The 'New World Order'
 
Digital ID Or Digital Prison
Home Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 God's Plan
The New World Order
It's An Evil And Sinister Conspiracy That Involves Very Rich And Powerful People Who Mastermind Events And Control World Affairs Through Governments And Corporations And Are Plotting Mass Population Reduction And The Emergence Of A Totalitarian World Government!   By Using Occult Secret Societies The ILLUMINATI Will Bring All Of The Nations Of This World Together As One.   We'll Have No Recourse But To Submit And Be Under Their Control Utilizing Their Digital Central Bank Currency Or To Reject This Ill-Fated Digital Identification.   The Goal Is UN Agenda 2030!   This Is The Beginning Of The End!

Boston Dynamics - Robotics


Mass. State Police Test Out Boston Dynamics’ Spot The Robot Dog


Cops have long had dogs, and robots, to help them do their jobs. And now, they have a robot dog.

Massachusetts State Police is the first law enforcement agency in the country to use Boston Dynamics' dog-like robot, called Spot. While the use of robotic technology is not new for state police, the temporary acquisition of Spot — a customizable robot some have called “terrifying” — is raising questions from civil rights advocates about how much oversight there should be over police robotics programs.

The state’s bomb squad had Spot on loan from the Waltham-based Boston Dynamics for three months starting in August until November, according to records obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and reviewed by WBUR.

The documents do not reveal a lot of details on the robot dog’s exact use, but a state police spokesman said Spot, like the department’s other robots, was used as a “mobile remote observation device” to provide troopers with images of suspicious devices or potentially hazardous locations, like where an armed suspect might be hiding.

“Robot technology is a valuable tool for law enforcement because of its ability to provide situational awareness of potentially dangerous environments,” state police spokesman David Procopio wrote.



State police say Spot was used in two incidents, in addition to testing.

Boston Dynamics vice president for business development Michael Perry said the company wants Spot to have lots of different uses, in industries ranging from oil and gas companies, to construction, to entertainment. He envisions police sending Spot into areas that are too hazardous for a human — a chemical spill, or near a suspected bomb, or into a hostage situation.

“Right now, our primary interest is sending the robot into situations where you want to collect information in an environment where it's too dangerous to send a person, but not actually physically interacting with the space,” Perry said.

Spot is a “general purpose” robot, with an open API. That means customers — whether a police department or warehouse operator — can customize Spot with its own software. (State police say they didn't use this feature.) It has a 360-degree, low-light camera, and an arm.

For all of its potential, Boston Dynamics doesn’t want Spot weaponized. Perry said the lease agreements have a clause requiring the robot not be used in a way that would “physically harm or intimidate people.”

“Part of our early evaluation process with customers is making sure that we're on the same page for the usage of the robot,” he said. “So upfront, we're very clear with our customers that we don't want the robot being used in a way that can physically harm somebody.”

That’s one of the reasons why the company is opting for lease agreements, rather than a sale, Perry said. Boston Dynamics wants to be selective in which companies get access to Spot — and have the ability to take the equipment back if the lease is violated.

Worries About Weaponized Robots

Through Procopio, state police said the department never weaponized any of its robots, including Spot.

But while Spot and other tactical robots aren’t designed to kill, they still can. In 2016, Dallas Police sent a bomb disposal robot armed with explosives to kill a sniper who had shot at police officers and killed five. Experts said it was the first time a non-military robot had been used to intentionally kill a person.

That deadly potential, and lack of transparency about the state police’s overall robotics program, worries Kade Crockford, director of the technology for liberty program at the ACLU of Massachusetts.

Crockford said they want to see a policy from state police about its use of robotics and a conversation about how and when robots should be used. State police didn’t say whether there’s a current policy about the use of robots, and the ACLU’s records request to the agency didn’t turn one up.


“We just really don't know enough about how the state police are using this,” Crockford said. “And the technology that can be used in concert with a robotic system like this is almost limitless in terms of what kinds of surveillance and potentially even weaponization operations may be allowed.”

