Re: CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

dogs don't lie Thu 18 Jun 2015, 9:48 am

I really hope this info is wrong, if not, what then was planned to happen to poor Maddie?
I'd prefer she went on holiday with her family but died accidentally, (actually, I'd prefer she went, had a great time and came home) who would pre plan any of this cr#p against an innocent 3/4yr old child? I hope this is sorted soon.
IMO

Guest Thu 18 Jun 2015, 9:49 am

Resistor wrote:The only way a timestamp could be "in error" is if the entire server is set at the wrong time. Given the business of WB, that is not likely at all. And most servers take their times from a radio-controlled, official clock anyway, which is not that easy to alter. I don't care what that message says, or how hard they are backpedalling, there is NO ERROR and the date is NOT WRONG. Computers are not capable of making mistakes. Humans make mistakes. Like the huge ones that were being made last night, when somebody was making a right pig's ear of altering all the audit trails. Why would they even do that if it was just an innocent mistake? And what is going to happen to all the court cases that have been decided on evidence supplied from Wayback? Are they all going to be unsafe now? Wayback are painted into a corner, no matter what their response is. Perhaps they can begin by explaining how a server clock can apparently be three days out and nobody notices.

This is simply not true. As far as I know, you have not seen WBM's crawler code to be able to make this claim.

Humans write software. Therefore software can make mistakes. Software makes billions of mistakes every single day.

froggy Thu 18 Jun 2015, 9:49 am

Is this likely given the reliance that the legal system has clearly placed on this database?
Would accuracy of the system not have been thoroughly tested ?

Guest Thu 18 Jun 2015, 9:52 am

WLBTS wrote:
Resistor wrote:The only way a timestamp could be "in error" is if the entire server is set at the wrong time. Given the business of WB, that is not likely at all. And most servers take their times from a radio-controlled, official clock anyway, which is not that easy to alter. I don't care what that message says, or how hard they are backpedalling, there is NO ERROR and the date is NOT WRONG. Computers are not capable of making mistakes. Humans make mistakes. Like the huge ones that were being made last night, when somebody was making a right pig's ear of altering all the audit trails. Why would they even do that if it was just an innocent mistake? And what is going to happen to all the court cases that have been decided on evidence supplied from Wayback? Are they all going to be unsafe now? Wayback are painted into a corner, no matter what their response is. Perhaps they can begin by explaining how a server clock can apparently be three days out and nobody notices.

This is simply not true. As far as I know, you have not seen WBM's crawler code to be able to make this claim.

Humans write software. Therefore software can make mistakes. Software makes billions of mistakes every single day.

No, software DOES NOT make mistakes. Software does EXACTLY what the programmer has set it up to do. It has no power of independent thought, or subjective judgement, and therefore does not have the capacity to make mistakes. If it has been coded up incorrectly, then that is the fault of either the designer or the programmer. You might as well say that a hammer or a screwdriver makes mistakes.

Guest Thu 18 Jun 2015, 9:54 am

WLBTS wrote:
Resistor wrote:The only way a timestamp could be "in error" is if the entire server is set at the wrong time. Given the business of WB, that is not likely at all. And most servers take their times from a radio-controlled, official clock anyway, which is not that easy to alter. I don't care what that message says, or how hard they are backpedalling, there is NO ERROR and the date is NOT WRONG. Computers are not capable of making mistakes. Humans make mistakes. Like the huge ones that were being made last night, when somebody was making a right pig's ear of altering all the audit trails. Why would they even do that if it was just an innocent mistake? And what is going to happen to all the court cases that have been decided on evidence supplied from Wayback? Are they all going to be unsafe now? Wayback are painted into a corner, no matter what their response is. Perhaps they can begin by explaining how a server clock can apparently be three days out and nobody notices.

This is simply not true. As far as I know, you have not seen WBM's crawler code to be able to make this claim.

Humans write software. Therefore software can make mistakes. Software makes billions of mistakes every single day.

Why don't you tell me which part is "simply not true"? And why?

Guest Thu 18 Jun 2015, 9:55 am

Resistor wrote:
No, software DOES NOT make mistakes. Software does EXACTLY what the programmer has set it up to do. It has no power of independent thought, or subjective judgement,, and therefore does not have the capacity to make mistakes. If it has been coded up incorrectly, then that is the fault of either the designer or the programmer. You might as well say that a hammer or a screwdriver makes mistakes,.

How exactly does this prove that there are no bugs in WBM's crawler code, code that you haven't seen?

And you really don't need to explain to me how software works, Resistor.

