There is no question that American public schools are despicable. They're unionized monopolies. I also question their federal curriculum. Instead of going on about this, just watch the latest 20/20 report about the whole situation.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Stupid in America
There is no question that American public schools are despicable. They're unionized monopolies. I also question their federal curriculum. Instead of going on about this, just watch the latest 20/20 report about the whole situation.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Little Update
Most of you know about Wikipedia. Basically, an ever growing encyclopedia which anyone can add to, or delete information. Now there are company's looking at their Wiki sites, and deleting "negative" information. Disney is one. And guess who another is? Diebold! Hm! I found that absolutely great! An excerpt from Techdirt:
This will probably come as a surprise to absolutely no one, but a new Wikipedia scanner service is matching the IP address of Wikipedia edits to the organizations the IPs are associated with -- and it's turning up some interesting matches. For example, there's the person coming from a Diebold IP who deleted paragraphs and paragraphs of Wikipedia content that highlighted Diebold's ongoing security problems. Then there's the Disney employee who tried to pull a link to Cory Doctorow's speech on why DRM is bad for business from the DRM entry. Wired is actually keeping a running tally of some of the most interesting edits. Now, before people use this as more evidence as to Wikipedia's trust problems, it doesn't look like those edits did much damage, as they were quickly changed back to the more appropriate entries by those watching out for vandalism.
Wired is actually keeping track of who is editing what. Go check it out! Thought it was worth posting, considering yesterdays post about the Iowa Straw Poll and faulty Diebold machines.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Voter Fraud
Well, Ron Paul came in 5th at the Iowa Straw Poll. Not bad, and also in my eyes, not real great. For those of you who don't know, the Iowa Straw Poll is basically a mock vote. Doesn't count for anything. I think it's mostly used for fund raising, and getting their word out. Of course the Ron Paul supporters were very disappointed (as was I). Something did come up though, a couple of the diebold machines malfunctioned. Which diebold machines a notorious for doing. I mean just do a google search for diebold malfunction and you'll see what I'm talking about. These things are highly unrelyable. However, at least they still have a paper trail. So they tallied up the paper votes. Guess who was in charge of that? Apparently it was one of Mitt Romney's campaign staff (specifically Romney for President Leadership Team)! Now, is that conflict of interest or is it just me?
Also, theres some issues with the attendees of the Iowa Straw Poll. According to "WhatReallyHappended.com" 26,000 Tickets were sold and only 14,302 votes were counted. As Mr. Rivero put it,
" Now think about that for a minute. 26,000 people purchase tickets to go to a Straw Poll event, and yet we are to believe that 12,000 of those people couldn’t even care less about the voting part? Just what were they there for?
I don't buy it. This is not believable. An Investigation is needed here.
I don't need an investigation."
I think there should be an in depth look into this. Nothing terribly drastic. One of Ron Paul's supporters actually threatened to sue! I don't think it should come to that. Nonetheless action should be taken.
Here's some more links on the issue: KCCI Des Moines, Iowa; Malfunctioning Diebold Voting Machines Run By Romney Team Member At Iowa Poll ; Romney Leadership Team Member Overseeing Straw Poll
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
China Owns America
It's as simple as that.
[Original Link]
Uncle Sam, Your Banker Will See You Now
By Paul Craig Roberts
08/08/07 "ICH" --- - Early this morning China let the idiots in Washington, and on Wall Street, know that it has them by the short hairs. Two senior spokesmen for the Chinese government observed that China’s considerable holdings of US dollars and Treasury bonds “contributes a great deal to maintaining the position of the dollar as a reserve currency.”
Should the US proceed with sanctions intended to cause the Chinese currency to appreciate, “the Chinese central bank will be forced to sell dollars, which might lead to a mass depreciation of the dollar.”
If Western financial markets are sufficiently intelligent to comprehend the message, US interest rates will rise regardless of any further action by China. At this point, China does not need to sell a single bond. In an instant, China has made it clear that US interest rates depend on China, not on the Federal Reserve.
The precarious position of the US dollar as reserve currency has been thoroughly ignored and denied. The delusion that the US is “the world’s sole superpower,” whose currency is desirable regardless of its excess supply, reflects American hubris, not reality. This hubris is so extreme that only 6 weeks ago McKinsey Global Institute published a study that concluded that even a doubling of the US current account deficit to $1.6 trillion would pose no problem.
Strategic thinkers, if any remain who have not been purged by neocons, will quickly conclude that China’s power over the value of the dollar and US interest rates also gives China power over US foreign policy. The US was able to attack Afghanistan and Iraq only because China provided the largest part of the financing for Bush’s wars.
If China ceased to buy US Treasuries, Bush’s wars would end. The savings rate of US consumers is essentially zero, and several million are afflicted with mortgages that they cannot afford. With Bush’s budget in deficit and with no room in the US consumer’s budget for a tax increase, Bush’s wars can only be financed by foreigners.
No country on earth, except for Israel, supports the Bush regimes’ desire to attack Iran. It is China’s decision whether it calls in the US ambassador, and delivers the message that there will be no attack on Iran or further war unless the US is prepared to buy back $900 billion in US Treasury bonds and other dollar assets.
The US, of course, has no foreign reserves with which to make the purchase. The impact of such a large sale on US interest rates would wreck the US economy and effectively end Bush’s war-making capability. Moreover, other governments would likely follow the Chinese lead, as the main support for the US dollar has been China’s willingness to accumulate them. If the largest holder dumped the dollar, other countries would dump dollars, too.
The value and purchasing power of the US dollar would fall. When hard-pressed Americans went to Wal-Mart to make their purchases, the new prices would make them think they had wandered into Nieman Marcus. Americans would not be able to maintain their current living standard.
