Las Vegas police officer, 3 others indicted in elder abuse case


, , , , , , ,

A Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) lieutenant was jailed last  Valentine’s Day, caught up in a sweeping indictment involving elder exploitation. Contact 13 Darcy Spears continues her years-long expose on guardianship abuse with this heart- breaking case.

He was supposed to serve and protect but instead he’s accused of felony crimes for using Clark County’s guardianship system to steal from the estate of a vulnerable couple. And this police officer is directly connected to others first exposed in our ongoing investigation of guardianship corruption.

Lieutenant James Thomas Melton is a decorated police veteran. As a sergeant, Melton received a group Medal of Valor and Purple Heart in 2009 for being wounded during a domestic violence call where a baby was pulled away from gunfire.

He was also a homicide detective and Metro’s SWAT commander, making about $300,000 a year including benefits.

But on Valentine’s Day, a fall from grace as Melton was indicted by a grand jury and charged with stealing the life savings, over $700,000 from an 87-year-old widow suffering from dementia.

Court records claim Melton deceived the court after the victim died, representing that she was still alive so he could be named beneficiary on various accounts.

And Melton didn’t act alone. The indictment shows he hired private guardian April Parks. Parks is already in jail facing over 200 felony counts after our investigation revealed she was double-billing and exploiting clients. 

Parks, her attorney Noel Palmer Simpson and former office manager Mark Simmons all face additional charges of exploitation for working with Melton.

According to the indictment, Melton is also accused of stealing the victim’s Ford Explorer and taking $2,187.50  from her Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust.

When allegations first surfaced in July, he was put on leave with pay. Metro says he will now be relieved of duty without pay. The trial for Parks and her co-defendants is scheduled for May.

Below is a description of the individual charges:

  • James Thomas Melton: Two counts Exploitation of an Older Person (category B), one count Theft (category B), one count Theft (category C), seven counts Offering False Instrument for Filing or Record (category C), one count Grand Larceny Auto (category C), two counts Perjury (category D)
  • April Parks: One count Exploitation of an Older Person (category B), six counts Offering False Instrument for Filing or Record (category C), one count Perjury (category D)
  • Mark Simmons: One count Exploitation of an Older Person (category B), two counts Offering False Instrument for Filing or Record (category C)
  • Noel Palmer Simpson: One count Exploitation of an Older Person (category B), one count Theft (category C), eight counts Offering False Instrument for Filing or Record (category C), one count Perjury (category D)

In March of last year, April Parks, Mark Simmons and Noel Palmer Simpson were named in a 270-count indictment related to guardianship exploitation.

Parks was indicted on over 200 felony charges for similar conduct, including racketeering, theft, exploitation of an older person, offering false instrument for filing or record, and perjury.

Her office manager, Mark Simmons, was indicted on over 130 felonies, and her attorney Noel Palmer Simpson was implicated in that case and indicted on two charges.

A fourth defendant, Guardian Gary Neal Taylor, was indicted for seven felonies. That case is currently set for trial in May 2018.

An indictment is merely a charging document; the courts insist every defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty in a court of law.








Hotline to report guardianship abuse – AAAPG

NASGA – National Association to Stop Guardianship Abuse


Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust

F.A.C.E.U.S. Robin and Lulu Host Peter Coulter Judicial Corruption …

CONTACT 13: Sheriff weighs in on 911 problems – Las

Attorney Noel Palmer Simpson – AAAPG

police settle excessive force case – KTNV-TV

How the Elderly Lose Their Rights | The New Yorker

Guardianship Abuse Destroys Lives – My Elder Advocate, LLC

Why Guardianship Abuse Occurs | On Point – WBUR

In their own words – A collection of Guardianship abuse victim’s stories

Problems with Guardianship Abuse Leading to Calls for Reform

The System Of Court-Appointed Guardians Continues To Fail The …

Search warrants served as police investigate guardianship .

4 indicted in unprecedented guardianship abuse case, April Parks …

Las Vegas police lieutenant indicted on elderly exploitation charge

Offering False Instrument for Filing or Record | Nevada CopBlock

Guardianship exploitation case …

Throw April Parks-Taylor in prison

UPDATE: Private guardian April Parks behind bars in Las Vegas

Courts, corruption and judicial independence

Corruption in the Judiciary – DiVA portal

Article III: The Judicial Branch – National Constitution Center

Bad Intentions: The Immigration Order, the Judicial Power, and the ..

political and judicial checks on corruption – Semantic Scholar

Judicial Corruption in Developing Countries: Its Causes and Economic .

Corruption by topic – Judiciary – Transparency International

Readings: Corruption: gifts and favours – Vula

Legal Corruption – World Bank Group

Combating Corruption – World Bank Group

Corruption – Our World in Data

World Bank notes critical importance of creating Anti-Corruption Court

The WJP Rule of Law Index® | World Justice Project

Events | Global Forum on Law, Justice and Development

IMF Faces Internal Resistance Amid Push to Uncover State Corruption …

Massive Corruption Scandal Exposes 65 Elite Bankers & Former .


Artificial Superintelligence: The Coming Revolution


, , , , ,

The science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously wrote, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Yet, humanity may be on the verge of something much greater, a technology so revolutionary that it would be indistinguishable not merely from magic, but from an omnipresent force, a deity here on Earth. It’s known as Artificial Super-Iintelligence (ASI), and, although it may be hard to imagine, many experts believe it could become a reality within our lifetimes.

We’ve all encountered Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the media. We hear about it in science fiction movies likeAvengers: Age of Ultron and in news articles about companies such as Facebook analyzing our behavior. But artificial intelligence has so far been hiding on the periphery of our lives, nothing as revolutionary to society as portrayed in films.

In recent decades, however, serious technological and computational progress has led many experts to acknowledge this seemingly inevitable conclusion: Within a few decades, artificial intelligence has progressed from a machine intelligence we currently understand to an unbounded intelligence unlike anything even the smartest among us could grasp. Imagine a mega-brain, electric not organic, with an IQ of 34,597. With perfect memory and unlimited analytical power, this computational beast can read all of the books in the Library of Congress the first millisecond you press “enter” on the program, and then integrate all that knowledge into a comprehensive analysis of humanity’s 4,000 year intellectual journey before your next blink.

The history of AI is a similar story of exponential growth in intelligence. In 1936, Alan Turing published his landmark paper on the Turing Machine, laying the theoretical framework for the modern computer. He introduced the idea that a machine composed of simple switches—on’s and off’s, 0’s and 1’s—could think like a human and perhaps outmatch one.1 Only 75 years later, in 2011, IBM’s AI bot “Watson” sent shocks around the world when it beat two human competitors in Jeopardy.2 Recently big data companies, such as Google, Facebook and Apple, have invested heavily in artificial intelligence and have helped support a surge in the field. Every time Facebook tags your friend autonomously or you yell at Siri incensed and yet she still interprets your words is a testament to how far artificial intelligence has come. Soon, you will sit in the backseat of an Uber without a driver, Siri will listen and speak more eloquently than you do (in every language), and IBM’s Watson can already analyze your medical records and become your personal, all-knowing doctor.3

While these achievements are tremendous, there are many who doubt the impressiveness of artificial intelligence, attributing their so-called “intelligence” to the intelligence of the human programmers behind the curtain. Before responding to such reactions, it is worth noting that the gradual advance of technology desensitizes us to the wonders of artificial intelligence that already permeate our technological lives. But skeptics do have a point. Current AI algorithms are only very good at very specific tasks. Siri might respond intelligently to your requests for directions, but if you ask her to help with your math homework, she’ll say “Starting Facetime with Matt Soffer.” A self-driving car can get you anywhere in the United States but make your destination the Gale Crater on Mars, and it will not understand the joke.

This is part of the reason AI scientists and enthusiasts consider Human Level Machine Intelligence (HLMI)roughly defined as a machine intelligence that outperforms humans in all intellectual tasks — the holy grail of artificial intelligence. In 2012, a survey was conducted to analyze the wide range of predictions made by artificial intelligence researchers for the onset of HLMI. Researchers who chose to participate were asked by what year they would assign a 10%, 50%, and 90% chance of achieving HLMI (assuming human scientific activity will not encounter a significant negative disruption), or to check “never” if they felt HLMI would never be achieved. The median of the years given for 50% confidence was 2040. The median of the years given for 90% confidence was 2080. Around 20% of researchers were confident that machines would never reach HLMI (these responses were not included in the median values). This means that nearly half of the researchers who responded are very confident HLMI.4

HLMI is not just another AI milestone to which we would eventually be desensitized. It is unique among AI accomplishments, a crucial tipping point for society. Because once you have a machine that outperforms humans in everything intellectual, we can transfer the task of inventing to the computers. The British Mathematician I. J. Good said it best: “The first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make ….”5

There are two main routes to HLMI that many researchers view as the most efficient. The first method of achieving a general artificial intelligence across the board relies on complex machine learning algorithms. These machine learning algorithms, often inspired by neural circuitry in the brain, focus on how a program can take inputted data, learn to analyze it, and give a desired output. The premise is that you can teach a program to identify an apple by showing it thousands of pictures of apples in different contexts, in much the same way that a baby learns to identify an apple.6

The second group of researchers might ask why we should go to all this trouble developing algorithms when we have the most advanced computer known in the cosmos right on top of our shoulders. Evolution has already designed a human level machine intelligence: a human! The goal of “Whole Brain Emulation” is to copy or simulate our brain’s neural networks, taking advantage of nature’s millions of painstaking years of selection for cognitive capacity.7 A neuron is like a switch—it either fires or it doesn’t. If we can image every neuron in a brain, and then take that data and simulate it on a computer interface, we would have a human level artificial intelligence. Then we could add more and more neurons or tweak the design to maximize capability. This is the concept behind both the White House’s BRAIN Initiative8 and the EU’s Human Brain Project.9 In reality, these two routes to human level machine intelligence—algorithmic and emulation—are not black and white. Whatever technology achieves HLMI will probably be a combination of the two.

The rate of HLMI advancement have increased very quickly. In that same study of AI researchers, 10% of respondents believed artificial superintelligence (intelligence that greatly surpasses every human in most professions) would be achieved within two years of HLMI. 50% believed it would take only 30 years or less.4

Why are these researchers convinced HLMI would lead to such a greater degree of intelligence so quickly? The answer involves recursive self-improvement. An HLMI that outperforms humans in all intellectual tasks would also outperform humans at creating smarter HLMI’s. Thus, once HLMI’s truly think better than humans, we will set them to work on themselves to improve their own code or to design more advanced neural networks. Then, once a more intelligent HLMI is built, the less intelligent HLMI’s will set the smarter HLMI’s to build the next generation, and so on. Since computers act orders of magnitudes more quickly than humans, the exponential growth in intelligence could occur unimaginably fast. This run-away intelligence explosion is called a technological singularity.10 It is the point beyond which we cannot foresee what this intelligence would become.

