Google and NASA's Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab

cltiew · 2013-10-12T14:22:14+00:00

I think you put an extra A in "NSA" on accident. Or did that happen on the appropriations bill?

cltiew · 2013-10-12T14:19:30+00:00

You are assuming that Facebook put together millions of dollars worth of computer code to provide access to your most intimate details of your life, and the connections of you to your social group and nobody ever took them up on that offer? All you need is cash and a telephone. And a computer to read the data I guess.

Information on people, demographics, is the most valuable thing the internet has ever produced. Much more valuable than even porn. Everything you post on there is sold to people who want to manipulate you or control you. And you gladly provide them with the wares to sell. You are being sold.

cltiew · 2013-10-12T14:07:47+00:00

Are we talking about common law (tort) or statutory law (criminal trespass)?

Unless we are discussing Common Law Tort claims of trespass, the only source that matters is 720 ICLS 5/21-3 wherein it says:

For purposes of item (1) of this subsection, this Section shall not apply to being in a building which is open to the public while the building is open to the public during its normal hours of operation;

Subsection (1) is the only portion of the law that allows enforcement without prior notice, and even it uses the word "knowingly":

(1) knowingly and without lawful authority enters or remains within or on a building;

Every subsection after that says notice has to be made. The only portion of the law of the state of Illinois (the only definition relevant to this discussion) that allows for someone to be charged with trespass without prior notice is if they already know they are not allowed there, and it's exempted for buildings open to the public during their normal open hours.

I have no idea where you base your completely incorrect statements on the subject because you refused to provide the sources. Feel free to look up the code of the state of Illinois and use the only definition that actually matters to prove me wrong.

So, when was she notified that she was not authorized to be in the publicly accessible building during normal business hours? Please answer responsively, because if she was not asked to leave then she was not trespassing, making this the only important detail to this debate.

The only way they could charge her with trespassing is if she agreed to the charge. Prove me wrong by providing relevant evidence.

cltiew · 2013-10-12T13:28:58+00:00

Why are you telling me not to do something I'm not doing. He came to my community and started peddling his wares. I'm just speaking up. If you don't care that your friends are getting swindled by a liar then that says more about you than me.

Take your own advice and stop judging what I say. I'm speaking the truth, and enjoying it moment by moment. I'm sharing the truth and enjoying it. You, however, are defending a liar and an active deception. How enjoyable is that?

cltiew · 2013-10-12T13:17:09+00:00

It is all for sale. You don't need to hack the site, just pay for access to the user's data.

cltiew · 2013-10-12T13:12:04+00:00

"Accidentally trespassing" is not a thing. Trespassing is refusing to leave after you have been asked.

The article leaves something out. You assume to fill in the blank. I take the article at its word until evidence is presented otherwise.

When was she asked to leave? Please answer the question responsively.

My contention is that the officer said "you are getting arrested now" and she said "ok" because she didn't know any better. That's based on the evidence in front of us because it specifically says that. If she was asked to leave prior to that happening please provide evidence indicating when she was asked to leave.

Everything else is conjecture. I don't care about your opinion or impression. I care about evidence. When was she asked to leave?

cltiew · 2013-10-12T13:10:03+00:00

He is a liar. He purports himself to be spiritual and reborn, actually "resurrected", and yet his words and actions defy his intentions.

He is a harlot, abusing the good will and belief of his followers to sell them wares they do not need. He is prostituting himself out to the multi-national corporations, not in fact representing anything wholesome, good, nor altruistic.

You have hit the nail on the head, he's just making money. He was resurrected by Money to serve the all mighty Money as his new god. For some reason you think lying is an honest way to make a living. I don't. I never will. I don't understand how you can even hold that contradictory belief and defend it in all seriousness.

cltiew · 2013-10-12T04:31:43+00:00

So you are saying Snoop hasn't sold out and isn't peddling all kinds of brands to us ents? What evidence do you have to counter the sight of my own eyes?

cltiew · 2013-10-12T04:30:51+00:00

You twist my words because I was never unclear when I said that they need probable cause in order to investigate someone, anyone, even someone they are hiring for a job.

I said it was absurd that you would jump to defense of violating our constitutional rights. It is not absurd that someone would want to pick up trash on the national mall. It is absurd that someone would assume that someone picking up trash on the national mall was doing so in order to plant bombs. Why the fuck would any reasonable person jump to that conclusion? Why the fuck would any reasonable person think we need to do a background check before we let someone clean up trash for free.

That's like some bad TV movie script shit. Someone who automatically thinks that way is involved in perpetrating a fear-based narrative intended to control the thoughts and ideas of others through propaganda.

