text:
Technology|Killer Robots Aren't Regulated. Yet.
https://nyti.ms/2PfpUke
Killer Robots Aren't Regulated. Yet.
"Killing in the Age of Algorithms" is a New York Times documentary examining the future of artificial intelligence and warfare.
A.I. Is Making It Easier to Kill (You). Here's How.
A tank that drives itself. A drone that picks its own targets. A machine gun with facial-recognition software. Sound like science fiction? Weapons powered by artificial intelligence are already here.
I love that I can unlock my phone with my face, and that Google can predict what I'm thinking. And that Amazon knows exactly what I need. It's great that I don't have to hail a cab or go to the grocery store. Actually, I hope I never have to drive again or navigate or use cash or clean or cook or work or learn. But what if all this technology was trying to kill me? The same technology that is making your life easier is being weaponized. That feature that unlocks your phone with your face, here it is attached to a self-learning machine gun. It's manufacturer, Kalashnikov, made this video to show the gun using object-recognition software to identify targets. They say it gets more accurate the more you use it. That drone advertised to get awesome snowboarding shots, here's one that doesn't require a pilot. This ad shows it with a high-explosive warhead. It hangs out in the sky, until it finds an enemy radar system, then crashes headfirst into it. Oh, and that driverless car you thought was so cool, well, here it is in tank form at a Russian arms fair. It's called the T-14. Dmitry, here, says he sells them to the Russian government. That contract is part of a trend that's changing the way wars are waged. Like all good stories, this one starts at a Russian arms fair. We're a few hours outside of Moscow. Everyone from government officials to gun enthusiasts have come here to see the latest weapons. It's a family affair. Buyers want to know how the 21st-century technology boom can give their armies a strategic advantage. They want to know: Can technology make war safer? But some fear giving weapons too much power because it brings us closer to machines that could go out and kill on their own. They say, we might not be able to control weapons like these, weapons loaded with artificial intelligence. "So artificial intelligence is a study of how to make machines behave intelligently, which means acting in a way that will achieve the objectives that they've been given. And recently, I've become concerned about the use of A.I. to kill people." Stuart Russell. He was an early pioneer in artificial intelligence. He's also been warning people about its potential danger for years. "So a killer robot is something that locates, selects and attacks human targets." Stuart isn't so worried about robots like this. We're still pretty far from the "Terminator." But Stuart says we're not as far from something like this bee-sized drone. He imagined one, and made a movie that he hopes will freak you out. In Stuart's movie, we see swarms of them armed with explosives set loose on their targets. "The main issue is you're creating a class of weapons of mass destruction, which can kill millions of people, just like a nuclear weapon. But in fact, it's much easier to build, much cheaper, much more scalable, in that you can use 1 or 10 or 100 or 1,000 or 10,000. Whereas with a nuclear weapon, it's sort of all or nothing. It doesn't destroy the city and the country that you're attacking. It just kills all the people you want to kill, all males between 12 and 60 or all males wearing a yarmulke in Israel." The weapon Stuart is describing is terrifying, if it works perfectly. With the current state of tech, many experts say it wouldn't, but that could be even scarier. "The way we think about A.I. is we build a machine and we put the objective into the machine. And the machine pursues the objective. So you put in the objective of 'find a cure for cancer as quickly as possible.' Sounds great, right? O.K. Well, probably the fastest way to do that is to induce tumors in the entire human population, and then try millions of different treatments simultaneously. Then, that's the quickest way to find a cure. That's not what you meant, but that's what you asked for. So we call this the King Midas Problem. King Midas said, 'I want everything I touch to turn to gold.' And he got his wish. And the, his food turned to gold, and his drink turned to gold and his family turned to gold. He died in misery and starvation. You know, this is a very old story. We are unable to correctly specify the objective." Machines will always be limited by the minds of those who made them. We aren't perfect. And neither is our A.I. Facial recognition software has had trouble with dark skin. Self-driving vehicles still need good weather and calm streets to work safely. We don't know how long it will take for researchers to create weapons with that kind of flexibility. But behind closed doors, defense labs are working on it and they're not working alone. "Militaries don't have to invent A.I. It's already being built — it's being driven by major tech companies out in the commercial sector." Paul Scharre, here, led a Department of Defense working group that helped establish D.O.D. policies on A.I. and weapons systems for the U.S. military. "The reality is all of the technology to put this together, to build weapons that can go out on the road, make their own decisions to kill human beings, exists today." But it's one thing to assemble a weapon in a lab, and another to have it work in any environment. And war is messy. "Machines are not really at a point today where they're capable of flexibly adapting to novel situations. And that's a major vulnerability in war." Governments around the world see potential advantages in these weapons. After all, human soldiers — they get tired, emotional. They miss targets. Humans get traumatized. Machines do not. They can react at machine speed. If a missile was coming at you, how quickly would you want to know? Autonomous weapons could save lives. "The same technology that will help self-driving cars avoid pedestrians could be used to target civilians or avoid them, intentionally." The problem is we've gotten this wrong before. "To really understand the growing trends of automation in weapons that have been growing for decades, you have to go all the way back to the American Civil War, to the Gatling Gun. How do I describe a Gatling Gun? Do I have to describe it? Could you guys show a picture of it? Richard Gatling was looking at all of the horrors that were coming back from the Civil War. And he wanted to find a way to make war more humane, to reduce the number of people that are needed on the battlefield. Wouldn't that be amazing?" Four people operating Gatling's gun could fire the equivalent of 100 soldiers. Far less people would be needed on the battlefield. It was the precursor to the machine gun. And it was born with the intention to save lives, at least for the army that had the gun. Of course — "The reality was far, far different. Gatling's invention had the very opposite effect of what he intended. And then it magnified the killing and destruction on the battlefield, by orders of magnitude." Gatling was wrong. Automating weapons didn't save lives. And Dmitry, here, is saying something eerily familiar over 150 years later. And it wasn't just Gatling. Revolutions of warfare have typically not gone well. "Before we ever developed usable biological weapons, the biologists said, stop doing this." "All civilized countries today have given up chemical weapons as tools of warfare, but we see that they are still used by some rogue nations." And then, there are nuclear weapons. Even with multiple treaties in place to police their use, the threat of nuclear obliteration remains a global anxiety. "Now, I am become death, a destroyer of worlds." "Early in the war in Afghanistan, I was part of a Ranger sniper team that was sent out to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to watch infiltration routes for foreign fighters coming across the border. We drove all night, and then began to hike up a steep rocky mountain under cover of darkness. From our position on the ridgeline, we could see for dozens of miles in every direction. And by the time the sun came up, we looked down at this compound beneath us. We were basically in someone's backyard. We were certain that people would be coming to take a closer look at us. What I didn't anticipate was that they sent a little girl to scout out our position. She wasn't particularly sneaky, to be honest. She was reporting back our position, and probably how many of us there were. We watched her and she watched us. And then, she left. And pretty soon after, the Taliban fighters came. The gunfight that ensued brought out the whole village. And we knew that many, many more fighters would be coming before long. So we had to leave that position as we were compromised. Later on in the day, we talked about what would we do in a similar situation to that? You know, one of the things that never came up was the idea of shooting this little girl. But here's the thing: She was a valid enemy combatant, and killing her would've been lawful. So if someone deployed an autonomous weapon, a robot that was designed to perfectly follow the laws of war, it would've killed this little girl in that situation. Now, I think that would've been wrong, maybe not legally, but morally. But how would a robot know the difference between what's legal and what's right?" With so much at stake, you'd think a debate would be happening. Well, there is. It's just that technology moves at a different pace than diplomacy. "We will continue our discussion on Agenda Item 6A, characterisation of the systems under consideration in order to promote a common understanding on concepts and characteristics relevant to the objectives and purposes of the convention." "One of the things I learned very quickly was that the official proceedings at the United Nations appear to be completely meaningless." "Thank you, Mr. Chairperson —" "Support continued deliberations —" "We need a normative framework —" "Difference in interpretation —" "The importance of a multi-disciplinary —" "Down the rabbit hole of endless discussions on a subject of —" "Thank you, Mr. President. We are not in a position to make a declaration right now." "Good morning." "How are you?" "I'm good. How are you feeling?" "Oh, I'm fine, except for the governments, you know, their do-nothing attitude." "We'd like to hear about that." Jody Williams, here, won a Nobel Peace Prize for her work banning land mines. Now, she's part of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. "Academics attacked the campaign in the beginning years, you know, saying robotics and A.I. are inevitable. Maybe they are, but applying them to killing human beings on their own is not inevitable, unless you do nothing. And we refuse to do nothing." Today, the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots is staging a protest outside of the U.N. The group is made up of activists, nonprofits, and civil society organizations. The campaign's goal? A ban on all weapons that can target and kill on their own. So far, 30 countries have joined them in supporting a ban, as well as 100 nongovernmental organizations, the European Parliament, 21 Nobel laureates, and leading scientists, like Stephen Hawking, Noam Chomsky and Elon Musk, as well as Stuart Russell, and more than 4,500 other A.I. researchers. Protester: "Everyone, you can get up now." "Yay." [cheering] Jody's here with Mary Wareham. "So this is the sixth time that governments have come together since 2014 to talk about what they call lethal autonomous weapons systems." We're going to apologize in advance for the obtuse use of acronyms in this portion of the video. "We're not trying to prohibit the use of artificial intelligence. You know, it can be beneficial to humanity. We're pro-robots. We're just anti-killer robots, anti-fully autonomous weapons." "The C.C.W., the forum of the Convention for Conventional Weapons, — which actually has a name this long, and I can never remember it — operates by consensus. Which means you either negotiate the lowest common denominator, which means doing pretty much nothing, or if the entire room of diplomats wants to move forward with a treaty, for example, and one