Here is a reimagining of a human-computer dialogue taken from the collection of short stories, “Angels Spaceships11 The year is 2045. On a bright sunny day, a Silicon Valley private tech group of computer hackers working in their garage just completed their design of a program that simulates a massive neural network on a computer interface. They came up with a novel machine learning algorithm and wanted to try it out. They give this newborn network the ability to learn and redesign itself with new code, and they give the program internet access so it can search for text to analyze. The college teens start the program, and then go out to Chipotle to celebrate. Back at the house, while walking up the pavement to the garage, they are surprised to see FBI trucks approaching their street. They rush inside and check the program. On the terminal window, the computer had already outputted “Program Complete.” The programmer types, “What have you read?” and the program responds, “The entire internet. Ask me anything.” After deliberating for a few seconds, one of the programmers types, hands trembling, “Do you think there’s a God?” The computer instantly responds, “There is now.”

This story demonstrates the explosive nature of recursive self-improvement. Yet, many might still question the possibility of such rapid progression from HLMI to superintelligence that AI researchers predict. Although we often look at past trends to gauge the future, we should not do the same when evaluating future technological progress. Technological progress builds on itself. It is not just the technology that is advancing but the rate at which technology advances that is advancing. So while it may take the field of AI 100 years to reach the intelligence level of a chimpanzee, the step toward human intelligence could take only a few years. Humans think on a linear scale. To grasp the potential of what is to come, we must think exponentially.10

Another understandable doubt may be that it’s hard to believe, even given unlimited scientific research, that computers will ever be able to think like humans, that 0’s and 1’s could have consciousness, self-awareness, or sensory perception. It is certainly true that these dimensions of self are difficult to explain, if not currently totally unexplainable by science—it is called the hard problem of consciousness for a reason! But assuming that consciousness is an emergent property—a result of a billion-year evolutionary process starting from the first self-replicating molecules, which themselves were the result of the molecular motions of inanimate matter— then computer consciousness does not seem so crazy. If we who emerged from a soup of inanimate atoms cannot believe inanimate 0’s and 1’s could lead to consciousness no matter how intricate a setup, we should try telling that to the atoms. Machine Intelligence really is just switching hardware from organic to the much faster and more efficient silicon-metallic. Supposing consciousness is an emergent property on one medium, why can’t it be on another?

Thus, under the assumption that superintelligence is possible, the world is reaching a critical point in history.  First were atoms, then organic molecules, then single-celled organisms, then multicellular organisms, then animal neural networks, then human-level intelligence limited only by our biology, and, soon, unbounded machine intelligence. Many feel we are now living at the beginning of a new era in the history of cosmos.

The implications of this intelligence for society would be far-reaching—in some cases, very destructive. Political structure might fall apart if we knew we were no longer the smartest species on Earth, if we were overshadowed by an intelligence of galactic proportions. A superintelligence might view humans as we do insects— and we all know what humans do to bugs when they overstep their boundaries! This year, many renowned scientists, academics, and CEOs, including Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk, signed a letter, which was presented at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). The letter warns about the coming dangers of artificial intelligence, urging that we should be prudent as we venture into the unknowns of an alien intelligence.12

When the AI researchers were asked to assign probabilities to the overall impact of ASI on humanity in the long run, the mean values were 24% “extremely good,” 28% “good,” 17% “neutral,” 13% “bad,” and 18% “extremely bad” (existential catastrophe).4 18% is not a statistic to take lightly.

Although Artificial Superintelligence surely comes with its existential threats that could make for a frightening future, it could also bring a utopian one. ASI has the capability to unlock some of the most profound mysteries of the universe. It will discover in one second what the brightest minds throughout history would need millions of years to even scrape the surface of. It could demonstrate to us higher levels of consciousness or thinking that we are not aware of, like the philosopher who brings the prisoners out of Plato’s cave into the light of a world previously unknown. There may be much more to this universe than we currently understand. There must be, for we don’t even know where the universe came from in the first place! This artificial superintelligence is a ticket to that understanding. There is a real chance that we could bear witness to the greatest answers of all time. Are we ready to take the risk?


Works Cited

  1. Turing, A. On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Oxford Journal. 1936, 33.
  2. Plambeck, J. A Peek at The Promise of Artificial Intelligence Unfolds in Small Steps. The New York Times, Aug. 7, 2015.
  3. Markoff, J. Computer Wins on ‘Jeopardy!:’ Trivial, It’s Not. The New York Times, Feb. 16, 2011.
  4. Müller, V. C.; Bostrom, N. Future Progress in Artificial Intelligence: A Survey of Expert Opinion. 2014, 9-13.
  5. Good, I. J. Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine. Academic Pres. 1965, 33.
  6. Sharpe, L. Now You Can Turn Your Photos Into Computerized Nightmares with ‘DeepDream.’ Popular Science, July 2, 2015.
  7. Bostrom, N. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies; Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2014; pp. 30-36.
  8. BRAIN Initiative. The White House [Online], Sept. 30, 2014, whitehouse. gov/share/brain-initiative (accessed Oct. 20, 2015).
  9. Human Brain Project [Online], (accessed Oct. 21, 2015).
  10. Kurzweil, R. The Singularity Is Near; Penguin Books: England, 2005; pp. 10-14.
  11. Brown, F. “Answer.” Angels Spaceships; Dutton: New York, 1954.
  12. Pagliery, J. Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking warn over ‘killer robots.’  The New York Times, July 28, 2015.


Clarke’s three laws

Technological singularity

Scholarly articles for Machine Intelligence Research Institute

Machines Could Achieve Human-Level Intelligence by 2028 ..

Evaluation of Safe Development Pathways for Artificial Superintelligence

Artificial Intelligence


Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies

Human level Machine Intelligence (HLMI)

Machine Intelligence

Scholarly articles for Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning | SRI International

First AI Grant Recipients – Future of Life Institute

A Model of Pathways to Artificial Superintelligence Catastrophe for …

Yes, We Are Worried About the Existential Risk of Artificial Intelligence ..

Can We Properly Prepare for the Risks of Superintelligent AI? – Future ..

Artificial super intelligence: beyond rhetoric | SpringerLink

Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: a survey – IOPscience

Global catastrophic risk

The Philosopher of Doomsday – The New Yorker

AI safety syllabus – 80,000 Hours

Einstein AI, Deep Learning & SuperIntelligence Summit

The Business of Artificial Intelligence – Harvard Business Review


The Neuroscientist Who Wants To Upload Humanity To A Computer ..

Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap – Future of Humanity Institute

DARPA – Science of Singularity

DARPA: Next-generation artificial intelligence in the works …

America in Danger of Losing Lead in AI, Innovation Board Chair Says …

AI Could Revolutionize War as Much as Nukes | WIRED

The robots of war: AI and the future of combat – Engadget

Pentagon Studies Weapons That Can Read Users’ Mind

Breakthrough Technologies for National Security – Defense Advanced ..

Lethal Autonomous Weapon (LAWs)

The Dawn of Killer Robots (Full Length) – YouTube

Lethal Autonomous Weapons & Info-Wars: A Scientist’s Warning

AI will be able to beat us at everything by 2060, say experts | New …

Google’s Artificial Intelligence Built An AI That Outperforms Any Made …

The impossibility of intelligence explosion – François Chollet – Medium

Luis Bitencourt-Emilio | Chief AI Officer – Corinium Intelligence

59 impressive things artificial intelligence can do today – Business …

Will Artificial Intelligence Surpass Our Own? – Scientific American

A Beginner’s Guide to AI/ML 🤖 – Machine Learning for Humans ..

Artificial intelligence (AI)…and artificial stupidity (AS) – Military ..

Artificial Intelligence Archive – Military Embedded Systems

AI will be better than human workers at all tasks in 45 years

The Dark Secret at the Heart of AI – MIT Technology Review

Superintelligence: Forecasting AI

future | iTMunch

Artificial Intelligence and National Security – The Belfer Center for …

Eric Schmidt Keynote Address at the Center for a New American …

Доклад г-на Шпингелера | Высшая школа программной инженерии …

Political Questions: Political Philosophy from Plato to Pinker, …

AI That Learns All the Time – IEEE Spectrum


DARPA Perspective on AI

Explainable Artificial Intelligence – Defense Advanced Research …

AI – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

The US Military Wants Its Autonomous Machines to Explain Themselves

How Artificial Superintelligence Will Give Birth To Itself – io9 – Gizmodo

A.I.mpact, Part 1: Don’t Wait for A.I., It’s Already Here

Facebook analyzing our behavior

How Facebook is Using Big Data: Good, Bad & the Ugly

What Facebook Knows – MIT Technology Review

Behavior Analysis of users on Facebook

How Your Facebook Updates Reveal Your Personality – Neuroskeptic

AI at a human level: the difficulty of predicting

arXiv:1705.08807v2 [cs.AI] 30 May 2017

Kruel AGI Risks Roundtable – h+ Mediah+ Media – H+ Magazine

A Timeline for the Extinction of Jobs by Machines – Fabius Maximus

Future Progress in Artificial Intelligence: A Survey of … – Nick Bostrom

AI Timeline Surveys – AI Impacts

Semantic Scholar

The threats that artificial intelligence researchers actually worry about

artificial intelligence and the future of defense – The Hague Centre for …

Artificial Intelligence in Life Extension… – Informatica, An International …

Artificial Intelligence and Foreign Policy – Stiftung Neue Verantwortung

Scenario Library – Artificial Intelligence and the Future of…

Special Issue: Superintelligence Guest Editors: Ryan Carey Matthijs …

Psychometrics: How Social Media Uses Manipulation To Exploit Your Political Opinions and Your Votes.


, , , , , , , , , , , ,

How to turn Facebook into a weaponized AI propaganda machine

Could Facebook really tip the balance in an election? Over the past year firms like Aggregateiq and Cambridge Analytica have been credited with using AI-targeted ads on social media to help swing the Brexit referendum and the US presidential election respectively. But a lack of evidence meant we have never known whether the technology exists to make this possible.

Now the first study detailing the process from start to finish is finally shedding some light. “This is the first time that I’ve seen all the dots connected,” says Joanna Bryson, an artificial intelligence researcher at the University of Bath, UK.

At the heart of the debate is psychometrics targeting – the directing of political campaigns at people via social media based on their personality and political interests, with the aid of vast amount of data filtered by artificial intelligence (AI).

Though Facebook doesn’t “explicitly” provide all the tools to target people based on political opinions, the new study shows how the platform can be exploited. Using combinations of people’s interests, demographics, and survey data it’s possible to direct campaigns at individuals based on their agreement with ideas and policies. This could have a big impact on the success of campaigns.

“The weaponized, artificially intelligent propaganda machine is effective. You don’t need to move people’s political dials by much to influence an election, just a couple of percentage points to the left or right,” says Chris Sumner at the Online Privacy Foundation, who is presented the work this at DEF CON in Las Vegas.

Checks and balances

No one yet knows how much this can permanently change people’s views. But Sumner’s study clearly reveals a form of political campaigning with no checks and balances.

To get to grips with the complex issue of psychographic targeting online, Sumner and his colleagues created four experiments.

In the first, they looked at what divides people. High up on the list was the statement: “with regards to internet privacy: if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.” During the Brexit referendum they surveyed more than 5000 people and found that Leave voters were significantly more likely to agree with the statement, and Remain voters more likely to disagree.

