fake ID. This shows a multi stage investigation actually, from the compromise of a fake ID vendor, the secret service taking over and selling ID's for multiple years, a big drug vendor obtaining such an ID, getting a shipment from China flagged because of it then located put under surveillance and busted with million dollars in drugs in money.

There is always huge risk with fake ID since you need to send a picture of yourself to the vendor and of course they can then flag all of your packs if they happen to be malicious. I think we should spend the rest of this thread discussing how we can minimize the risks of using fake identification for box registration, or even if we should phase out fake ID boxes in favor of using random mailboxes on the street and intercepting incoming mail prior to a legitimate resident.

752
I would generally avoid tails without persistent entry guards it is more of a risk than a benefit. If you are not using new wifi access points every time then you are not using tails for what it was made for, it is not a sit at home use it like a normal OS and if you use it like that then you are just going to severely degrade the anonymity that Tor can provide. I thought newer versions of tails had addressed this with ability to have persistent entry guards, but no luck, so fuck tails. They probably do more to hurt peoples anonymity than help them, 95% of people using Tails are essentially needlessly giving up entry guards without any benefit to themselves in doing so.

Giving up entry guards for unlinkability between wireless access points is a fine idea, but when people are not using tails from random wifi access points they are protecting themselves from unlinkability but not really since everything originates from the same connection, but they are definitely sacrificing their entry guards. Using tails like a normal OS for a year could be equal to using Tor regularly for 70 years as far as entry guard churn goes.

I think it is a bit stupid that tails developers don't make this risk more well known, they are aiming for a really special mode of operation and most people don't need an 'amnesiac' OS , are not getting any benefit from it, but are getting serious disadvantage from it by not having persistent entry guards. I am willing to bet that the large majority of people using tails do not use it in a way consistent with what it is trying to do, and that a lot of its users are needlessly sacrificing their anonymity for absolutely no real gain.

If you make heavy use of WiFi in how you go about acheiving anonymity, and especially and particularly if you use different random wireless access points in an attempt to maintain your anonymity, then Tails might be right for you, and in fact it might be the best thing for you with little competition. If you are using your own internet, or internet from a static location such as a neighbors insecure wireless router, then Tails is almost certainly going to do you a lot more damage than good. I don't think people are really clear on how particular it is when it makes sense to use Tails and when using Tails is a sacrifice of Tor anonymity to gain unlinkability between wireless access points and wireless sessions.

753
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: schizophrenics
« on: July 21, 2013, 07:19 am »
http://www.psych.med.umich.edu/events/view.asp?id=150

Quote
Robert B. Zipursky, M.D.
Professor and Chair
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences
McMaster University

Clinicians generally think of Schizophrenia as a progressive illness, beginning early in life with psychotic episodes in adolescence and the early twenties, and resulting in a state of disability. Yet these assumptions may be incorrect. Reasons for the assumption that Schizophrenia is a progressive disease may include the ‘clinician’s illusion’, which is the attribution of the characteristic and course of those patients who are currently ill to the entire population contracting the illness. Another component that may contribute to the assumption of progression is Berkson’s fallacy, the idea that those who have other disabilities that are not causally connected to the condition being investigated are more likely to enter the formal treatment system, and that these etiologically unrelated conditions may have a negative influence on the course of the illness. A longitudinal study found that the best predictor for a long-term successful outcome is the patient’s treatment success in the first two years of the illness. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the percentage of those doing poorly increases over time. Conclusions emphasized the following: there is little evidence that there is substantial progression of the disease, most remitted patients remain well with going treatment, short-term course predicts long-term outcome, the percentage of patients with a poor outcome remains stable over time, and many patients can be symptom free and obtain employment. The reasons why patients do poorly can be due to premorbid deficits, concurrent disorders, extended period of the disability before treatment, limited access to necessary interventions, non-adherence with resulting relapses, and a downhill spiral due to stigma, poverty, homelessness, and unemployment. Clinicians must work hard to intervene in ways that are known to be effective.

754
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: schizophrenics
« on: July 21, 2013, 07:14 am »
I'm not sure that neurodegeneration after a stroke could be described as discrete? It's generally a hugely traumatic event, that has long term flow on effects that results in secondary damage occurring well beyond the loci.

I would describe it as discrete, secondary damage from swelling is possible, but after blood flow is restored to the brain I don't believe there is additional damage if swelling (and possibly necrotic tissue?) is dealt with. Essentially what I mean is that a stroke eventually stops causing neurodegeneration, whereas diseases like Alzheimers contiue to cause progressive neurodegeneration.