state says no, then it goes nowhere. And that's really a dictatorship by one." "Once a bullet leaves a gun, the rifleman ceases to have control over that bullet. Autonomy is a way of extending human control beyond the time a munition is deployed." That's the United States arguing that A.I. will save lives. And remember, without their support, any kind of regulation can't move forward. "Using algorithm and software to determine and engage target reduces people to objects." "In the U.S. perspective, there is nothing intrinsically valuable about manually operating a weapon system, as opposed to operating it with an autonomous function." The United States isn't alone. The countries working hardest to build autonomous weapons insist we can't regulate what doesn't exist yet. And at the same time, their militaries are developing these weapons right now. "The line between a semi-autonomous weapon that has a human in control, and a fully autonomous weapon could simply be a software patch." "Indeed, some may say it is similar to trying to discuss the internet in the '80s, '70s, '60s at this stage." "It is not necessary or desirable at this time, to define laws." "This so-called difficulty of definitions continues to be willful obfuscation." The truth is, whether they exist or not just depends on how you define them. We don't have weapons with artificial general intelligence or A.I. that's as smart as humans. But we do already have weapons that can use A.I. to search, select and engage targets in specific situations. And the technology is only getting better. "So it could easily take another 10 years before they even agree on a definition of what an autonomous weapon is. And by that time, it will be too late. I think for some countries, that's the point." In the ongoing race between technology and diplomacy, technology is winning because in this race, the dual-use nature of technology means software being designed to make your life easier clearly has military applications. "The A.I. community, myself included, we were sort of asleep at the wheel for a long time. And we weren't really thinking about the ways that it could be misused." Whether we like it or not, we've entered the age of the algorithm. And A.I. is changing our place on the battlefield. Is it possible the next generation of soldiers won't have to kill? "Look, it's an appealing idea that, someday, robots will just fight other robots and no one will get hurt. I don't think that's realistic." "Unfortunately, if it worked like that, we could just say, 'Well, why don't we just play baseball and decide who wins or Tiddlywinks?' No country is going to surrender until the costs that they've incurred are unbearable. So even if your robots are defeated, the next stage is that their robots will start killing your people." "Because the unfortunate reality is that wars will only end when people die."
A tank that drives itself. A drone that picks its own targets. A machine gun with facial-recognition software. Sound like science fiction? Weapons powered by artificial intelligence are already here.CreditCredit...Jonah M. Kessel/The New York Times
By Jonah M. Kessel
Times reporters traveled to Russia, Switzerland, California and Washington, D.C., talking to experts in the commercial tech, military and A.I. communities. Below are some key points and analysis, along with extras from the documentary.
Do I need to worry about a Terminator knocking on my door?
Most experts say you can rest easy, for now. Weapons that can operate like human soldiers are not something they see in our immediate future. Although there are varying opinions, most agree we are far from achieving artificial general intelligence, or A.G.I., that would allow for Terminators with the kind of flexibility necessary to be effective on today's complex battlefield.
However, Stuart J. Russell, a professor of computer science at the University of California, Berkeley, who wrote an influential textbook on artificial intelligence, says achieving A.G.I. that is as smart as humans is inevitable.
There are many weapons systems that use artificial intelligence. But instead of thinking about Terminators, it might be better to think about software transforming the tech we already have.
There are weapons that use artificial intelligence in active use today, including some that can search, select and engage targets on their own, attributes often associated with defining what constitutes a lethal autonomous weapon system (a.k.a. a killer robot).
In his book "Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War," the Army Ranger turned policy analyst Paul Scharre explained, "More than 30 nations already have defensive supervised autonomous weapons for situations in which the speed of engagement is too fast for humans to respond."
Perhaps the best known of these weapons is the Israel Aerospace Industries Harpy, an armed drone that can hang out high in the skies surveying large areas of land until it detects an enemy radar signal, at which point it crashes into the source of the radar, destroying both itself and the target.
The weapon needs no specific target to be launched, and a human is not necessary to its lethal decision making. It has been sold to Chile, China, India, South Korea and Turkey, Mr. Scharre said, and the Chinese are reported to have reverse-engineered their own variant.
"We call them precursors," Mary Wareham, advocacy director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch, said in an interview between meetings at the United Nations in Geneva. "We're not quite there yet, but we are coming ever closer."
So when will more advanced lethal autonomous weapons systems be upon us?
"I think we're talking more about years not decades," she said.
But for the moment, most weapons that use A.I. have a narrow field of use and aren't flexible. They can't adapt to different situations.
"One of the things that's hard to understand unless you've been there is just the messiness and confusion of modern warfare," Mr. Scharre said in an interview.
"In all of those firefights," he explained, "there was never a point where I could very clearly say that it was 100 percent that the person I was looking at down the scope of my rifle was definitely a combatant.
"Soldiers are constantly trying to gauge — is this person a threat? How close can they get to me? If I tell them to stop, does that mean that they didn't hear me or they didn't understand? Maybe they're too frightened to react? Maybe they're not thinking? Or maybe they're a suicide bomber and they're trying to kill me and my teammates."
Mr. Scharre added, "Those can be very challenging environments for robots that have algorithms they have to follow to be able to make clear and correct decisions."
Although current A.I. is relatively brittle, that isn't stopping militaries from incorporating it into their robots. In his book, which was published in 2018, Mr. Scharre wrote that at least 16 countries had armed drones, adding that more than a dozen others were working on them.
What's Driving the Boom?
You, kind of. Companies are often looking to sell us stuff that we didn't know we needed. And now, some of that same technology is making its way into our weapons.
"A.I. technology is not being driven by militaries, it's being driven by major tech companies out of the commercial sector," Mr. Scharre said. "The same technology that will save civilian lives on the roads and make self-driving cars safer could also save civilian lives in combat and make war more precise and more humane."
The dual-use nature of technology is at the heart of the boom.
"It's a global A.I. revolution; it's one that's very diffuse," he said. "And while there's only a couple of companies that are actually leading the charge here, once the technology is built, it's really easy for it to proliferate pretty widely and be used by others."
If A.G.I. is inevitable, as Dr. Russell says, should we regulate autonomous weapons before they exist?
That's what the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots is trying to achieve at the United Nations. The campaign is made up of nonprofits, civil society organizations and activists. They are calling for a ban on fully autonomous weapons.
So far, 30 countries have joined them in supporting such a ban, as well as 100 nongovernmental organizations, the European Parliament, 21 Nobel laureates and more than 4,500 A.I. scientists.
For many in the coalition, it is a moral issue. "When human beings decide to allow machines to target and kill, they have crossed some moral and ethical Rubicon," the Nobel Peace Prize winner Jody Williams said to a packed and polarized room of diplomats, experts and military personnel at the United Nations.
But countries like the United States, Britain, Russia, China and Israel argue that we can't regulate something that does not exist yet, effectively blocking any kind of regulation by the United Nations that requires consensus among member states to create a treaty.
Is it actually possible to ban a weapon before it exists?
Yes, there is precedent for a pre-emptive ban. In 1995, the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons was passed, prohibiting militaries from using lasers to blind their opponents. In the clip below, Dr. Russell explains how and why this unfolded.
Though his account on the origin of the ban is disputed — the International Committee of the Red Cross's "Blinding Laser Weapons: Questions and Answers" gives a variety of other explanations — a pre-emptive ban is nonetheless possible.
So what about these "Slaughterbots?"
To draw people's attention to the risks of autonomous weapons, Dr. Russell published a short fictional video called "The Slaughterbots," in which bee-size drones armed with small explosives are set loose on a city.
Critics have said the video, which has been viewed more than three million times, traffics in fearmongering. In the excerpt below, Stuart defends the work.
One major worry when it comes to autonomous weapons is an imperfect weapon in the wrong hands. Would a terrorist care if a weapon hit its targets only 50 percent of the time, for instance?
"Even if a ban on autonomous weapons were successful, there will inevitably be terrorists and rogue states that don't care, and they'll build these banned weapons anyway," Mr. Scharre said. "And then what do we do? We're looking at open-source weapons that could be used and replicated by anyone for free."
I don't get it. The video seems to say lethal autonomous weapons systems both exist and don't exist. Which is it?
While we are largely talking about weapons systems of the future, this is a matter of semantics. It mostly depends on how you define them. And because governments can't agree on a definition, potential regulation has slowed to a crawl. As Mr. Scharre put it in his book:
"When the U.K. government uses the term 'autonomous systems,' they are describing systems with humans-level intelligence that are more analogous to the 'general A.I.' described by the U.S. deputy defense secretary [Bob] Work. The effect of this definition is to shift the debate on autonomous weapons to far-off future systems and away from potential near-term weapon systems that may search for, select, and engage targets on their own — what others might call 'autonomous weapons.'"
Whether or not fully autonomous weapons exist today, the countries that most vocally oppose regulation are the ones most heavily invested in such technologies — the United States among them.
Would the U.S. use a weapon like this?
While there is an aversion in the United States military to giving machines too much autonomy, that doesn't mean it isn't experimenting.
At a military camp in California, we watched a drone-swarm experiment. Dozens of small plastic foam drones were launched into the air simulating what the future of drone warfare might look like. They weren't as slick as the Slaughterbots. But their mere existence made Dr. Russell's dystopian vision a bit more plausible.
After the demonstration, we asked Ray Buettner, an associate professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., what it would take for the United States to deploy an autonomous weapon.
"If you run into a circumstance where the American public sees hundreds or thousands of American soldiers being killed by tens of thousands of enemy machines, I think you'll find that people pass that moral line pretty quickly," he said.