Next, by administering various personality tests to a different group they found traits that correlate with how likely you are to agree with that statement on internet privacy. This was converted into an “authoritarianism” score: if you scored high you were more likely to agree with the statement. Then, using a tool called PreferenceTool, built by researchers at the University of Cambridge, they were able to reverse engineer what sort of Facebook interests and demographics people with those personalities were most likely to have.

Just 38 per cent of a random selection of people on Facebook agreed with the privacy statement but this shot up to 61 per cent when the tool was used to target people deemed more likely to agree, and down to 25 per cent for those who they deemed more likely to disagree. In other words, they were able to demonstrate that it is possible to target people on Facebook based on a political opinion.

Ad campaigns

Finally, the team created four different Facebook ad campaigns tailored to the personalities they had identified, using both pro and anti-surveillance messages. For example, the anti-surveillance ad aimed at people with high levels of authoritarianism read: “They fought for your freedom. Don’t give it away! Say no to mass surveillance,” with a backdrop of the D-day landings. In contrast, the version for people with low levels of authoritarianism said: “Do you really have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide? Say no to state surveillance,” alongside an image of Anne Frank.

Overall they found that the tailored ads resonated best with the target groups. For example, the pro-surveillance, high-authoritarianism advert had 20 times as many likes and shares from the high-authoritarianism group versus the low one.

Though the picture is becoming clearer, we should be careful not to equate a short-term decision to share or like a post, with long-term political views, says Andreas Jungherr at the University of Konstanz, Germany. “Social media is impacting political opinions. But the hype makes it hard to tell exactly how much,” he says.

However, maybe changing political opinions doesn’t have to be the end game. Perhaps the goal is simply to dissuade or encourage people from voting. “We know it’s really easy to convince people not to go to the polls,” says Bryson. “Prime at the right time and you can have a big effect. It’s not necessarily about changing opinions.”

Facebook allows targeted advertising so long as a company’s use of “external data” adheres to the law.

Greater transparency is the aim for the future. The Information Commissioner (ICO) in the UK, Elizabeth Denham, is midway through an investigation into the use of targeted advertising by political campaigns and is due to publish her findings later this year. The Green Party in Germany has started making all of its social media adverts available online for anyone to see. This may encourage others to follow.(?)

But a better approach might be to create new institutions to audit the algorithms used for political targeting. “It’s absolutely fundamental to democracy that there is more transparency,” says Bryson.








Psychometrics Predicting Behaviour

PreferenceTool – The Psychometrics Centre – University of Cambridge

The Psychometrics Centre – University of Cambridge

Projects – The Psychometrics Centre

Psychographic Segmentation in Marketing

How to Use Psychographics in Your Marketing

Social Targeting Psychographics Stack-Up

Psychographic Targeting

ICO readies campaign to educate UK public around GDPR

The Ethics of Using AI in Advertising

AI and machine learning impact marketing – Think with Google

Cambridge Analytica-style psychographic profiling and voter influence ..

Trump campaign using targeted Facebook posts to discourage black .

Data Breaches, Psychological Profiling, Voter Modeling: Inside The .

100% Solutions: robotics

The dark art of dark ads: How social media campaigns try to …

Contrary to Reports: What Facebook REALLY Did About ‘Jew Hater’ Targeting

Effective Psychographic Audience Intake for the New World of Big Data

SMASH Sales with Facebook Buyer Targeting Personas PART 4 | Psychographic Hot House

Adwords Income Targeting: How Marketers CASH IN | Psychographic Hot House


The ‘CREEPER Act’ Would Ban Sales of Child Sex Dolls in U.S.


, , , , , , , , ,

Congressman Daniel M. Donovan, Jr. has introduced legislation to ban child sex dolls and robots, while some pedophilia experts are torn about whether they can help or harm. (Warning: Graphic content.)

– Anything that normalizes adult sexual attraction towards children will only worsen this epidemic, from Stop Abuse Campaign.


The Curbing Realistic Exploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots (CREEPER) of 2017 (HR 4655, 115th Congress) updates the United States Code on  Importation or transportation of obscene matters (Section 1462 of title 18) to prohibit the importation or transportation of “any child sex doll.” It would apply to anyone who imports, takes or receives a doll in the U.S. Violators would be fined and/or imprisoned for up to five years for the first offense and imprisoned for up to 10 years for subsequent offenses.

The bill defines a “child sex doll” as an “anatomically-correct doll, mannequin, or robot, with the features of, or with features that resemble those of, a minor, intended for use in sexual acts.’’ The remainder, and bulk of the bill text, describes the motivation behind the bill’s introduction, which includes the assertion of a correlation between possession of materials and participation in the abuse of minors.

Child sex robot dolls that should never appear together are suddenly—and disturbingly—making headlines around the world every week, as is the debate surrounding their implementation or banishment to either curb or reinforce pedophilia. The Stop Abuse Campaign has launched a new campaign designed to grab your attention. “Children play with dolls,” it reads. “Sex abusers should not.”

Most recently: A 33-year-old Essex man was found not guilty of importing a 3-foot-tall child sex doll in the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, a case in Canada that began in 2013 with the intercepted “controlled delivery” of one such doll is still being prosecuted five years later.

These sex robots, which in and of itself were creepy enough, are now being morphed into child sex dolls for your every day pedophile. These child sex dolls are made to cry like real children and can also mimic child like behavior such as sadness and fear.

Unsurprisingly, heated controversy surrounds the subject, with some advocates suggesting child sex dolls could be used to deter the real-life fulfillment of pedophilic urges. Most notably, Juliet Grayson, chair of the Wales-based organization the Specialist Treatment Organization for the Prevention of Sexual Offending (StopSO), told The Independent that the prescription of child sex dolls might potentially curb assaults against human children. (?)

However, in an interview, Donovan shot down the notion that child sex dolls could be used to prevent abuse with a simple analogy.

“You don’t give an alcoholic a bottle of liquor to stop their addiction, so why would you provide a pedophile with a tool that would further normalize harmful actions?” Donovan asked. “Once a child sex abuser tires of practicing on a doll, it’s a small step to move on to an innocent child. This isn’t just speculation. Psychologists and researchers believe that these dolls reinforce, normalize, and encourage pedophilic behavior, potentially putting more children at risk to harm. It is absurd to argue that permitting sexual abuse against a realistic portrayal of a child somehow stops pedophiles from viewing real children as sexual outlets for their sick desires.”

“Let’s be clear, these dolls aren’t related to free speech. They are used to act out sick fantasies.”

— Rep. Dan Donovan (R-NY)

With both the AI revolution and the cultural awakening that’s been coined the post-Weinstein effect (sexual abuse allegations), there is an intense focus right now on the best way to protect our most vulnerable populations against sexual abuse. Incidentally, conversations about pedophilia that once were shrouded in darkness are now being brought into the light. For example: Is it possible for pedophiles to get help before offending? How does grooming of children happen? What is the extent of child sexual abuse online? Should there be preemptive imprisonment for pedophiles at risk of molesting a child?

Scientists warn sex robots could be so good humans stop mating

Could there be a danger of the same issue happening with the CREEPER Act?

 In the United Kingdom, where a similar ban exists to the one being introduced by the CREEPER Act, authorities seized 128 child sex dolls last year, and 85 percent of the men who imported them were found to also be in possession of child pornography. Child sex dolls are already here, with child sex robots hitting the market soon—causing heated legal, ethical, and scientific debate around the world.

“I support the CREEPER Act and helped Congressman Donovan’s team draft it,” Noel Sharkey, co-director of the Foundation for Responsible Robotics. “I believe that a ban on the general use of child-like sex robots is necessary because of the dangers that they may create. They could have a pernicious impact on society and potentially normalise sexual assault on minors. It would be relatively easy to make these as replicas of actual children from photographs. The way forward is to have international laws against them.”

– Repliee R1 is a copy of a real 4-year-old girl. Built at Osaka University, it has nine DC motors in its head, shows fear and tears up, prosthetic eyeballs, and silicone skin.

Still, the topic inspires a merry-go-round of researcher versus researcher. On the one end of the spectrum, legal scholars Maras and Shapiro dismiss the possibility of potential therapeutic use of child sex dolls, writing, “Scientific evidence contradicts these claims as nonsensical and irrational.” On the other end, noted pedophilia researcher and Sexual Abuse Editor in Chief Michael Seto disagrees that such definitive evidence exists yet.

“I don’t understand why the authors can be so confident in their opinions given the lack of research on this topic,” Seto explained in an email to The Daily Beast. “I conduct research on pedophilia and sexual offending against children and I am not aware of any research on the impacts of access to child sex dolls or robots. The study that is cited in the article discusses factors that are important in the treatment of identified sex offenders to reduce offending. I know this research, and it does not address the impact of child sex dolls or robots, which are relatively new inventions.”

In a passionate piece for The Hill, Donovan made his case for the CREEPER Act, which has 18 congressional co-sponsors, explaining, “During my 20 years as a prosecutor, I put away animals who played out their disgusting fantasies on innocent children. What I saw and heard was enough to make anybody sick. Now, as a legislator in Congress, I’m introducing a bill to ban the newest outlet for pedophiles: child sex dolls. These lifelike, anatomically accurate recreations of young children include ‘accessories’ such as false eyelashes, wigs, warming devices, and cleaning tools.”

Donovan said his work as a prosecutor is linked closely to this current legislation: “Every case has stayed with me—there is no situation where a child was hurt or victimized that doesn’t leave your thoughts. As a former DA and current legislator, but more importantly as a father, I will do everything possible to stop crimes against children.”

After moving through the proper committees, Donovan says, “I hope to see [the CREEPER Act] considered quickly on the House floor. We must protect our nation’s children. I know the American public want this done—there is more than 160,000 signatures on a petition supporting my legislation.”

Maras and Shapiro assert in their recent editorial that the introduction of the CREEPER Act is a “step in the right direction,” but they also advocate for additional prohibitions which would “criminalize the manufacture and possession of both child sex dolls and child sex robots,” such as when criminals “find ways to evade criminal sanction by, for example, creating these child sex dolls and sex robots themselves (for example, using a 3D printer).”

 – The culture of pedophilia isn’t going to be stopped by handing a pedophile a toy doll and telling them it’s normal.

Donovan responds, “Right now, the proliferation of these dolls is being pushed by manufacturers in international markets—not through 3D printers. We, of course, should be forward-looking to ensure that the law continues to keep up with technology—but my focus is stopping the ‘here and now.’ For example, ICE has already confiscated one of these dolls in the U.S. that was imported from abroad.”

Child sex dolls are already being imported into America?

“I have been in touch with ICE and know that a child sex doll was found during a bust,” explains Donovan. “While I can’t speak more on ongoing cases, I can say that this situation shows that these dolls are being shipped here now. The ability to obtain child sex dolls needs to be stopped immediately.”

Can the law even keep up with the technology?