Simultaneously, Americans would be hit either with tax increases in order to close a budget deficit that foreigners will no longer finance or with large cuts in income security programs. The only other source of budgetary finance would be for the government to print money to pay its bills. In this event, Americans would experience inflation in addition to higher prices from dollar devaluation.
This is a grim outlook. We got in this position because our leaders are ignorant fools. So are our economists, many of whom are paid shills for some interest group. So are our corporate leaders whose greed gave China power over the US by offshoring the US production of goods and services to China. It was the corporate fat cats who turned US Gross Domestic Product into Chinese imports, and it was the “free trade, free market economists” who egged it on.
How did a people as stupid as Americans get so full of hubris?
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
[Original Link]
Uncle Sam, Your Banker Will See You Now
By Paul Craig Roberts
08/08/07 "ICH" --- - Early this morning China let the idiots in Washington, and on Wall Street, know that it has them by the short hairs. Two senior spokesmen for the Chinese government observed that China’s considerable holdings of US dollars and Treasury bonds “contributes a great deal to maintaining the position of the dollar as a reserve currency.”
Should the US proceed with sanctions intended to cause the Chinese currency to appreciate, “the Chinese central bank will be forced to sell dollars, which might lead to a mass depreciation of the dollar.”
If Western financial markets are sufficiently intelligent to comprehend the message, US interest rates will rise regardless of any further action by China. At this point, China does not need to sell a single bond. In an instant, China has made it clear that US interest rates depend on China, not on the Federal Reserve.
The precarious position of the US dollar as reserve currency has been thoroughly ignored and denied. The delusion that the US is “the world’s sole superpower,” whose currency is desirable regardless of its excess supply, reflects American hubris, not reality. This hubris is so extreme that only 6 weeks ago McKinsey Global Institute published a study that concluded that even a doubling of the US current account deficit to $1.6 trillion would pose no problem.
Strategic thinkers, if any remain who have not been purged by neocons, will quickly conclude that China’s power over the value of the dollar and US interest rates also gives China power over US foreign policy. The US was able to attack Afghanistan and Iraq only because China provided the largest part of the financing for Bush’s wars.
If China ceased to buy US Treasuries, Bush’s wars would end. The savings rate of US consumers is essentially zero, and several million are afflicted with mortgages that they cannot afford. With Bush’s budget in deficit and with no room in the US consumer’s budget for a tax increase, Bush’s wars can only be financed by foreigners.
No country on earth, except for Israel, supports the Bush regimes’ desire to attack Iran. It is China’s decision whether it calls in the US ambassador, and delivers the message that there will be no attack on Iran or further war unless the US is prepared to buy back $900 billion in US Treasury bonds and other dollar assets.
The US, of course, has no foreign reserves with which to make the purchase. The impact of such a large sale on US interest rates would wreck the US economy and effectively end Bush’s war-making capability. Moreover, other governments would likely follow the Chinese lead, as the main support for the US dollar has been China’s willingness to accumulate them. If the largest holder dumped the dollar, other countries would dump dollars, too.
The value and purchasing power of the US dollar would fall. When hard-pressed Americans went to Wal-Mart to make their purchases, the new prices would make them think they had wandered into Nieman Marcus. Americans would not be able to maintain their current living standard.
Simultaneously, Americans would be hit either with tax increases in order to close a budget deficit that foreigners will no longer finance or with large cuts in income security programs. The only other source of budgetary finance would be for the government to print money to pay its bills. In this event, Americans would experience inflation in addition to higher prices from dollar devaluation.
This is a grim outlook. We got in this position because our leaders are ignorant fools. So are our economists, many of whom are paid shills for some interest group. So are our corporate leaders whose greed gave China power over the US by offshoring the US production of goods and services to China. It was the corporate fat cats who turned US Gross Domestic Product into Chinese imports, and it was the “free trade, free market economists” who egged it on.
How did a people as stupid as Americans get so full of hubris?
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
Great interview with 9/11 Fireman
Give this a watch. It's 45min, kinda long for most people, I know, but it cuts through the bullshit and comes from someone who was there. Any interview from the firemen that were at ground zero are great to watch.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
ABC Dwarfs Ron Paul's Supporters
I love this! On the ABC News website, they showed a picture of Mitt Romney's Supporters, all grouped together with signs raised high. As for Ron Paul's supporters (supporter, apparently) a picture of a lone man, with his Ron Paul sign held sadly lower. ABC used its bag of tricks during the debate as well. Try as they might, Ron Paul is still gaining popularity. He IS our only hope.
FBI can't link Bin Laden to 9/11
Not one of my articles, but I think it's important to read up on.
[Original Link]
[Digg]
The FBI Can’t Link Bin Laden to 9/11? Why Is This Not News?
August 6th, 2007
According to this story the FBI had not, up through June of 2006, linked Bin Laden with 9/11.
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Ok, two questions:
1. How can they not have enough evidence?
2. Why is this not being discussed anywhere?
My first thought was of the video that was heavily brandished by the media where Bin Laden and some colleagues seemed to be gloating about their success. Wasn’t that pretty damning? The article addresses that too.
Essentially they point out the fact that the video was released in December of 2001, while the statement saying the FBI had no hard evidence linking them was released in June of 2006. The implication there is that the FBI doesn’t believe the video constitutes hard evidence of Bin Laden’s involvement.
Is this just the FBI using an unrealistic standard for “hard evidence”, or is it really possible that the main investigatory group for the attacks don’t think Bin Laden did it? And if that’s the case, who do they think did? Al Quaeda unrelated to Bin Laden? Another group?
Maybe it’s nothing, but we should damn well have the discussion.:
The Full Article at Team Liberty
Posted by Daniel Miessler
Filed in Media, America, Security, Politics
42 Responses to “The FBI Can’t Link Bin Laden to 9/11? Why Is This Not News?”
[Original Link]
[Digg]
The FBI Can’t Link Bin Laden to 9/11? Why Is This Not News?
