Politics What is happening????

Charlatan · May 19, 2014

Interesting to note the amount of money being spent to tear down vs. support the Affordable Care Act.

And one wonders about the shape of public opinion when $700 million is spent to oppose something, versus $27 million.

Love it or hate it, the Affordable Care Act boosted TV ad spending. Especially from the people who hate it. A new study from Kantar Media CMAG indicates that since 2010, $418 million has been spent on 880,000 negative Obamacare ads, versus $27 spent on 58,000 positive spots. Counting other spending, by insurance companies, states and the federal government, the total balloons to $700 million.
Click to expand...

redravin · May 19, 2014

Charlatan said: ↑

Interesting to note the amount of money being spent to tear down vs. support the Affordable Care Act.

And one wonders about the shape of public opinion when $700 million is spent to oppose something, versus $27 million.
Click to expand...

What I find funny about that is the 'Between Two Ferns' piece that the President did with Zach Galifianckis was never on TV, cost a few thousand dollars to make and pulled in at least a hundred thousand sign ups.
Gotta know your audience.

rogue49 · May 19, 2014

And what I find funny...are those who protest spending money...are those who throw money at things.

In truth, they are not worried about money spent...but what the money is spent on.
If you don't care for the people or project, you don't want your money going there.

But they have NO hesitation in throwing money to do what they want...or support those they are in cahoots with.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

rogue49 · May 19, 2014

And as a followup to my previous post,
I want to not this...NOT from a liberal context...but as an argument vs extreme libertarian/anarchist context. (and I have a Libertarian streak in me too)

That no effort or entity in this current society is an island.
It is interacting with the utilities and infrastructure and efforts of the whole.

I believe in Libertarianism from a privacy context...or overreach of regulation
...but not from an anti-govt/rebellious or null regulation one.

No more liberal apologies as Elizabeth Warren takes the offensive
By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: May 18

Elizabeth Warren is cast as many things: a populist, a left-winger, the paladin against the bankers and the rich, the Democrats’ alternative to Hillary Clinton, the policy wonk with a heart.

The senior senator from Massachusetts is certainly a populist and her heart is with those foreclosed upon and exploited by shady financial practices. But she is not nearly as left-wing as many say — she can offer a strong defense of capitalism that’s usually overlooked. And here’s betting that she won’t run against Clinton.

What all the descriptions miss is Warren’s most important contribution to the progressive cause. She is, above all, a lawyer who knows how to make arguments. From the time she first came to public attention, Warren has been challenging conservative presumptions embedded so deeply in our discourse that we barely notice them. Where others equivocate, she fights back with common sense.

Since the Reagan era, Democrats have been so determined to show how pro-market and pro-business they are that they’ve shied away from pointing out that markets could not exist without government, that the well-off depend on the state to keep their wealth secure and that participants in the economy rely on government to keep the marketplace on the level and to temper the business cycle’s gyrations.

Warren doesn’t back away from any of these facts. In her new book, “A Fighting Chance,” she recalls the answer she gave to a voter during a living-room gathering in Andover, Mass., that quickly went viral. She was in the early days of her Senate campaign, in the fall of 2011, and had been asked about the deficit. Characteristically, she pushed the boundaries beyond a narrow fiscal discussion to explain how government helped create wealth.

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own,” she said. “Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.” It was all part of “the underlying social contract,” she said, a phrase politicians don’t typically use.

Warren’s book tells her personal story in a folksy way and documents her major public battles, including her successful effort to establish a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But the book is most striking for the way in which her confident tone parallels Ronald Reagan’s upbeat proclamations on behalf of his own creed. Conservatives loved the Gipper for using straightforward and understandable arguments to make the case for less government. Warren turns the master’s method against the ideology he rhapsodized. Even former treasury secretary Timothy Geithner, who tangled with Warren, acknowledges in his new book “Stress Test” that she has “a gift for explanation.”

Warren tells of meeting with Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.), a former FBI agent, to talk about the consumer agency. “After a bit,” she reports, “he cut me off so he could make one thing clear: He didn’t believe in government.”