“Writing legislation for technology we don’t yet know will exist in 10, 20-plus years time is a difficult task,” observes Emily C. Collins, a robotics researcher at the University of Liverpool and member of the Foundation for Responsible Robotics (FRR). “But it is not fruitless to attempt to do so… When a machine is built, the builders, in my opinion, should be asking, ‘How will this robot impact its users?’”

How will child sex dolls and robots affect their users? Are pedophiles who have purchased the child sex dolls in fact “virtuous”?

 – The doll that David Turner was charged over. Picture

Last year, 72-year-old David Turner, a church warden with local school oversight, was convicted of importing a child sex doll. In a landmark decision for this new form of sex crime against children, the judge ruled the importation of the item “obscene.” Authorities who later searched Turner’s home found two other child sex dolls and more than 34,000 child pornography images.

The pictures showed victims ages 3 to 16.









Text – H.R.4655 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): CREEPER Act of 2017 …

First Look: Curbing Realistic Exploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots (CREEPER) Act of 2017 (HR 4655, 115th Congress)

18 US Code § 1462 – Importation or transportation of obscene matters

Petition · Ban Child Sex Dolls that encourage child sex abuse ..

Stop Abuse Campaign | One Child Is Too Many

StopSO UK Tackling Sexual Abuse

StopSO – Sexually Inappropriate Behaviour

Sex robot

Inside the sex robot factory where randy pervs can handpick every .

Sex robot inventor insists ‘I’m no pervert’ after doll shouts ‘I can take …

Sex doll WARNING as robot watchdog says UK must restrict and even .

Child sex dolls help catch previously unknown suspected paedophiles

Dolls Made to Cry Like Real Children

Pedophilic urges on the dolls

Paedophiles ‘could be prescribed child sex dolls’ to prevent real …

Sex robot SHOCK: AI bots will soon be able to ‘GIVE BIRTH to children …

Child Sex Robots Are Coming to America. Can We Stop Them Before ..

The Growing Danger of Child Sex Dolls – Fierce Advocate

custom-order child sex dolls

Adult sex dolls with these capabilities are already on the market

Frigid Farrah

Scientific evidence

Urges carried out on living children

Would child sex robots stop pedophilia — or promote it? – NBC News

ANDROIDS and Artificial Intelligence Research at the Osaka University

File:Repliee R1.jpg

repliee: our friend electric

Paedophile Shin Takagi who makes

Ex-school governor who imported child sex doll is jailed – BBC News

David Turner, from Ramsgate, jailed for having child sex doll

Charity responds to conviction of man who imported child sex doll .

Child sex doll imports expose previously unknown offenders | Society

Michael Seto

Sexual Abuse | SAGE Publications Inc

Outrage over push to give pedophiles ‘child sex dolls’ | New York Post

Child sex dolls and robots: exploring the legal challenges

‘Shadow’ Trade in Child Sex Dolls Should be Banned, Say Profs | The ..

Child sex robots ‘could be used to treat paedophiles who want to be …

Call for a ban on child sex robots – BBC News

Sex robots are being made for paedophiles and could encourage all ..

Child sex dolls, the newest outlet for pedophiles, must be banned

CREEPER Act would turn law-abiding Americans into sex offenders .

Scientists Calculate the Probability of Your Existence, Similar to Buddhism


, , , , , , ,

You’re one in 400 trillion, or pretty much a miracle!

To illustrate how precious each human being is, self-help author Mel Robbins said during a 2011 Ted Talk that the likelihood of you being born as you has been calculated at about one in 400 trillion.

Crazy. But also amazing!

This is the probability of you being born at the time you were born to your particular parents, with your particular genetic make-up.

Dr. Ali Binazir took it further. He attended the Ted Talk and wrote about it afterward, doing his own calculations on how likely your existence is. Dr. Binazir is an author and personal change specialist who studied at Harvard, received a medical degree from the University of California, and studied philosophy at Cambridge University.

He looked at the odds of your parents meeting, given how many men and women there are on Earth and how many people of the opposite sex your mother and father would have met in their first 25 years of life. Then he looked at the chances of them talking, of meeting again, of forming a long-term relationship, of having kids together, and of the right egg and the right sperm combining to make you. He goes further back to look at the probability of all your ancestors successfully mating, and of all the right sperm meeting all the right eggs to make each one of those ancestors.

He illustrates it this way: “It is the probability of 2 million people getting together each to play a game of dice with trillion-sided dice. They each roll the dice and they all come up with the exact same number—for example, 550,343,279,001.”

“A miracle is an event so unlikely as to be almost impossible. By that definition, I’ve just shown that you are a miracle,” he wrote. “Now go forth and feel and act like the miracle that you are.”

Buddhists have talked of the preciousness of this incarnation. Binazir recounted this Buddhist analogy: “Imagine there was one life preserver thrown somewhere in some ocean and there is exactly one turtle in all of these oceans, swimming underwater somewhere. The probability that you came about and exist today is the same as that turtle sticking its head out of the water—in the middle of that life preserver. On one try.”

Binazir decided to test the Buddhist understanding against the modern scientific understanding. He looked at the amount of water in the oceans, compared to the size of a life-preserver. He concluded that the chances of a turtle sticking its head out in the middle of the life preserver was about one in 700 trillion.

“One in 400 trillion vs one in 700 trillion? I gotta say, the two numbers are pretty darn close, for such a far-fetched notion from two completely different sources: old-time Buddhist scholars and present-day scientists.”

In the words of Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche:
“Ask yourself how many of the billions of the inhabitants of the planet have any idea of how rare it is to have been born as a human being. How many of those who understand the rarity of human birth ever think of even using that chance to practice the Dharma? How many of those who think of practice actually do practice?
How many of those who start really continue? How many of those who practice continue and attain ultimate realization? Indeed those who attain ultimate realization compared to those who do not are as few as the stars you can see at daybreak. As long as you fail to recognize the true value of human existence, you will just fritter your life away in futile activity and distraction. When life comes all too soon to its inevitable end, you will not have achieved anything worthwhile at all. But once you really see the unique opportunity that human life can bring, you will definitely direct all your energy into reaping its true worth.”
At the end of our lives, are we going to wonder: “Did I have the courage to do more than just what came easily? Have I truly taken advantage of this precious human birth to cultivate wisdom and compassion, and to live in a way that is increasingly more free of greed, hatred and delusion? Did I have the courage to use this precious human birth to fully realize the Dhamma? ”
Once we realize the unique opportunity that being born human offers, we will surely want to direct all our energy toward fulfilling our highest potential as a human being.”

In conclusion: “The odds that you exist at all are basically zero!”


* The impact that I want to have is I want to teach people how to discover the power that’s inside of them. To live fully in the open and share themselves, who they are…. I want to teach people how to live with more courage because courage is nothing more than the ability to do things that are uncertain…. The impact that I want to have is I want to teach people a simple way to discover the power that’s locked inside them and then to unleash it and go out and live the life they’ve always dream of.





How to stop screwing yourself over | Mel Robbins | TEDxSF – YouTube

Books – Mel Robbins

The 5 Second Rule: Transform Your Life With Everyday … – Mel Robbins

Mel Robbins

Dr. Ali Binazir, Happiness Engineer

Ali Binazir

The Preciousness of Our Human Life – Vipassana Metta Foundation

Tibetan Wheel of Life–re-incarnation –


In Hinduism, dharma is the religious and moral law governing individual conduct and is one of the four ends of life. In addition to the dharma that applies to everyone (sadharana dharma)—consisting of truthfulness, non-injury, and generosity, among other virtues—there is also a specific dharma (svadharma) to be followed according to one’s class, status, and station in life. Dharma constitutes the subject matter of the Dharma-sutras, religious manuals that are the earliest source of Hindu law, and in the course of time has been extended into lengthy compilations of law, the Dharma-shastra.

In Buddhism, dharma is the doctrine, the universal truth common to all individuals at all times, proclaimed by the Buddha. Dharma, the Buddha, and the sangha (community of believers) make up the Triratna, “Three Jewels,” to which Buddhists go for refuge. In Buddhist metaphysics the term in the plural (dharmas) is used to describe the interrelated elements that make up the empirical world.

In Jain philosophy, dharma, in addition to being commonly understood as moral virtue, also has the meaning—unique to Jainism—of an eternal “substance” (dravya), the medium that allows beings to move.

Dhamma – Access to Insight

Quotations on: Precious Human Life – View on Buddhism

Incarnation – Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia

The Handbook of Tibetan Buddhist Symbols

A Basic Buddhism Guide: On Reincarnation

Tibetan Buddhism: what is reincarnation?

Rebirth (Buddhism)


The Meaning of Incarnation – Patheos

Waiting for a Miracle! – Lessons for Living


Coming into being?


Liespotting: Proven Techniques to Detect Deception


, , , , , , , , ,

The clues to truth and deception are everywhere… can you spot them?How much deceit do we encounter? On a given day, studies show, you may be lied to anywhere from 10 to 200 times. Now granted, many of those are white lies. Another study showed that strangers lied three times within the first 10 minutes of meeting each other.

Detecting lies, or “lie spotting,” is an essential skill for everyone to acquire, for both personal and professional reasons.

Liespotting reveals the sophisticated lie-detection methods of security experts and interrogators, and arms you with proven techniques to detect deception and build trust.

After an epiphany at her Harvard reunion, Pamela Meyer, a Certified Fraud Examiner, embarked on a three-year research adventure to discover how and why people deceive. She shares much of what she learned so fraud examiners can become liespotters.

You’re seated across from Stan in the interview room, and all you can think of are the immortal words of George Costanza’: “Just remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it.” You think Stan is about to tell you some big fibs about his possible involvement in a company embezzlement, but how will you tell? Pamela Meyer can help.

Meyer, a CFE and author of the bestselling book,Liespotting: Proven Techniques to Detect Deception,” can give you a holistic approach that will indicate if Stan is a believable liar, unbelievably lying or both. She can show how to watch for his telltale facial expressions and body language. She can teach you 10 questions to get him to tell you anything you want. And she can show you methods to parse Stan’s words. However, the methods she’ll give you aren’t parlor tricks. They’re part of a scientifically grounded system for ferreting out deception.

Meye says she accidentally walked into the world of deception detection five years ago when she attended her 20th year reunion at Harvard Business School.

“I took a workshop at this reunion with 350 of my classmates where a professor detailed his findings on how people behave when they are being deceptive,” she says. “What they do with their posture, their purses, their backpacks, their language structure, their smiles. I witnessed something you rarely see. For 45 minutes, 350 high-level, busy people were riveted. No one was tapping at their Blackberries. No one was running to the hall to start a conference call.

“People, who thought they had seen it all, were learning something completely new and useful,” Meyer says. “When I witnessed this unusual moment of executive silence, I knew I had happened onto something transformational.” She says she set out to immerse herself in learning techniques for spotting deception that intelligence, security, law enforcement and espionage agencies had developed and were using.

Eye opening! MUST WATCH VIDEO!