August 6th, 2007
According to this story the FBI had not, up through June of 2006, linked Bin Laden with 9/11.
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Ok, two questions:
1. How can they not have enough evidence?
2. Why is this not being discussed anywhere?
My first thought was of the video that was heavily brandished by the media where Bin Laden and some colleagues seemed to be gloating about their success. Wasn’t that pretty damning? The article addresses that too.
Essentially they point out the fact that the video was released in December of 2001, while the statement saying the FBI had no hard evidence linking them was released in June of 2006. The implication there is that the FBI doesn’t believe the video constitutes hard evidence of Bin Laden’s involvement.
Is this just the FBI using an unrealistic standard for “hard evidence”, or is it really possible that the main investigatory group for the attacks don’t think Bin Laden did it? And if that’s the case, who do they think did? Al Quaeda unrelated to Bin Laden? Another group?
Maybe it’s nothing, but we should damn well have the discussion.:
The Full Article at Team Liberty
Posted by Daniel Miessler
Filed in Media, America, Security, Politics
42 Responses to “The FBI Can’t Link Bin Laden to 9/11? Why Is This Not News?”
Monday, August 06, 2007
Ron Paul Champions Internet Freedom
Good 'ol Ron Paul. Taken from Infowars.net
Ron Paul Champions Internet Freedom
Speaks out against federal regulation in wake of more liberty stripping net rules
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, August 6, 2007
Email Print Friendly Page
Yahoo! MyWeb Del.icio.us
Presidential candidate Ron Paul has stated in no uncertain terms that he is thoroughly against internet regulation and has spoken out against federal rubric of the web in the week after a bill was passed by the Senate Commerce Committee as a pretext towards implementation of universal filtering on the Internet.
Speaking after another victorious Republican nominee debate, Dr Paul told Gambling911.com's Kira Wissman:
“I believe strongly that the internet should not be regulated by the federal government and believes even more strongly that people should be free to engage in the activities they wish, as long as they are willing to take responsibility for their actions.”
The Texas Congressman is co-sponsoring a bill to legalize online gambling along with Democrat Barney Frank.
“The majority of people in Washington were afraid to support the internet for fear it would label them ‘pro-porn’ or ‘pro-gambling’.” Paul continued.
Paul's comments come in the wake of the passing of another bill that represents a greater step towards federal regulation of the internet.
The United States Senate Commerce Committee passed a bill last Friday that would require a review, within one year of enactment, technology that can help parents manage the vast volume of video and other content on television or the Internet, just a week after Senators made a bipartisan call to implement universal filtering on the net.
Free speech groups including the Center for Democracy and Technology have expressed concern that the Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007 (S. 602) may represent a step toward expanding the FCC's censorship authority to include Internet content.
Other recent bipartisan proposals in the Congress have taken huge swipes at internet freedom by aiming to impose multiple different forms of crippling taxation and restriction on its users. Both Republican and Democrat representatives have joined a chorus of others in demonizing the Internet in attempts to further lead it down a path of strict control.
In previous debates Ron Paul has come out in strong support of internet freedom while all other candidates are in favour of regulation.
During the first Republican presidential debate, MSNBC's debate back in May, the Congressman stated that he trusted the internet "a lot more" than the mainstream media. Paul went on to state:
And I trust the freedom of expression, and that’s why we should never interfere with the Internet, that’s why I’ve never voted to regulate the Internet, even when there’s the temptation to put bad things on the Internet. Regulation of bad and good on the Internet should be done differently.
When compared with other leading candidates on the issue of internet freedom, Ron Paul stands alone. For example, John McCain, on the Republican side, has previously tabled legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards. It is well known that McCain has a severe distaste for his blogosphere critics, causing a definite conflict of interest where any proposal to restrict blogs on his part is concerned.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, for the Democrats, has voiced her support for the so called "Fairness Doctrine" which would effectively suffocate the independent media.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!
Let us help you reach a huge audience of potential customers. Help support the website and take advantage of low advertising rates. Click here for more info.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Congressman has once again proven that where the upholding of liberty and the defence of free speech in the 21st century are concerned, he is the only candidate who can seriously be considered.
Ron Paul emphatically won the post debate polls once again for the fourth time running, yet this still was not enough to prevent Fox News attempting to smear him once again by using Infowars as fodder in a carefully scripted attempt to ensnare the Congressman and insinuate his appearances on the Alex Jones show somehow make him un-American.
Ron Paul Champions Internet Freedom
Speaks out against federal regulation in wake of more liberty stripping net rules
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, August 6, 2007
Email Print Friendly Page
Yahoo! MyWeb Del.icio.us
Presidential candidate Ron Paul has stated in no uncertain terms that he is thoroughly against internet regulation and has spoken out against federal rubric of the web in the week after a bill was passed by the Senate Commerce Committee as a pretext towards implementation of universal filtering on the Internet.
Speaking after another victorious Republican nominee debate, Dr Paul told Gambling911.com's Kira Wissman:
“I believe strongly that the internet should not be regulated by the federal government and believes even more strongly that people should be free to engage in the activities they wish, as long as they are willing to take responsibility for their actions.”
The Texas Congressman is co-sponsoring a bill to legalize online gambling along with Democrat Barney Frank.
“The majority of people in Washington were afraid to support the internet for fear it would label them ‘pro-porn’ or ‘pro-gambling’.” Paul continued.
Paul's comments come in the wake of the passing of another bill that represents a greater step towards federal regulation of the internet.
The United States Senate Commerce Committee passed a bill last Friday that would require a review, within one year of enactment, technology that can help parents manage the vast volume of video and other content on television or the Internet, just a week after Senators made a bipartisan call to implement universal filtering on the net.