Quote
That aside, you seem to be saying that schizophrenia causes neurodegeneration, when I thought we'd already agreed schizophrenia is an ambiguous term for a very misunderstood condition. So, on what evidence does "schizophrenia" cause neurodegeneration, rather than neurodegeneration cause schizophrenia.

I don't think that schizophrenia is an ambiguous term for a very misunderstood condition. I think that there are several types of schizophrenia certainly, and perhaps they have differing root causes, and it certainly has vastly different outcomes in different people, but I think the clusters of symptoms and possible outcomes associated with schizophrenia are at least significantly understood, although by no means is it a fully understood disorder. As far as schizophrenia causing neurodegeneration or vice versa, I have no idea.

Quote
   If the neurodegeneration had occurred during development of the brain, ceased and remained latent until first episode then it would not be progressive. That does not appear to be the case. After the brain has finished developing neurodegeneration occurs, after neurodegeneration occurs behavioural changes occur, this is progressive.

I don't think that is an appropriate use of the word progressive. I have always thought that a progressive disorder is one that becomes increasingly worse as time passes. By your definition a heart attack is a progressive disorder, because after cardiodegeneration occurs behavioral changes occur. I would not consider a heart attack to be a progressive disorder but rather an acute disorder that can indeed progress to death. I think by your definition everything must be considered a progressive disorder if it doesn't take place in a planck unit of time.

Quote
   Also, I raised this point in response to your point on first episode schizophrenics & your assertion that anti-psychs are a potential cause of neurodegeneration. I never indicated I thought neurodegeneration ceased after first episode. To the contrary, that article I cited is primarily a meta analysis of imaging studies performed on long term schizophrenics which demonstrated statistically significant results in favour of progressive neurodegeneration.

Originally I posted a link to a study claiming that the lessening of brain tissue associated with schizophrenia is caused by secondary causes and is merely correlative with schizophrenia. You countered this by saying that after an initial episode and prior to the administration of antipsychotic drugs, there is detectable lessening of brain tissue volume. I then took the position that perhaps the onset of schizophrenia is associated with a decrease in brain tissue, but that subsequent decreases in brain tissue are caused by secondary causes such as the administration of antipscyhotics , as the research I linked to claimed. If schizophrenia causes acute neurodegeneration, but not chronic neurodegeneration over time, then it is not a progressive disease as far as my understanding of progressive diseases go.

755
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: schizophrenics
« on: July 21, 2013, 02:38 am »
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10697

Quote
Progressive: Increasing in scope or severity, advancing, or going forward. For example, a disease that is progressive is worsening.

Examples of progressive neurodegenerative diseases are Alzheimers and Bovine spongiform encephalopathy. In both cases the neurodegeneration is continuous over the course of the illness. Just because schizophrenia presents with initial neurodegeneration doesn't mean that it has continuous neurogeneration, and if the neurogeneration caused directly by schizophrenia is discrete then it doesn't qualify schizophrenia as being a progressive disease.

756
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: schizophrenics
« on: July 21, 2013, 02:36 am »

   I agree it is undecided. The article I cited includes a meta analysis of first episode schizophrenics with statistically significant neurodegeneration. Anti-psychs would be an unlikely culprit in these patients I believe.

Having neurodegeneration doesn't mean that it is progressive though. Somebody who has a stroke will have neurodegeneration, but then if they survive their condition will become stable, so it is not progressive.

   An individual who has a stroke suffers neurodegeneration due to hypoxia and inflammation, a direct result of the trauma. True enough that it isn't a progressive disease, but it doesn't have anything to do with schizophrenia. What the imaging of neurodegeneration in first episode schizophrenics indicates is loss of neurons after the cranium has finished developing, but before any changes in behaviour become apparent. So first neurodegeneration then behavioural change maketh a progressive disease.

I disagree. Cancer is an example of a progressive disease. The tumor continues to grow and spread and the cancer gets progressively worse over the course of the disease, unless it is cured. Neurodegeneration leading to behavioral changes can be discrete or continuous. In the case of a stroke it is discrete, the damage is done to the brain and then no further degeneration occurs, in other words there is no progression of neurodegeneration after the stroke and related issues are dealt with. In the case of schizophrenia, having neurodegeneration after an initial episode is not enough to make it a progressive disease, just as having neurodegeneration after a stroke is not enough to make it a progressive disease. In order for it to be a progressive disease, the amount of neurodegeneration would need to increase in a continuous fashion over time. Initial degeneration prior to any secondary causes being a possibility (ie: prior to the administration of anti-psychotic drugs) does rule out secondary causes and gives strong supporting evidence that schizophrenia leads to initial neurodegeneration, but if the volume of brain tissue stabilizes after the initial decrease it doesn't make sense to me to call it a progressive disease.