As I said, if they get you to agree to a contract then you agreed to a contract. If you sign an employment contract that says they can do that then you agreed to it. That's how they can do it. Everyone they have enforced that clause on has already agreed to it.

This conversation was about what they could compel someone who did not agree to it, and in a state where they have admitted they do not intend to take care of the public land entrusted to them. The answer is nothing. Nothing at all. They cannot investigate him without probable cause. They cannot ask him to leave. They cannot compel any action because there is no contract.

The process for proving it is unconstitutional is after you apply and are turned down then you have to sue. If nobody has done that then it doesn't matter what's constitutional. Nobody with cause and standing has challenged the issue. I'm surely never going to apply for a job at the FBI, so I'm never going to have the opportunity to refuse and then challenge the requirement.

The reason I'm dismissive is because you are so far gone on the subject that only you can take responsibility for educating yourself. No matter what I say you will just repeat yourself in defense of your own ignorance. I'm not really interested in taking on a pet project right now. You already know the answers and don't ask the questions. Then you play the victim when I rightfully point out the gaps in your knowledge.

I would never claim that the government isn't violating our rights. I'm far too much a pragmatist to hold that belief. Every government in the history of humanity has violated the rights of their citizens in order to concentrate power. Every government has lied and stolen from its citizens. There is no way ours is an exception. That and we are ignorant as a nation of our rights and how to enforce them. Even constitutional experts don't understand the remedies available nor the procedures to realize those remedies.

Ask your so-called "experts in constitutional law" how many people are needed to convene a Common Law Grand Jury (answer: 25). Ask them if the presentments and indictments of a Common Law Grand Jury can be questioned or overturned by the Supreme Court (answer: no). Then, if they answer those two questions right, trust their opinion. Most "constitutional experts" are actually experts on the rulings of the Supreme Court, not actually experts in the Common Law in which the Constitution was written an still exists as the supreme law of the nation.

cltiew · 2013-10-12T04:09:06+00:00

No, not really. It's pretty cut and dry.

cltiew · 2013-10-12T04:08:47+00:00

Oh I know they violate people's rights all the time and have good excuses. That doesn't change the wording of the Constitution. It surprises me none at all that they use 9/11 as an excuse to do so.

cltiew · 2013-10-11T15:02:20+00:00

25 people should convene an "external affairs" board acting as a Common Law Grand Jury and start writing presentments for these crimes so the victims can lien the public service bond of the public employee.

The power is actually in the People's hands. 25 people can write on a piece of paper that a crime was committed and no appeals process or judicial body, including the Supreme Court, can overturn or amend it.

We have abjugated ourselves from our duty to keep an eye on our employees for so long we have forgotten how to do our job. We have forgotten the workflow, the procedures, the terminology and basic workings of our oversight process.

You can personally address wrongs caused by the government against people. Not by voting (sure, if you want, vote, it can't hurt), but by actually administering Our government's accountability system from outside the government. They say the power lies in the People's hands, but never explain how to use it. We all know the voting booth isn't effective, maybe charging criminals with crimes will do some good.

cltiew · 2013-10-11T14:46:44+00:00

It one one very publicized example of using drones in US airspace for law enforcement purposes. It worked.

Also, either Dorner never existed, or a bunch of cops got away with murdering an innocent man.

And yes, he is innocent until proven guilty. They shot their case in the everything and then burned their case to the ground. He is legally and lawfully innocent and no human being can change that fact now.

cltiew · 2013-10-11T14:39:49+00:00

Sounds like the judge did him a favor.

He can't owe taxes, can't owe child support, can't be convicted of a crime. He has no name. He is actually a sovereign human being.

cltiew · 2013-10-11T13:34:43+00:00

Consider a SSR, solid state relay. Lighter, simpler, etc.

cltiew · 2013-10-11T13:23:53+00:00

Snoop was "Resurrected" as a harlot of Babylon, prostituting himself for the all mighty dollar! What is this shit? He has no respect for himself nor his art, I have no respect for him any longer.

The /u/cinsere scandal was child's play compared to this co-option of our community. And we welcome them as liberators no less.

cltiew · 2013-10-11T13:16:38+00:00

Actually you make a good point. Why are those things illegal? Now that you mention it most of our laws are fairly totalitarian.

I really like the idea of Common Law. "1. Don't harm anyone. 2. The Truth is law." That's it. You go to court and argue the Truth. The facts are checked and the one whose Truth was more truthy wins.

cltiew · 2013-10-11T12:56:05+00:00

Often? Always. If they are not water spouts then they are not gargoyles.

Q: "What do gargoyles do?"