Can't find a necklace you are looking for? Call us at 888.321.9477 for assistance.
A necklace can be the first thing a person sees when they look at you. Necklaces sit at the center of your chest, drawing the eye in and making a statement. The right necklace can bring together an entire outfit, or hold something close to your heart in the form of a locket. As human beings, we love to decorate our bodies. Even the Paleolithic people wore necklaces. Ancient peoples would string beads and motifs inlaid with gemstones, silver, bronze, and gold. (more...) Today, we have a hugely vast selection of necklace styles. At Sands Point Shop, you can find such an expansive variety it will be hard to choose just one! Choose from long or short chains or cables, holding pendants, medallions, amulets, and many more. Each necklace has its own distinct character. You may choose a chunky, colorful station necklace; a long, trendy, cross pendant; or perhaps a small, delicate strand with a topaz charm. Every necklace is made by world-renowned designers such as ALOR, Temple St. Clair, Links of London, House of Harlow 1960, or Thistle & Bee.


text:
How GMO Farming and Food Is Making Our Gut Flora UNFRIENDLY
Thursday, March 28th 2013 at 5:00 am
Sayer Ji, Founder
Two studies published in the past six months reveal a disturbing finding: glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup® appear to suppress the growth of beneficial gut bacteria, leading to the overgrowth of extremely pathogenic bacteria.
Late last year, in an article titled Roundup Herbicide Linked to Overgrowth of Deadly Bacteria, we reported on new research indicating that glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup® may be contributing to the overgrowth of harmful bacteria, both in GM-produced food and our own bodies. By suppressing the growth of beneficial bacteria and encouraging the growth of pathogenic ones, including deadly botulism-associated Clostridum botulinum, GM agriculture may be contributing to the alarming increase, wordwide, in infectious diseases that are resistant to conventional antibiotics, such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), which the CDC's director recently termed a 'nightmare bacteria.'
GMO Herbicides May Lead To The Overgrowth of Harmful Bacteria, Including Deadly Clostridum Botulinum
Now a new study published in the journal Anaerobe titled, "Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp. On Clostridum botulinum," confirms this herbicide's ability to adversely affect gut bacteria populations (i.e. generate dysbios).[i] In an attempt to explain why Clostridum botulinum associated diseases in cattle have increased during the last 10-15 years in German cattle, researchers theorized that since normal intestinal flora is a critical factor in preventing Clostridum botulinum colonization in conditions such as infantile botulism perhaps the ingestion of strong biocides such as glyphosate found in GM cattle feed could reduce their natural, lactic acid bacteria dependent immune defenses as pathogenic microbes.
They reported on the toxicity of glyphosate to Enteroccocus, the most prevalent lactic acid bacteria species in the gastrointestinal tract of cattle, and concluded "Ingestion of this herbicide could be a significant predisposing factor that is associated with the increase in C. botulinum mediated diseases in cattle."
Of course, the implications of this finding extend beyond the health of cattle or poultry. The majority of American consumers who don't even have the legal right to know through truthful labeling if they are eating GMOs, are consuming non-organic, Roundup Ready soy, canola, cottonseed or soy on a daily basis, and therefore are being exposed to glyphosate residues year round; additionally, animals fed Roundup sprayed GMO plants will bioaccumulate glyphosate and/or glyphosate metabolites, adding to the consumer's bodily burden of these gut flora-altering, highly toxic chemicals.
GMO Herbicides Kill More Than 'Weeds,' Are Broad-Spectrum Biocides
Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum biocide. It does not discriminate by killing only the "weeds" that compete with the genetically modified plants resistant to it. In fact, it has been found to be toxic to human DNA at concentrations 450-fold lower than presently used in agricultural applications.[ii] When combined with adjuvants and other so-called 'inactive' ingredients, the glyphosate-formulations are far more toxic than their component ingredients taken in isolation.[iii] Nor are the toxic effects limited to plants. A 2012 study published in the journal Environmental Monitoring and Assessment found that Roundup herbicide has DNA-damaging effects to fish after short-term, environmentally low concentration exposures (6.67 μg/L, or, 6.67 micrograms per Liter).[iv] For a comprehensive list of the toxic effects of Roundup and glyphosate visit our research page on the topic: Glyphosate formulations.
One of the most concerning adverse effects of glyphosate most relevant to the topic of this article is its destructive effects on the fertility of soil itself. In an earlier expose titled, Un-Earthed: Is Monsanto's Glyphosate Destroying the Soil?, concerning findings published in the journal Current Microbiology were discussed showing that Roundup® herbicide is having a negative impact on the microbiodiversity of the soil, including microorganisms of food interest, and specifically those found in raw and fermented foods.[v]
One of the key implications of this finding is that since many of the beneficial bacteria that make up the 100 trillion bacteria in our gut necessary for health come from our food, and these bacteria-rich foods nourish and help maintain the flora in our gut, the removal of key beneficial microorganisms from the soil will likely result in profoundly disrupting the bacteria-mediated infrastructure of our health.
We Must Reject GMO Farming Practices Or Face Dire Consequences
We must, of course, consider carefully the origin of our food. Conventionally produced produce and animal products are often grown or fed from farming practices that involve the use of factory-farmed manure and raw human sewage. Animal and human excreta today is exceedingly toxic, and contains a wide range of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, hormones and antibiotic resistant bacteria and related pathogens that. contaminate our food and our bodies if we choose to eat it. It also causes us to employ 'food security' technologies like nuclear waste-based food irradiation and bacteriophage sprays try to disinfect inherently toxic food, only generating different and sometimes far more dangerous compounds as a result.
Instead of succumbing to the intellectually unsophisticated concept that disease is primarily caused by germs 'out there,' rather than viewing our risk of infection as primarily determined by immune susceptibility 'in here,' we must shift our understanding radically if we are to survive the wholesale destruction of our biosphere, also entirely refraining from supporting, buying, consuming food produced through GM-based farming practices. Our body is literally woven from the molecular fabric of the body of the Earth. And so, when we poison or genetically modify our environment, and we poison and genetically modify ourselves.
[i] Monika Krüger, Awad Ali Shehata, Wieland Schrödl, Arne Rodloff. Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp. on Clostridium botulinum. Anaerobe. 2013 Feb 6. Epub 2013 Feb 6. PMID: 23396248
[ii] GreenMedInfo.com, Research: Roundup Diluted by 450-Fold is Still Toxic to DNA, Feb. 15th, 2012
[iii] GreenMedInfo.com, Research: Roundup Herbicide Toxicity Vastly Underestimated, Oct. 15th, 2012
[iv] Environ Monit Assess. 2013 Apr;185(4):3201-7. doi: 10.1007/s10661-012-2783-x. Epub 2012 Jul 22.
[v] Emilie Clair, Laura Linn, Carine Travert, Caroline Amiel, Gilles-Eric Séralini, Jean-Michel Panoff.Effects of Roundup(®) and Glyphosate on Three Food Microorganisms: Geotrichum candidum, Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus. Curr Microbiol. 2012 Feb 24. Epub 2012 Feb 24. PMID: 22362186
Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.
7 Health Benefits of Bee Propolis
25 Cancer Stem Cell Killing Foods Smarter Than Chemo &...
Best Kept Secrets to Prevent, Halt, or Even Reverse Macular...
Op-Ed: Does the 2019 Coronavirus Exist?
GMO Research Center
Bacterial Infections and Mycoses
Immune Disorders: Low Immune Function
Glyphosate Toxicity
Roundup (herbicide)
Glyphosate formulations

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
(littéralement « Crépuscule des Dieux », souvent traduit en « Fin du monde ») est une série télévisée de fantasy mythique dano-norvégienne en  de 39-48 minutes créée par Adam Price et diffusée depuis le  sur la plate-forme Netflix.

Synopsis
La ville fictive norvégienne d'Edda est ternie par la pollution industrielle et le réchauffement climatique, jusqu'à ce qu'un adolescent, Magne (David Stakston), aux pouvoirs de Thor, commence à combattre ce qui risque de détruire la planète. Son frère Laurits (Jonas Strand Gravli) va s'avérer être Loki et l'employée du supermarché une Norne. Gry (Emma Bones) fait tourner la tête à Magne, mais elle lui préfère Fjor (Herman Tommeraas), fils du magnat local, que Laurits aurait aimé séduire. Légendes scandinaves et préoccupations adolescentes s'y entremêlent.

Distribution
 et  Doublage Séries Database

Acteurs principaux

Acteurs secondaires

 Benjamin Helstad : Harry / Týr

Production

Tournage

Le tournage débute en  à Odda dans le comté de Hordaland en Norvège.

Le tournage de la deuxième saison débute en .

Fiche technique

 Titre original :
 Création : Adam Price (danois)
 Casting : Ellen Michelsen
 Réalisation : Mogens Hagedorn (danois) et Jannik Johansen
 Scénario : Simen Alsvik, Emilie Lebech Kaae, Adam Price, Christian Gamst Miller-Harris, Marietta von Hausswolff von Baumgarten et Jacob Katz Hansen
 Musique : Halfdan E
 Décors : Mette Rio
 Costumes : Tanja Eleonora Spang
 Photographie : Philippe Kress
 Montage : Elin Pröjts, Lars Wissing et Mogens Hagedorn
 Production : Tanja Eleonora Spang
 Production déléguée : Adam Price et Meta Louise Foldager Sørensen
 Société de production : SAM Productions
 Société de distribution : Netflix
 Pays d'origine :  /
 Langue originale : norvégien
 Format : couleur
 Genre : drame, fantastique
 Durée : 39-46 minutes
 Date de diffusion : Monde :  sur Netflix

Épisodes

Première saison (2020)
Les six épisodes de la première saison sont diffusés le .
 Le Nouveau ()
 541 mètres ()
 Jutulheim ()
 Ginnungagap ()
 Numéro atomique 48 ()
 Oui, nous aimons ce pays ()

Deuxième saison (2021)
Les six épisodes de la deuxième saison sont diffusés le .
 Frères d'armes ()
 Où est passé la gentille vieille dame ? ()
 Le Pouvoir au peuple ()
 Dieu reste Dieu ()
 Apprend à te connaître ()
 L'amour est la seule réponse ()

Univers de la série

Personnages
 Magne Seier : l'adolescent est la réincarnation du dieu du Tonnerre, Thor.
 Laurits Seier : le demi-frère de Magne, fils de Vidar, réincarnation de Loki.
 Fjor Jutul : le « fils » de Vidar et de Rán, appartenant à la famille Jötunn de la mythologie nordique.
 Saxa Jutul : la « fille » de Vidar et de Rán, la géante (jötunn) Járnsaxa
 Gry : la jeune lycéenne, dont sont épris Magne et Fjor.
 Turid Seier : la mère de Magne et de Laurits.
 Vidar Jutul : le « père » et directeur de l'entreprise, le géant (jötunn) Fárbauti
 Rán Jutul : la « mère » et proviseur de lycée.

Animaux
 Trym : le chien de l'enfer, envoyé par Vidar qui attaque Magne dans la montagne (épisode 4), est un lévrier écossais.
 Jörmungand : le serpent géant de Midgard est un des trois enfants de Loki.

