Political Crossfire Forums

[libertynow]

In the 90s the military used a combination of methods and technology for data storage. Many raw documents were stored on microfilm, this was preferrable from a security standpoint than computers for some things. Computer storage was also an option, and for some documentation was the standard. It really depends on what type of information you're talking about Cool Chick. It isn't wise to store all confidential materials in one location. The government organization is irrelevent, be it military intelligence agencies or civilian ones. Things are stored mainly based on access needs and restrictions. No intelligence organization has all the intelligence of any government. Compartmentalization is the norm. Regarding your question of the possibility/availability of multi-terrabytes during the 90s, the short answer is yes. Regarding your next question, what technology was used...well...not very dissimilar to how it's done today, just that it was much more expensive back then ;) But what is money to them? :lol:

You state that many government agencies are behind the curve technologically where document storage/retrieval is concerned. While this may be true for entities like the DMV or the Department of Agriculture, the same should not be assumed about intelligence agencies whose very life blood is the flow of classified information and materials.

[cool_chick]

Liberty, what is used today, one major difference between then and now, what broke the ceiling and makes just about any amount a reality, is SAN technology....even considering just the very nature as to how it functions (barely an OS....almost all storage.....normal server with fiber optics connection to the SAN data cluster is the difference between then and now).

It's a beautiful thing....depending on amount of data, try backing those up though. :lol:

[Seixon]

cool_chick wrote: Sexion, what the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about what you said earlier, which was:

cool_chick wrote: Prove the technology they used. Or are you now saying they had warehouses and warehouses and warehouses of servers, even though TERAbytes of data wasn't even a reality for anyone else back then? File sizes weren't big like that?

Ahem, they wouldn't need warehouses and warehouses, since they could have fit 2.5TB on a stack of 20-100 hard drives. Thus, if we were talking about all the data within the entire government, it might amount to the size of a single warehouse. Of course, you didn't even think that having 1TB of data was even possible back then, all the way back in 1999... :lol:

Quote: Do you think 2.5 terabytes destroyed is everything....every single thing, the CIA had? Or just a fraction? If it's all the data they had on everything, Russia, other foreign intelligence, domestic intelligence, EVERYTHING, then yes, it wouldn't need warehouses to store. If it was a fraction (more realistic) then it would require warehouses and warehouses and warehouses to house all their data. Do you honestly think they had warehouses and warehouses and warehouses? No, but I do think that they have many bunkers and places where they store data all around the United States. They probably have more physical space allotted for filefolders with paper than they do digital storage.

Of course, this is a huge smokescreen you erected because you didn't want to talk about Able Danger, but rather pretend that it was impossible to store 2.5TB about Able Danger back in 1999, something that has now been proven to you by several persons, myself included.

Quote: And with all due respect, were you even out of grade school in the above timeframe? If not, then why are you responding to this post? It clearly states those who worked in the industry during the timeframe. Your attempts to patronize me due to my age are quite pathetic. I was in high school in 1999, thank you very much. At the time, I was an amateur web developer, thus if you really want to argue about "being in the industry", I could argue that I was. Regardless of that, information is fully available on the internet showing that you have no clue about what you are saying, and the constant claims that storing 2.5TBs of data in 1998-2000 would have been impossible shows how bad your memory is, not to mention the fact that you continued to be in denial when shown undeniable proof that you were wrong.

Claiming that the intelligence agencies in the USA were further behind the curve than the commercial market is an even funnier claim.

Rankor and Pissing pretty much pissed all over you with his anecdote from all the way back in 1992:

Rankor and Pissing wrote: Back in 1992 I helped install an optical disk storage system in a large fortune 100 company's facility. It stored 1TB on a single sided optical disk.

[cool_chick]

Sexion, you're basing it all on 2.5 terabytes was all the data that was stored. This, in reality, would've had to been only a FRACTION of data stored.

2.5 terabytes was a wowie then. What was all their data? 100s and 100s of terabytes? Thousands? If this particular area stored 2.5 terabytes that was destroyed, what was not destroyed re: this particular research alone? 1.0 terabyte is quite different than hundreds and hundreds....