That seemed strange coming from the graduate of a public university and a veteran of both the military and a government agency, though Warren didn’t press him then. “But someday I hoped to get a chance to ask him: Would you rather fly an airplane without the Federal Aviation Administration checking air traffic control? Would you rather swallow a pill without the Food and Drug Administration testing drug safety? Would you rather defend our nation without a military and fight our fires without our firefighters?”

How often are our anti-government warriors asked such basic questions?

But doesn’t being pro-government mean you’re anti-business? Well, no, Warren says, quite the opposite. “There’s nothing pro-business about crumbling roads and bridges or a power grid that can’t keep up,” she writes. “There’s nothing pro-business about cutting back on scientific research at a time when our businesses need innovation more than ever. There’s nothing pro-business about chopping education opportunities when workers need better training.”

Oh yes, and it really bugs her when people assert that “corporate” and “labor” are “somehow two sides of the same coin.” She asks: “Does anyone think that for every billionaire executive who can afford to write a check for $10 million to get his candidate elected to office, there is a union guy who can do the same? Give me a break.”

At the end of a long liberal era, Reagan electrified conservatives by telling them they didn’t have to apologize anymore for what they believed. Now, Warren insists, it’s the era of liberal apologies that’s over.
Click to expand...

This says it all right here...
“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own,” she said. “Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.” It was all part of “the underlying social contract,”

rogue49 · May 27, 2014

I've been saving these, during my time away for the holiday...Big Data, Data Mining, Data Hacking...and so on.

Everything is about info...on you.
Can there be any right to privacy any more???
And it's NOT from your government mostly you should fear...it's mostly the businesses you buy from, the places you go...and the traces you leave behind.

If you only knew...what I know from inside the data industry...what the NSA collects is nothing by comparison.
We are heading to a time of "Minority Report" where they can do real-time profiling on you from your history...in a split second.
How much do you want others knowing of YOUR life???

Me...I know how to filter and clean...where to restrict and erase...MOST don't know diddly.
Can the govt protect us from this intrusion?? Especially when there is so much money to be made from it...and a conflict of interest.
I think they will.
Why? Because when the congresspeople get zapped by the same techniques...they'll get scared and act.
That's what the US Founding Fathers were afraid of...everyone, including themselves.

-----------------

Who watches the watchers? Big Data goes unchecked

Data mining your children

The feds’ push for Big Data

China’s Clock-Punching Hackers Show Spying as Routine Job

Now it's not like what the commerical asks..."What's in your wallet?"
...It's WHO knows what's in your wallet... and in your life ...and what you are doing.

rogue49 · May 28, 2014

And as a followup and good summary for what I was talking about above on Data.

I've seen this at work, previously as an operations mgr and DB expert at one of the larger aggregate firms....gotten paid well for maintaining it.
I don't do it anymore...but that doesn't make it less so.

They are collecting info on you. Each & Every company. And sharing it.

Brokers use ‘billions’ of data points to profile Americans
By Craig Timberg, Published: May 27

Are you a financially strapped working mother who smokes? A Jewish retiree with a fondness for Caribbean cruises? Or a Spanish-speaking professional with allergies, a dog and a collection of Elvis memorabilia?

All this information and much, much more is being quietly collected, analyzed and distributed by the nation’s burgeoning data-broker industry, which uses billions of individual data points to produce detailed portraits of virtually every American consumer, the Federal Trade Commission reported Tuesday.

The FTC report provided an unusually detailed account of the system of commercial surveillance that draws on government records, shopping habits and social-media postings to help marketers hone their advertising pitches. Officials said the intimacy of these profiles would unnerve some consumers who have little ability to track what’s being collected or how it’s used — or even to correct false information. The FTC called for legislation to bring transparency to the multibillion-dollar industry and give consumers some control over how their data is used.

Data brokers’ portraits feature traditional demographics such as age, race and income, as well as political leanings, religious affiliations, Social Security numbers, gun-ownership records, favored movie genres and gambling preferences (casino or state lottery?). Interest in health issues — such as diabetes, HIV infection and depression — can be tracked as well.

With potentially thousands of fields, data brokers segment consumers into dozens of categories such as “Bible Lifestyle,” “Affluent Baby Boomer” or “Biker/Hell’s Angels,” the report said. One category, called “Rural Everlasting,” describes older people with “low educational attainment and low net worths.” Another, “Urban Scramble,” includes concentrations of Latinos and African Americans with low incomes. One company had a field to track buyers of “Novelty Elvis” items.