“We just really don't know enough about how the state police are using this." Kade Crockford

Beyond an agency policy, the ACLU is urging state and local lawmakers to enact laws or regulations at the state level to govern how increasingly advanced robots can be used. Nothing like that exists in Massachusetts now.

“We really need some law and some regulation to establish a floor of protection to ensure that these systems can't be misused or abused in the government's hands,” Crockford said. “And no, a terms of service agreement is just insufficient.”

Others, like Ryan Calo, a professor at the University of Washington School of Law who specializes in robotics and cyberlaw, agree that police agencies like state police need to put more thought into how robots are used and publicize that plan. They’re not equipment people are familiar with, like a car.

“There’s enough of a visceral reaction to the use of robotics that the smart thing to do is come up with a policy,” he said. “How is this going to be used? And compare the actual use to the stated policy. And they can weigh whether those uses are appropriate.”

Thor Eells, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association and a former SWAT commander in Colorado, reiterated that, in most cases, robots are used in critical incidents — barricaded suspects, hostage situations or active assailants — not routine surveillance.

“Normally, when these types of tools are being deployed, it's pretty risky operation,” he said.

Eells said he recognizes the need for more information about how these robots are used and the concern about how they might infringe on people’s privacy or civil liberties. But he contended that police have to reach the same legal bar for, say, sending a robot into someone’s house. They would need a warrant.

“Normally, when these types of tools are being deployed, it's pretty risky operation.” Thor Eells

“Those protections still exist,” he said. “They're not something that can be circumnavigated by the utilization of robotics. Law enforcement still has a responsibility to ensure that they're used legally as deemed so by the courts.”

Sometimes, though, technology used by police outpaces the law — like GPS tracking. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled police couldn't place a GPS tracking device on a suspect's car without a warrant. The court ruled again for privacy in 2015, declaring that police must get a search warrant to access someone's cellphone location information.

Eells believes there’s a way to balance the community’s right to know about police tools used by law enforcement, and any necessary secrecy about specific tactics.


The Future Of Robotic Law Enforcement Is Already Here

Other than Spot, state police has a permanent fleet of robots. As of 2017, the bomb squad had 18 robotic platforms worth $1.8 million that are used on a weekly basis, according to police records. Most of those are tracked robots, not a legged robot like Spot.

But there’s something different about Spot. Calo, the professor, acknowledged there’s not a big operational difference between the robot dog and something like a more typically robot-looking PackBot. But, he said, Spot feels different. He pointed to a statement animal-rights group PETA put out, saying that it’s not cruel to kick Spot, because it’s not a real dog.

Robots and police departments are no strangers. In this photo, a member of the Cambridge police bomb squad used a robot during a search for the Boston Marathon bombings suspect in 2013. 

Robots in general fall in an area between machine and person, Calo said, even for robots like Spot, that are remote-controlled.

“There’s a social valiance of robots that affects our perceptions of them, and these are particularly evocative robots,” he said.

And there’s something about Spot that even excited state police troopers.

In one email in June, a lieutenant on the special tactical operations team wrote to a colleague, “Dude, it’s time,” with a link to a New York Post article headlined, “Boston Dynamics’ creepy dog-like robot is about to go on sale.”

In a different email in May, other troopers shared a YouTube video of Spot dancing to Bruno Mars and navigating a construction site.

A few months later, the troopers were behind the remote, using Spot in the field.



Boston Dynamics' Spot Mini Is A Clever Robotic Canine


Boston dynamics’ redesigns the ‘spot mini’ quadrapedal robot and now it certainly has a few canine qualities. the masachussettes-based engineering company unveiled its first iteration of the giraffe-like robot in june 2016, that moved and looked like a cartoon character. the new model is more refined and has a smooth animal-like motion that could be mistaken as the real thing.


The latest evolution of boston dynamics’ ‘spot mini’quadrapedal robot replaces the giraffe-like claw/head with a headless design and bright, yellow plastic. the robotic dog has a softer and more compact design, which combined with a face-style sensor system where its face was originally, creates a machine that could become a new robot pal, or a guard dog that can fend off unwelcomed guests — particularly as it stops, crouches and stares straight down the camera lens.