Free speech groups including the Center for Democracy and Technology have expressed concern that the Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007 (S. 602) may represent a step toward expanding the FCC's censorship authority to include Internet content.
Other recent bipartisan proposals in the Congress have taken huge swipes at internet freedom by aiming to impose multiple different forms of crippling taxation and restriction on its users. Both Republican and Democrat representatives have joined a chorus of others in demonizing the Internet in attempts to further lead it down a path of strict control.
In previous debates Ron Paul has come out in strong support of internet freedom while all other candidates are in favour of regulation.
During the first Republican presidential debate, MSNBC's debate back in May, the Congressman stated that he trusted the internet "a lot more" than the mainstream media. Paul went on to state:
And I trust the freedom of expression, and that’s why we should never interfere with the Internet, that’s why I’ve never voted to regulate the Internet, even when there’s the temptation to put bad things on the Internet. Regulation of bad and good on the Internet should be done differently.
When compared with other leading candidates on the issue of internet freedom, Ron Paul stands alone. For example, John McCain, on the Republican side, has previously tabled legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards. It is well known that McCain has a severe distaste for his blogosphere critics, causing a definite conflict of interest where any proposal to restrict blogs on his part is concerned.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, for the Democrats, has voiced her support for the so called "Fairness Doctrine" which would effectively suffocate the independent media.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!
Let us help you reach a huge audience of potential customers. Help support the website and take advantage of low advertising rates. Click here for more info.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Congressman has once again proven that where the upholding of liberty and the defence of free speech in the 21st century are concerned, he is the only candidate who can seriously be considered.
Ron Paul emphatically won the post debate polls once again for the fourth time running, yet this still was not enough to prevent Fox News attempting to smear him once again by using Infowars as fodder in a carefully scripted attempt to ensnare the Congressman and insinuate his appearances on the Alex Jones show somehow make him un-American.
ABC News caught in poll fraud...
The networks hate Ron Paul. Always accusing his followers of cheating the polls, voting more than once, and such. Which is never the case. The latest attempt to stifle Dr. Paul was yesterday, during an ABC News Poll after the GOP debate held that morning.
http://scottdangel.com/blog/?p=10
ABC News once again tries to “hide” Ron Paul
Just like after the May RNC debate when ABC deleted Ron Paul from the online poll (and later re added him after being exposed) and then deleted all user comments saying they were fake, ABC is at it again. Thier “expert” Green Room 8 minute long video on the front page link : “VOTE: Who won the debate” doesn’t even mention Ron Paul in stark contrast to the public opinion.
Here is a screenshot of the online poll taken at 7:30est before any type of ‘Digg effect’ or ‘organized blogger movement’:
Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Posted on Sunday, August 5th, 2007 at 6:09 pm In Politics | Comments RSS
Digg.com | Netscape.com | Reddit.com | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon.com | Google.com | Socialogs.com | Others social services
http://scottdangel.com/blog/?p=10
ABC News once again tries to “hide” Ron Paul
Just like after the May RNC debate when ABC deleted Ron Paul from the online poll (and later re added him after being exposed) and then deleted all user comments saying they were fake, ABC is at it again. Thier “expert” Green Room 8 minute long video on the front page link : “VOTE: Who won the debate” doesn’t even mention Ron Paul in stark contrast to the public opinion.
Here is a screenshot of the online poll taken at 7:30est before any type of ‘Digg effect’ or ‘organized blogger movement’:
Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Posted on Sunday, August 5th, 2007 at 6:09 pm In Politics | Comments RSS
Digg.com | Netscape.com | Reddit.com | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon.com | Google.com | Socialogs.com | Others social services
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Tagging Phones to Track Traffic
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2006/11/72078
Tagging Phones to Track Traffic
Associated Press Email 11.05.06 | 2:20 PM
ATLANTA -- Tracking traffic can be an expensive business. In some places, costly cameras and radar systems are mounted high above highways to watch traffic at strategic points. Transportation agencies also dig up roads to install sensors that monitor the flow. And helicopters roam the skies of the busiest cities, relaying information on the choked roadways to media outlets.
Atlanta's horrendous traffic has inspired two companies that are looking to monitor many more roads and highways than is done today and at a much lower cost. Their approach: Track the signals of cell phones that happen to be inside cars.
By using anonymous data from wireless providers to mark how fast cell-phone handsets are moving -- and overlaying that information with location data and maps -- IntelliOne and AirSage hope to offer more detailed information and pragmatic advice than other firms that monitor traffic through radar, helicopters or cameras. But some critics aren't so sure the benefits outweigh the potential privacy risks.
Both systems rely on wireless companies allowing them to process the data from their towers that calculate the position of each phone about twice a second when it's being used and once every 30 seconds when it's not.
IntelliOne, in business since 1999, uses technology that can track vehicles to within 330 feet without using Global Positioning System satellites. Its software is designed to weed out the difference between pedestrians and drivers, then crunch it into detailed color-coded maps that show average speeds along roadways. Light-traffic stretches are in green, slowdowns in yellow and logjams in red.
It rolled out a pilot program in Tampa, and plans to dive into its first market in March, in Ontario, Canada. Forty more markets, including Atlanta, could be covered by November 2007.
The service would be marketed free to wireless providers, who would share profits with IntelliOne. Media outlets could buy access to broad snapshots of a city's traffic situation.
Individual customers would be able to buy a single use or pay a monthly fee for personalized information and a service that sends alternate routes when traffic takes a turn for the worse. No prices have been set yet.
AirSage has a similar strategy and has partnered with Sprint Nextel Corp. to offer government customers real-time traffic data. The company already has four contracts with state transit departments and recently announced a plan with the Georgia Department of Transportation to extend traffic coverage between Atlanta and Macon.
Cy Smith, AirSage's president and CEO, said more than $1 billion is spent each year by government agencies to track traffic, but the expense doesn't even cover 1 percent of the nation's roads. He said his company can increase coverage tenfold at the same expense.