Guest Thu 18 Jun 2015, 9:57 am

Resistor wrote:
WLBTS wrote:
Resistor wrote:The only way a timestamp could be "in error" is if the entire server is set at the wrong time. Given the business of WB, that is not likely at all. And most servers take their times from a radio-controlled, official clock anyway, which is not that easy to alter. I don't care what that message says, or how hard they are backpedalling, there is NO ERROR and the date is NOT WRONG. Computers are not capable of making mistakes. Humans make mistakes. Like the huge ones that were being made last night, when somebody was making a right pig's ear of altering all the audit trails. Why would they even do that if it was just an innocent mistake? And what is going to happen to all the court cases that have been decided on evidence supplied from Wayback? Are they all going to be unsafe now? Wayback are painted into a corner, no matter what their response is. Perhaps they can begin by explaining how a server clock can apparently be three days out and nobody notices.

This is simply not true. As far as I know, you have not seen WBM's crawler code to be able to make this claim.

Humans write software. Therefore software can make mistakes. Software makes billions of mistakes every single day.

Why don't you tell me which part is "simply not true"? And why?

Why don't you address the evidence I have already described?

You make the claim that the only way the timestamp could be in error is if the entire server is set at the wrong time. That is simply not true. The error could have happened for any number of reasons. As I keep saying, you are not a software engineer that works with WBM's code.

Guest Thu 18 Jun 2015, 9:59 am

WLBTS wrote:
Resistor wrote:
No, software DOES NOT make mistakes. Software does EXACTLY what the programmer has set it up to do. It has no power of independent thought, or subjective judgement, and therefore does not have the capacity to make mistakes. If it has been coded up incorrectly, then that is the fault of either the designer or the programmer. You might as well say that a hammer or a screwdriver makes mistakes.

How exactly does this prove that there are no bugs in WBM's crawler code, code that you haven't seen?

I haven't said, anywhere, that there are no bugs in WBM's code. I am sure there are quite a few. There is no software project on the face of this earth that is 100% perfect. Why do you think Microsoft keep issuing Windows updates? you are the one saying that "the software makes mistakes" and that is "simply not true". And the timestamp would have nothing to do with any webcrawler code, it is linked to the server where the pages are cached. It would be held in the Flash VRAM of the server, which as I have said, is a very difficult thing to alter.

Guest Thu 18 Jun 2015, 10:00 am

WLBTS wrote:
Resistor wrote:
WLBTS wrote:
Resistor wrote:The only way a timestamp could be "in error" is if the entire server is set at the wrong time. Given the business of WB, that is not likely at all. And most servers take their times from a radio-controlled, official clock anyway, which is not that easy to alter. I don't care what that message says, or how hard they are backpedalling, there is NO ERROR and the date is NOT WRONG. Computers are not capable of making mistakes. Humans make mistakes. Like the huge ones that were being made last night, when somebody was making a right pig's ear of altering all the audit trails. Why would they even do that if it was just an innocent mistake? And what is going to happen to all the court cases that have been decided on evidence supplied from Wayback? Are they all going to be unsafe now? Wayback are painted into a corner, no matter what their response is. Perhaps they can begin by explaining how a server clock can apparently be three days out and nobody notices.

This is simply not true. As far as I know, you have not seen WBM's crawler code to be able to make this claim.

Humans write software. Therefore software can make mistakes. Software makes billions of mistakes every single day.

Why don't you tell me which part is "simply not true"? And why?

Why don't you address the evidence I have already described?

You make the claim that the only way the timestamp could be in error is if the entire server is set at the wrong time. That is simply not true. The error could have happened for any number of reasons. As I keep saying, you are not a software engineer that works with WBM's code.

How the hell do you know what I do or don't do for a living?

AndyB Thu 18 Jun 2015, 10:02 am

Resistor wrote:The only way a timestamp could be "in error" is if the entire server is set at the wrong time. Given the business of WB, that is not likely at all. And most servers take their times from a radio-controlled, official clock anyway, which is not that easy to alter. I don't care what that message says, or how hard they are backpedalling, there is NO ERROR and the date is NOT WRONG. Computers are not capable of making mistakes. Humans make mistakes. Like the huge ones that were being made last night, when somebody was making a right pig's ear of altering all the audit trails.

Its possible that the 30/04/2007 date was a result of similar human interference, perhaps to fix an unrelated error/corruption

Guest Thu 18 Jun 2015, 10:04 am

AndyB wrote:
Resistor wrote:The only way a timestamp could be "in error" is if the entire server is set at the wrong time. Given the business of WB, that is not likely at all. And most servers take their times from a radio-controlled, official clock anyway, which is not that easy to alter. I don't care what that message says, or how hard they are backpedalling, there is NO ERROR and the date is NOT WRONG. Computers are not capable of making mistakes. Humans make mistakes. Like the huge ones that were being made last night, when somebody was making a right pig's ear of altering all the audit trails.

Its possible that the 30/04/2007 date was a result of similar human interference, perhaps to fix an unrelated error/corruption

That's true, but it's one hell of a coincidence that it just so happens to be this particular file. Out of three petabytes of data.

Guest Thu 18 Jun 2015, 10:06 am

Jesus, what a mistake this has been. Have fun, folks.

**Freedom** Thu 18 Jun 2015, 10:08 am

Let's all just agree to differ as hopefully we do in the real world.

