It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: IAMTAT
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: SplinterSequence
Maybe one day we'll learn how 40,000 feet ties in to E.T.. Not computing for me right now.
I know one thing...if Q drags ET into this NOW...he might as well also throw in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster...because the Q train will come to a screeching halt.
Remember...Q says "Keep your eyes on the ball"...and for now, at least, the ball appears to be down here on earth.
originally posted by: IAMTAT
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: carewemust
And more good news for Republicans. DNC Co-Chair/Congressman Keith Ellison (who beats women) was just elected as Minnesota's next Attorney General, of all things.
It was nice to Fox touch on the alleged Ellison video tonight.
MEMO Medicines Monitoring Unit (University of Dundee)
MEMO Medical Equipment Management Office
MEMO Mission-Essential Maintenance Only
MEMO Mission-Essential Maintenance Operations
MEMO Mental Modeler (Cognitive Technologies, Inc.)
What is Mental Modeler?
Mental Modeler is modeling software that helps individuals and communities capture their knowledge in a standardized format that can be used for scenario analysis.
Why was it developed?
Mental Modeler was developed to support group decision-making, allowing users to collaboratively represent and test their assumptions about a system in "real time". Additionally, it has also been applied as a social science research tool to measure the individual or shared 'mental models' that often underlie human decision-making.
We traded nothing. Control was taken from us long ago.
In the case of Wilkes v. Wood (1763), Parliamentarian John Wilkes was suspected of seditious libel against King George III for a series of pamphlets that were published and distributed which criticized the King. The British Secretary of State, Lord Halifax, issued a general warrant which named no suspects, but gave officials blanket authority to ransack the homes of potential suspects and seize any “seditious or treasonous papers” and to arrest the authors. After his arrest, Wilkes brought trespass charges against the officials who had ransacked his home and was subsequently awarded monetary damages against the officers and separately, Lord Halifax. In ruling on the case, Judge Pratt cited that what was at issue was the delegated discretionary power given to offices, under general warrant, to go wherever their suspicions take them and to search using whatever means necessary, thereby subverting the liberty of those who are the target of said search (Ku, 2010, pp. 655-66). The decision laid the groundwork for the wording used, and the intention behind, the limitations placed on government when conducting searches of private residences and personal effects.
The importance of reason, checks and balances, and limitation on government authority can be seen in the specific wording of the Fourth Amendment:
"The rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by an oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (U.S. Const. amend. IV)."
The wording “…and no warrants shall issue, but…” are placed specifically in front of the prerequisites specifying the place to be searched and what will be searched for, with oversight by the judicial branch regarding the reasonableness of the search. (Amar, 1994, p.774). Ku also adds that the Fourth Amendment should not be considered in isolation, but as something that compliments other constitutional protections against unlimited, arbitrary governmental power (Ku, 2010, p. 648). Given that the US Constitution enables us to check the powers of government and determine how much privacy will be afforded to individuals, the onus then is on us to strike a balance between what we consider private, and what we consider a necessary intrusion to ensure security. In many ways it appears that this concept is foreign to may people when it comes to personal privacy.
One principle that defines what can reasonably be expected to be considered private in relation to what people do in their homes rests on the doctrine of public exposure. The doctrine, in simple terms, says that what a person does that is observable from outside the home cannot reasonably be intended to be private (Penney, 2007, p.483). Application of this principle is seen in the case of Smith v. Maryland...
The line of demarcation established in Smith v. Maryland is an inside versus outside view of privacy, which brings to life the James Otis’ criticism of the Writs of Assistance, and that one’s home is his castle. The case law supports the idea that a man’s home is his castle, and that he is protected within it as long as he is quiet. The word “quiet” holds true in Smith v. Maryland in that the suspect transmitted incriminating information to a third party, the phone company, which had every right to record that information, if it chose to do so, in the course of conducting normal business with the suspect (Ku, 2010, pp. 877-78). The underlying philosophy is one of inside versus outside, or of transmitting and revealing what goes on inside the house to any outside party versus acting quietly inside one’s home. Courts have argued in that what is broadcast by an individual to the public from inside one’s home cannot be assumed to be private. The introduction of a third party, whether a phone company or a cable Internet provider, assumes the person sending the information knows that it can be seen, heard, or recorded by that third party (Penny, 2007, p.486). This clashes with how people think about the technology used on a daily basis.
originally posted by: dashen
Bruh, dig my ATS ads
originally posted by: EnigmaChaser
originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: EnigmaChaser
It wasn't Q who said all that. Who was it?
Another post earlier in the thread was noting a possible ET connection.
Q has said nothing about any of that. My point was it should stay that way unless there is a good reason not to.