The success of both systems will hinge on whether wireless companies are willing to extend the service to a mass market. Lewis Ward, a telecom analyst with IDC, said wireless carriers have long been reluctant to use the locations of their users for profit and that's unlikely to change.
"Location is one of the unique attributes of a cell phone," Ward said. "There is a lot of value there and a lot of potential for abuse. From my sense, the carriers have invested quite a lot of money to develop these systems and they're very unlikely to let those streams back out."
It remains to be seen whether wireless providers will be swayed. Cingular, for instance, said it doesn't plan to immediately provide traffic-tracking services.
"We're not going to speculate on future plans," said Dawn Benton, a company spokeswoman. "But should we participate in projects like this in the future, we would only do so with strong privacy protections in place."
Kristin Wallace, a Sprint spokeswoman, confirmed the partnership with AirSage but said she wouldn't comment more due to "competitive reasons."
Privacy advocates are already raising a red flag.
"This is your personal information. Shouldn't you have the right to control whether people know where you are?" asked Melissa Ngo of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center. "When I signed up for a cell phone, I did not sign up to be tracked."
Beyond privacy concerns, the cell phone-based tracking system has other potential flaws, one being that there's no way to determine exactly what is backing up traffic.
Ron Herman, IntelliOne's CEO, illustrated that as he sat in his Atlanta office monitoring an abrupt slowdown in Tampa traffic. It could have been a police car parked on the shoulder of the road or a more disruptive fender-bender, but there's no way to know. "I'd guess someone lost a mattress," he reckoned.
And tracking data will likely be sparse late at night or early in the morning, when few drivers are navigating the roads. But the odds are, where cell phones are sparse, so is traffic.
As Smith said, "There are times when the absence of data tells as much a story as the presence of data."
Tagging Phones to Track Traffic
Associated Press Email 11.05.06 | 2:20 PM
ATLANTA -- Tracking traffic can be an expensive business. In some places, costly cameras and radar systems are mounted high above highways to watch traffic at strategic points. Transportation agencies also dig up roads to install sensors that monitor the flow. And helicopters roam the skies of the busiest cities, relaying information on the choked roadways to media outlets.
Atlanta's horrendous traffic has inspired two companies that are looking to monitor many more roads and highways than is done today and at a much lower cost. Their approach: Track the signals of cell phones that happen to be inside cars.
By using anonymous data from wireless providers to mark how fast cell-phone handsets are moving -- and overlaying that information with location data and maps -- IntelliOne and AirSage hope to offer more detailed information and pragmatic advice than other firms that monitor traffic through radar, helicopters or cameras. But some critics aren't so sure the benefits outweigh the potential privacy risks.
Both systems rely on wireless companies allowing them to process the data from their towers that calculate the position of each phone about twice a second when it's being used and once every 30 seconds when it's not.
IntelliOne, in business since 1999, uses technology that can track vehicles to within 330 feet without using Global Positioning System satellites. Its software is designed to weed out the difference between pedestrians and drivers, then crunch it into detailed color-coded maps that show average speeds along roadways. Light-traffic stretches are in green, slowdowns in yellow and logjams in red.
It rolled out a pilot program in Tampa, and plans to dive into its first market in March, in Ontario, Canada. Forty more markets, including Atlanta, could be covered by November 2007.
The service would be marketed free to wireless providers, who would share profits with IntelliOne. Media outlets could buy access to broad snapshots of a city's traffic situation.
Individual customers would be able to buy a single use or pay a monthly fee for personalized information and a service that sends alternate routes when traffic takes a turn for the worse. No prices have been set yet.
AirSage has a similar strategy and has partnered with Sprint Nextel Corp. to offer government customers real-time traffic data. The company already has four contracts with state transit departments and recently announced a plan with the Georgia Department of Transportation to extend traffic coverage between Atlanta and Macon.
Cy Smith, AirSage's president and CEO, said more than $1 billion is spent each year by government agencies to track traffic, but the expense doesn't even cover 1 percent of the nation's roads. He said his company can increase coverage tenfold at the same expense.
The success of both systems will hinge on whether wireless companies are willing to extend the service to a mass market. Lewis Ward, a telecom analyst with IDC, said wireless carriers have long been reluctant to use the locations of their users for profit and that's unlikely to change.
"Location is one of the unique attributes of a cell phone," Ward said. "There is a lot of value there and a lot of potential for abuse. From my sense, the carriers have invested quite a lot of money to develop these systems and they're very unlikely to let those streams back out."
It remains to be seen whether wireless providers will be swayed. Cingular, for instance, said it doesn't plan to immediately provide traffic-tracking services.
"We're not going to speculate on future plans," said Dawn Benton, a company spokeswoman. "But should we participate in projects like this in the future, we would only do so with strong privacy protections in place."
Kristin Wallace, a Sprint spokeswoman, confirmed the partnership with AirSage but said she wouldn't comment more due to "competitive reasons."
Privacy advocates are already raising a red flag.
"This is your personal information. Shouldn't you have the right to control whether people know where you are?" asked Melissa Ngo of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center. "When I signed up for a cell phone, I did not sign up to be tracked."
Beyond privacy concerns, the cell phone-based tracking system has other potential flaws, one being that there's no way to determine exactly what is backing up traffic.
Ron Herman, IntelliOne's CEO, illustrated that as he sat in his Atlanta office monitoring an abrupt slowdown in Tampa traffic. It could have been a police car parked on the shoulder of the road or a more disruptive fender-bender, but there's no way to know. "I'd guess someone lost a mattress," he reckoned.
And tracking data will likely be sparse late at night or early in the morning, when few drivers are navigating the roads. But the odds are, where cell phones are sparse, so is traffic.
As Smith said, "There are times when the absence of data tells as much a story as the presence of data."