Notes et références

Voir aussi

Revue de presse
 « Casse-tête danois. », Courrier international , Courrier international S.A., Paris, , , .

Liens externes

Série télévisée créée en 2020
Série télévisée norvégienne des années 2020
Série télévisée danoise des années 2020
Série télévisée de Netflix

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


The only thing more boring than a baseball game is an article recapping that game. The Associated Press understands that, and so it has decided to change its MLB article format into an easier, faster read.
We like this idea. Surely some of the narrative will be lost with the new look, but there will always be space for capturing the drama of one of baseball's 17,938 games in other places.
The AP's new article format begins July 28.


text:
// Generated by CoffeeScript 1.4.0

(function() {
  var ASTLinter, CoffeeScript, ERROR, IGNORE, LexicalLinter, LineLinter, RULES, WARN, block_config, coffeelint, createError, defaults, extend, mergeDefaultConfig, regexes,
    __slice = [].slice,
    __indexOf = [].indexOf || function(item) { for (var i = 0, l = this.length; i < l; i++) { if (i in this && this[i] === item) return i; } return -1; };

  coffeelint = {};
  this.CoffeeScript = require('CoffeeScript');

  if (typeof exports !== "undefined" && exports !== null) {
    coffeelint = exports;
    CoffeeScript = require('coffee-script');

  } else {
    this.coffeelint = coffeelint;
    CoffeeScript = this.CoffeeScript;
  }

  coffeelint.VERSION = "0.5.4";

  ERROR = 'error';

  WARN = 'warn';

  IGNORE = 'ignore';

  RULES = {
    no_tabs: {
      level: ERROR,
      message: 'Line contains tab indentation'
    },
    no_trailing_whitespace: {
      level: ERROR,
      message: 'Line ends with trailing whitespace'
    },
    max_line_length: {
      value: 80,
      level: ERROR,
      message: 'Line exceeds maximum allowed length'
    },
    camel_case_classes: {
      level: ERROR,
      message: 'Class names should be camel cased'
    },
    indentation: {
      value: 2,
      level: ERROR,
      message: 'Line contains inconsistent indentation'
    },
    no_implicit_braces: {
      level: IGNORE,
      message: 'Implicit braces are forbidden'
    },
    no_trailing_semicolons: {
      level: ERROR,
      message: 'Line contains a trailing semicolon'
    },
    no_plusplus: {
      level: IGNORE,
      message: 'The increment and decrement operators are forbidden'
    },
    no_throwing_strings: {
      level: ERROR,
      message: 'Throwing strings is forbidden'
    },
    cyclomatic_complexity: {
      value: 10,
      level: IGNORE,
      message: 'The cyclomatic complexity is too damn high'
    },
    no_backticks: {
      level: ERROR,
      message: 'Backticks are forbidden'
    },
    line_endings: {
      level: IGNORE,
      value: 'unix',
      message: 'Line contains incorrect line endings'
    },
    no_implicit_parens: {
      level: IGNORE,
      message: 'Implicit parens are forbidden'
    },
    space_operators: {
      level: IGNORE,
      message: 'Operators must be spaced properly'
    },
    no_stand_alone_at: {
      level: IGNORE,
      message: '@ must be followed by property name, without spaces.'
    },
    coffeescript_error: {
      level: ERROR,
      message: ''
    }
  };

  regexes = {
    trailingWhitespace: /[^\s]+[\t ]+\r?$/,
    indentation: /\S/,
    camelCase: /^[A-Z][a-zA-Z\d]*$/,
    trailingSemicolon: /;\r?$/,
    configStatement: /coffeelint:\s*(disable|enable)(?:=([\w\s,]*))?/
  };

  extend = function() {
    var destination, k, source, sources, v, _i, _len;
    destination = arguments[0], sources = 2 <= arguments.length ? __slice.call(arguments, 1) : [];
    for (_i = 0, _len = sources.length; _i < _len; _i++) {
      source = sources[_i];
      for (k in source) {
        v = source[k];
        destination[k] = v;
      }
    }
    return destination;
  };

  defaults = function(source, defaults) {
    return extend({}, defaults, source);
  };

  createError = function(rule, attrs) {
    var level;
    if (attrs == null) {
      attrs = {};
    }
    level = attrs.level;
    if (level !== IGNORE && level !== WARN && level !== ERROR) {
      throw new Error("unknown level " + level);
    }
    if (level === ERROR || level === WARN) {
      attrs.rule = rule;
      return defaults(attrs, RULES[rule]);
    } else {
      return null;
    }
  };

  block_config = {
    enable: {},
    disable: {}
  };

  LineLinter = (function() {

    function LineLinter(source, config, tokensByLine) {
      this.source = source;
      this.config = config;
      this.line = null;
      this.lineNumber = 0;
      this.tokensByLine = tokensByLine;
      this.lines = this.source.split('\n');
      this.lineCount = this.lines.length;
    }

    LineLinter.prototype.lint = function() {
      var error, errors, line, lineNumber, _i, _len, _ref;
      errors = [];
      _ref = this.lines;
      for (lineNumber = _i = 0, _len = _ref.length; _i < _len; lineNumber = ++_i) {
        line = _ref[lineNumber];
        this.lineNumber = lineNumber;
        this.line = line;
        error = this.lintLine();
        if (error) {
          errors.push(error);
        }
      }
      return errors;
    };

    LineLinter.prototype.lintLine = function() {
      return this.checkTabs() || this.checkTrailingWhitespace() || this.checkLineLength() || this.checkTrailingSemicolon() || this.checkLineEndings() || this.checkComments();
    };

    LineLinter.prototype.checkTabs = function() {
      var indentation;
      indentation = this.line.split(regexes.indentation)[0];
      if (this.lineHasToken() && __indexOf.call(indentation, '\t') >= 0) {
        return this.createLineError('no_tabs');
      } else {
        return null;
      }
    };

    LineLinter.prototype.checkTrailingWhitespace = function() {
      if (regexes.trailingWhitespace.test(this.line)) {
        return this.createLineError('no_trailing_whitespace');
      } else {
        return null;
      }
    };

    LineLinter.prototype.checkLineLength = function() {
      var max, rule, _ref;
      rule = 'max_line_length';
      max = (_ref = this.config[rule]) != null ? _ref.value : void 0;
      if (max && max < this.line.length) {
        return this.createLineError(rule);
      } else {
        return null;
      }
    };

    LineLinter.prototype.checkTrailingSemicolon = function() {
      var first, hasNewLine, hasSemicolon, last, _i, _ref;
      hasSemicolon = regexes.trailingSemicolon.test(this.line);
      _ref = this.getLineTokens(), first = 2 <= _ref.length ? __slice.call(_ref, 0, _i = _ref.length - 1) : (_i = 0, []), last = _ref[_i++];
      hasNewLine = last && (last.newLine != null);
      if (hasSemicolon && !hasNewLine && this.lineHasToken()) {
        return this.createLineError('no_trailing_semicolons');
      } else {
        return null;
      }
    };

    LineLinter.prototype.checkLineEndings = function() {
      var ending, lastChar, rule, valid, _ref;
      rule = 'line_endings';
      ending = (_ref = this.config[rule]) != null ? _ref.value : void 0;
      if (!ending || this.isLastLine() || !this.line) {
        return null;
      }
      lastChar = this.line[this.line.length - 1];
      valid = (function() {
        if (ending === 'windows') {
          return lastChar === '\r';
        } else if (ending === 'unix') {
          return lastChar !== '\r';
        } else {
          throw new Error("unknown line ending type: " + ending);
        }
      })();
      if (!valid) {
        return this.createLineError(rule, {
          context: "Expected " + ending
        });
      } else {
        return null;
      }
    };

    LineLinter.prototype.checkComments = function() {
      var cmd, r, result, rules, _i, _len, _ref;
      result = regexes.configStatement.exec(this.line);
      if (result != null) {
        cmd = result[1];
        rules = [];
        if (result[2] != null) {
          _ref = result[2].split(',');
          for (_i = 0, _len = _ref.length; _i < _len; _i++) {
            r = _ref[_i];
            rules.push(r.replace(/^\s+|\s+$/g, ""));
          }
        }
        block_config[cmd][this.lineNumber] = rules;
      }
      return null;
    };

    LineLinter.prototype.createLineError = function(rule, attrs) {
      var _ref;
      if (attrs == null) {
        attrs = {};
      }
      attrs.lineNumber = this.lineNumber + 1;
      attrs.level = (_ref = this.config[rule]) != null ? _ref.level : void 0;
      return createError(rule, attrs);
    };

    LineLinter.prototype.isLastLine = function() {
      return this.lineNumber === this.lineCount - 1;
    };

    LineLinter.prototype.lineHasToken = function() {
      return this.tokensByLine[this.lineNumber] != null;
    };

    LineLinter.prototype.getLineTokens = function() {
      return this.tokensByLine[this.lineNumber] || [];
    };

    return LineLinter;

  })();

  LexicalLinter = (function() {

    function LexicalLinter(source, config) {
      this.source = source;
      this.tokens = CoffeeScript.tokens(source);
      this.config = config;
      this.i = 0;
      this.tokensByLine = {};
      this.arrayTokens = [];
      this.parenTokens = [];
      this.callTokens = [];
      this.lines = source.split('\n');
    }