I do concede that it's possible, but holy sh!t, what kind of data was this likely FRACTION of all the data at 2.5 terabytes in the mid to late 90s? And maybe I didn't make myself clear, I was talking about probability.....it was possible in the 1950s too.......it's also *possible* to store 2.5 terabytes or 100 terabytes it on floppy disk, it's also possible to store it on 5 1/4 floppy.....

I'm looking at the whole potential network in my head, you're looking at a tiny piece.

2.5 terabytes of data DESTROYED in the late 90s just seems kind of odd. That's a lot....

So you were web developing multi-terabytes databases in the mid to late 90s in middle school (you're 20 years old)? :rotf:

All I wanted was to have a discussion with some adults and tap into other's experiences. I guess it's too much to ask of you I suppose. Run along and show your tender young age somewhere else now....

[Nnamath]

^nerd

:blah: :wink: :P

[cool_chick]

lol hannerhann....


Anyone remember these?



:)

[Nnamath]

beer coaster in college marilyn. the nerds hated me and my boys for it. :P

yes i remember those

[Seixon]

cool_chick wrote: Sexion, you're basing it all on 2.5 terabytes was all the data that was stored. This, in reality, would've had to been only a FRACTION of data stored. I have never said this, as I've told you a couple times already now. :roll:

Quote: 2.5 terabytes was a wowie then. What was all their data? 100s and 100s of terabytes? Thousands? If this particular area stored 2.5 terabytes that was destroyed, what was not destroyed re: this particular research alone? 1.0 terabyte is quite different than hundreds and hundreds.... As I, and various others have shown, 2.5TB was not a "wowie" back then. In 1998, I could have fit 2.5TB underneath my desk. Hell, whoever it was even gave an example of a single 1TB disk in 1992. Sure, if you gathered up all the data the entire USG has, you'd likely be able to fill a warehouse. What that has to do with anything, I cannot understand, as there is simply no doubt that 2.5TB was more than easy to accomplish for the intelligence agencies in 1998-2000. Get over it.

Quote: I do concede that it's possible, but holy sh!t, what kind of data was this likely FRACTION of all the data at 2.5 terabytes in the mid to late 90s? You do know that the Able Danger program also contained info on Chinese, right? You realize how a data-mining program works, don't you? It gathers tons of information, even though it might not really have anything to do with the purpose of the program. It sweeps up all kinds of stuff, therefore I wouldn't take the 2.5TB size of it representatively for the rest of the data the USG stores. I'd imagine they have more stored on paper in filefolders than they do on digital storage, still. It will probably take a while to get it all backed up on digital storage.

Quote: And maybe I didn't make myself clear, I was talking about probability.....it was possible in the 1950s too.......it's also *possible* to store 2.5 terabytes or 100 terabytes it on floppy disk, it's also possible to store it on 5 1/4 floppy..... Sorry, but it was not possible in the 1950s. :lol: And no, it's not possible, today, to have 2.5TB or 100TB on a floppy. A floppy, by definition, holds 1.44MB. So now you are just continuing your descent into absentia.

Quote: I'm looking at the whole potential network in my head, you're looking at a tiny piece. That's because you forgot the fact that Able Danger was a data-mining program, and not just regular storage of relevant stuff.

Quote: 2.5 terabytes of data DESTROYED in the late 90s just seems kind of odd. That's a lot.... Again, keyword: data-mining.

Quote: So you were web developing multi-terabytes databases in the mid to late 90s in middle school (you're 20 years old)? :rotf: No, but uh, I'm sure that the data centers running the web servers I worked on probably had plenty of TBs. I said I was in high school. Can't you follow anything? I'm 23. You got a problem? Got more smarts than you ever will, and you keep on showing it off as if it was a good thing.

Quote: All I wanted was to have a discussion with some adults and tap into other's experiences. I guess it's too much to ask of you I suppose. Run along and show your tender young age somewhere else now.... No, you wanted to reach out and see if anyone, anyone, would defend your ludicrous position since you did not want to accept that a 23-year old knew more about your own industry than you did. Of everyone here, you have acted the least mature, so don't give me no lip about adults and tender age. You're self-confidence must be tender if you can't even admit that you totally screwed the pooch on this one.

But I guess this is exactly what you wanted. You didn't want to talk about Able Danger, as you saw where that path was heading. Now you have managed to fool everyone into a discussion about terabytes and warehouses, while trying to argue from authority without legitimacy to do so.