“The extent of consumer profiling today means that data brokers often know as much — or even more — about us than our family and friends,” FTC Chairman Edith Ramirez said in a statement. “It’s time to bring transparency and accountability to bear on this industry on behalf of consumers, many of whom are unaware that data brokers even exist.”

The brokers gather the information from public records and private sources, such as advertising networks that follow a consumer’s online activities, traditional media companies that record a subscriber’s billing history or the loyalty programs that track a shopper’s purchases at a grocery store.

The individual profiles are largely sold to marketers, determining what ads and offers consumers see online, or to banks that use the data to verify the identity of customers. Laws prohibit using such information to set insurance rates, make job offers or measure creditworthiness, although the FTC expressed concern about potential abuses.

FTC officials, who based their report on documents gathered by issuing subpoenas to nine data brokers in December 2012, found “a fundamental lack of transparency” in the industry but no evidence of illegal activity. Ramirez said the FTC does not know how many data brokers exist.

The profiles they produce could affect what products are offered to consumers and how well consumers are treated by customer service, officials said. A “financially challenged” couple, for example, might see ads for subprime loans while their affluent friends are offered premium credit cards and vacation options. Some consumers might face long waits when they call companies with complaints, while others receive speedy, responsive service.

The collection of data about health-related issues also concerned the FTC. Brokers had categories for people interested in weight loss or high cholesterol. One tracked whether consumers preferred brand-name drugs or looked for medical information online.

Stuart P. Ingis, general counsel for the Direct Marketing Association, which represents nearly 2,000 companies that collect and distribute consumer data, said the industry helps prevent consumer fraud and improves the effectiveness of online advertising — the main revenue source for free services, such as e-mail and social-networking sites.

He said the FTC’s inability to find documented abuse of personal information suggests that data brokers should continue operating through self-regulation rather than new government intervention. “You’d think if there was a real problem, they’d be able to talk about something other than potential” abuses, Ingis said.

The report included several legislative proposals intended to help Americans learn what data has been gathered about them and to correct errors. Consumers would be able to opt out of data-
gathering about themselves.

Ingis said that the FTC’s proposals, such as a requirement for a centralized portal for consumers who want to know what information data brokers collect about them, are unnecessary and cumbersome. “I’m not sure that there’s a problem that requires a law here,” he said.

The Software & Information Industry Association, whose members in some cases collect and share personal data, endorsed the FTC’s call for greater transparency but warned that new legislation would struggle to keep up with the pace of innovation online. “It just gets very challenging because of the dynamic nature of data,” said David LeDuc, senior director of public policy for the group.

But FTC commissioner Julie Brill urged Congress to act, and said Americans should learn more about how their data is being collected and used. “Consumers can’t manage this process by themselves,” she said. “It’s too big. It’s too complex. There are too many moving parts.”

Data-broker firms typically have no direct dealings with the public, relying on third-party sources or trading information with one another. Of the nine companies subpoenaed by the FTC — Acxiom, CoreLogic, Datalogix, eBureau, ID Analytics, Intelius, PeekYou, Rapleaf and Recorded Future — seven share information with one another, the FTC report said.

Among the most striking findings in the reports, officials said, was the extent that data brokers connect the online and offline behaviors of consumers. This process, called “onboarding,” allows markets to load offline information — from magazine subscriptions, store loyalty cards or government records — into cookies that digital advertisers use to target consumers for pitches. Cookies, which are a small bit of computerized code stored in a computer’s Web browser, allow advertisers to feature a single product across many Internet services.

The issue of data collection has generated increasing attention in recent years — and especially since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed how intelligence agencies vaccum up information collected by the private sector. The White House issued a report on the collection and use of Big Data on May 1.

Sens. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) proposed legislation in February that largely tracks with the FTC’s goal of greater transparency for the data-broker industry.

Yet privacy advocates see little hope of action on Capitol Hill. “There’s no political pressure on Congress, really, to act. The data-broker lobby is incredibly powerful,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.