We’ve all heard that tales of cheating on school and college tests are rife. There have been instances where teachers have given students test answers in order to make themselves look good on their performance reviews. Mentors who should be teaching the opposite are sending a message that lying and cheating are acceptable.
Far from being a parlor game similar to, say, charades, where the object is to exclaim, “Gotcha,” deception detection is a serious branch of knowledge based on scientific data collected over the last six decades at prestigious universities conducting in-depth research projects, especially in psychology and physiology.
One result of the research is that most old myths about lying have been debunked. Liars do look you in the eye. They do not always stutter, stammer, blush or fidget.
Don’t conclude from this that liars are hard to spot and difficult to unmask. A trained lie spotter can get to the truth by learning about statement structure, facial micro-expressions, question formation and timing. I spent several years surveying the scientific findings in the vast and ever emerging body of knowledge on deception, and it is clear that deception detection is a modern skill that is easy to learn and helpful in navigating our complex world — especially if your professional responsibilities include hiring, interviewing, negotiating or managing.
Good liars are skilled at reading others well, putting them at ease, managing their own emotions and intuitively sensing how others perceive them.
We know from research that extroverts lie more than introverts, that men tell more “self-oriented” lies while women tell more “other-oriented” lies — usually to protect someone’s feelings — that married people lie less frequently to their partners than unmarried people do (but the lies they do tell tend to be “whoppers”). We also know that if you are perceived as a wrongdoer, others will feel less guilt in lying to you.
How do you tell if someone is lying? First, observe your subject’s normal behavior. This is called “baselining.” It helps provide a reference point for measuring changes later. Observe your subject’s posture, laugh, vocal quality. You’d better know if someone normally taps their foot all the time so you don’t make unjust accusations when you see foot-tapping in the middle of the meeting.
Then look for clusters of deceptive verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Consider these clusters red flags, not proof of deception.
Deceptive people might freeze their upper body when trying to remember their story, they might point their feet toward the door, lean toward an exit, shift their posture in significant ways or exhibit “post-interview relief” — that exaggerated exhale of relief and shift in posture when all the hard questions are over. Interrogators often falsely signal that an interview is over just to look for that post-interview relief.
Also, pay attention to your subject’s language. Scott Peterson famously slipped and used the past tense while claiming his murdered wife was alive, launching a nationwide search for her.
Lying has destroyed careers and convulsed countries. New York congressman and Internet flasher Anthony Weiner made a fool of himself issuing denials quickly contradicted by incontrovertible evidence. Former presidential candidate John Edwards has been charged with campaign finance violations connected to the cover-up of an extramarital affair. And then again, no one who lived through it will ever forget the media circus President Bill Clinton unleashed by lying during his second term in office about his sexual involvement with Monica Lewinsky.
Deceptive individuals might also use distancing language: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman … Miss Lewinsky” or repeat a hard question in its entirety. The most common verbal indicators are subtle. Someone might use lots of “qualifying language” when answering a hard question: “Well … to tell you the truth … as far as I know … to the best of my knowledge.” This renders the answer perceptual rather than factual and is often a red flag.
There’s no magic bullet for detecting lies, but developing skills to ferret out deception is possible.These skills will enhance anyone’s chances of avoiding victimization by scam artists in their professional and personal lives.

These techniques will also help you gain a lasting advantage in business and dramatically improve your personal relationships by learning to decode the body language, facial expressions, words and actions of everyone you encounter.








Pamela Meyer

Pamela Meyer Pamela Meyer is founder and CEO of Calibrate, a leading deception detection training company, and of social networking company Simpatico Networks. She holds an MBA from Harvard, an MA in Public Policy from Claremont Graduate School, and is a Certified Fraud Examiner. She has extensive training in the use of visual clues and psychology to detect deception.

Pamela Meyer discusses Liespotting and the current deception epidemic




10 Amazing Facts About the Human Face and How It Reveals Deception

Writing and talk do not prove me, I carry the plenum of proof and every thing else in my face —Walt Whitman, “Song of Myself”

The first rule in deception detection is to watch the face. Our faces reveal multitudes about what we are thinking, feeling, intending. A slack jaw hints that we’ve been surprised, flared nostrils suggest hostility. Drooping eyelids in… Learn More →



10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth

Lying is hard work. Daunting as it may seem to keep track of all the possible signs of deception—facial cues, gestures, leg movements—think of how difficult it is to be the deceiver. To tell a convincing lie, you must keep all the details of your story straight. And not only that, you must sell it with appropriate body language, while trying to avoid leaking any emotional clues that would g… Learn More →


10 Body Language “Tells” That Reveal Deception

It sounds hard to believe at first, but just 7% of how we communicate with each other is through words. Humans communicate primarily through body language. It’s been that way throughout our evolutionary history, and it remains so today. Recent studies have concluded that body language makes up about 65% of our interactions—the bulk of the 80% of communication that is deemed “nonverbal.”… Learn More →
Test Your Lie-Q


Most People Are No Better Than Chimpanzees at Detecting Lies

Since we hear as many as 200 lies a day, we live with a hidden problem most of us are unaware of. With training in the fundamentals of deception detection, we can significantly improve our liespotting skills. How much do you know about liespotting? Before you step into real-world situations that demand watchful eyes and ears, test your knowledge with our Lie-Q quiz. Take the Quiz →




  • Test Your Lie-Q

    Most people are no better than chimpanzees at detecting lies. How much do you know about liespotting? Take the Quiz →




Expert “Lie Spotter” Reveals Telltale Signs Of Deception

Don’t try lying to Pamela Meyer. She’s known internationally as an expert deception detector. Her TED talk on the subject is super popular, and she’s written a book called “Liespotting.” She also runs a company called Calibrate in Washington, D.C. … Read More

How To Spot a Liar: The NPR TED Radio Hour Interview

tedrhAre you a good liar? Or a Bad liar?

Listen to Pamela Meyer and Guy Raz discuss the future of honesty, how to spot a liar and how to take a quick test to determine if you are a good or a bad liar.

Listen here!

Read More

Is Chris Christie lying?

chris_lieLawrence O’Donnell asks Salon writer Amy Punt about her provocative new piece “5 Reasons Chris Christie Might Be Lying,” in which she applied lie detection techniques from the book “Liespotting” to Governor Christie’s press conference. // Read More

Pamela Meyer’s Ted Talk : How to Spot a Liar makes “top 20 most popular talks” list with over twelve million views.

Screen Shot 2014-01-21 at 2.50.46 PMThe 20 most popular TED Talks, as of this moment “As 2013 draws to a close, TED is deeply humbled to have posted 1600+ talks, each representing an idea worth spreading. So which ideas have had the most widespread impact? … Read More

Liespotting Ryan Braun

hufflogoWhy you don’t need a labcoat to tell Ryan Braun was doping Though Braun was able to bluff his way past MLB officials for the better part of two years, they clearly suspected something was up. Sometimes those suspicions are … Read More

Generation Win: Has our Drive to Win Replaced Sportmanship?

hufflogoWhat do a hard shove in an NBA playoff game, a wayward ball in The Masters golf tournament, and a high school soccer match in Utah have in common? Nike’s new slogan sums it up: Winning Takes Care of Everything. … Read More

New Research: Truth-telling dyads share memories; deceptive dyads work in parallel

DeceptionNew research shows for the first time that a pair of liars will recall events differently than truth-tellers, offering crucial clues for law enforcement and intelligence officers who operate in social settings. Read More

Cheating in High School and College: Why you should care

conference_on_cheatingThe Center for Leadership and Ethics at Virginia Military Institute is doing something brilliant: An ambitious and highly relevant conference on cheating. Two thousand participants will be discussing this critical topic, in small groups and in a larger forum. Pamela … Read More

Liespotting Herman Cain

Liespotting Herman CainHerman Cain has accused 5 women of lying. Comedians are having a field day—yet running for President is serious business. Lie detection experts suggest Cain is the deceptive one. Read More

Pamela Meyer’s editorial and TED Talk on CNN

cnnsquareA glance at recent headlines indicates just how serious and pervasive deceit and lying are in daily life. Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain is busy trading allegations of sexual harassment with several women; each side accuses the other of lying. … Read More

Pamela Meyer speaks at TED Global

Pamela Meyer, bestselling authorDo gorillas lie?

They have been known to. Koko, the gorilla taught sign language, once blamed her pet kitten for ripping a sink out of the wall, but it’s us humans who are the true masters of the art. According to Pamela Meyer, a social media expert, we are living in a “post-truth society”. Those Facebook friends of yours, for example? Just how real are they? Lying, she says, is the bridge between reality and our fantasies, between who we are and who we want to be.

And it’s a cooperative act. You can only be lied to if you agree to it. Strangers lie three times within the first 10 minutes of meeting. But then again, according to Meyer, married couples lie to each other once in every 10 interaction…

Read More

Seven Big Lies About Lying – Huffington Post

hufflogoIf Edith Wharton lived in the Age of Innocence, surely we now live in the Age of Deception…. Read More

Deception Experts take on Rep. Anthony Weiner

feat-anthony-weinerBy now you have surely participated in the nation’s “Weiner Roast” as one of our country’s public servants self destructs over weak denials regarding a lewd photo sent from his Twitter account. Watch the video below, and you’ll see flashes … Read More

More to a Smile Than Lips and Teeth

smilethumbWe are just beginning to understand how the reward circuits in our brains become activated via observation of others. By CARL ZIMMER New York Times In the middle of a phone call four years ago, Paula Niedenthal began to wonder … Read More

Wary Investors Turn to Lie Pro’s

Wall Street JournalWhen screening a fund manager, investors like to see experience and a consistent record or returns. Elizabeth Prial, however, looks for dilated pupils and uneven breathing.Ms. Prial, a psychologist and former Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, has spent most of her career looking for lies in the statements of mafia hitmen and terrorists. Now, she is on the hunt for the next Bernard Madoff, selling her deception-detection skills to institutional investors and others with large pools of money who want to know if prospective fund managers are telling the truth. Read More

Liespotting Challenge Archive

This post is part of the Liespotting Challenge series.

See All Challenge Posts

Liespotting Lance Armstrong Part 2: Expert Analysis

video-thumbCIA Veteran Regretfully Suggests Lance Armstrong is Lying: We asked Liespotters worldwide to comment on this video clip of Lance denying use of unauthorized substances. The team at was very impressed with the response from readers. But Phil Houston, expert deception detector takes it much further. He says Lance displays over 25 deceptive indicators in just a few minutes. Take another look at the video, then read Phil’s fascinating analysis. Read More

Pamela Meyer: How to spot a liar | TED Summaries


Pamela Meyer – Bloomberg

Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

Read Pamela Meyer’s Q&A on deception from FRAUD … – Calibrate

Probing the Body Language of a Fraudster | Accounting Today

Simpatico Networks Announces Investment from ZelnickMedia … – ZMC

How to spot a liar – Ted Talk by Pamela Meyer (Transcript)

Detect Deception – LaSorsa …

Elusive liars – Fraud Magazine

Can You Learn To Spot A Liar? : NPR

How to spot a lie – CNN –

Annotated captions of Pamela Meyer: How to spot a liar in English .


