Feed Aggregator Page 600
Rendered on Sat, 14 Jan 2017 00:30:07 GMT
NVIDIA Aims to Expand PC Gaming Market
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Sat, 14 Jan 2017 00:07:00 GMT
How IBM Is Using Artificial Intelligence to Provide Cybersecurity
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Sat, 14 Jan 2017 00:06:00 GMT
Illinois Lawmakers Consider Massive, Regressive Tax Hike On Low-Income Families (a.k.a "Soda Tax")
via by Tyler Durden on Sat, 14 Jan 2017 00:00:00 GMT
To our complete lack of surprise, lawmakers in the State of Illinois are considering following in the footsteps of Philadelphia by imposing a 1 cent per ounce "soda tax" on all sugary beverages.
And while it's being done under the guise of "improving public health," precisely zero people believe that the Nanny State of Illinois cares about the sugar intake of its residents. Of course, the real motivation behind the so-called "soda taxes" springing up in liberal bastions across the country is the $100's of million of tax dollars than can be generated to help them grow the Nanny State even bigger.
Lets look at a quick example of how the tax dollars add up. Lets say, just for fun, that the average person consumes one, 12 ounce, sugary beverage (soda, juice, etc.) per day. That would equate to roughly a $45 annual tax per person (12 ounces x 365 days x $0.01 per ounce). Multiply that by a family of 4 and the annual tax per household is $180 or roughly 30 bps of the median Illinois household income of $60,000.
And while that doesn't sound like much, and obviously it was designed that way, the numbers are staggering when you start to consider the statewide revenue potential. Applying the the $45 per person annual tax from above to Illinois' 13 million people implies that the total revenue potential for state coffers is $585mm. And, before you ask, while we understand that most infants aren't drinking a can of Dr. Pepper on the reg (although we are talking about Chicago so who knows), we also guess that most teenagers are drinking more than one sugary drink per day so just go along with our rough math here.
Of course, as the Daily Caller pointed out, Philadelphia residents have been shocked by the impact of the soda tax on their grocery bills. And even though Mayor Jim Kenney would like for you to believe that local businesses are responsible for the cost of a 12-pack of soda doubling overnight, we suspect most Philly voters are slightly smarter than that.
Consumers are in shock at price hikes on sugary beverages across Philadelphia due to a Soda tax that took effect Jan 1, and now the mayor is blaming increased costs on businesses.
Mayor Jim Kenney, who lead the charge for the passage of the tax, is lashing out at the business community over higher prices, even alleging retailers of attempting to stir resentment for the tax in the community. Kenney is accusing retailers of price gouging, purposefully constructed to undermine the tax and the efforts of the local government. Retailers who are charging the tax as a separate line item or who are putting up signs specifically highlighting the cost of the tax to the consumer, are engaging in an attempt to “mislead” shoppers and are “wrong,” according to Kenney, reports CBS Philly.
The contentious soda tax secured passage in June but consumers in Philadelphia are still flabbergasted by the price increases the tax is sparking. In some cases, shoppers found that they were paying more for the soda tax than the actual product they are purchasing.
Some residents said they are going to start shopping for their beverages out of the city to avoid the onerous tax. The mayor continues to defended the tax, arguing it is the choice of the retailers to pass the added costs onto their customers, deflecting responsibility. Prices are as much as doubling on certain products due to the tax. A 12-pack of Lipton Diet Green Tea at a Save-A-Lot in the city is now priced at $8.03, instead the $4.99 it costed in December.
Meanwhile, as we pointed out back in November (see "Startling Look At How Much Money Food Stamp Recipients Spend On Junk Food"), food stamp recipients spend over $350 million per year on "soft drinks." So, lets assume conservatively that people pay, on average $1 per 12 oz can of soda. That would imply that food stamp recipients are consuming 4.2 billion ounces of soda per year which means that $42mm of your federal tax dollars could be going to fund soda taxes in a Nanny State near you in the not too distant future...enjoy that thought over you long weekend.
Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald Discuss Deep State War Vs. Trump, While Ex-Spook Hints At Assassination
via by ZeroPointNow on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:48:52 GMT
Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who is not a fan of President-elect Trump, appeared on Tucker Carlson tonight to discuss the dangerous ongoing efforts among powerful anti-Trump factions within the US Government's "Deep State," who have collaborated with members of the Democratic Party and traditionally liberal media, to do maximum damage to the incoming President. Recall Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's ominous "six ways from Sunday" comment from 10 days ago.
Greenwald, an accomplished litigator, journalist, and author, does a masterful job illustrating the players, motives, and potential fallout from this dangerous effort within the US Government's intelligence apparatus. Greenwald goes deep, discussing how Trump's election ruined the plan for regime change in Syria, specifically mentioning, among other things, that the deep state was waiting for Obama to leave office before executing their plan:
The number one foreign policy priority of the CIA over the last four to five years has been the proxy war they're waging in Syria to remove Bashar Al Assad - and Hillary Clinton was quite critical of Obama for constraining them. She wanted to escalate that war to unleash the CIA, to impose a no-fly zone in Syria to confront Russia, whereas Trump took the exact opposite position. He said we have no business in Syria trying to change the government, we ought to let the Russia and Assad go free and killing ISIS and Al Quaeda and whoever else they want to kill.
He [Trump] was a threat to the CIA's primary institutional priority of regime change in Syria. Beyond that, Clinton wanted a much more confrontational and belligerent posture towards Moscow, which the CIA has been acrimonious with for decades, whereas Trump wanted better relations. They viewed Trump as a threat to their institutional pre-eminence to their ability to get their agenda imposed on Washington.