He noted that political campaigns routinely use information collected by data brokers to tailor their election and fund-raising messages to targeted groups. “They’re not going to vote against their political self-interest,” he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement: “This report’s intentions are good, but waiting for Congress to pass new regulations isn’t going to help protect Americans’ privacy rights anytime soon. The FTC needs to start using its existing authority to root out bad practices now.”
Click to expand...

Do we need to wait until there is proof of abuse...before setting some framing about it???
I'm not one for over regulation...but it does seem to directly contradict one of the points of the US Constitution. (4th Amendment)
But not really... Link
Should there be some legal expectation and right to privacy??

Frankly, I think that sites and otherwise should ask your distinct permission before tracking info.
Just the reading or use of the site shouldn't be implicit.

Charlatan · May 30, 2014

Here's the thing about data, most people give up their data willingly.

Provide a free app, register for a service, etc.

The business I work for monetizes that data all the time.

Charlatan · May 31, 2014

rogue49 · May 31, 2014

@Charlatan that could also be interpreted as the obliviousness of those who are unaware of what they lost...
typically the generation that grew-up immersed in it.

A good example is the principles and dynamics shown in the movie, Gattaca (which IS coming...)

We always see the battle of principles and mindset when new tech is introduced...a paradigm shift.

For instance, in this article the NYT is questioning the use of drones...or at least the implications of them.
The Limits of Armchair Warfare

And in my viewpoint, I disagree with this...and it is ironic, the NYT a liberal bastion, is basically saying be wary of drones,
because the one on one killing is important to show the cost of war. (so, let's allow people to go in harm's way, to show their bravery and war is bad)

Here is where I've immersed into the tech, I don't see the worry. These are not nukes or clusterbombs.

Listen, I know they mean well...but this is the equivalent of saying let's get rid of bullets
and keep using swords because they show our bravery, skill and the gore shows the cost of fighting.

In a liberal context, frankly...it would be "nice" to stop all war, attacks and fighting all together, period.
But this ain't going to happen in this reality. (maybe a couple of centuries later...if we haven't killed ourselves)

True...you DO want to keep a restraint on the use of this. Just like you should with guns ...or chemicals ...or cars ...or drugs ...or food
or ANY item or object that has the potential to kill or harm.
There is a balance.

This is why we have court systems and debate in the halls of government...and in the media.
It's all situational...like you say in "context".
It all ain't black & white...hell it is not even shades of grey, but a rainbow...or sometimes it's the full spectrum...and it's moving.

So I say, if the President wants to see the insides of my ass. (re: the comic above)
Well here it is.
Just be careful with the info and what you're doing there...and ask me who you give it to.

Dammit, there are guidelines and privileges to getting into my butt.
Pretty damn well should be for everything.
Yep, I know that's hard...but I ain't easy.

ASU2003 · May 31, 2014

That needs to be the debate though when it comes to data and privacy. Effective governments need to know information, statistics, and trends. Humans pushing paper is only so effective, computers (who don't care about you or other individuals) are much better. Some data is out there for the public to see, but it really is the media/Internet mob/lawyers who would use the information against you. It wasn't Obama who told the NSA to expose any wealthy racists by recording their phone calls or bugging their homes... although I'm sure that is one conspiracy theory for what happened to Donald Sterling.

The problem is the misuse of data. And those regulations are lacking. The libertarians are assuming that things are already happening or will happen inevitably. Will the government use the data to gerrymander congressional districts? Will they use it to increase taxes on certain unhealthy people? Will kids who have a high probability of getting a disease later in life because of their DNA have to pay more for health insurance? Should the government have fingerprints and/or DNA in a big database, and how will the court system use that data if there is no other evidence that you committed the crime? Or will they be able to solve more crimes and make it so people don't get away with rape and murder? Will terrorists be able to blend in with the paranoid libertarians and get training for how to plan attacks using encrypted and other communication techniques? Are the terrorists not a problem anymore or should we just play defense and be able to catch any of them in the act? What should the media be able to use? What personal details or information should they be able to tell people about? Should their be a different set of rules for public officials?

Charlatan · May 31, 2014

Absolutely there needs to be an overhaul, or at least a fresh take on privacy laws. Technology has reached levels where information can be collected and mined at levels the framers of the original laws couldn't conceive.