Ending Corporate Governance


, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

We The People Revoking Our Plutocracy

Nowadays, although more and more of us understand the fact that we live, not in a democratic republic (as we were taught in school), but under a plutocracy, most still suffer from what Richard Grossman and Ward Morehouse call the “colonization of our minds,” (1, 2) the corollary of which is the “TINA” (There is no alternative) phenomenon. The fact is, there are alternatives to this evermore distintegrative “way of life.” But in order to change this society so the seventh generation yet unborn may, once more, have the opportunity to live their lives to the fullest, each one of us must transform our own conditioned thinking from that of programmed consumer into liberated citizen.

Today, people forget that U.S. corporations, or corpses,” as this ratitor thinks of them, were extremely limited in their powers and influence prior to the Civil War. We have much to re-learn regarding the facts of how citizens, at the time of the revolution of 1776 and afterwards, gave state legislatures the power to control the “crown corporations” they had had painful, personal experience of and suffered under, from the likes of the original American “Crown colonies” — which were company’s — of the King of England, as well as the Hudson’s Bay Company and the East India Companies of Europe.

In the detailed and highly recommendable 32-page booklet, Taking Care of Business, Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation, the authors lay out how citizens, in the early days of this system of governance, constitutionalized the legal standing of “We The People” as a fundamental mechanism for controlling and limiting the destructive influence created by unbridled and unlimited concentrations of wealth:

When we look at the history of our states, we learn that citizens intentionally defined corporations through charters–the certificates of incorporation. In exchange for the charter, a corporation was obligated to obey all laws, to serve the common good, and to cause no harm. Early state legislators wrote charter laws and actual charters to limit corporate authority, and to ensure that when a corporation caused harm, they could revoke its charter. .

Our right to charter corporations is as crucial to self-government as our right to vote. Both are basic franchises, essential tools of liberty. . .

The colonists did not make a revolution over a tax on tea. They fought for many reasons, but chiefly to create a nation where citizens were the government and ruled corporations…

They knew that English kings chartered the East India Company, the Hudson’s Bay Company and many American colonies in order to control property and commerce. Kings appointed governors and judges, dispatched soldiers, dictated taxes, investments, production, labor and markets. . .

Having thrown off English rule, the revolutionaries did not give governors, judges or generals the authority to charter corporations. Citizens made certain that legislators issued charters, one at a time and for a limited number of years. They kept a tight hold on corporations by spelling out rules each business had to follow, by holding business owners liable for harms or injuries, and by revoking charters.

But throughout the 1800s, especially after the Civil War, “under pressure from industrialists and bankers, a handful of 19th century judges gave corporations more rights in property than human beings enjoyed in their persons.” (Ibid):

The biggest blow to citizen constitutional authority came in 1886. The US Supreme Court ruled in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, that a private corporation was a “natural person” under the US Constitution, sheltered by the 14th Amendment [(even though that amendment had been written and ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves)  [3] , which requires due process in the criminal prosecution of “persons.” Following this ruling, huge, wealthy corporations were allowed to compete on “equal terms” with neighborhood businesses and individuals. “There was no history, logic or reason given to support that view,” Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote 60 years later. [4]

Once corporations were legally defined as “natural persons,” they automatically were endowed with the same “Bill of Rights” as human beings, and so came to possess and then exploit with devastating consequences, the same “rights” of the freedom of speech, and the ability to participate in elections and lobby elected officials.

It is essential to understand how corporations prior to the Civil War were legislatively defined, so we may better appreciate what we can discover and make use of today, using the sections still present in our state constitutions — as well as reinstating and strengthening in favor of nature, citizens, and communities, many sections that have been repealed by corporate groups seeking to make incorporation laws more “corporate friendly” — to overthrow corporate authority, and reinstate the authority of we the sovereign people. Up to the mid-1800s,


  • Corporations had limited duration, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years — they were not given forever, like corporate charters are given today.
  • The amount of land a corporation could own was limited.
  • The amount of capitalization a corporation could have was limited.
  • The corporation had to be chartered for a specific purpose — not for everything, or anything.
  • The internal governance was very different —shareholders had a lot more rights than they have today, for major decisions such as mergers; sometimes they had to have unanimous shareholder consent.
  • There were no limitations protections on liability — managers, directors, and shareholders were liable for all debts and harms and in some states, doubly or triply liable.
  • The states reserved the right to amend the charters, or to revoke them — even for no reason at all. [5]

Today, is it critical for all of us to “examine the fundamental difference over what is a decision for the civil society that needs to be conducted in an open way, through the constitutionalized process, and what are decisions that are the private domain of the corporation?”  [6]

Ward Morehouse, speaking in Palo Alto this past January 29th, spoke of “The Seven Challenges” we face in order to get out of the mess we are currently in:

  • I think the first challenge we have to come to grips with is how to overcome this colonization of our minds and to recognize that there are alternatives to a society dominated by giant corporations.
  • Our second challenge involves taking a lesson from the play book of the corporations who … have spent the last century or more consolidating their power and insulating themselves from meaningful democratic control. And we need therefore to try to change a body of legal doctrine rather than fight case after case after case of corporate transgression.
  • Our third challenge is to resist the temptation for co-optation and accommodation and not to accept as “victories” those which leave corporate power unchallenged and intact.
  • Our fourth challenge is to recognize the myth of American democracy and to overcome the plutocracy with which we live. All societies have myths about themselves. Ours is no exception.
  • The fifth is to understand that we will never win in this struggle if we play by their rules because they wrote the rules.
  • Our sixth is to determine how we know when we really have won in the struggle against corporate power, and I would submit to you that we only really win when there is a fundamental shift in power from corporations back to the people where it was in the first place, and should be again. . . .
  • The seventh challenge is to take to heart the big lessons of 20th century history, and not to be discouraged by the challenges that indeed do confront us. It was said no where better or more eloquently than by Howard Zinn in one of his recent books, when he wrote that, “[t]he struggle for justice should never be abandoned because of the apparent overwhelming power of those who have the guns and the money, and who seem invincible in their determination to hold onto it. That apparent power has again and again proved vulnerable to human qualities less measurable than bombs and dollars: moral fervor, ingenuity, courage, patience. Whether by blacks in Alabama and South Africa, peasants in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Viet Nam, or workers and intellectuals in Poland, Hungary and the Soviet Union itself. No cold calculation of the balance of power need deter people who are persuaded that their cause is just.”  [7]

He then went on to discuss,

One of Clinton’s throwaway lines in his speech [when he said] “The era of big government is over”. . . And you will recall that there was a round of applause on both sides of the isle. I would submit to you that, the era of the Giant Corporation is over and that it is time for us to take the offensive in the struggle to establish democratic control over corporations. Here is an eleven-point program for doing just that:

  1. We can start by revoking the charters of especially harmful corporations who have inflicted mass harm on innocent people. As Richard indicated, there are provisions for the revocation of charters in 49 of the 50 states. They have some provisions similar to that in the New York Business Corporation Law, Section 1101, which specifies that corporations that act contrary to the public policy of the state are subject to dissolution.
  2. We can recharter corporations to limit their powers and make them entities subordinate to the sovereign people. For example by granting charters (as used to be the case) for limited time periods, requiring that there be a conscious, deliberate act of approval by communities and workers for corporations to continue beyond the initial time in which they have been chartered. For making corporate managers and directors liable for the harms done by corporations.
  3. We can address what I think is a fundamental obstacle to democratic control over corporations, which is their sheer size. I think many of you are well aware that the largest corporations today are larger than most nation-states. General Motors has gross income greater than the gross domestic product of Denmark. So we need to reduce the size of corporations by breaking them into smaller units with less power to undermine democratic institutions.For those of you who think this is a wild flight-of-fancy, I would remind you that as an issue in public policy, this has historical precedence in the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 which did just that: it said certain public utility companies will divest themselves because they may not be larger than a given set of criteria determined through a democratic process.
  4. We need to establish effective worker and community control over production units in order to protect the “reliance interest,” an important, if not fully developed, legal doctrine which workers and communities acquire over time in the actions, the activities, and indeed the assets of corporations.This could be done in a variety of ways including prohibitions in the charter of the corporation in the future, prohibitions for the hiring of replacement workers (scabs in other words), requiring independent health and safety audits by experts chosen by workers in the affected communities, and so on.
  5. We can initiate referendum campaigns, or take action through state legislatures and the courts, to end constitutional protections for corporate persons. As Richard indicated, we are, in a certain sense, in the belly of the beast here in Santa Clara County, because that is where all this terrible mischief of corporations being persons before the law, began.
  6. We can prohibit corporations from making campaign contributions to candidates in any elections, and from lobbying any local, state, and federal government bodies. And if you think this is off-the-wall, you should be aware that in the state of Wisconsin, up until a few decades ago, it was a felony for corporations to make political contributions.
  7. We can stop subsidy abuse and extortion by corporations through which large corporations rake off billions of dollars from the public treasury. Please let us not call it “corporate welfare.” Welfare should be a positive concept. This is extortion and subsidy abuse and we need to stop it.
  8. We need to launch campaigns to cap salaries of corporate executives, and tie them to a ratio of average compensation for production workers (say, five or ten to one). I’ll return to this subject in a moment, as the reality is much different today as all of you know.
  9. We can encourage worker and community-owned and -controlled cooperatives and other alternatives to conventional limited liability profit-making corporations. They need not be the only game in town, in fact they are not the only game in town. But we need to work hard to expand alternative types of enterprises that will subject themselves to genuine democratic control.
  10. We can prepare model state corporation codes based on the principle of citizen sovereignty, and begin the campaign for their adoption, state-by-state.
  11. (and I’m sorry Richard didn’t have more opportunity to talk about this important subject, but perhaps we can explore it further in the discussion) We can invigorate, from the grassroots up, a national debate on the relationship between public property and private property — including future value — and the rights of natural persons, communities, and other species when they are in conflict with those corporations. This whole subject of how we define property rights is at the heart of much of the accumulation and codification of corporate power.

So there is an eleven-point agenda to get you started on this challenging task. A Canadian friend of ours, who has given a lot of thought to how we develop a dynamic for dealing with corporations and corporate power, has suggested that we need to follow what he calls “the 5 D’s of Action:” We need first to define corporate power, then to dissect it, then to denounce it, then to disrupt it, and finally to dismantle it. And I would submit to you that that is the challenge before all of us. [8]

Under the form of ownership, known to us today as “the corporation,” the legal act of incorporation creates a `person’ or `corpus.’ For over the past 100 years these legal entities have been exercising more and more of their powers to recreate the circumstances of their own existence. This is exactly what the first citizens of this country feared the most, and attempted to prevent the occurence of by defining the subordinate nature of such legal ficticious entities to that of flesh-and-blood human beings. They implemented this through the legal mechanism of charters — the certificates of incorporation.

Richard Grossman drove home this point in Palo Alto when he said,

In most states a lot of the language from the early days, that reflected the subordinate nature of corporations is still on the books (including California). Some of that language is gone. But we still have the authority, in California, and other states, to define the corporations through their charters; we still have the authority to amend the charters; we still have the authority to revoke the charters — the language is there. We still have the authority to rewrite the state corporation codes in order to order corporate executives to do what the sovereign people want to do. A sovereign people do not negotiate with subordinate legal fictions. We instruct them. We define them. We don’t regulate them about the edges so they can poison here and poison there, but not more than the acceptable amount. We say, You can’t operate if you poison. That is what a sovereign people should do. And you may say, given the power of corporations, this could not be possible.