Pentagon to implant microchips in soldiers brain
http://pressesc.com/news/80530072007/pentagon-implant-microchips-soldiers-brains
-----
Pentagon to implant microchips in soldiers' brains
Submitted by Adam Thomas on Mon, 2007-07-30 19:49.
Ad:
The Department of Defense is planning to implant microchips in soldiers' brains for monitoring their health information, and has already awarded a $1.6 million contract to the Center for Bioelectronics, Biosensors and Biochips (C3B) at Clemson University for the development of an implantable "biochip".
Soldiers fear that the biochip, about the size of a grain of rice, which measures and relays information on soldiers vital signs 24 hours a day, can be used to put them under surveillance even when they are off duty.
But Anthony Guiseppi-Elie, C3B director and Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering and Bioengineering claims the that the invivo biosensors will save lives as first responders to the trauma scene could inject the biochip into the wounded victim and gather data almost immediately.
He believes that the device has other long-term potential applications, such as monitoring astronauts’ vital signs during long-duration space flights and reading blood-sugar levels for diabetics.
“We now lose a large percentage of patients to bleeding, and getting vital information such as how much oxygen is in the tissue back to ER physicians and medical personnel can often mean the difference between life and death,” said Guiseppi-Elie. “Our goal is to improve the quality and expediency of care for fallen soldiers and civilian trauma victims.” The biochip also may be injected as a precaution to future traumas."
Clemson scientists have formulated a gel that mimics human tissue and reduces the chances of the body rejecting the biochip, which has been a problem in the past.
The researcher predicts the biochip is five years away from human trials, and the DoD could start implanting microchips in soldiers bodies soon after.
-----
Pentagon to implant microchips in soldiers' brains
Submitted by Adam Thomas on Mon, 2007-07-30 19:49.
Ad:
The Department of Defense is planning to implant microchips in soldiers' brains for monitoring their health information, and has already awarded a $1.6 million contract to the Center for Bioelectronics, Biosensors and Biochips (C3B) at Clemson University for the development of an implantable "biochip".
Soldiers fear that the biochip, about the size of a grain of rice, which measures and relays information on soldiers vital signs 24 hours a day, can be used to put them under surveillance even when they are off duty.
But Anthony Guiseppi-Elie, C3B director and Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering and Bioengineering claims the that the invivo biosensors will save lives as first responders to the trauma scene could inject the biochip into the wounded victim and gather data almost immediately.
He believes that the device has other long-term potential applications, such as monitoring astronauts’ vital signs during long-duration space flights and reading blood-sugar levels for diabetics.
“We now lose a large percentage of patients to bleeding, and getting vital information such as how much oxygen is in the tissue back to ER physicians and medical personnel can often mean the difference between life and death,” said Guiseppi-Elie. “Our goal is to improve the quality and expediency of care for fallen soldiers and civilian trauma victims.” The biochip also may be injected as a precaution to future traumas."
Clemson scientists have formulated a gel that mimics human tissue and reduces the chances of the body rejecting the biochip, which has been a problem in the past.
The researcher predicts the biochip is five years away from human trials, and the DoD could start implanting microchips in soldiers bodies soon after.
1984 Vs. Now
Thought this was pretty interesting. Original document can be found here: http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/go-now.html
George Orwell - The Prophet?
Was Orwell a prophet?.... hopefully not. But, here are a few items from 1984 which now exist in modern life.
1984 : Newspeak
Now : Politically Correct speech
1984 : The red sash of the Junior Anti-Sex League
Now : The red ribbon of the Anti-Aids celibacy league
1984 : Telescreens in every room. The programming runs 24 hours a day, and the proles have no way of turning their screens off.
Now : Televisions in every room. The programming runs 24 hours a day, and the proles rarely turn their screens off.
Big Brother is Watching You 1984 : Telescreens in all public and private places, so the populace could be watched to prevent thoughtcrime.
Now : Surveillance cameras in most buildings (operated by businesses), and in some public streets (operated by police) to prevent crime. Although most of these cameras are operated by private businesses instead of our intrusive government, the end result is the same.
1984 : Helicopters silently watch over the masses to keep people from committing thoughtcrime, by planting the fear of "always being watched"
Now : Helicopters silently watch over our highways to keep people from breaking traffic laws, by planting the fear of "always being watched"
1984 : Lotteries with very few (if any) winners. Held just to collect income for state, and to give hope to the masses
Now : Lotteries with very few (if any) winners. Held just to collect income for state, and to give hope to the masses.
Lotteries are basically a tax on stupidity. Anybody with any understanding of math at all knows that it is a complete waste of money. Since only 45% of the money collected from sales is sent back out as prizes, odds are that you are going to loose more than half of the money the put into it - and most people will not see any return on their investment what-so-ever.
Every time I see some minimum-wage-earning mother-of-four throwing her her hard earned five dollar bill down on the counter for a pack of cigarettes and a "chance to win millions", my cold heart melts. Lotteries and cigarette taxes are nothing more than a way to squeeze every last cent possible out of the lower and middle class, and the politicians that are responsible for these "poverty taxes" should be drug out into the street and shot.
When the state sold the idea to state run gambling to the public, they told us that the money would go to education. ("How can you be against the kids!") But, they failed to tell us that the existing funding would be pulled away to fund other projects, resulting in little if any gain for education.
And as I mentioned earlier, only 45% of lottery revenues are returned directly to the people in the form of prizes. And, if you happen to be the person that defies the odds and somehow manages to win that 45%, the federal and state taxes are going to reclaim 30%-50% of your winnings, which only leaves about 25%-30% of the original take for the the winners - the other 70%-75% being taken by the state.
And, as if that wasn't enough money to make the state happy, the "big money" prizes are usually paid off over a 20 year period. So, the prize winner's earning are diminished even further by inflation. But really, when you look at it, the government is actually keeping ALL of the money...