Atlas The Humanoid Robot Is Doing Gymnastics


The Internet gawks each time Boston Dynamics releases a new video showing its eye-catching humanoid robot, Atlas, performing newly acquired acrobatic tricks.

But until now, most of the machine’s maneuvering — whether it was jogging, hopping over a log or executing box jumps — has remained well within the realm of average human athleticism.

Not anymore.

If the tech company’s recently uploaded video is any indication, Atlas has, in a matter of months, graduated from middle-school gym class to something approaching a professional athlete. In the 38-second video, the sturdy, battery-powered machine — standing 4 foot 9 inches and weighing 176 pounds — unleashes an exceedingly nimble routine (using its legs, arms and torso) with a degree of gracefulness that you’d expect from a human being with years of training.

“We created the maneuvers using new techniques that streamline the development process,” Boston Dynamics wrote in the video’s description. “First, an optimization algorithm transforms high-level descriptions of each maneuver into dynamically-feasible reference motions. Then Atlas tracks the motions using a model predictive controller that smoothly blends from one maneuver to the next.”

Despite that smoothness, the robot isn’t perfect, according to its handlers.

“Using this approach, we developed the routine significantly faster than previous Atlas routines, with a performance success rate of about 80%,” the description adds.

Within hours of being posted online, the latest Atlas video had racked up nearly 1.5 million views and thousands of comments, many of them suggesting the robot’s newfound athleticism was evidence that mankind’s reign over machines is nearing its expiration date.

“So we just going to keep acting like we never seen Terminator?” one commenter wrote.



“Absolutely amazing!” added another. “I can smell the future where robots are roaming in the streets with us!”

In recent years, Boston Dynamics has become known for two things: creating robots whose movements mimic humans and animals with a degree of accuracy that many find surprising, if not unnerving. And then, without warning, posting cryptic videos of those robots online, where they quickly go viral, capturing some mixture of excitement and terror about the rapid rise of autonomous machines.

Boston Dynamics was purchased by Japan’s Softbank from Alphabet in 2017. In recent years, it has produced four-legged robots — with names like Spot, Wildcat and BigDog — that can open doors, carry heavy loads and run nearly 20 miles per hour, but its most recognizable product appears to be Atlas, the humanoid athlete that Boston Dynamics labels, “the world’s most dynamic humanoid robot.”

Guided by lidar — a sensor that uses a pulsed laser sensor to measure the distance between objects — and stereo vision, the compact robot is able to haul nearly 25 pounds. Boston Dynamics says Atlas can also manipulate objects in its environment, traverse rough terrain, keep its balance when pushed and get back up when tipped over.

As recently as three years ago, Atlas was recorded awkwardly tramping through the snow at a slow speed, its mechanical body lacking any of the fluidity and agility that it displays now.

Curiosity about Atlas gained momentum last year when Boston Dynamics posted a 34-second clip on YouTube showing the formerly halting robot going for a casual and smooth-looking jog in a grassy residential area. The video, which captured the distinct photocopier-like sound created by the robot’s movements, seemed to catch many viewers by surprise, including the Daily Mail, which covered Atlas’s physical feat at the time.

“If you thought you’d be able to run away from the terrifying new breed of robots,” the paper wrote, “bad news.”


16 Reasons Why You Should Be Concerned About 5G Network


5G Danger 1

Wireless carriers companies are installing millions of 5G cell towers all over the world. People are concerned about the health effects of 5G radiation. Having a poll with 5G antenna very close to the house does not sound good. This cell towers are being installed close to people houses.


5G Danger 2

The government is claiming 5G is perfectly safe. And we know how many times government lied to us. At the same time, the military is using almost the same frequency in biological non lethal weapon called Active Denial System, with Frequency  95 GHZ. This weapon is used to disperse protesters, troublemakers, prisoners and used in war. It makes people panic, shock, disperse and run away from intense heat it causes in human body. 5G range is from 24 GHz to 90 GHz. Imagine that. I would never trust the government.