On the other side of things, we do give away a tonne of our personal data for free, all the time. Much needs to be done to let general public understand the value of that data. To be clear, the value of that data in cash. Most people don't mind giving away a certain amount of information in return for a service, especially if that service will provide them with a personalized service. What they don't know is that their data has been packaged and sold off to other businesses looking to profile demographics, search for trends, etc.

I don't think most people have a clue of the value of that data. They are giving it up for shiny beads.

rogue49 · Jun 4, 2014

I agree with this article wholeheartedly...but not to the extent of a collapse...but it IS glutted, corrupt and inefficient.
America is the biggest player...but we have gone "Jabba The Hut".
The US military needs to be sleek and flexible. (Nukes have changed the game, there's no need for 2-front global wars.)

And in turn, other players need to start investing in their own military again or more so...the US cannot be the world-policeman.
They don't want the US over-involved and dictating...and the US is weary and cannot be everywhere.
Nor should the American taxpayers be paying for support or influence for the whole world...or at least attempting to.
Again, we don't want it and you don't want it. (only people neo-con industrialists like Cheney want it, a small but influential fraction)

I'm sure the US also thinks influence & control is nice to a certain extent...but there is a unwieldy cost to that
at many different levels.

Our Army’s Headed for Collapse ~ Here’s how to fix it.
By DOUGLAS MACGREGOR June 02, 2014

When markets crash, when economic indicators fall by double digits, investors panic, stocks drop like rocks and governments teeter on the brink of collapse. Unable to understand the sudden break in prosperity, the public asks what happened; politicians hold hearings, financial institutions are investigated and, eventually, “too-big-to jail” financial wizards go to prison. At least, that’s what happened in the years after the 1929 crash.

Similar conditions emerge when the United States Armed Forces are defeated in ways that the government and the media cannot conceal. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, captains and majors like Matthew Ridgway, James Gavin and Bruce Clarke—men who would have otherwise ended their careers in obscurity—were promoted, eventually rising to flag rank in time to command the men who came ashore at Normandy in June 1944, 70 years ago this week.

Yet, in most cases, markets don’t suddenly collapse and neither do armies. Instead, armies, like markets, decline gradually. The public seldom notices until it’s too late.

In October 2013, Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno claimed that cuts in the Army’s total annual budget of $125.2 billion, including $37.8 billion for readiness, made it impossible for an active Army of 550,000 troops to provide more than two brigades ready to fight. In March 2014, when 80,000 Russian armored combat forces were poised to invade Ukraine, the U.S. Army was incapable of deploying an effective combat maneuver force to Europe or anywhere else.

How did this happen? How could an Army of 550,000 with 32,000 troops in Afghanistan’s forward operating bases fail to provide more than two combat-ready brigades, roughly 8,000 men under arms, to deploy and fight?

The answer is deceptively simple: It’s by design.

In 1950, before the outbreak of the Korean War, the U.S. Army had 593,167 soldiers on active duty. Despite the impressive numbers, Army divisions contained hollow brigades and regiments, units with only two-thirds of their combat power. Armor was almost non-existent and artillery was sparse. Task Force Smith, a force of riflemen with light, towed artillery from the Army’s 24th Infantry Division, was quickly defeated and overrun by 90,000 attacking North Korean troops with 300 T-34/T-85 tanks in July 1950.

But the architects of the defeat were not President Harry Truman, Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson or the U.S. Congress. In 1950, the architects of defeat were the four-star generals who wanted an Army designed to provide jobs for generals, not to fight. To cope with the crisis the hollow Army created, Truman added 400,000 soldiers to the Army, including thousands of World War II veterans.

Fast forward to the contemporary Army and it bears a discomfiting resemblance to the Army that deployed to fight in Korea. Today’s Army, with an annual base budget, in fiscal year 2014, of $129.7 billion and a force of 550,000, is incapable of fighting a 21st century opponent with armies, air forces, air defenses and missile forces. And yet, when you include the estimated $30-40 billion for “overseas contingency operations,” today’s Army easily outspends the Army that by 1953 totaled 1 million men and fielded 201,000 soldiers in Korea.

