ENGINEERING TODAY
Published on May 26, 2019
LegalEagle
Published on May 25, 2019
His right to not having his work subverted by blind ignorance is not a right…
So, he’d have to protect his work, however, if his protection work for his work, is subverted by blind ignorance, his right and rights are still violated.
If it is not a right, it may possibly be more than a right.
In fact, I’ve been in courts for my work since it was finished with the same lawyers he works for.
Free healthcare and the Army has to do with me, however, what happened , however potentially real for others, is not valid in my case and family’s case.
Military lawyers as well as other related with them work better than him and his associates.
@ 4:31, however, it’s right that he can’t take people without justification to make pet studies (malpractice).
The rule of law are not about laws being universal and applying to everyone.
Laws apply to everyone differently depending on their conditions, who they are, and why they are who they are, and so on.
What he is suggesting would require review by other legal authorities to correct his own mistakes, which he apparently does twice so far (although, not twice in a row, I have to give him that, he did something right, even though he is trying to use it to achieve another goal, seemingly ulterior goal).
The android data is working for the federation, and so, he would have to be a lawyer working for them, with the authority required to take over control of the work he does, as administrator, as computers working for the government do their work, including military systems, and military electronic systems, and military AI (Artificial Intellgence) systems are, as for when personnel have to stop them due to malfunction or undesired or undesirable functions…
@ 7:29
When the authorities refuse evidence based on constitution or, if they try to enforce refusal to accept evidence, this refusal should be entered in the case transcript to be used in other case related to the rule of the courts within that rule of law for the case or subsequent cases.
Depending on what that evidence is, and what and how it is refused for, especially if the refusal of that evidence is endangering society, and that they are trying to discredit the party presenting the evidence as if a danger to society when it is not, therefore protecting the same problem they are causing .
It is out of contact with reality, which reality this software works with, in as much as parts that are not real are also related to the same axis of time , in relation with the reality (which is not false or unreal, or out of contact with reality to the exact same level and possible to have exact and real numerical values to compare and in comparison, to a certain degree and percentage of exactitude, for scientific method).
…
@ 19:30
with
Problems of over-inclusiveness and
under-inclusiveness , mhh, to what level and exactly to which scientific level and degree is it inexact in relation to certainty ratio, and theory of uncertainty ?
For scientific method.
Also, isn’t it a question of law, or , for the administration of justice,
and not related to science or scientific research?
It seems highly unscientific and blatatly erroneous and different from the facts.
Supposed to apply to facts of the law, based on the case before them, while trying to avoid the scientific truth.
Fine.
My neighbour lived in B4 and I was in B2, but I assured you that police were there many times.
Nice Kangaroo yes.
Anton Petrov
Published on May 25, 2019
7,800 light years away.