757
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: schizophrenics
« on: July 21, 2013, 01:47 am »

   I agree it is undecided. The article I cited includes a meta analysis of first episode schizophrenics with statistically significant neurodegeneration. Anti-psychs would be an unlikely culprit in these patients I believe.

Having neurodegeneration doesn't mean that it is progressive though. Somebody who has a stroke will have neurodegeneration, but then if they survive their condition will become stable, so it is not progressive.

758
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: schizophrenics
« on: July 20, 2013, 08:06 am »
Actually it looks like both of those studies came out very closely to each other, so the one I linked to must have been referencing another set of studies. I suppose the only conclusion we can come to is that the evidence to determine in either way is inconclusive, with some researchers arguing that schizophrenia progressively leads to brain deterioration and others saying that it very rarely does and that studies showing otherwise are not taking into account secondary causes such as exposure to anti psychotics.

759
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: schizophrenics
« on: July 20, 2013, 08:02 am »
I think the study you linked to confused correlation with causation, as the more recent study I linked to claimed that the reduced volume of brain tissue was caused by secondary factors, such as the use of anti psychotic drugs, and was not directly caused by schizophrenia.

760
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: schizophrenics
« on: July 20, 2013, 07:50 am »
I found a statistic that 25% of schizophrenics recover entirely after a single episode, 25% have chronic schizophrenia with no remission, and 50% have schizophrenic episodes mixed with periods of remission. I think schizophrenia is best described as an episodic or chronic disorder, depending on the particular case, but it definitely does not appear to be a progressive illness, other than perhaps from the onset to the peak of an individual episode, or from onset to symptomatic in chronic schizophrenics (but not progressive through the course of life of those afflicted by it).

761
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: schizophrenics
« on: July 20, 2013, 07:43 am »
I think a LSD trip or more a comedown is the closest you can get to experience the effects of schizophrenia. I've read in the early days it was consumed by psychologists to have an insight in schizophrenia patients.
Interesting topic.

I definitely without any doubt think that NMDA antagonists such as ketamine do a far superior job of mimicking the effects of schizophrenia. On ketamine binges I have heard voices in my head, had delusional thoughts, the works. LSD has never induced an effect in me that seems at all comparable to schizophrenia.

Quote
Schizophrenia definitely qualifies as a progressive, neurodegenerative disease. Over the past couple of decades that qualification has been challenged by psychiatrists who believe it is linked to developmental processes and remains latent until onset, but their theories remain without solid evidence.
   Modern imaging techniques have demonstrated statistically significant loss of brain tissue in schizophrenics that could only have occurred after the cranium had finished growing.

I believe that loss of brain tissue does not mean that it is a progressive disease unless the amount of tissue continues to lessen over time. I think in at least a quarter of cases schizophrenics only experience a single episode in their life and have no further disturbances related to the disease. I can find several dozen citations in support of either arguement though, so who knows.


http://earlypsychosis.medicine.dal.ca/index.php/2012/12/schizophrenia-is-not-a-progressive-brain-disease/

Quote
Young people who experience a first episode of psychosis often receive a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Historically there has been the view that schizophrenia is a progressive, deteriorating condition and many clinicians were taught that point of view in their training.

When the field of Early Psychosis began to develop in the 1990s, a major theme was to discard the pessimistic attitude that clinicians held toward the possibility of significant recovery in psychotic disorders and replace it with a more balanced positive approach. The specialized Early Psychosis services that are now widely available are based on this attitude of realistic optimism.

As well, people with lived experience of psychosis, and their families, have increasingly insisted and demonstrated that recovery in schizophrenia is a realistic and attainable goal.

Yet studies of brain structure and function continue to produce data suggesting that there may be progressive changes associated with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

In an article published in the Schizophrenia Bulletin journal in November 2012, Dr. Robert Zipursky, a leader in psychosis reseach in Canada, along with eminent colleagues in the UK, reviews the current evidence related to the question of whether or not a diagnosis of Schizophrenia indicates the person has a progress brain disease.

The article reviews all the recent evidence from brain scans, as well as other sources of data, and concludes that “schizophrenia is not a malignant disease that inevitably deteriorates over time, but one from which most people can achieve a significant degree of recovery”.

The authors strongly urge clinicians to provide young people and their families with this up-to-date information so that the old myths regarding negative outcomes for people receiving a diagnosis of schizophrenia can be laid to rest.