If a person wins $1,000,000, their yearly payments would be $50,000 a year. However, the interest on $1,000,000 at the prime rate (approx 8%) is is about $80,000 a year!... $30,000 more than is being paid off to the winner! Of course, the winner may elect to take half now ... which means state and federal governments will end up retaining 85%-90% of the original receipts!
And of course, any purchases made with your winnings will be subject to local sales tax...
No matter how you look at it, the only real winner is the state.
1984 : Ministry of Peace
Now : Department of Defense
1984 : Useless statistics, incorrect economic predictions, and slanted opinions polls are presented on the telescreen as "legitimate news", to give people the impression that "things are getting better", and that all people agree with the popular way of thinking.
Now : Useless statistics, incorrect economic predictions, and slanted opinions polls are presented on the Evening news as "legitimate news", to give people the impression that "things are getting better", and that all people agree with the popular way of thinking.
1984 : History is being rewritten, to conform with modern beliefs. All references to oldthink were being removed or rewritten.
Now : History is being rewritten, to conform with modern beliefs. The most obvious example of this - The removal of "racist", Violent, or Sexist material from popular cartoons. "Heckle & Jeckle" cartoons have been permanently shelved, since they are said to portray "negros". "Tom & Jerry" cartoons that contained the "mamma" character have also disappeared. You no longer see Daffy's head actually being blown off by Elmer. I recently saw an old superman cartoon in which the sexist line, "Isn't that too dangerous for a woman" (referring to Lois) was removed.
1984 : People are steered away from consuming rare goods such as Chocolate, Steak, Sugar, Coffee, Cigarettes, and alcohol by rationing.
Now : People are steered away from consuming rare goods such as Chocolate, Steak, Sugar, Coffee, Cigarettes, and alcohol by warnings that declare that these items are bad for your health.
1984 : There is always war. If peace is made with one country, war is claimed on another nation to keep the military machine rolling.
Now : There is always war. If peace is made with one country, war is claimed (or threatened) on another nation to keep the military machine rolling.
1984 : Songs are created by machines. This is done to make sure nobody can take credit for songs, or write songs not in line with Ingsoc.
Now : Songs are created by synthesizers. Nobody can realistically take credit for their own songs because most songs are re-mixes or a collage of dubs from other people's music.
1984 : Telescreen is full of confessions from "Thought criminals". They confessed to hatred of the government, crimes of all kinds, perversions of all kinds.
Now : Daytime talk shows are full of white trash who enjoy sharing tales of their pathetic existence with the whole world.
1984 : From Goldstein's book - "The effect (of the atomic wars) was to convince the ruling groups of all countries that a few more atomic bombs would mean the end of organized society, and hence of their own power. Thereafter, although no formal agreement was ever made or hinted at, no more bombs were dropped. All three powers merely continue to produce atomic bombs and store them up against the decisive opportunity which they all believe will come sooner or later. And meanwhile the art of war has remained almost stationary for thirty or forty years. Helicopters are more used than they were formerly, bombing planes have been largely superseded by self-propelled projectiles, and the fragile movable battleship has given way to the almost unsinkable Floating Fortress; but otherwise there has been little development. The tank, the submarine, the torpedo, the machine gun, even the rifle and the hand grenade are still in use. And in spite of the endless slaughters reported in the Press and on the telescreens, the desperate battles of earlier wars, in which hundreds of thousands or even millions of men were often killed in a few weeks, have never been repeated."
Now : The effect (of the only nuclear war in history, WWII) was to convince the ruling groups of all countries that a few more atomic bombs would mean the end of organized society, and hence of their own power. Thereafter, although the threat of atomic war remained, no more bombs were dropped. All atomic powers merely continued to produce atomic bombs and store them up against the decisive opportunity which they all believed will come sooner or later. And meanwhile the art of war has remained almost stationary for fifty or sixty years. Helicopters are more used than they were formerly, bombing planes have been largely superseded by self-propelled projectiles, and the fragile movable battleship has given way to the aircraft carrier, (which generally stays far away from any actual combat); but otherwise there has been little development. The tank, the submarine, the torpedo, the machine gun, even the rifle and the hand grenade are still in use. And in spite of the endless slaughters reported in the Press and on the television, the desperate battles of earlier wars, in which hundreds of thousands or even millions of men were often killed in a few weeks, have never been repeated.
Hmmm... maybe Orwell really could predict the future!
Home
George Orwell - The Prophet?
Was Orwell a prophet?.... hopefully not. But, here are a few items from 1984 which now exist in modern life.
1984 : Newspeak
Now : Politically Correct speech
1984 : The red sash of the Junior Anti-Sex League
Now : The red ribbon of the Anti-Aids celibacy league
1984 : Telescreens in every room. The programming runs 24 hours a day, and the proles have no way of turning their screens off.
Now : Televisions in every room. The programming runs 24 hours a day, and the proles rarely turn their screens off.
Big Brother is Watching You 1984 : Telescreens in all public and private places, so the populace could be watched to prevent thoughtcrime.
Now : Surveillance cameras in most buildings (operated by businesses), and in some public streets (operated by police) to prevent crime. Although most of these cameras are operated by private businesses instead of our intrusive government, the end result is the same.
1984 : Helicopters silently watch over the masses to keep people from committing thoughtcrime, by planting the fear of "always being watched"
Now : Helicopters silently watch over our highways to keep people from breaking traffic laws, by planting the fear of "always being watched"
1984 : Lotteries with very few (if any) winners. Held just to collect income for state, and to give hope to the masses
Now : Lotteries with very few (if any) winners. Held just to collect income for state, and to give hope to the masses.