I happened to look up the California Constitution of 1879, which was the constitution that you had when you joined the Union. Article 12, which runs several pages, is called “Corporations.” There are 24 sections in Article 12 defining the corporation. 20 of them have been repealed, the last set in 1972. I’d like to close by reading you some of the sections of your constitution from 1879 that have been repealed.

As I read these I urge you to think about how, in those years, there were people who came together, as we are coming together today, who had concerns about the banking corporations and the railroad corporations and the insurance corporations — many of whom had come from other states, and other territories — and when they said, as we are going to form our own constitution and our own state, we have to preserve our political authority over this fiction. They were strong enough and mobilized enough and educated enough to force these articles to be put into their constitution despite the power of the railroad magnates and the other magnates here who are honored all over San Francisco and California. . .I’ll close by suggesting that just those sections alone — and there is more in your Constitution of 1879 — reinforce the concept that people of other eras, over 100 years ago, understood the vital importance that the fiction of the corporation was the subordinate entity to the sovereign people. If we are going to have pretense to a democracy, we cannot give political rights and powers to a private entity. We cannot let that private entity get so strong that it rewrites the laws, that it shapes the culture, that it shapes the education.

As people are looking into the histories of their states they are finding very similar histories. Although it may be difficult to imagine a country that’s not dominated by giant corporations, other people before us have imagined that, and they’ve taken big steps toward that, and there is no reason why we can’t continue that struggle. Because they also left us many important mechanisms that we can use. [9]

The reason the ratitor uses the term “corpses”, is to convey the idea that although these entities are in fact seen by people today as being like and having the same qualities as that of human persons (the language people use is a “dead” giveaway: corporate “arms” reaching into our lives, `cutting off corporations at their “knees”‘, etc.), they are not living persons — they are, more accurately, like dead bodies that have not been given a proper burial.

May we all be inspired, with gobs of creativity and enthusiasm, to carry us forward in our collective endeavor to re-establish a form of self-governance, and a manifestation of we the sovereign people, that was begun on this continent over 200 years ago when those people were inspired by the democratic forms of participatory governance that had been conducted by the Hau de no sau nee (A Basic Call to Consciousness – traditional Six nations council at Onondaga), since before Columbus bumped into the Bahama Islands and mistook the Arawak people for “Indians.”





  • plutocracy, n. 1. government by the wealthy 2. a government or state in which the wealthy rule 3.a group of wealthy people who control or influence a government 4.a controlling class of rich men – plutocrat.
  • plutocrat, n. 1. a member of a wealthy ruling class; hence, 2. a person whose wealth gives him control or great influence. 3. [Colloq.], any wealthy person







California State Constitution of 1879


The Struggle for Democracy

How Corporate Personhood Threatens Democracy

When Corporations Wield the Constitution – CELDF

Corporations: Outline of History, Resistance, Law

Richard Grossman

Ward Morehouse

Fixing America: Breaking the Stranglehold of Corporate Rule, Big ..

In Memoriam: Richard Grossman 1943-2011

Links / Articles

Transcript: “Revoking The Corporation”, a discussion w/R. Grossman …

rat haus reality press

Citizens United, June 5th, and Money, Money, Money … – Shadowproof

Corporations and the Constitution | Constitutional Accountability Center

Corporations v. Persons

The United States Isn’t a Country — It’s a Corporation!

The East India Company: How a trading corporation became an …

Reclaiming Liberty


Citizens Over Corporations

WE are ALL Corpses in The CORPORATION

Big Body Dossiers: Citizenship & the Charter of Incorporation

28 U.S. Code § 3002 – Definitions | US Law | LII / Legal Information ..

The Act of 1871: The “United States” Is a Corporation

District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

Jan. 17, 1893 | Hawaiian Monarchy Overthrown by America-Backed …

Mapped: The 7 Governments the U.S. Has Overthrown – Foreign Policy

Why is that the word ‘democracy’ doesn’t appear in the US ..

Economy: There is no alternative (TINA) is back – BBC News

Postcolonial Studies and …

Hau de no sau nee Address to the Western World, Geneva, 1977

A Basic Call to Consciousness: The Hau de no sau nee Address to the …

The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism

Inspector Lohmann: On Creating & Destroying Monster Corpses

Corporate Fascism

A Message From Us Rich Plutocrats To All You Little People …

Plutocracy in America

British East India Company

The East India Company: The original corporate raiders | William …

The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats – POLITICO Magazine

5 signs America is devolving into a plutocracy

Plutocrats vs. Populists – The New York Times

The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism

Governance conflicts for …

Ending the Wall Street Walk

Corporate Governance Law

Corporate Governance Resources – Marathon Oil Corporation

Antimatter -The most EXPENSIVE Material in the world


, , , , , , , ,

One gram of Antimatter cost about $62.5 trillion making it the world most expensive material. To make just 1 gram of Antimatter, all of mankind will have to work for about a year without rest. NASA estimated that 1 gram of antimatter would cost $62.5 trillion, but today it cost $90 trillion.

What Is Antimatter?

Everyone knows that the whole world is made of matter, the stars the planets, water, rocks, me and you, we are all made of matter. But what’s antimatter? Antimatter is a material composed of antiparticles. Every particle we know has an antiparticle that is identical to its particle but with the opposite charge. That means an antiproton, is the antiparticle of the proton, and the positron or antielectron is the antiparticle of the electron, and so on … Since matter and antimatter have opposite charge, the antielectron would be positively charged because the electron is negatively charged, and the same for all particles, proton is positive while antiproton is negative.

What happen when matter and antimatter meet?

Let’s simplify it to basic mathematics. The equation x2 = 4 has two solutions: +2 and -2, and when they meet they disappear leaving a 0. The same is for matter and antimatter, they have the same mass and the same properties but with different charges, and when they meet they annihilate leaving a burst of light caused by the energy of E=mc2

History of Antimatter

The British physicist Paul Dirac first predicted the presence of antimatter when he was trying to combine the theory of relativity with quantum mechanics. And in August 2, 1932 Caltech physicist Carl Anderson discovered the positron, which is the antiparticle of electron (antielectron), it was the first particle of antimatter to be identified, for which he won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1936

How Carl Anderson discovered the positron?

Carl Anderson built a cloud chamber, his goal was to know the composition of cosmic rays (Cosmic rays are high-energy radiation that can produce secondary particles when it meets the earth atmosphere). So Anderson placed a magnet, to know charge of particle that pass in, and he placed a lead plate to slow down the particle that pass  through, so he was able to take a photograph of the tracks taken by cosmic ray particles. The curve of the trajectory indicated that the particle was positively charged, but it was less massive than a proton, it is positively charged but it cannot be a proton, so what is that particle? Physicists thought  they discovered a new particle, a positively charged electron and gave it the name” positron.”  But Anderson realized that the positron is the same as electron but with opposite charge, and he knew it was an antiparticle that Paul Dirac had predicted in 1931.

Why Do We Need To Create Antimatter?

Maybe you would like to create antimatter because it would make you very rich, with $90 trillion for every gram of antimatter, but scientists are creating antimatter to study it, because we won’t find antimatter around us, so we have to create it in order to study it. And of course for the many useful things antimatter can do.

Strange Uses Of Antimatter!

Antimatter have some strange uses, it could be very helpful, but it is hard to conserve a particle of antimatter, because when it will meet with its twin matter particle they will both annihilate leaving a burst of light and energy. And the challenge become harder when dealing with a ton of antimatter, because the larger the number of antimatter is, the bigger the annihilation, and the explosion could be very dangerous. Wait a second, an explosion, yes, when matter and antimatter meet they will disappear because of their opposite charge, and everything left is energy that can be used to make bombs even more dangerous than atomic bombs.

So let’s start with the uses of Antimatter: 

  1. Weapons: why would we use antimatter as a weapon? The advantage is that when matter and antimatter meets, nothing left, 100% of the collision goes into energy this means that the whole sum of their mass energy equivalent (E = mc2) is released as energy, compared to most efficient fusion weapons they only release 7-10% of energy, so antimatter is the big deal. Thus 1 gram of antimatter reacting with 1 gram of matter, produce the energy of three times the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The U.S. Air Force started to study the physics of antimatter in the Cold War, and maybe planning to use antimatter as a destructive weapon in the future.
  2. Medical: antimatter can be used for bad things like war but it can also cure cancer. The reaction of matter and antimatter is used as a medicine, specifically in Positron emission tomography (PET).
  3. Fuel : Antimatter could be used to fuel rockets for  interstellar travel , because the energy density of antimatter is very higher than ordinary fuel . That means that the first human to land on mars could be on an spaceship powered by antimatter.

How To Create Antimatter?

Based on E=mc2 it would need 25 million billion kWh to make only one gram of antimatter, so in the whole history of CERN‘s antimatter it only made less than 10 nanograms. Antimatter is the most expensive material in the world because it need  lot of energy to be created and a lot of work, as said before all of mankind will have to work for about a year without rest to make 1 gram of antimatter.

Scientists create antimatter by transforming energy into mass. They put a lot of energy into a very small space, matter-antimatter pairs are produced, each particle and it’s antiparticle are created into pairs, like proton–antiproton pair. What if you want to create a specific particle-antiparticle pair, like proton-antiproton or electron-positron? The energy you put into that small space should be equivalent to the mass of the particle you want to create, so if you want to create proton-antiproton pairs you have to put more energy than if you want to create electron-positron pairs, because protons are heavier than electron. After creating the particle-antiparticle scientists at the laboratory separate the matter from the antimatter using magnetic fields and take 1 antiproton particle and 1 positron (antielectron) particle, they combine them to make 1 antihydrogen atoms.

The Only Place Where Antimatter Would Live!

It is very hard to trap a single particle of antimatter, thus, scientists are still doing research to find a new technique to trap antimatter for a longer time, but for now here is how they conserve it:

Antimatter may be very useful in the future, for fueling spaceships and curing cancer, but antimatter can be used as a destructive weapon as making bombs with antimatter-matter reaction, and you would know from my previous posts that when we create antimatter it will annihilate in a tiny fraction of seconds leaving energy and a burst of light, because the whole universe we live in is made of matter, and when matter and antimatter meets they will disappear because they have opposite charge (+ and – is neutral thus a zero), so why would we spend $62.5 trillion on 1 gram of something that will disappear in the moment it is created? In fact, we can trap antimatter and conserve it for a couple of seconds before it annihilate with ordinary matter, but this is done in large laboratories like CERN. It is hard to keep something away from matter, when everything is made of matter, thus you cannot trap the antimatter particle in a fancy container, you can’t let the antimatter particle touch the air, because air is made of matter. So how to keep that antimatter particle away from matter? Scientists used a magnetic field to hold the antimatter particle and trap it, it’s energy that trap the antimatter we conserve in a magnetic bottle that is shaped like a bathtub. On 26 April 2011 ALPHA was able to trap 309 anti-hydrogen atoms for 16 minutes, but the good news is that it is getting better with technology development and new techniques.