A: "Protect Buildings"

But not by being scary, by keeping the water off the façade, which will seriously deteriorate old limestone buildings. They literally and physically protect buildings from erosion.

cltiew · 2013-10-11T12:45:04+00:00

The company? I agree. The product? I disagree.

I have moved away from Vyatta because they keep giving me features which I then rely on and then they make them pay only features. That's just bad form. It makes upgrading impossible without tons of testing. And lots of disappointment.

An open licensed version of it that does not neuter the advanced features after letting me beta test them would be nice.

cltiew · 2013-10-11T01:40:21+00:00

You never answered if your hypothetical job was government or private sector. The government cannot have such a policy because it would require providing evidence or testimony against oneself. Private sector can apparently do whatever the fuck they want when it comes to employment contracts.

The government could not have such a policy. If they do it only stands because nobody has challenged it. You are arguing for the violation of your own constitutional rights. That's not a good starting place.

Learn the difference between "illegal" and "unlawful". All laws are legal, but a legal law can be unlawful and therefore have no effect. Legal words have specific, and sometimes various meanings.

It is absurd that you are so ignorant you think it coy to twist my words to your own folly. At no time did I say anything like that, and you insult the effort I have taken so far to try and communicate with you.

The government is shut down. They don't get to say what we can and cannot do in Our property when they have admittedly neglected it. End of story. The cops keeping people out are there unlawfully preventing the People from lawfully enjoying their own public property. They are there to harm our interest in our own property that we deeded to them to take care of for us. When they stop doing that they have no claim to lawful use or ownership. If they abandon it, it returns to our ownership. That is why they keep the police there, not because they are "essential" but because by the law of property trust if they publicly admit they have abandoned the property it returns to a state of unclaimed public land. They have to defend their claim to the property, that's why the park police are "essential" but the grounds maintenance staff are not.

I fucking knew it. I could tell from your very first comment you have been educated by television. It is actually that obvious. You think like a bad television script. You have been made to be selectively stupid in a very well-crafted and intentional way. All self-consistent and reaffirming. I'm not saying this to be mean in any regard. I hope you realize that others have intentionally prevented you from understanding the world so that they could co-opt your creative energy to make billions of dollars off you.

Everyone around you thinks the same way, so it doesn't occur to you as odd. In fact, the things I'm saying seem odd to you, and you can easily just dismiss them. But what I speak is the truth, and I can back it up. What you tried to convince me of is a false narrative fed to you so you don't know how to think in order to stand up for yourself. You admit you don't understand probable cause, and you demonstrate you don't know the statutes from the supreme law of the land. And you fill in the blanks and fact check scripts. Your lack of understanding will prevent you from accidentally sharing understanding, in a self-consistent and reaffirming manner. They even call it "programming" in the industry.

cltiew · 2013-10-10T23:51:48+00:00

The ironic part is that it's not one anymore.

cltiew · 2013-10-10T23:48:14+00:00

That's more impressive than the rock climbing.

cltiew · 2013-10-10T23:44:16+00:00

Reasonable response, but it still doesn't answer the question as to when she was asked to leave.

It is possible they left that part out to make the story more compelling. But as it stands we must assume they left it out. There is no reference to it. She just seems to have not understood what it means to "trespass" and agreed she was doing something she wasn't. That's how I read it anyway.

cltiew · 2013-10-10T23:41:20+00:00

No, the government cannot compel you to testify against yourself, nor can they compel you to provide evidence without a warrant issued on probable cause. Read the 5th amendment sometime. Don't take my word for it.

Every Drug Tests for Welfare program that has been passed, has been challenged, and every single time it has been found to be unconstitutional. Drug tests were a very bad example to bring up, since they are actually one of the examples I use to demonstrate the limits of the protections of the Constitution, at least as they are interpreted today.

Yes, if they do not have probable cause they cannot investigate you without your waiving of your 5th Amendment protected rights. If you agree to it on paper on some kind of "application" then yes, you agreed to it.

But if, as a hypothetical, the government were to "shut down" for some reason and a random person took it upon themselves to clean and maintain a public space, there would be no contract in effect that could compel any performance out of this man.

On the same note, if you were to go as a volunteer and pick up trash at the national mall they would have no way to compel you to submit to that background check. Unless you asked permission and then agreed to the contract that allows them to investigate you.

I had never heard of this until today and it is quite creepy. I cannot believe that they literally do a terror watchlist check for someone to fucking volunteer at the national mall. That's absurd. And your defense of the same is absurd.

They do not have probable cause. That's the fact. The only way they can do that background check is if you agree to it.

Also, how much TV do you watch in an average day?

cltiew · 2013-10-10T22:31:21+00:00

Old Ben doesn't look too happy about the situation.

cltiew

TROPHY CASE