    LexicalLinter.prototype.lint = function() {
      var error, errors, i, token, _i, _len, _ref;
      errors = [];
      _ref = this.tokens;
      for (i = _i = 0, _len = _ref.length; _i < _len; i = ++_i) {
        token = _ref[i];
        this.i = i;
        error = this.lintToken(token);
        if (error) {
          errors.push(error);
        }
      }
      return errors;
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.lintToken = function(token) {
      var lineNumber, type, value, _base, _ref;
      type = token[0], value = token[1], lineNumber = token[2];
      if ((_ref = (_base = this.tokensByLine)[lineNumber]) == null) {
        _base[lineNumber] = [];
      }
      this.tokensByLine[lineNumber].push(token);
      this.lineNumber = lineNumber || this.lineNumber || 0;
      switch (type) {
        case "INDENT":
          return this.lintIndentation(token);
        case "CLASS":
          return this.lintClass(token);
        case "{":
          return this.lintBrace(token);
        case "++":
        case "--":
          return this.lintIncrement(token);
        case "THROW":
          return this.lintThrow(token);
        case "[":
        case "]":
          return this.lintArray(token);
        case "(":
        case ")":
          return this.lintParens(token);
        case "JS":
          return this.lintJavascript(token);
        case "CALL_START":
        case "CALL_END":
          return this.lintCall(token);
        case "@":
          return this.lintStandaloneAt(token);
        case "+":
        case "-":
          return this.lintPlus(token);
        case "=":
        case "MATH":
        case "COMPARE":
        case "LOGIC":
          return this.lintMath(token);
        default:
          return null;
      }
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.lintArray = function(token) {
      if (token[0] === '[') {
        this.arrayTokens.push(token);
      } else if (token[0] === ']') {
        this.arrayTokens.pop();
      }
      return null;
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.lintParens = function(token) {
      var i, n1, n2, p1;
      if (token[0] === '(') {
        p1 = this.peek(-1);
        n1 = this.peek(1);
        n2 = this.peek(2);
        i = n1 && n2 && n1[0] === 'STRING' && n2[0] === '+';
        token.isInterpolation = i;
        this.parenTokens.push(token);
      } else {
        this.parenTokens.pop();
      }
      return null;
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.isInInterpolation = function() {
      var t, _i, _len, _ref;
      _ref = this.parenTokens;
      for (_i = 0, _len = _ref.length; _i < _len; _i++) {
        t = _ref[_i];
        if (t.isInterpolation) {
          return true;
        }
      }
      return false;
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.isInExtendedRegex = function() {
      var t, _i, _len, _ref;
      _ref = this.callTokens;
      for (_i = 0, _len = _ref.length; _i < _len; _i++) {
        t = _ref[_i];
        if (t.isRegex) {
          return true;
        }
      }
      return false;
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.lintPlus = function(token) {
      var isUnary, p, unaries, _ref;
      if (this.isInInterpolation() || this.isInExtendedRegex()) {
        return null;
      }
      p = this.peek(-1);
      unaries = ['TERMINATOR', '(', '=', '-', '+', ',', 'CALL_START', 'INDEX_START', '..', '...', 'COMPARE', 'IF', 'THROW', 'LOGIC', 'POST_IF', ':', '[', 'INDENT'];
      isUnary = !p ? false : (_ref = p[0], __indexOf.call(unaries, _ref) >= 0);
      if ((isUnary && token.spaced) || (!isUnary && !token.spaced && !token.newLine)) {
        return this.createLexError('space_operators', {
          context: token[1]
        });
      } else {
        return null;
      }
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.lintMath = function(token) {
      if (!token.spaced && !token.newLine) {
        return this.createLexError('space_operators', {
          context: token[1]
        });
      } else {
        return null;
      }
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.lintCall = function(token) {
      var p;
      if (token[0] === 'CALL_START') {
        p = this.peek(-1);
        token.isRegex = p && p[0] === 'IDENTIFIER' && p[1] === 'RegExp';
        this.callTokens.push(token);
        if (token.generated) {
          return this.createLexError('no_implicit_parens');
        } else {
          return null;
        }
      } else {
        this.callTokens.pop();
        return null;
      }
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.lintBrace = function(token) {
      var i, t;
      if (token.generated) {
        i = -1;
        while (true) {
          t = this.peek(i);
          if (!(t != null) || t[0] === 'TERMINATOR') {
            return this.createLexError('no_implicit_braces');
          }
          if (t[0] === 'CLASS') {
            return null;
          }
          i -= 1;
        }
      } else {
        return null;
      }
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.lintJavascript = function(token) {
      return this.createLexError('no_backticks');
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.lintThrow = function(token) {
      var n1, n2, nextIsString, _ref;
      _ref = [this.peek(), this.peek(2)], n1 = _ref[0], n2 = _ref[1];
      nextIsString = n1[0] === 'STRING' || (n1[0] === '(' && n2[0] === 'STRING');
      if (nextIsString) {
        return this.createLexError('no_throwing_strings');
      }
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.lintIncrement = function(token) {
      var attrs;
      attrs = {
        context: "found '" + token[0] + "'"
      };
      return this.createLexError('no_plusplus', attrs);
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.lintStandaloneAt = function(token) {
      var nextIsIdentifier;
      nextIsIdentifier = this.peek()[0] === 'IDENTIFIER';
      if (!nextIsIdentifier) {
        return this.createLexError('no_stand_alone_at');
      }
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.lintIndentation = function(token) {
      var context, expected, ignoreIndent, isArrayIndent, isInterpIndent, isMultiline, lineNumber, numIndents, previous, previousIndentation, previousLine, previousSymbol, type, _ref;
      type = token[0], numIndents = token[1], lineNumber = token[2];
      if (token.generated != null) {
        return null;
      }
      previous = this.peek(-2);
      isInterpIndent = previous && previous[0] === '+';
      previous = this.peek(-1);
      isArrayIndent = this.inArray() && (previous != null ? previous.newLine : void 0);
      previousSymbol = (_ref = this.peek(-1)) != null ? _ref[0] : void 0;
      isMultiline = previousSymbol === '=' || previousSymbol === ',';
      ignoreIndent = isInterpIndent || isArrayIndent || isMultiline;
      if (this.isChainedCall()) {
        previousLine = this.lines[this.lineNumber - 1];
        previousIndentation = previousLine.match(/^(\s*)/)[1].length;
        numIndents -= previousIndentation;
      }
      expected = this.config['indentation'].value;
      if (!ignoreIndent && numIndents !== expected) {
        context = ("Expected " + expected + " ") + ("got " + numIndents);
        return this.createLexError('indentation', {
          context: context
        });
      } else {
        return null;
      }
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.lintClass = function(token) {
      var attrs, className, offset, _ref, _ref1, _ref2;
      if ((token.newLine != null) || ((_ref = this.peek()[0]) === 'INDENT' || _ref === 'EXTENDS')) {
        return null;
      }
      className = null;
      offset = 1;
      while (!className) {
        if (((_ref1 = this.peek(offset + 1)) != null ? _ref1[0] : void 0) === '.') {
          offset += 2;
        } else if (((_ref2 = this.peek(offset)) != null ? _ref2[0] : void 0) === '@') {
          offset += 1;
        } else {
          className = this.peek(offset)[1];
        }
      }
      if (!regexes.camelCase.test(className)) {
        attrs = {
          context: "class name: " + className
        };
        return this.createLexError('camel_case_classes', attrs);
      } else {
        return null;
      }
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.createLexError = function(rule, attrs) {
      if (attrs == null) {
        attrs = {};
      }
      attrs.lineNumber = this.lineNumber + 1;
      attrs.level = this.config[rule].level;
      attrs.line = this.lines[this.lineNumber];
      return createError(rule, attrs);
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.peek = function(n) {
      if (n == null) {
        n = 1;
      }
      return this.tokens[this.i + n] || null;
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.inArray = function() {
      return this.arrayTokens.length > 0;
    };

    LexicalLinter.prototype.isChainedCall = function() {
      var i, lastNewLineIndex, lines, t, token, tokens;
      lines = (function() {
        var _i, _len, _ref, _results;
        _ref = this.tokens.slice(0, +this.i + 1 || 9e9);
        _results = [];
        for (i = _i = 0, _len = _ref.length; _i < _len; i = ++_i) {
          token = _ref[i];
          if (token.newLine != null) {
            _results.push(i);
          }
        }
        return _results;
      }).call(this);
      lastNewLineIndex = lines ? lines[lines.length - 2] : null;
      if (!(lastNewLineIndex != null)) {
        return false;
      }
      tokens = [this.tokens[lastNewLineIndex], this.tokens[lastNewLineIndex + 1]];
      return !!((function() {
        var _i, _len, _results;
        _results = [];
        for (_i = 0, _len = tokens.length; _i < _len; _i++) {
          t = tokens[_i];
          if (t && t[0] === '.') {
            _results.push(t);
          }
        }
        return _results;
      })()).length;
    };

    return LexicalLinter;

  })();

  ASTLinter = (function() {

    function ASTLinter(source, config) {
      this.source = source;
      this.config = config;
      this.errors = [];
    }

    ASTLinter.prototype.lint = function() {
      try {
        this.node = CoffeeScript.nodes(this.source);
      } catch (coffeeError) {
        this.errors.push(this._parseCoffeeScriptError(coffeeError));
        return this.errors;
      }
      this.lintNode(this.node);
      return this.errors;
    };

    ASTLinter.prototype.lintNode = function(node) {
      var attrs, complexity, error, name, rule, _ref,
        _this = this;
      name = node.constructor.name;
      complexity = name === 'If' || name === 'While' || name === 'For' || name === 'Try' ? 1 : name === 'Op' && ((_ref = node.operator) === '&&' || _ref === '||') ? 1 : name === 'Switch' ? node.cases.length : 0;
      node.eachChild(function(childNode) {
        if (!childNode) {
          return false;
        }
        complexity += _this.lintNode(childNode);
        return true;
      });
      rule = this.config.cyclomatic_complexity;
      if (name === 'Code' && complexity >= rule.value) {
        attrs = {
          context: complexity + 1,
          level: rule.level,
          line: 0
        };
        error = createError('cyclomatic_complexity', attrs);
        if (error) {
          this.errors.push(error);
        }
      }
      return complexity;
    };

    ASTLinter.prototype._parseCoffeeScriptError = function(coffeeError) {
      var attrs, lineNumber, match, message, rule;
      rule = RULES['coffeescript_error'];
      message = coffeeError.toString();
      lineNumber = -1;
      match = /line (\d+)/.exec(message);
      if ((match != null ? match.length : void 0) > 1) {
        lineNumber = parseInt(match[1], 10);
      }
      attrs = {
        message: message,
        level: rule.level,
        lineNumber: lineNumber
      };
      return createError('coffeescript_error', attrs);
    };

    return ASTLinter;