Today, given the structure of the contemporary Army, it’s doubtful that $134 billion—the budget of the 1953 Army, in 2014 dollars—would buy that same level of force. Consider that during World War II, 11 million American soldiers were commanded by just 4 four-star generals. Today, the Army of 550,000 has 11 active-duty four stars, each of which comes with massive amounts of overhead. This makes no sense. If the Army were a rowboat with nine passengers, four would steer, three would call cadence and two would man the oars.

The solution is obvious: Reorganize and reform the U.S. Army to provide more ready, deployable combat power. Consolidate more combat power under fewer headquarters. Flatten the command structure and reduce the overhead. It’s not rocket science. The Japanese Self Defense Force has already done it.

While the U.S. Army’s overhead absorbs 31 percent of its officer and soldier strength, the Japanese general officer overhead consumes only 6 percent. With a budget and manpower roughly a third the size of the U.S. Army’s, the Japanese ground force’s combat formations of 6-7,000 field more ready deployable combat power than the U.S. Army does.

Russia’s Army has moved in similar directions. Today, the country that fielded more divisions than any other nation in history has disbanded its divisions. Instead, it fields 80 5-6,000 man combat formations under generals. By 2019, the number is expected to rise to 200! These formations report directly to a three-star corps commander who is expected to command joint operations.

Here’s the lesson: Shrinking the U.S. Army to fewer divisions and brigade combat teams, without any commensurate increase in fighting power or cost savings, is the wrong answer. Realigning brigades with the 10 divisions of the 1990s Cold War Army is a step backward, not forward. Congress must intervene in the process and compel fundamental change or face another Task Force Smith in the not-too-distant future. Fortunately, the blueprint for action already exists.

As outlined in Breaking the Phalanx and Transformation under Fire, my two books on military transformation, an Army consisting of capability-based expeditionary fighting formations would contain 51 combat formations of 5-6,000 troops under brigadier generals. Organized around the critical functions of Maneuver, Strike, ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) and Sustainment (logistics), these combat formations would be designed to operate autonomously on land like warships at sea, all within the ISR-Strike framework of aerospace and naval power under joint command.

Inside an Army of 420,000 soldiers, the resulting fighting force would consist of four corps equivalents of 55,000 men each, each corps equivalent ready to surge in part or in total from a joint rotational readiness base, not from a Cold War-era, “tiered” readiness posture as they are today. The reorganized Army’s overhead would be reduced from 31 percent to 8 percent of the force.

Such an Army would also be aligned with air and sea transport for rapid response to the unexpected: a Korea-like emergency; a Sarajevo-like event; or deployments to support allies already engaged in fighting, not counterinsurgency or nation building. Events in Ukraine and the Western Pacific point to future wars that will not resemble the interventions in Iraq or Afghanistan. Instead, they will involve conflicts as lethal as Korea or World War II, fights for regional power and influence that overlap with interstate competitions for energy, water, food, mineral resources and the wealth they create.

The Army four stars, active and retired, will collectively groan, “It’s too hard and will take too long to change the Army.” Well, it is true that building combat power takes time. But it’s useful to remember that only eight months after Gen. George C. Marshall received the executive order in March 1942 empowering him to reorganize the War Department, he was able to land a brand new Army on the shores of North Africa.

The point is simple: The U.S. Army is unraveling. As Peter Drucker told businessmen in the 1990s, “If you want something new, stop doing something old.” Congress must act. There is no need to fill Arlington Cemetery to capacity.

Retired colonel Douglas Macgregor is a decorated combat veteran, a Ph.D. and the author of five books on military affairs. His newest book, Margin of Victory: Why Some Nations Win and Others Lose Wars, will be out next year[/QUOTE]
Click to expand...

rogue49 · Jun 5, 2014

Back to the still building Big Data - Big Brother issue...
We have a few points as our privacy quickly diminishes.

Retailers Use Big Data to Turn You Into a Big Spender
I've been involve with this myself, ops mgr at one of the big 3 of data aggregate companies. It IS happening.

The Big Data Dump: How Info-Hoarding Can Overwhelm Startups, Spy Agencies
This has long been a problem of bureaucracies, they do not want to let go of anything... (keeps me in a job)

Big Brother: Meet the Parents
Again, I've seen this myself from the inside...schools are data mining for the parents...as well as their analysis.