:roll:

[cool_chick]

Sexion, please for the love of Pete, get off whatever you're taking. You're inventing things about me now.

First of all, politics do not belong here, this post was not made to discuss politics, so your delusion of "changing" whatever it is you invented is not true. I did post this to discuss the probability of such data being stored in the mid-late 90s. The original post is clear. Whatever you just wrote is not indicatave of the original or any subsequent posts.

Please take politics to the politics forum. Let's return the thread to the original topic. Thank you.

Just because you claim your middle school in your webdesign class had multi-terabytes of storage in the mid to late 90s doesn't make it true. Sorry, but people weren't storing that massive volume of data back then....

Maybe the government was, I dunno anymore, and I don't work there, but for godssakes, you don't need to pull stuff out of your butt regarding your middle school.

And it is you who has the maturity of a 15 year old, you always have as long as I've seen your posts, and it's always the same immature responses no matter who you're talking to. It's what you fondly like to call your "style." Not to mention delusions of grandeur, along with a dreadful and highly unattractive superiority complex. Now you're claiming "you know more than me and always will?" LOL. Hey, if you have to tell yourself such things, that you're smarter, better, or whatever, that's awesome, I guess some people have to tell themselves things like that...why? who knows.......

Fortunately for me, that's your personality problem, not mine....

And you turned three years older in the last 3 months or so...impressive.....

[Seixon]

Oh boy.

You ran from the Able Danger topic to create this one, because you did not want to discuss that subject. This topic originated there, since you were fed up with no one agreeing with your completely discredited stance on data storage.

So I did not "invent" anything, I am just describing the situation exactly as it happened. For the winner of the hypocritical award:

cool_chick wrote: Just because you claim your middle school in your webdesign class had multi-terabytes of storage in the mid to late 90s doesn't make it true. Sorry, but people weren't storing that massive volume of data back then.... First of all, I have never said middle school, I have said high school at least twice now, if not three times. I also did not talk about any webdesign class. I also did not claim any such class, which you have just invented, had several terabytes of storage. That makes a nifty strawman, but I'm not interested.

Since you seem unable to even pick up on simple information, let's go the post directly above this one and read aloud with the class:

Seixon wrote: I'm sure that the data centers running the web servers I worked on probably had plenty of TBs. I said I was in high school. Ah, so I was talking about data centers running web servers. Such data centers would have held terabytes of information in 1998, and your continued insistence otherwise is the only invention here. If that was not so, the internet would not have existed in 1998.

Quote: Maybe the government was, I dunno anymore, and I don't work there, but for godssakes, you don't need to pull stuff out of your butt regarding your middle school. This is just hilarious watching you crash and burn. I haven't said anything about any middle school, yet you just keep running with it. Gosh, I might even think you were trying to bait me into calling you some kind of name. Just like you did on the previous thread. :roll:

Quote: And it is you who has the maturity of a 15 year old, you always have as long as I've seen your posts, and it's always the same immature responses no matter who you're talking to. OK, you have patronized me the last, what, 10 posts for my age? You have used various strawmen, repeated false information about me continuously, and run away from a topic to avoid actually addressing the substance of the issue by erecting a giant smokescreen to hide the fact that you have been proven wrong by every single person who has posted on this data storage issue.

Quote: It's what you fondly like to call your "style." Huh. For some reason I'm inclined to believe that you and TheGirlNextDoor have been sharing my private correspondances with her with that comment. Nah, never.

Quote: Not to mention delusions of grandeur, along with a dreadful and highly unattractive superiority complex. Coming from "he's just a kid" cool_chick... Yeah, that's funny. :lol: What delusions of grandeur do I have? Want to elaborate? Or are you just making stuff up, again?

Quote: Now you're claiming "you know more than me and always will?" No, I had more smarts than you ever will. Intelligence. Knowledge and intelligence are two separate things, but I guess I am wasting my time trying to explain that to you.

Quote: Hey, if you have to tell yourself such things, that you're smarter, better, or whatever, that's awesome, I guess some people have to tell themselves things like that...why? who knows....... Oh boy, this is starting to get painful to watch. Ozzone has already pointed out how pathetic this charade of yours is becoming, and now you are projecting onto me. You're the one fighting against everyone else on this thread in your denial that you are correct.