  })();

  mergeDefaultConfig = function(userConfig) {
    var config, rule, ruleConfig;
    config = {};
    for (rule in RULES) {
      ruleConfig = RULES[rule];
      config[rule] = defaults(userConfig[rule], ruleConfig);
    }
    return config;
  };

  coffeelint.lint = function(source, userConfig) {
    var all_errors, astErrors, cmd, config, difference, disabled, disabled_initially, e, errors, i, l, lexErrors, lexicalLinter, lineErrors, lineLinter, next_line, r, rules, s, tokensByLine, _i, _j, _k, _len, _len1, _ref, _ref1, _ref2, _ref3, _ref4;
    if (userConfig == null) {
      userConfig = {};
    }
    config = mergeDefaultConfig(userConfig);
    disabled_initially = [];
    _ref = source.split('\n');
    for (_i = 0, _len = _ref.length; _i < _len; _i++) {
      l = _ref[_i];
      s = regexes.configStatement.exec(l);
      if ((s != null) && s.length > 2 && __indexOf.call(s, 'enable') >= 0) {
        _ref1 = s.slice(1);
        for (_j = 0, _len1 = _ref1.length; _j < _len1; _j++) {
          r = _ref1[_j];
          if (r !== 'enable' && r !== 'disable') {
            if (!(r in config && ((_ref2 = config[r].level) === 'warn' || _ref2 === 'error'))) {
              disabled_initially.push(r);
              config[r] = {
                level: 'error'
              };
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
    astErrors = new ASTLinter(source, config).lint();
    lexicalLinter = new LexicalLinter(source, config);
    lexErrors = lexicalLinter.lint();
    tokensByLine = lexicalLinter.tokensByLine;
    lineLinter = new LineLinter(source, config, tokensByLine);
    lineErrors = lineLinter.lint();
    errors = lexErrors.concat(lineErrors, astErrors);
    errors.sort(function(a, b) {
      return a.lineNumber - b.lineNumber;
    });
    difference = function(a, b) {
      var j, _ref3, _results;
      j = 0;
      _results = [];
      while (j < a.length) {
        if (_ref3 = a[j], __indexOf.call(b, _ref3) >= 0) {
          _results.push(a.splice(j, 1));
        } else {
          _results.push(j++);
        }
      }
      return _results;
    };
    all_errors = errors;
    errors = [];
    disabled = disabled_initially;
    next_line = 0;
    for (i = _k = 0, _ref3 = source.split('\n').length; 0 <= _ref3 ? _k < _ref3 : _k > _ref3; i = 0 <= _ref3 ? ++_k : --_k) {
      for (cmd in block_config) {
        rules = block_config[cmd][i];
        if (rules != null) {
          ({
            'disable': function() {
              return disabled = disabled.concat(rules);
            },
            'enable': function() {
              difference(disabled, rules);
              if (rules.length === 0) {
                return disabled = disabled_initially;
              }
            }
          })[cmd]();
        }
      }
      while (next_line === i && all_errors.length > 0) {
        next_line = all_errors[0].lineNumber - 1;
        e = all_errors[0];
        if (e.lineNumber === i + 1 || !(e.lineNumber != null)) {
          e = all_errors.shift();
          if (_ref4 = e.rule, __indexOf.call(disabled, _ref4) < 0) {
            errors.push(e);
          }
        }
      }
    }
    block_config = {
      'enable': {},
      'disable': {}
    };
    return errors;
  };

}).call(this);

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


The VS250 Variable Speed Incisor is our fastest and largest capacity incising machine.
With a maximum cross section of 250mm square and a 4.0m post length, the VS250 is big enough to cope with the large and flexible enough to cope with small posts too. Our unique shaft support system is designed to reduce the potential for deflection and component overload to give a reliable and consistent result for busy timber processors.
Responsive manufacturer support is essential. With a fleet of experienced and professional engineers covering the whole of the mainland UK, you can rest assured our 24hr response for breakdowns will keep downtime to a minimum should a problem occur.


text:
El Jardín Botánico Ponziano (en italiano: Giardino Botanico Ponziano) es un jardín botánico de propiedad privada, en Ponza en las islas Pontinas.

Localización
Este jardín privado se encuentra ubicado justo encima de la "Grotta di Ulisse" O "Del Sangue", que significa "Gruta de Ulises" o "de la Sangre". Esta gruta es un sitio de visita obligado de los entusiastas de Homero, además de la próxima "Grotta della Maga Circe".

Está localizado en: Villa Madonna collina Belvedere, Ponza, islas Pontinas, Provincia de Latina, Lazio, Italia.

Historia
El jardín fue creado en 1980 por el Dr. Biagio Vitiello, y alberga una gran variedad de plantas leñosas típicas de las islas Pontinas que actualmente se encuentran amenazadas.

Colecciones
El jardín botánico alberga una colección de orquídeas, silvestres incluyendo Neottia nidus-avis, Ophrys tenthredinifera, Orchis morio, Orchis papilionacea, Serapias lingua, y Spiranthes spiralis.

Otras especies que incluye Anthyllis barba-jovis, Arbutus unedo, Artemisia arborescens, Asparagus acutifolius, Cistus monspeliensis, Cistus salviifolius, Daphne sericea, Erica arborea, Erica multiflora, Euphorbia arborescens, Juniperus phoenicea, Laurus nobilis, Lonicera implexa, Medicago arborea, Myrtus communis, Pistacia lentiscus, Rhamnus alaternus, Ricinus communis, Scilla maritima, Smilax aspera, Spartium junceum, Sternbergia lutea, Thymelaea hirsuta, y Viburnum tinus.

Enlaces externos
 Giardino Botanico Ponziano
 Artículo sobre el "Litorale Pontino", abril de 2006

Ponziano


configure: error: lib_i_don't_care_about.so not found.
Build, y u go slow?
Have you ever looked at your build? I mean, really looked at your build?
MongoDB: The Definitive Guide 2nd Edition is Out!
PHP Extensions Made Eldrich: Hello, World!
Lorenz University: I can has degree?
Happy Belated Ada Lovelace Day!
Soccer: No Slimy GirlS Allowed!
How do you make the web reliable?
Got Mongo Working on Hostmonster!
Quick update: I'm now a partner at Google Ventures! I'm still doing engineering (although I would love to hear about it if you know about any cool startups I should check out) and I'm really enjoying being back at Google.


Broward is on the comeback trail.
New ownership, new styling, and a whole new philosophy should make this venerable brand once again a force to be reckoned with in the yachting world. New owner Tom Lewis has reinvigorated the company, envisioning an upscale series of offerings from 120 to 155 feet. The first of these is the 120-foot raised pilothouse model, and her looks alone portend great promise for the builder's resurrection.
On the aft deck, a U-shape bar and an alfresco seating area are sheltered by the extended flying bridge. To keep guests comfortable even in humid climes, 36,000 Btus of air conditioning can be ducted down onto the aft deck, lowering the temperature by about ten degrees. A circular stairway leads from the aft deck up to a sun lover's haven on the bridge deck, offering a plethora of open-air seating and sunning areas, along with a full bar and circular hot tub.
While her styling and amenities are certainly notable, there's much more to the story of the new Broward. Engineered in collaboration with naval architects at the Winchester Design Group, her aluminum hull and deckhouse are built to ABS classification standards, and the builder has gone to great lengths to make the interior as quiet as possible. Sounddown acoustic insulation is applied throughout the hull, and insulated panels are installed between staterooms.


Hi!, my name is Miguel and I live in Spain. I'm half Indian and Spanish🇮🇳/🇪🇸.
I'm an elementary school english teacher 👨🏽🏫 and i combine it with dancing on weekends and free time👯♀, also trying to do my best in modelling📸.
I really love animals and children, I consider myself as a very sensitive person, my main hobbies are sports and travelling.