We are seeing here a whole new paradigm shift.
Just like we had to learn to manage nuclear material.
And we're starting to debate make laws for cloning and other genetic manipulations
We are seeing the need for limits on gathering of data.

Each has the potential to be used...each has the potential of being abused.

And the problem is...they are hidden and abstract...making it difficult for many to comprehend the threat, including our leaders.
A gun you can see & touch. The blood you can see & touch.
These you won't know the damage until it's too late...IF it's not managed correctly.

And it's not just government we have to worry about with Big Data...it's corporations too, especially the big & powerful ones.
Yes, it's nice to make money. I enjoy the paycheck too.
What's the price we want to pay?? The transparency we allow??

The data & open view is about...not on govt, not on corps
but on us...

ASU2003 · Jun 5, 2014

I don't care that they are collecting the data, I care about how the data is being used. And that is the tricky part. If you want to use data to know who to advertise to and who is in the market for your product, that is one use. If we want to gerrymander congressional districts based on income, party affiliation, campaign sign and bumper sticker freq, that is something else. If the NSA wants to know if I am talking to terrorists or people who are helping terrorists, I am fine with that. If they are trying to figure out what is going on in the Ukraine that isn't being said in public, I'm fine with that too. If they want to make a list of who called supporters of environmental groups or a political party headquarters, then it might be a little too far. I don't care that my county puts every home owner's name on the GIS website they run, but I would start to care if the media started using that data and broadcasting it.

rogue49 · Jun 6, 2014

What they are doing is creating personality profiles.

rogue49 · Jun 10, 2014

And now for a positive note... (at least for the greens)
Buffett is doubling-down on green energy.

To quote Biden...This is a big fuckin' deal.
And it may be a game changer.

The fact that Warren Buffett is investing even more into renewable energy is significant.
His method is to purchase that which is or will be a ubiquitous commodity...something used everyday by everyone...and for decades.

Wind has shown itself to be stable...and now solar panels have become efficient enough and cheap enough to make it very viable.
The fact that the unit itself combines "old-school" and new will help keep it profitable and build the momentum, paying for itself.
Supporting the transition...diverse investment in the unit itself, not all the eggs in one basket.
This will also help defend against opposition agendas, who want to keep "old-school" going and entrenched.

I think we'll see a big shift within a 10 to 20 year period...not likely that Buffett will be around that long, I hope so though.
but this allows his company to start investing into future growth ventures...keeping the company moving and stable after him.
Plus he loves a great used cigar found on the ground...something someone else has ignored that's still useful.

I know I'll be watching...between him & Musk...the scene is getting exciting...and doable.

Buffett Ready to Double $15 Billion Solar, Wind Bet
By Noah Buhayar and Jim Polson - Jun 10, 2014

Warren Buffett briefly lost track of how many billions of dollars his Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A) is spending to build wind and solar power in the U.S. That didn’t stop him from vowing to double the outlay.

Describing the company’s increasing investment in renewable energy at the Edison Electric Institute’s annual convention in Las Vegas yesterday, Buffett had to rely on a deputy, Greg Abel, to remind him just how much they’d committed: $15 billion.

Without missing a beat, Buffett responded: “There’s another $15 billion ready to go, as far as I’m concerned.”

Such bold remarks are common for the Berkshire chairman and chief executive officer. He frequently talks about hunting for “elephant”-size acquisitions and making multibillion-dollar stock purchases.

Still, the comment speaks to the kinds of investments that are increasingly appealing to the billionaire now that his Omaha, Nebraska-based company is the fifth-largest in the world by market value. With dozens of units spinning off cash, Buffett has been allocating funds to regulated, capital-intensive businesses such as railroad BNSF and power companies.

“Buffett has always steered Berkshire toward the future,” said Lawrence Cunningham, a professor at George Washington University and author of the forthcoming book “Berkshire Beyond Buffett.” “Lately, that has meant intensifying the company’s focus on rudimentary, long-lasting businesses.”

‘Keep Moving’

While utilities don’t offer the returns of businesses that Buffett, 83, favored earlier in his career, he has said he likes the industry because it provides opportunities for reinvestment and further acquisitions. He bought control of an energy holding company in Iowa in 2000 and helped bankroll its expansion.