5G Danger 3

International Association Of Firefighters claims that firefighters complain of various health problems after the 5G towers were placed on the top of their fire stations. Dr. Gunnar Heuser claims that this is a direct effect of being close to 5G cell towers. Firefighters complained of being weak. They had no energy, they felt confused and had memory problems after the 5G antennas were placed on the top of the fire stations. Dr. Heuser claims he saw abnormal brain functions in firefighters when he examined them. Some firefighters claim that all their symptoms disappeared after they moved to another firefighters station without the 5G tower on the roof.


5G Danger 4

The wireless companies will have the courage to install dangerous cell towers very close to where we live. The 5G antenna could be placed just across the street from your home, or outside your window. First they started to install smart meters, which have a hundred times stronger EMF emissions than a regular cell phone. Now they’re planning to install 5G towers in close proximity to our homes. In fact they already installed and turned on 5G antennas in Geneve Switzerland and people there experience some serious side effects of 5G radiation.


5G Danger 5

They haven’t done any proper studies to prove that 5G is not dangerous. And still, they try to force us to have these cancer towers near our homes.


5G Danger 6

There are no proper regulations regarding 5G network and where these towers can be placed.

5G Danger 7

FDA still claims that mobile phone emissions are perfectly safe. They think the same about 5G radiation. The World Health Organization international agency for research on Cancer has classified mobile phones to be possibly carcinogenic to humans. And still FDA does not care.The government does not care. If the speed of the wireless network is more important than our health than this is very concerning. Can we rely on FDA and other government agencies? We have been lied before, remember the days when doctors claimed that cigarettes are perfectly safe. Just remember the days when they even had the audacity to claim that pesticides were harmless. Apparently, the government lies to us again.


5G Danger 8

There are currently 200,000 4G cell towers all over the United States. They plan to install millions of new 5G cell towers all over the USA and inside the residential areas.


5G Danger 9

Psychological effects of 5G wireless network. This study from National Institutes of Health https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3042390/ confirmed that wireless technology causes adverse psychological effects on people. The study proved that exposure to wireless emissions caused sleep disturbance, stress and even depression. Presumably, 5G will have even stronger effects on our psychological well-being.


5G Danger 10

The launch of new Internet-enabled devices. More and more devices will support 5G network. We will be bathed in high-frequency fields in our houses. Every fridge, home appliance will emit wireless radiation, and 5G network will allow this to happen because of its speed and better connections. More cars will use 5G technology in the future. That is another concern. We will not be able to get away from 5G emissions anymore.


5G Danger 11

National toxicology program showed that there is a correlation between wireless technology and cancer in rats. And still, the government ignores studies like this. The study showed that rats were infested with new kind of rare brain and heart tumors after being exposed to wireless radiation every day.


5G Danger 12

The 5G waves are shorter than 4G waves. The 5G waves don’t travel as far that is why we need more 5G antennas to transmit the signal to end-users.


5G Danger 13

You will not be able to move away from these 5G antennas. Currently, when you see a 4G antenna, you’re able to move away, move to another location. 4G antennas can be placed far away from residential areas. But the 5G antennas will be placed inside the residential areas.


5G Danger 14

There is going to be a new study on 5G health effects in humans done in New Zealand. My prediction is that the results of this study will show how dangerous wireless technology is on humans, especially 5G network and still nothing will be done to prevent the spread of 5G network http://tne.massey.ac.nz/


5G Danger 15

2011 study done by International Agency For Research On Cancer IARC showed the increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. Radiofrequency radiation was classified as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen. In 2014 World Health Organization released a statement that non-terminal biological effects from radiofrequency radiation have no adverse health effects on humans. But five of six members of World Health Organization core group that released the statement are affiliated with International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an industry loyal NGO, and thus have a serious conflict of interest. Apparently, World Health Organization is trying to hide the truth from us. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/


5G Danger 16

Adverse effects of 5G radiation on human skin. Peter Kälin, president of the Basel-based Doctors for Environmental Protection group claims that 5G uses much shorter waves, which will be completely absorbed by our skin. Peter Kälin says, “The human skin is already exposed to the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation. 5G could present an extra cancer risk”.