text:
types of signature forgery
Inicio types of signature forgery
Signatures examined by the forensic document examiner for authenticity will eventually be categorized as genuine, or not genuine, if the examination leads to a definitive opinion. Cut and paste forgery. In other words, forgery usually involves faking a person's signature for the purpose of gaining access to secured information such as a bank account or personal records. Some of the common types of questioned documents subjected to forensic document examination are stated below. Occasionally, the questioned document examiner is rewarded with the recovery of the used carbon paper. The defendant may also have to pay a fine of up to $1,000 or twice what they gained from the crime. Simple Forgery: Simple forgery is just as it sounds. This image is then overwritten with a pen. Armed with adequate standards of both the individual whose name is being used and exemplars of the suspect, the document examination may be definitive to the point that not only is the signature opined not genuine, but the forger is also identified. Traced forgery: In this type, the writer traces over a signature or other writing. Tremor Because the creation of most forms of non-genuine signatures are little more than drawings, the pen is moving so slowly that small, sometimes microscopic changes in direction take place in what should be a fluid-looking line. There can be tapered starts and stops, changes in pen pressure, and much less tremor in the moving line. It may not be continuous, but appear only in conjunction with specific letters. Documents that can be the object of forgery include contracts, identification cards, and legal certificates. Forgery differs from counterfeiting in that a counterfeit is a forging of coin or paper money. This leaves a tapered appearance at the beginnings and endings of names or letters. A signature may be nothing more than an extension of one's normal cursive handwriting, or it may have been personalized to such an extent that it now has few, if any, recognizable letter formations. Comparisons can be made to anonymous letters, notes and other questioned documents with known handwriting from employment files and business documents which are known to have been authored by the suspect. Often microscopic observation and/or infrared viewing or imaging techniques will reveal the carbon centerline. No two signatures or handwritings, even from the same person, are ever totally duplicated. A tracing can also be done by using a blunt stylus on the questioned document to create an impression of the model signature in the paper. Mechanical signatures most often are those produced without the direct aid of the human hand. Handwriting forgery is the process used by criminals to fraudulently make, alter, or write a person's signature — so that in most circumstances it appears identical with the genuine signature — with the intent of profiting from the innocent party. Once the writer has accomplished what in substance is a disguise in the letter formations of highest visibility, he will fall back into his normal habitual handwriting or signature style until such time as he perceives the need for another letter formation alteration. We've all forged our parents' signature on a sick note, but is it actually legal? This question is commonly asked when a will, a mortgage, or a contract is disputed. The more rapidly the pen moves while creating the genuine writing or signature, the more difficult the genuine writing is to imitate. The most common form of forgery is signing someone else's name to a check, but objects, data, and documents can also be forged. This is because we know they are genuine, even if the first letter was a bit off. Fingerprints can be dispositive in establishing a determination of authorship. A conclusive determination can be made whether the signatures are originals or robo pen created. When he is finished with the name or some portion thereof, he stops the pen and lifts it from the surface. Here A denotes the user whose signature method is being attacked, and C denotes the attacker. Since it is a known fact the no one signs their name the same way twice, identical signatures can only be found on two documents if one signature was transferred from another document. Attacks and Forgeries [GOLD88] lists the following types of attacks, in order of increasing severity. Under close scrutiny, the details present in these less prominent portions of the signature will bear undeniable similarities to that in the genuine signatures. Rapidly formed movements are scrutinized more closely than slower counterparts. I am giving below a few types of signatures you should not have. Transparencies of the model signature (if recovered), the impression in the carbon paper and the tracing, when aligned on an overhead projector make for an effective court demonstration. In some cases if it is not possible to obtain known standards, sample writings may be taken. When you see a forged will, you often have a feeling that something "doesn't feel right" but you can't quite put your finger on it. A slowly written signature is not only easier for the forger to duplicate with some fashionable degree of pictorial similarity, the product will also display indications of non-genuineness than the forgery of a rapid and fluidly executed signature. Signatures produced by auto-pens or writing machines, rubber stamps, and offset printing are examples of mechanical signatures. Forgery involves a false document, signature, or other imitation of an object of value used with the intent to deceive another. This forgery is constructed by using a genuine signature as a model. Usually eight to twelve signatures are needed as a guideline; however. 13 types of signatures you must avoid. These usually take the form of a correction to a flaw in the writing line rather than in the form of a letter. These documents are then aligned so as to put the genuine signature directly under the selected location for the forgery. Full Name (required): Preferred Contact Method: EmailPhone The simulated signature, or "free hand forgery" as it is sometime known, is the usual bill of fare for the questioned document examiner. The answer to this riddle lies in the word "intent." By placing a signature on a document we are implying intent on our part to agree with circumstances provided by that check, codicil, agreement, contract, etc. Graphics are powerful tools to demonstrate findings in cases to explain to a trier of the fact. This type of forgery will sometimes allow an examiner to identify who made the forgery based on the handwriting habits that are present in the forged signature. Click here for information and assistance in obtaining court appointed fees for criminal defense cases. Forged Signature; Indications of Forgery; Document Alterations; Discussion of Related Bank Cases/Modus Operandi; Video Presentation: Penalty for Falsification of Signature and Documents; Post Examination ; Registration: Click on the add to cart button. The quality of a simulation depends on how much the forger practices before attempting the actual forgery, the ability of the forger, and the forger's attention to detail in simulating the signature. Total agreement between the model and the questioned signature dictate that the questioned signature was a product of tracing. Basics of Forgery. Additional Information: This "not right" feeling is usually produced by a number of red flags: 1. Third degree forgery is a misdemeanor. various types of image forgery, such as image splicing and region duplication forgery. Again, caution must be exercised if a second ink line is present in a genuine signature. The mere existence of a ghost line may not guarantee that the signature in question is a tracing, however. Random/Blind forgery — Typically has little or no similarity to the genuine signatures. Literary forgery. These methods differ widely in details, according to the circumstances of each case. In order to conduct a proper examination of a signature, the document examiner first needs the original document that contains the questioned signature. (Normal Hand Forgery). Thus, the digital signature function includes the authentication function. The resultant line is not smooth, but reflects the "shaking" pen. Types of Forgery. The signature of an elderly individual may, for instance, be expected to contain tremor and hesitation. Roman sculptors produced copies of Greek sculptures. This wider ink line serves to hide the carbon image better than a ballpoint pen. While these signatures are not genuine, they are undeniably not forgeries in the legal sense. This is because, in essence, this signature was created by the signature holder's hand rather than the forger's. This simply means any attempt to correct the signature to make it look right. Close examination will reveal that this tremor is much too abundant and evenly spaced. They will have a slow "drawn" appearance. The signature itself will have a discernibly faded appearance and the edge of the ink line when viewed under low magnification will have a mottled look rather than sharp appearance. "Xerox" Forgery (generic for the process, not the company) Please refer to the section on Photocopy Forgery, Return to "Overviews" Go Back to the NDL Homepage, © 2019 NDL. This may cause an emphasized blunt start or ending where the pen was placed in contact with the surface. This impression is then filled in with a pen to create the appearance of the model signature. An absolute identification, nonetheless, even under these circumstances is infrequent. Email (required): Phone: This forgery is constructed by using a genuine signature as a model. The range of signature forgeries falls into the following three categories: 1. This paper now containing a mirror image of the genuine signature is placed over another document that is to receive the forgery. Some normal indications of produced marks include these following : Shaky Handwriting; Indications of modifying Handwriting forgery is the duplication of someone's handwriting with the intent to create a document for fraudulent or other questionable uses. This ghost image (also referred to as sister lines), will be precisely the same distance from the corresponding original ink line throughout the writing. Simple Forgery: Simple forgery is … Height ratios and proportions in the transmitted light tracing are generally right on the money, however. Now and then, the examiner will come across a derivation of this style of tracing that does not use carbon paper. Closely related to this form of identification process is that of determining the number of different forgers from a quantity of simulations. There is no attempt made to duplicate or make the forgery look like a genuine signature. It matters not how the conception (or in this case, deception) took place. Elements of Forgery. There are many different types of document forgery and many different ways to spot forgery in documents and signatures. The accuracy rate dropped with the inclusion of forgery signatures as, 55.63% accuracy rate with decision tree (J48), 67.02% with Naïve Bayes Tree and 88.12% (with forgeries). Check forgery is the act of falsifying a negotiable written instrument in order to collect money that does not belong to the forger. Types of Forgery. This illusion of tracing is generated by the abrasion of the pen's metal ballpoint socket by the harder material of the paper's zinc oxide coating. With this type of forgery, an examiner cannot positively identify a signature as genuine without having the Original for comparison. The auto-forger, not knowing the perceptual abilities of someone that might examine the signature, incorporates gross changes to the larger, initial, or prominent letters. Both practiced and non-practiced simulations will still have notable shortcomings. Forgery usually involves the altering or falsification of documents such as checks, titles, deeds, wills, bonds, court documents birth certificates etc. Why does this happen? If there are a sufficient number of significant differences between the questioned signature and the genuine signatures, and these same differences appear in the practiced simulations, there may be a basis to associate the forgery to the forger within some degree of probability. These are prime examples of forensically non-genuine but legally authentic signatures. The fingerprint's universal connotation would certainly, at the very least, be a deterrent to the individual intent upon passing a forged instrument. Forgery is commonly thought of as the white collar crime of signing another person's name to a document, like forging signatures on a check, for instance. Existential forgery is the creation (by an adversary) of any message/signature pair $ (m, \sigma) $, where $ \sigma $ was not produced by the legitimate signer. Art forgery dates back more than two thousand years. These methods differ widely in details, according to the circumstances of each case. Please contact us with any questions about taking these samples. The most basic form of forgery is the unauthorized use or reproduction of another person's signature. The passer then "endorses" the check, writing over the traced lines in front of the cashier or teller, thereby lending credence to the drama. tit. Rubber stamp signatures used by a secretary to sign company checks for the boss look the same as those produced by a burglar who stole the rubber stamp. These imitation signatures differ from other non-genuine signatures in that they may be legally genuine when their use has been authorized by the signature holder. The purpose or intent of signing another person's name to a document is key in determining whether or not it is considered signature forgery. Fig.3 Displaying freehand forgery comparison with other types of forgeries. During the creation of a simulated forgery, the author attempts to duplicate the writing style of another individual. Infrequently, some of the forger's own individual characteristics may appear in the disputed writing. This does not presuppose however, that the placement of an inked thumbprint next to a maker's signature on a check, about to be negotiated at a check cashing counter in a grocery store, would not be a help. of forgery, there are consistent generalizations that can be widely applied to the character and motivations of forgers. (Simulation). If he does not attempt to impart disguise to the writing, the resultant product will display characteristics of the forger's own handwriting. Affidavit of Forgery An affidavit of forgery is a legal document completed by a victim of fraud. Normally, the area to receive the signature is covered with a piece of carbon paper which in turn has the model signature placed upon it and aligned with the area that is to receive the image. (Normal Hand Forgery). In regular forgery, it is impossible to imitate the unique handwriting characteristics of the writer, such as the microscopic structure of the line and an aggregate of various characteristics. The second (and probably most common) type of forgery is simulation, in which the forger has a sample of the signature to be forged. The third type of forgery is a tracing. First degree forgery is a felony and could be punishable by anywhere from 1-2 years to 15 years in prison. Often a signature in of itself may be valid, but the manner in which it has been acquired or affixed to the document, or the sequence of events involved in its use are fraudulent. The person will then try to pass off the handwriting or the signature as the original copy of someone else's original document. Initial observations of an auto-forgery often appear similar to what might be expected in a simulated forgery. Signature Forgery Prescription Forgery Art Forgery Federal Forgery 6. There are two general methods of perpetrating forgeries, one by the aid of tracing, the other by free-hand writing. Types of Forgery Simple Forgery: It is very basic and is done with no attempt to follow a known sample of the handwriting or signature. Forgery as covert operation. The transmitted light tracing is the simplest of the tracings to produce and the one most often encountered. Archaeological forgery; Art forgery; Black propaganda — false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side; Counterfeiting. It s one of the types of forgery which is also known as copy, freehand or imitation forgery in which a forger tries to copy handwriting characteristics or the signature of another person. It normally serves to indicate his or her acceptance of some set of circumstances, or to be the symbol associated with such an agreement. Third Degree Forgery: any other types of documents. If, on the other hand, he pays particular attention to covering the model image, the resultant line quality deteriorates into the slow-moving, hesitation-filled byproduct of forgery. Two of the more common methods of forgery are freehand simulation and tracing. The contemporary buyers likely knew that they were not genuine. The model signature is then traced over with a pen or other pointed implement. At times this contact is held so long that if the pen contains a fluid ink it will wet the paper and migrate outward from the contact point or even through to the back of the paper. Some "paperhangers" employ a light carbon tracing, difficult to see even at a short distance, as an endorsement on stolen checks. This occurrence may itself be indicative of non-genuineness. In other words, forgery usually involves faking a person's signature for the purpose of gaining access to secured information such as a bank account or personal records. Again, because the pen is moving slowly rather than with the dynamic movement associated with most genuine writings, the ink line remains constant in thickness, resulting from the same constant pressure exerted on a slowly moving pen. Herein lies the best opportunity for the document examiner to link the suspect to the simulation. In a cryptographic digital signature or MAC system, digital signature forgery is the ability to create a pair consisting of a message, , and a signature (or MAC), , that is valid for , but has not been created in the past by the legitimate signer.There are different types of forgery. The argument that a signature is easier to read is invalid, as many signatures have evolved until they are nothing more than a symbolic representation of what was at one time handwriting and are now unreadable. However, on occasion a similar phenomenon can be found when NCR (National Cash Register – no carbon required) paper is employed. During the classical period art was generally created for historical reference, religious inspiration, or simply aesthetic enjoyment. With an auto-forgery, the legal authenticity of the signature may be quite different than that of forensic authenticity. The forger generates an artistic reproduction of this model. There will be little, if any, tapering of internal lines. Types of Forgery. Forgery is an extensive category of crimes that generally involves the falsification of information on a document. In essence then, while the forger creating a simulation does his best to make the prominent focal points of the signature look like the corresponding features in a genuine signature, the auto-forger goes out of his way to make them appear different. I use a variety of tools and methods to spot forgeries. The auto-forgery may at once be legally authentic (especially if witnessed), forensically non-genuine and ethically (if not judicially) contemptuous. In short, yes, but only if they've agreed to it. The practiced simulation is most often a higher quality creation in that the model signature has been memorized and some of the movements used to produce it have become semi-automatic. The Type of Signature Forgery company you should Hire. The problem with not having the original is that several methods of forgery may not be detectable by examining something other than the original. Traced forgery: In this type, the writer traces over a signature or other writing. Indications of this process will be in the form of wax left behind that covers and surrounds the signature line. Indications of this type of forgery are often but not always present on a copy of the questioned document. Almost invariably, the writer misses portions of the indented line. The writer may decide after putting his pen in contact with the paper, that it is in the wrong spot, picks it up and moves it to a position considered to be more correct. The second item needed to determine authorship is known signatures from the purported author. Below is an actual court display, in a hearing in Chicago Illinois, used to compare signatures from known standards to a questioned document. Those who commit forgery are often charged with the crime of fraud. The simulated signature, or "free hand forgery" as it is sometime known, is the usual bill of fare for the questioned document examiner. Non-genuine handwritten signatures may be generally categorized into one of four possibilities. Checks are subject to forgery and fraud because they are physical items that can be altered easily. This is the easiest type of forgery to detect because it is usually not close to the appearance of a genuine signature. On some occasions, a "practice sheet" will be recovered by the investigator. The mere presence of these indicators does not mean that the signature under scrutiny is non-genuine, but should contribute to the overall determination as to genuineness. We have pointed out some red flags, such as manipulated pages and removed staples. There are many kinds of forgery, but all are considered crimes. Types of signature forgeries: In real life a signature forgery is an event in which the forger mainly focuses on accuracy rather than fluency. Material alteration is the most common instance of forgery. In mark cases, hoodlums utilize numerous strategies, including following. It may be possible to group or associate simulations of the same name by the combinations of defects within the forgeries. The forger tries to copy the content using a model of the writing present in front of him/her or the model is in the mind of the forger who had seen it sometime. A signature made by employing a pen using this ink may be "transferred" to another document by using ordinary waxed paper or freezer paper. Start studying Handwriting Analysis. Some people may think of this as a safeguard when they are confronted with the necessity of signing something they are not sure about, but demands immediate attention. These signatures, commonly referred to as auto-forgeries, will usually be found on promissory notes, contracts, Constitutional Rights forms, confessions, closed-account checks, etc. Handwriting Forgery. Since each person's handwriting and handprinting habits are unique, it can be established whether someone wrote a certain word, initials, signature or document. In order to do an accurate comparison with either handwriting, handprinting or signatures, it is necessary to have several known, unquestioned standards. Often, a forger, because of an inherent high skill level in his writing, may produce a product that contains fewer "indications" of forgery than the genuine writer's signature. Tracing is a common type of forgery in which a document if forged using 'transmitted light' or 'carbon tracing' or 'Indented tracing'. Any resemblance to the genuine signature is coincidental.
Dyson V10 Motorhead Review, How To Get Rid Of Fruit Fly Larvae In Raspberries, Best Camera For Youtube 2019, Chicken Run Size For 10 Chickens, Wellington Street Diner Menu, Tactigon Avengers Game, Is Yelling At Your Dog Abuse, Calories In 1/2 Cup Of Baked Beans, Oxidation Number Of Kcl, David Chipperfield Mexico,