This study seems to conclude that decreased brain tissue in schizophrenics is correlative but not causative.

http://www.madinamerica.com/2012/11/22141/

Quote
Researchers from Canada and the U.K. review, in Schizophrenia Bulletin, the evidence of clinical outcomes, brain volume, and cognitive functioning from longitudinal studies and find that although 25% of people with schizophrenia diagnoses have poor long-term outcome, few show the characteristics of neurodegenerative illness. Rather, decreases in brain tissue volumes are attributable to antipsychotic medication, substance abuse, and other secondary factors. The authors conclude that the majority of people with schizophrenia diagnoses have the potential to achieve long-term recovery.

762
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: schizophrenics
« on: July 20, 2013, 07:04 am »
I don't think schizophrenia qualifies as a progressive disease, and I am positive that not all mental illnesses are progressive.

763
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: Zimmerman Trial
« on: July 20, 2013, 06:17 am »
A fat paranoid heavily armed obese Mexican murdered a black child on the grounds he was eating sweeties.

A jury of white witches pulled pillow-cases on their heads, cackled, and rode broomsticks.

Lots of right-wing people moaned if you're not allowed to hunt down and murder innocent black children then it's just not the kind of America they want to live in.

Europeans looked at each other and realised no matter how bad things get in the Old Lands it'll never be the USA.

The only happy people from this entire sorry saga are MARS, INC for their free national adverts.
He was not heavily armed he was using 9mm which he shot once well he was between 1 and 18 inches from Trayvon. Witnesses said they believed Trayvon was the aggressor and that Martin was on top of zimmerman their is also no video theirs not enough evidence to prove second degree and the prosecutions sole focus was this charge, so even if he could of been charged with manslaughter proper evidence was not shown to the jury. The case is not about staying in your car, its about how and why Trayvon was killed. Also this has little to do with with EU vs American murder stats as a whole you literally half to ignore all homicide statistics to come to that conclusion from this one case. Remember 94% of black people are murdered by other black people which leaves little room for racist whites.

It is also worth noting that in most of Europe Zimmerman would have quite possibly been killed by blunt force trauma to the head, whereas in USA the person who escalated the violence to deadly levels is the one who was killed, thanks to the ability of US citizens to carry weapons and use them in self defense. If anything this is a great example of why guns should be legal.

764
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: Zimmerman Trial
« on: July 20, 2013, 06:13 am »
I didn't follow the trial but I read up on the case prior to the trial, and have read the news since it. I think that Zimmerman acted foolishly in a few ways. Getting out of his car and following Trayvon was a bad idea, but maybe he was just trying to keep track of his location to help the police find him. Trayvon was almost certainly a burglar since he was previously found at school to have dozens of pieces of stolen jewelry, but who knows if he was casing houses or not, it is a bit irrelevant to the confrontation between Zimmerman and him. I think Trayvon was probably panicked that somebody was following him for whatever reason, he had no clue who Zimmerman was, etc. I don't think Trayvon really did anything particularly wrong in that he wasn't out looking to get in a fight and he probably felt some level of threatened, so he himself could have argued self defense if he lived through the ordeal, although it seems like he went way overboard given the perceived threat so he would have probably been convicted of at least assault and perhaps aggravated assault. But I can't really blame Zimmerman for shooting him. If somebody is on top of you beating on you, maybe you shouldn't shoot them if it is just a normal ass kicking. But when you start slamming somebodies head into concrete you are pretty much attempting to kill them or cause them serious brain damage. I have no doubt that Zimmerman felt in fear of his life, and it isn't like he did anything illegal or even particularly warranting of an ass kicking by following Trayvon, so for the most part Trayvon tried to kill Zimmerman after being spooked by him and somewhat provoked, and he ended up dying because Zimmerman had a gun. If he had just punched him in the face and brought him to the ground and then stopped, he should not have been shot. But he went way overboard and it seems like Zimmerman wasn't even really fighting back, was pinned to the ground and had his head repeatedly smashed into concrete, so although a violent reaction by Trayvon would have been justified, he took it way too far and escalated it to such a point that Zimmerman was perfectly justified in elevating his own confrontation to deadly force. Trayvon is the one who escalated things.

765
Security / Re: past non-use of proxies/tor
« on: July 20, 2013, 02:40 am »
I think that you should be fine unless you did explicitly illegal things in the past. Ideally your vendor account on SR will have no link to anything you did online in the past, and the only way past online behavior will compromise you is if it in itself is enough to get you put under investigation. For every SR vendor who googled for drugs or downloaded drug related .pdf files from torrent sites, there are thousands of small time drug users and even non-users just curious about drugs who did the same thing.

Pages: 1 ... 49 50 [51] 52 53 ... 249