Quote: Fortunately for me, that's your personality problem, not mine.... The only personality problem I have is that I have little patience for people who will not look facts in the face and admit a mistake.

Quote: And you turned three years older in the last 3 months or so...impressive..... A lie to finish the post. Bravo! Bravo!

I never said 3 months ago that I was 20. But hey, whatever you have to do to let yourself believe that I'm some little middle school kid to justify your constant patronizing.

[cool_chick]

Patronized? YOU feel "patronized?" :rotf: You are the epitome of a patronizing behavior. That's all you do. Every single post I've ever read from you is patronizing. Doesn't matter who you're posting to, it's going to be patronizing. As sure as the sky is blue and the sun is yellow. So quit being the pot.

And the internet in 1998 when you were in middle school was a bunch of servers owned by different groups in many, many locations just like today. It was not nearly advanced as now. There was no need to have servers to handle multiple terabytes in one place at that time either. There was no main "internet" location. LOL.

[Seixon]

cool_chick wrote: Patronized? YOU feel "patronized?" :rotf: You are the epitome of a patronizing behavior. That's all you do. Every single post I've ever read from you is patronizing. Doesn't matter who you're posting to, it's going to be patronizing. As sure as the sky is blue and the sun is yellow. So quit being the pot. Eh yes, calling someone "little boy" when they are 23 years old is patronizing. Telling someone that they have no clue about what they are talking about, and showing them this with evidence and facts, that is not patronizing. When I say, look, you are wrong - that's not patronizing. That's just stating a fact.

Quote: And the internet in 1998 when you were in middle school was a bunch of servers owned by different groups in many, many locations. There was no need to have multiple terabytes in one place at that time either. There was no main "internet" location. LOL. OMG really? You sure? I wouldn't be, if I were you:

Network World, 09/09/02 wrote: Sprint has used SANs since 1999 for Web hosting and has been expanding the infrastructure since it began managing larger file systems and databases for customers. Hitachi storage arrays, Qlogic SAN switches and several brands of host bus adapters comprise the SAN.

The company has been planning a migration from 1-gigabit SAN technology to the newer standard-compliant 2-gigabit architecture. Dickensheets says the knowledge he gained from his storage education has been essential in evaluating the new technology.

For Locke, storage education helped him rein in 21st Century's unwieldy SAN. Three years ago, the firm started with an EMC-designed environment that stored 10 terabytes of data, and added more host servers to support new applications. But 21st Century had little knowledge of how the extra data could be installed efficiently to save disk space. http://www.networkworld.com/careers/2002/0909man.html

Hmmm. 1999. 10 terabytes of data in their data center. Amazing.

Oh, sorry, am I patronizing you again?

[cool_chick]

EMC is SAN technology!!!!!!! What the hell do you think I've been saying all along? SAN technology didn't exist in the late 90s!!!!!!!!!!!!

THAT's why it's feasible today. Jesus!

[Gus]

Please tone it down in here or it will be locked.

[cool_chick]

Gus, go ahead and lock this. Screw this guy, man. All he ever wants to do is fight anyway. That's the ONLY reason this little boy is here.

[Seixon]

cool_chick wrote: EMC is SAN technology!!!!!!! What the hell do you think I've been saying all along? SAN technology didn't exist in the late 90s!!!!!!!!!!!!

THAT's why it's feasible today. Jesus! OK. Look above. Do you see the number 1999 anywhere? Let me try to highlight it for you:

Quote: Sprint has used SANs since 1999 for Web hosting and has been expanding the infrastructure since it began managing larger file systems and databases for customers. Hitachi storage arrays, Qlogic SAN switches and several brands of host bus adapters comprise the SAN.

The company has been planning a migration from 1-gigabit SAN technology to the newer standard-compliant 2-gigabit architecture. Dickensheets says the knowledge he gained from his storage education has been essential in evaluating the new technology.

For Locke, storage education helped him rein in 21st Century's unwieldy SAN. Three years ago, the firm started with an EMC-designed environment that stored 10 terabytes of data, and added more host servers to support new applications. But 21st Century had little knowledge of how the extra data could be installed efficiently to save disk space.

The $64,000 question: is 1999 during the "late 90s"? Is 1999 within the time period that we were discussing?

[Gus]

cool_chick wrote: That's the ONLY reason this little boy is here.
:-| Locked.