text:
What the DATA Act Means for Anti-Fraud Analytics
DATA Act
Thursday, Jan 26, 2017 By: Data Coalition
By Dave Williams, Former Inspector General, U.S. Postal Service
The U.S. government is now well underway on implementing the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (Public Law No. 113-101 official text), or DATA Act. The open data law mandates all 24 CFO Act federal agencies to first standardize, then publish, their spending information on one centralized accounting platform. The first reporting deadline is just months away, May 2017.
The DATA Act is not an end, it's a means.
The DATA Act is arriving in the nick of time. The years ahead are unlikely to be a period of budgetary growth. The government pretty much has the resources they are going to have. The threats facing the U.S., however, are growing and coming at us at the speed of blur in an unforgiving environment.
The law promises an array of benefits for government management and public transparency. But none as beneficial and powerful as data analytics.
At first, agencies resisted the law, but most have come around and accepted it, and have even embraced it. Soon agencies will be saying that they had asked for it for many years.
However, agencies are now in a dangerous, and familiar, phase of play. It is reminiscent of another time when the government was, as usual, behind the curve and battling money laundering. Congress passed anti-money laundering legislation in the 1970s and 1980s, which required reports of suspicious transactions and codified compliance measures. The law required all financial institutions to file Cash Transaction Reports (CTRs) and international Currency or Monetary Instruments Reports (CMIRs) for large currency transactions. They dutifully began doing so, and a tsunami of paper converged on the Treasury.
For several years, the CTRs piled up and were boxed in warehouses. After a few years, Congress asked a simple question – "What are you doing with all those reports?"
It turns out that Treasury barely had enough time to box and store them, let alone run data analytics.
An important reform that should have been the basis for great celebration, was instead an embarrassment for the government and led to resentment on the part of those financial institutions that filed the reports. Congress was not pleased.
So agencies learned their lesson and will never let that happen again, right? That, of course, is wrong.
Agencies may well be looking down the barrel of a look-a-like disaster with the DATA Act. Considerable resources are going into preparing the data definitions and schema.
Even still, it looks like we will mostly make it with a few usual suspects, like the Department of Defense, limping behind.
So, what's the problem? Well, what agencies should have learned from the CTR disaster was that they need to begin to think in terms of how the government will use the new data.
A large chunk of the government's resources should be put towards readiness programs so that the U.S. can take advantage of this new opportunity. Readiness levels and killer apps need to be in place the day the data reported. Actions need to occur immediately, not consecutively.
Every government agency, tech and private sector firm should be asking how will we use the new data. Once all agencies' DATA Act data is reported to Treasury, we should imagine the government is done producing it. And the next question agencies should be asking themselves is what will we do with it?
Almost certainly, across the board, the answer is: engage in the big data analytics of the 21st century. The DATA Act will, for the first time, allow agencies to monitor their performance, detect and strike against fraud-sudden attacks.
With proper readiness levels and applications, the government will be enabled to cultivate a data-rich environment.
However, notoriously faulty instincts and intuitions may give way to evidence based decision-making and evaluation. But with the full implementation of the DATA Act there will be an array of government-wide benefits. The winners will be those agencies that fully utilize their data sets and work across government. Wasteful and duplicative programs will be cut, and cross your fingers, those involved in fraud.
Among the winners will also be the agencies conducting data mining. Bad data takes up roughly half the time of data analysts. The ETL (Extract, Transform and Load) process is mindless and soul crushing. That will be greatly simplified by the DATA Act. The agencies that are already embracing anti-fraud data analytics have experienced some pretty astounding feats already.
Stick around! The DATA Act is set to deliver the most valuable data set in the world. Clean and standardized data will increase current efforts by an order of magnitude. All those clever ideas for attacking fraud will suddenly begin to flourish. And if all agencies don't join in, the participating agencies experiencing success will get smaller and smaller as they disappear over the horizon.
Data analytics pioneers have already previewed the road ahead. Even with terrible data, they are achieving impressive results.
Investigators at the U.S. Postal Service Inspector General opened 270 investigations in 2015 and recovered $20 million directly attributable to data analytics. The auditors using their models booked about $100 million in savings opportunities. Both the U.S. Postal Service audit and investigative data analytics programs are in their infancy and are bound to grow significantly under the DATA Act.
There will also clearly be a network effect as everyone joins in sharing their models and their findings. Intergovernmental initiatives can be enabled once the data is standardized and widely accessible.
Our government is on the verge of something very big, but honestly if agencies are not going to get DATA Act-ready, agencies will receive some well-deserved criticism for going to all this trouble merely to stare at a new mountain of clean data. At some point others will stop asking for agencies cooperation and instead they will just need your desk.
DATA Act implementation hasn't been smooth sailing, the government will encounter predictable hurdles that they should be working on now.
Washington is a secretive place, even when there are no secrets.
Huge departments are riddled with fraud and are in denial.
Procurement officials at the highest levels of the Pentagon believe or wish there is no fraud among the Defense contractors.
Program officials overseeing ballooning disability programs believe they are not being defrauded and both refuse to even look.
The agencies have a great deal of work to do in preparation for the first DATA Act reporting deadline in May. Data analytics could hold immense promise to ferret out fraud, find root causes, engage in real time continuous auditing, identify and manage risk, and increase the pace of agencies work. But only if Congress and the executive branch stick with it.