Lotteries are basically a tax on stupidity. Anybody with any understanding of math at all knows that it is a complete waste of money. Since only 45% of the money collected from sales is sent back out as prizes, odds are that you are going to loose more than half of the money the put into it - and most people will not see any return on their investment what-so-ever.
Every time I see some minimum-wage-earning mother-of-four throwing her her hard earned five dollar bill down on the counter for a pack of cigarettes and a "chance to win millions", my cold heart melts. Lotteries and cigarette taxes are nothing more than a way to squeeze every last cent possible out of the lower and middle class, and the politicians that are responsible for these "poverty taxes" should be drug out into the street and shot.
When the state sold the idea to state run gambling to the public, they told us that the money would go to education. ("How can you be against the kids!") But, they failed to tell us that the existing funding would be pulled away to fund other projects, resulting in little if any gain for education.
And as I mentioned earlier, only 45% of lottery revenues are returned directly to the people in the form of prizes. And, if you happen to be the person that defies the odds and somehow manages to win that 45%, the federal and state taxes are going to reclaim 30%-50% of your winnings, which only leaves about 25%-30% of the original take for the the winners - the other 70%-75% being taken by the state.
And, as if that wasn't enough money to make the state happy, the "big money" prizes are usually paid off over a 20 year period. So, the prize winner's earning are diminished even further by inflation. But really, when you look at it, the government is actually keeping ALL of the money...
If a person wins $1,000,000, their yearly payments would be $50,000 a year. However, the interest on $1,000,000 at the prime rate (approx 8%) is is about $80,000 a year!... $30,000 more than is being paid off to the winner! Of course, the winner may elect to take half now ... which means state and federal governments will end up retaining 85%-90% of the original receipts!
And of course, any purchases made with your winnings will be subject to local sales tax...
No matter how you look at it, the only real winner is the state.
1984 : Ministry of Peace
Now : Department of Defense
1984 : Useless statistics, incorrect economic predictions, and slanted opinions polls are presented on the telescreen as "legitimate news", to give people the impression that "things are getting better", and that all people agree with the popular way of thinking.
Now : Useless statistics, incorrect economic predictions, and slanted opinions polls are presented on the Evening news as "legitimate news", to give people the impression that "things are getting better", and that all people agree with the popular way of thinking.
1984 : History is being rewritten, to conform with modern beliefs. All references to oldthink were being removed or rewritten.
Now : History is being rewritten, to conform with modern beliefs. The most obvious example of this - The removal of "racist", Violent, or Sexist material from popular cartoons. "Heckle & Jeckle" cartoons have been permanently shelved, since they are said to portray "negros". "Tom & Jerry" cartoons that contained the "mamma" character have also disappeared. You no longer see Daffy's head actually being blown off by Elmer. I recently saw an old superman cartoon in which the sexist line, "Isn't that too dangerous for a woman" (referring to Lois) was removed.
1984 : People are steered away from consuming rare goods such as Chocolate, Steak, Sugar, Coffee, Cigarettes, and alcohol by rationing.
Now : People are steered away from consuming rare goods such as Chocolate, Steak, Sugar, Coffee, Cigarettes, and alcohol by warnings that declare that these items are bad for your health.
1984 : There is always war. If peace is made with one country, war is claimed on another nation to keep the military machine rolling.
Now : There is always war. If peace is made with one country, war is claimed (or threatened) on another nation to keep the military machine rolling.
1984 : Songs are created by machines. This is done to make sure nobody can take credit for songs, or write songs not in line with Ingsoc.
Now : Songs are created by synthesizers. Nobody can realistically take credit for their own songs because most songs are re-mixes or a collage of dubs from other people's music.
1984 : Telescreen is full of confessions from "Thought criminals". They confessed to hatred of the government, crimes of all kinds, perversions of all kinds.
Now : Daytime talk shows are full of white trash who enjoy sharing tales of their pathetic existence with the whole world.
1984 : From Goldstein's book - "The effect (of the atomic wars) was to convince the ruling groups of all countries that a few more atomic bombs would mean the end of organized society, and hence of their own power. Thereafter, although no formal agreement was ever made or hinted at, no more bombs were dropped. All three powers merely continue to produce atomic bombs and store them up against the decisive opportunity which they all believe will come sooner or later. And meanwhile the art of war has remained almost stationary for thirty or forty years. Helicopters are more used than they were formerly, bombing planes have been largely superseded by self-propelled projectiles, and the fragile movable battleship has given way to the almost unsinkable Floating Fortress; but otherwise there has been little development. The tank, the submarine, the torpedo, the machine gun, even the rifle and the hand grenade are still in use. And in spite of the endless slaughters reported in the Press and on the telescreens, the desperate battles of earlier wars, in which hundreds of thousands or even millions of men were often killed in a few weeks, have never been repeated."
Now : The effect (of the only nuclear war in history, WWII) was to convince the ruling groups of all countries that a few more atomic bombs would mean the end of organized society, and hence of their own power. Thereafter, although the threat of atomic war remained, no more bombs were dropped. All atomic powers merely continued to produce atomic bombs and store them up against the decisive opportunity which they all believed will come sooner or later. And meanwhile the art of war has remained almost stationary for fifty or sixty years. Helicopters are more used than they were formerly, bombing planes have been largely superseded by self-propelled projectiles, and the fragile movable battleship has given way to the aircraft carrier, (which generally stays far away from any actual combat); but otherwise there has been little development. The tank, the submarine, the torpedo, the machine gun, even the rifle and the hand grenade are still in use. And in spite of the endless slaughters reported in the Press and on the television, the desperate battles of earlier wars, in which hundreds of thousands or even millions of men were often killed in a few weeks, have never been repeated.
Hmmm... maybe Orwell really could predict the future!
Home
Ron Paul Blasts "Unconstitutional, Undeclared Wars" at GOP Debate
To cheers from the audience, Ron Paul continues to expand upon his anti-war stance.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)