The unit, now called Berkshire Hathaway Energy, operates electric grids in the U.K., natural gas pipelines that stretch from the Great Lakes to Texas and electric utilities in states including Oregon and Nevada. Its renewable investments include wind farms in Iowa and Wyoming, as well as solar farms in California and Arizona.

Unlike other utility-holding companies, Berkshire Hathaway Energy retains all of its earnings. That probably will continue, Buffett said yesterday, estimating that the unit could reinvest about $30 billion into its business in the next decade.

“We’re going to keep doing that as far as the eye can see,” he said. “We’ll just keep moving.”

‘Strong Need’

Berkshire has been able to plow so much into renewable energy because it can use tax credits to offset profit at other businesses, Abel, the 52-year-old CEO of Berkshire Hathaway Energy, said yesterday. Units at Buffett’s company include auto insurer Geico, Dairy Queen, Shaw carpet and T-shirt maker Fruit of the Loom.

Investments in renewable energy will be needed as the U.S. seeks to reduce its reliance on fossil-fuel generation. Electric utilities face cuts of 30 percent in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 compared with 2005, according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates of a proposed rule issued June 2.

“It’s encouraging that he wants to invest because as an industry we have a strong need for capital,” Nick Akins, CEO of American Electric Power Co., said of Buffett’s remarks on renewables.

AEP is a partner with Berkshire in Electric Transmission Texas, a joint venture that’s building and operating power lines carrying electricity from the state’s windy plains to cities.

While spending $30 billion on renewable-energy projects would have been unheard of two decades ago at Berkshire, Buffett is signaling that the returns are attractive, said Jeff Matthews, a shareholder and author of books about the company. The comment may turn out to be more than an off-hand remark.

“If he says it, he means it,” said Matthews. “The whole complexion of the company has changed.”
Click to expand...

loquitur · Jun 10, 2014

Here is a bigger deal, guys: Calif. court rules teacher tenure creates unequal conditions . Predictably, the California Teachers Union is assailing the decision.

The parents of children in failing schools haven't been heard from yet.

rogue49 · Jun 10, 2014

loquitur said: ↑

Here is a bigger deal, guys: Calif. court rules teacher tenure creates unequal conditions . Predictably, the California Teachers Union is assailing the decision.

The parents of children in failing schools haven't been heard from yet.
Click to expand...

Actually, I just heard from my cousin today, he's a HS math teacher, that Virginia has sent out a memo stating they have "at will" rights.
Meaning they can fire/layoff for most any reason with only 2 week notice.
(only the classic race, creed, etc that is illegal can prevent it...then you have to prove it)

Those with pensions can be tossed right before they reach a threshold.

Also that they have the right to place you in any role they deem appropriate for their purposes.
So a math teacher can be a different type or even non-academic.
And vice versa, he upcoming new role of IT education SME, he can be thrown back into teaching at any time. (and he's burnt-out on it)

hmm...you think it's hard to get and keep teachers now??
But...it's as I predicted over a decade ago...everything will go online to reduce wages & costs.
Is this better? No, classroom teaching is better...but the govt powers that be are cheap ass-hats.

Teaching will change just like Manufacturing has.
I'd say doctors are next...

Baraka_Guru · Jun 11, 2014

There are still unions left in the U.S.?

rogue49 · Jun 11, 2014

Baraka_Guru said: ↑

There are still unions left in the U.S.?
Click to expand...

Yep - (yes, I know it's rhetorical) and in some cases they're doing lots of good...and in others they're going overboard and being selfish.
It's when they go overboard that they get pounded.

Same problem as with anything else, once they are established, they become focused on their own existence and influence, a conflict of interest.
While they may have good leadership keeping the reins on at one time...sooner or later, bad leaders come in...and then they're bloated.
Unions
Polititicans
CEO and Boards
and so on...

Power corrupts...if not now...then later.

Their problem is when they trip...there's a big group (ex: GOP) that wants to kill them.

Log in or Sign up

Politics What is happening????

Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

ASU2003 Very Tilted

Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

ASU2003 Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

loquitur Getting Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Log in or Sign up

Politics What is happening????

Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

ASU2003 Very Tilted

Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

ASU2003 Very Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

loquitur Getting Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

Useful Searches