**candyfloss** Thu 18 Jun 2015, 10:10 am

WLBTS wrote:Jesus, what a mistake this has been. Have fun, folks.

I hope not, let's just move on and discuss rationally and amicably - it is good to hear both sides of this argument...

**candyfloss** Thu 18 Jun 2015, 10:13 am

Ok that is enough.

Resistor your post deleted, you have not been ridiculed at all or shouted down. Now please stop being confrontational.

Guest Thu 18 Jun 2015, 10:15 am

deleted (by wlbts)

Guest Thu 18 Jun 2015, 10:16 am

candyfloss wrote:Ok that is enough.

Resistor your post deleted, you have not been ridiculed at all or shouted down. Now please stop being confrontational.

I have been compared to Tony Bennett., If that is not "confrontational" I don't know what is.

**candyfloss** Thu 18 Jun 2015, 10:17 am

Resistor wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Ok that is enough.

Resistor your post deleted, you have not been ridiculed at all or shouted down. Now please stop being confrontational.
I have been compared to Tony Bennett., If that is not "confrontational" I don't know what is.

Ok that has been deleted too, I can understand you not being compared to TB Smile

now please let's move on and discuss like adults.

AndyB Thu 18 Jun 2015, 10:19 am

Resistor wrote:
AndyB wrote:
Resistor wrote:The only way a timestamp could be "in error" is if the entire server is set at the wrong time. Given the business of WB, that is not likely at all. And most servers take their times from a radio-controlled, official clock anyway, which is not that easy to alter. I don't care what that message says, or how hard they are backpedalling, there is NO ERROR and the date is NOT WRONG. Computers are not capable of making mistakes. Humans make mistakes. Like the huge ones that were being made last night, when somebody was making a right pig's ear of altering all the audit trails.

Its possible that the 30/04/2007 date was a result of similar human interference, perhaps to fix an unrelated error/corruption
That's true, but it's one hell of a coincidence that it just so happens to be this particular file. Out of three petabytes of data.

There could be thousands more for all we know

Guest Thu 18 Jun 2015, 10:24 am

So the general feeling is that Jim Gamble can accurately predict news stories six months before they happen?

Guest Thu 18 Jun 2015, 10:24 am

AndyB wrote:
Resistor wrote:
AndyB wrote:
Resistor wrote:The only way a timestamp could be "in error" is if the entire server is set at the wrong time. Given the business of WB, that is not likely at all. And most servers take their times from a radio-controlled, official clock anyway, which is not that easy to alter. I don't care what that message says, or how hard they are backpedalling, there is NO ERROR and the date is NOT WRONG. Computers are not capable of making mistakes. Humans make mistakes. Like the huge ones that were being made last night, when somebody was making a right pig's ear of altering all the audit trails.

Its possible that the 30/04/2007 date was a result of similar human interference, perhaps to fix an unrelated error/corruption
That's true, but it's one hell of a coincidence that it just so happens to be this particular file. Out of three petabytes of data.
There could be thousands more for all we know

Even if there are, none of them have come to light, or that would already have been discussed on the internet. It has serious legal implications. Still one hell of a coincidence no matter how you try to paint it.

froggy Thu 18 Jun 2015, 10:30 am

WLBTS wrote:So the general feeling is that Jim Gamble can accurately predict news stories six months before they happen?

Is it not a matter of only a few days, rather than 6 months ?

A little pre-knowledge can be a dangerous thing Laughing

Guest Thu 18 Jun 2015, 10:33 am

froggy wrote:
WLBTS wrote:So the general feeling is that Jim Gamble can accurately predict news stories six months before they happen?

Is it not a matter of only a few days, rather than 6 months ?

A little pre-knowledge can be a dangerous thing

I'm referring to the news stories dated in October 2007 that appear on the home page apparently crawled on 30 April 2007. Two of the same news stories appear in the home page dated 13 October 2007 (as you would expect). CEOP appears to have predicted these news stories back in April, and then not mentioned them again until October.

And an astonishing demonstration of psychic powers it is.

froggy Thu 18 Jun 2015, 10:36 am

I have no technical knowledge, but thought that the dates of the pages didn't matter, it was the creation date of the 'envelope' containing them that was important.

Guest Thu 18 Jun 2015, 10:41 am

froggy wrote:I have no technical knowledge, but thought that the dates of the pages didn't matter, it was the creation date of the 'envelope' containing them that was important.

The content does matter, the content was grabbed by the crawler apparently on 30 April 2007. If the content refers to events that are 6 months in the future, the likely explanation is that the crawl date is wrong.

The claim has been made that the page dynamically queried the news stories, but that is not correct. We have the evidence of the HTML + Javascript, and the news stories were not queried dynamically - they were delivered in the HTTP response at the time of the crawl, which was alleged to have been 30 April 2007. Therefore we either have CEOP powers of fortune telling half a year into the future, or an incorrect crawl date.

WBM themselves have confirmed that the time-stamp is incorrect exactly as I have claimed.

Sponsored content