then consider this quote:
Thomas Malone, professor at M.I.T.: "I think we are just scratching the surface of what's possible with collective intelligence."Eric Schmidt, GOOGLE's chief executive vows: "From a technological perspective, it is the beginning."
Posts
9 comments:
Will someone recommend other search engines?
Mike
Is that guy related to Rich?
Mike
The CIA does not own In-Q-tel. Where the fuck do you get these sources from. Care to verify your claim MTJ?
I will.
In-Q-Tel is a Virginia-registered corporation, legally independent of the CIA or any other government agency. In-Q-Tel answers solely to the CIA, it is bound by a Charter agreement with the CIA, which sets out the relationship between the two organizations, and by an annual contract with the CIA.
!@!CHOP!@!
sorry, I guess you interpret it differently. If you look at the link provided in the post you will find:
--------------------------------
We [the CIA] decided to use our limited dollars to leverage technology developed elsewhere. In 1999 we chartered ... In-Q-Tel. ... While we pay the bills, In-Q-Tel is independent of CIA. CIA identifies pressing problems, and In-Q-Tel provides the technology to address them. The In-Q-Tel alliance has put the Agency back at the leading edge of technology ... This ... collaboration ... enabled CIA to take advantage of the technology that Las Vegas uses to identify corrupt card players and apply it to link analysis for terrorists [cf. the parallel data-mining effort by the SOCOM-DIA operation Able Danger ], and to adapt the technology that online booksellers use and convert it to scour millions of pages of documents looking for unexpected results.[5]
---------------------------------
While "Slam Dunk" Tenet says independent, I take the terms chartered; pay the bills; provided; and collaboration to suggest otherwise. but that's just me. You can take it or leave it. save your chops please.
You said the CIA owns In-Q-Tel. I know what the link says. YOU SAID "remember that the CIA owns In-Q-tel".
NO SIR!!! That is an incorrect statement.
You bail out on the interpretation of it all?? HUH!!
Excuse your misrepresentation as interpretation?? WTF is wrong with you.
Just for more clarification and for your educational purposes.
Chartered (granted rights by contract, limited control) and ownership (exclusive rights, total control) These are two entirely different relationhips. Why do you always do this
!@!CHOP!@!
to yourself.
Truelly disturbs me about you. Actually its funny.
LMAO!!! HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!
ROFLMAO!!! DUSAMCN!!! BWAHHHHHH!!!!! Pfffft!!!!
BFF??....lol
now who's being dishonest? If you are going to quote me, please quote me correctly. This is not at the end of 100 plus comments(thanks for the audience). If you look at the post I clearly put in the parenthetic DID. This, because of the shuffling of ownership that was included in the links. Now if it is too hard for you to see through the CIA shuffling ownership and the possibilities for big brother like abuses in "collective intelligence", then perhaps my friend you are too credulous when it comes to the Gov't behemoth. I am reminded of a local story a few years ago where a Mafia group owned a company that owned a company (Etc) that ran a local long distance service. After a few years the CEO of the local phone company was found to be funneling profits from overcharges to the mob. I'd rather people be aware of relationships and be concerned about big government beforehand.
For what it is worth, I find your lack of civility distasteful.
"Remember that the CIA owns In-Q-tel Which owns (did) Google."
You reference (did) was about google. Not about "Remember that the CIA owns In-Q-tel"
Now i ask you where is the period after...-tel? Well it isnt there because a period would have fucked up your url.
Nice try. You did say the CIA owns In-Q-tel.
This has nothing to do with big government and everything to with your idiotic claim. You want us to remember your lie, is that it?...lol
For what it is worth, I find your lack of integrity distasteful.
!@!CHOPO-CHOP-CHOPPY!@!
Chris
interesting but still......
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/the_soros_connection_in_the_mi.html
Post a Comment