Artistic representation of ALPHA magnetic trap













Antimatter | CERN

The five greatest mysteries of antimatter | New Scientist

Origins: CERN: Ideas: Antimatter | Exploratorium

Institute of Physics

What is Antimatter? – YouTube

Ten things you might not know about antimatter

Proton Antiproton Pair Production in Two Photon Collisions

The Spectrum of Riemannium

Antiproton-Proton Annihilation into Electron-Positron Pairs and …


About the creation of proton–antiproton pair at electron–positron …

Ask Ethan: What’s So ‘Anti’ About Antimatter?

100 Petawatt lasers could generate antimatter from vacuum and …

Generating abundant matter and antimatter will become easy with …

Waves & Whirlpools: on Energy, Structure, Matter, & Antimatter (Part III)

Superpowered Chinese Lasers Could Soon Rip Open Raw Vacuum

Particles, Antiparticles & Photons – electron, positron, proton ..

Antiparticle | physics

The Positron Is The Antiparticle Of The Electron, …

Particles and Antiparticles – Science

What are anti-particles? | Of Particular Significance

Radioactivity : Positron

CERN physicists trap antihydrogen atoms for more than 16 minutes

Storing antimatter | CERN

Carl Anderson discovers the positron | CERN timelines

Still making tracks: Eighty years of the positron | CERN

Physicist finds mysterious anti-electron clouds inside thunderstorm

Antimatter weapons

Antimatter Bomb: Could We Use Antimatter to Make an Explosive

antimatter bombs? | New Scientist

Will Antimatter Destroy the World? – Live Science

The Antimatter Bomb: Only Weapon More Powerful Than A Nuke

Angels & Demons’ Antimatter Bombs – for Real? | WIRED

Antimatter weapon – IPFS

Scientists ‘bottle’ mysterious substance antimatter used as a weapon …

Exotic Weapons – Atomic Rockets

Stockpiles of the superpowers

19 Of The Most Expensive Substances In The World – Business Insider


Antimatter | The most valuable substances in the world by weight

These 10 materials are the most expensive in the world – India Today

Expensive Materials in the World – Some Interesting Facts

Scientists create world’s most expensive material, valued at $145 …

Antimatter ! And how to …


12 Immutable Universal Laws – Laws of the Universe

Universal law


Antimatter The most EXPENSIVE Material in the world, YouTube





The Pentagons Defense Logistics Agency has lost track of where it spent over $800 million of taxpayers dollars


, , , , , ,

A damning outside review finds that the Defense Logistics Agency has lost track of where it spent the money. Just like they lost Trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One of the Pentagon’s largest agencies can’t account for hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of spending, a leading accounting firm says in an internal audit obtained by POLITICO that arrives just as President Donald Trump is proposing a boost in the military budget.

Ernst & Young found that the Defense Logistics Agency failed to properly document more than $800 million in construction projects, just one of a series of examples where it lacks a paper trail for millions of dollars in property and equipment. Across the board, its financial management is so weak that its leaders and oversight bodies have no reliable way to track the huge sums it’s responsible for, the firm warned in its initial audit of the massive Pentagon purchasing agent.

The audit raises new questions about whether the Defense Department can responsibly manage its $700 billion annual budget — let alone the additional billions that Trump plans to propose this month. The department has never undergone a full audit despite a congressional mandate — and to some lawmakers, the messy state of the Defense Logistics Agency’s books indicates one may never even be possible.

“If you can’t follow the money, you aren’t going to be able to do an audit,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican and senior member of the Budget and Finance committees, who has pushed successive administrations to clean up the Pentagon’s notoriously wasteful and disorganized accounting system.

The $40 billion-a-year logistics agency is a test case in how unachievable that task may be. The DLA serves as the Walmart of the military, with 25,000 employees who process roughly 100,000 orders a day on behalf of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and a host of other federal agencies — for everything from poultry to pharmaceuticals, precious metals and aircraft parts.

But as the auditors found, the agency often has little solid evidence for where much of that money is going. That bodes ill for ever getting a handle on spending at the Defense Department as a whole, which has a combined $2.2 trillion in assets.

In one part of the audit, completed in mid-December, Ernst & Young found that misstatements in the agency’s books totaled at least $465 million for construction projects it financed for the Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies. For construction projects designated as still “in progress,” meanwhile, it didn’t have sufficient documentation — or any documentation at all — for another $384 million worth of spending.

The agency also couldn’t produce supporting evidence for many items that are documented in some form — including records for $100 million worth of assets in the computer systems that conduct the agency’s day-to-day business.

“The documentation, such as the evidence demonstrating that the asset was tested and accepted, is not retained or available,” it said.

The report, which covers the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2016, also found that $46 million in computer assets were “inappropriately recorded” as belonging to the Defense Logistics Agency. It also warned that the agency cannot reconcile balances from its general ledger with the Treasury Department.

The agency maintains it will overcome its many hurdles to ultimately get a clean audit.

“The initial audit has provided us with a valuable independent view of our current financial operations,” Army Lt. Gen. Darrell Williams, the agency’s director, wrote in response to Ernst & Young’s findings. “We are committed to resolving the material weaknesses and strengthening internal controls around DLA’s operations.”

In a statement to Politico, the agency also maintained it was not surprised by the conclusions.

Image result for Pentagon's Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)

“DLA is the first of its size and complexity in the Department of Defense to undergo an audit so we did not anticipate achieving a ‘clean’ audit opinion in the initial cycles,” it explained. “The key is to use auditor feedback to focus our remediation efforts and corrective action plans, and maximize the value from the audits. That’s what we’re doing now.”

Indeed, the Trump administration insists it can accomplish what previous ones could not.

“Beginning in 2018, our audits will occur annually, with reports issued Nov. 15,” the Pentagon’s top budget official, David Norquist, told Congress last month.

That Pentagon-wide effort, which will require an army of about 1,200 auditors across the department, will also be expensive — to the tune of nearly $1 billion.

Norquist said it will cost an estimated $367 million to carry out the audits — including the cost of hiring independent accounting firms like Ernst & Young — and an additional $551 million to go back and fix broken accounting systems that are crucial to better financial management.

“It is important that the Congress and the American people have confidence in DoD’s management of every taxpayer dollar,” Norquist said.

But there is little evidence the logistics arm of the military will be able to account for what it has spent anytime soon.

“Ernst & Young could not obtain sufficient, competent evidential matter to support the reported amounts within the DLA financial statements,” the Pentagon’s inspector general, the internal watchdog that ordered the outside review, concluded in issuing the report to DLA.

The accounting firm itself went further, asserting that the gaping holes uncovered in bookkeeping procedures and oversight strongly suggest there are more.

“We cannot determine the effect of the lack of sufficient appropriate audit evidence on DLA’s financial statements as a whole,” its report concludes.

A spokeswoman for Ernst & Young declined to respond to questions, referring to the Pentagon.

Grassley — who was fiercely critical when a clean audit opinion of the Marine Corps had to be pulled in 2015 for “bogus conclusions” — has repeatedly charged that “keeping track of the people’s money may not be in the Pentagon’s DNA.”

He remains deeply doubtful about the prospects going forward given what is being uncovered.

“I think the odds of a successful DoD audit down the road are zero,” Grassley said in an interview. “The feeder systems can’t provide data. They are doomed to failure before they ever get started.”

But he said he supports the continuing effort even if a full, clean audit of the Pentagon can never be done. It is widely viewed as the only way to improve the management of such huge sums of taxpayer dollars.

“Each audit report will help DLA build a better financial reporting foundation and provide a stepping stone towards a clean audit opinion of our financial statements,” the agency maintains. “The findings also improve our internal controls, which helps to improve the quality of cost and logistics data used for decision-making.”

I’d be surprised if the true figure for lost funds are not in the hundreds of billions of dollars. When it comes to the Army, there is no ceiling for funds so it all becomes like using monopoly money.







Defense Logistics Agency

Financial Statement Audit Readiness |

Department of Defense |

GAO-17-283R, Financial Audit: Fiscal Years 2016 and 2015 …

Financial Statement Audit Readiness |

The Nation’s Combat Logistics Support Agency


‘How do you buy $7 billion of stuff you don’t need?’

Defense Logistics Agency > DispositionServices > Offers ..

Defense – LibGuides – Youngstown State University

Government Documents


Pentagon agency can’t account for hundreds of millions in spending ..

Is it a headquarters if it does real work? Why not all Defense overhead …

NTIS | Home

The Full Text of the Nunes Memo


, , , , , , , , , ,

– Photo: House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes briefs reporters at the U.S. Capitol in Washington.

On Friday, the House Intelligence Committee, which is chaired by Republican Representative Devin Nunes, released a four-page memo alleging surveillance abuses by the FBI. Earlier this week, Republicans on the committee voted to make the document public. The classified document has drawn criticism from Democratic lawmakers, who argue it is misleading, as well as from law enforcement officials. In a rare statement, the FBI warned against the document’s release, saying it had “grave concerns” about its accuracy. Despite pushback from officials, the White House approved the release of the memo Friday. Below, read the memo in full.

January 18, 2018

To: HPSCI Majority Members

From: HPSCI Majority Staff

Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation


This memorandum provides Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.

Investigation UpdateOn October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA probable cause order (not under Title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. Page is a U.S. citizen who served as a volunteer advisor to the Trump presidential campaign. Consistent with requirements under FISA, the application had to be first certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI. It then required the approval of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division.

The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA renewals from the FISC. As required by statute (50 U.S.C. §,1805(d)(l)), a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the FISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Then-DAG Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ.

Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the FISC are classified. As such, the public’s confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court’s ability to hold the government to the highest standard—particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the FISC’s rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government’s production to the court of all material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant information was omitted.

1) The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of—and paid by—the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.

2) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News—and several other outlets—in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele’s initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.

a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations—an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn. Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September—before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October—but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.b) Steele’s numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling—maintaining confidentiality—and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI.

3) Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” This clear evidence of Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files—but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.

a) During this same time period, Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.4) According to the head of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was—according to his June 2017 testimony—“salacious and unverified.” While the FISA application relied on Steele’s past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.

5) The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel’s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election.








Nunes memo

The Atlantic

Nunes memo ‘a political hit job on FBI’ in service of Trump, top …

What is the Devin Nunes memo about and how does it affect Trump ..

Democratic rebuttal calls Nunes memo ‘deliberately misleading’

The Real Damage of the Nunes Memo

Russia probe, backfires on Trump and GOP

FISA memo: Steele fired as an FBI source for breaking …

The memo’s description of a supposedly key news report is wrong

GOP-Nunes memo released alleging FBI cover-up








Nunes memo

The Atlantic

Nunes memo ‘a political hit job on FBI’ in service of Trump, top ..

The Real Damage of the Nunes Memo

House Republicans Release Secret Memo Accusing Russia …

The Real Aim of the Nunes Memo Is the Mueller Investigation

Memo Reveals Deep State/Media Coordination: Yahoo! News Article .