What you're seeing is actually quite dangerous. There really is at this point obvious open warefare between this un-elected, but very powerful faction that resides in Washington and sees Presidents come and go - on the one hand, and the person that the American democracy elected to be elected on the other. There's clearly extreme conflict and subversion taking place. '
This really is a must-watch, and goes hand-in-hand with Tucker's interview with Dr. Stephen Cohen this week:
Meanwhile ex-spook and security consultant John Schindler - who is very clearly part of the faction to remove Trump by any means, sent out an tweet yesterday which mentioned "taking traitor Trump out now."
This is overt, and Schindler also just more or less outed Washington Post's David Ignatius as a CIA mouthpiece (along the same vein as Deep Throat, perhaps we can refer to Ignatius's source as Golden Shower?).
This cavalier attitude towards assassinating Donald Trump has been supported by social media giant Facebook:
And nothing, to the best of my knowledge, has been done about the multitude of death threats Trump has received - including ones from individuals who have visited the White House and have CIA connections.
Meanwhile 8 years ago, a La Mesa, California man was charged, arrested, and thrown in a halfway house for 60 days for going on a drunken, racist, profanity laced online tirade against President-elect Obama ending in "he will have a 50 cal in the head soon." - a conviction which was later reversed when the threats were found to be not credible.
Perhaps the secret service is merely spread too thin to investigate these threats, or perhaps President-elect Trump is wise to have his own private security.
Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com * Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow
What Is The Deep State?
via by Tyler Durden on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:35:00 GMT
Submitted by Jesse via Jesse's Cafe Americain blog,
"... there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose.
My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an 'establishment.'
All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched.
Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State’s protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude."
Mike Lofgren, Anatomy of the Deep State
I do not think our time is all that different from those that have gone before it, insofar as the substance and types of our actions are concerned. Every age has its thieves and hypocrites, in high and low places.
Rather, what is a little more distinctive of us is the numbers, the sheer number of people whose character, or a lack thereof, fits a common pattern— mean, petty, deceitful, and often willfully ignorant of moral constraints, lacking in civility and grace, and utterly unrepentant of it.
They are quite proud of their cleverness in gaming the system, in embracing the worst aspects of the human economy and abusing them, in the name of their unnatural virtues. If they are liars, they strives to be among the most shameless and adept. If they are thieves, they admire those who steal tirelessly and the most, while paying no consequences.
And above all, their perspective on life allows them to have no shame in it, any of it, in what other times would have been done in the darkness, and only behind closed doors, and carefully covered up.
We take our ill gotten gains, and place them in the spotlight with the high sounding names of wise-sounding and humanitarian organizations and foundations.
* * *
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
Søren Kierkegaard
3 High-Yield Dividend Stocks You Don't Have to Babysit
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:35:00 GMT
'Bipartisan' Senate Intelligence Committee To Probe Russia-Campaign Contacts
via by Tyler Durden on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:23:30 GMT
Hours after WaPo reports anonymous sources claiming Trump's national security adviser Flynn contacted Russian officials, and Politico details Hillary's dealing with Ukrainian officials, the Senate Intelligence Committee announced in a statement that it will launch an inquiry to look at any links between Russia and individuals associated with U.S. political campaigns as part of bipartisan inquiry into Russia and cyber activity.
Full Statement: Joint Statement on Committee Inquiry into Russian Intelligence Activities
WASHINGTON – Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, today issued a joint statement regarding the Committee’s inquiry into Russian intelligence activities:
“As part of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s oversight responsibilities we believe that it is critical to have a full understanding of the scope of Russian intelligence activities impacting the United States.
In the course of its regular work, the Committee conducts oversight of the Intelligence Community’s collection and analysis related to Russia; however, the October 7, 2016, joint statement on election security from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), combined with the declassified Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of “Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” raise profound concerns.
The Committee will, therefore, conduct a bipartisan inquiry of the intelligence reporting behind the Intelligence Community assessments from January 6, 2017 on this subject.
The scope of the Committee’s inquiry will include, but is not limited to:
- A review of the intelligence that informed the Intelligence Community Assessment “Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections;”
- Counterintelligence concerns related to Russia and the 2016 U.S. election, including any intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns;
- Russian cyber activity and other “active measures” directed against the U.S., both as it regards the 2016 election and more broadly.
The Committee plans to:
- Hold hearings examining Russian intelligence activity;
- Interview senior officials of both the outgoing and incoming administrations including the issuance of subpoenas if necessary to compel testimony; and
- Produce both classified and unclassified reports on its findings.
The Committee will follow the intelligence wherever it leads. We will conduct this inquiry expeditiously, and we will get it right. When possible, the Committee will hold open hearings to help inform the public about the issues. That said, we will be conducting the bulk of the Committee’s business behind closed doors because we take seriously our obligation to protect sources and methods. As the Committee’s investigation progresses, we will keep Senate leadership, and the broader body, apprised of our findings.
We have received assurance from the Director of National Intelligence that the Intelligence Community will fully and promptly support our requests for information related to the investigation, and we have every reason to believe that commitment will be honored by the incoming administration.
Majority Leader McConnell and Democratic Leader Schumer have made it clear they expect any investigation into Russia’s involvement in our nation’s elections to be conducted in a bipartisan manner. It is a charge the SSCI takes seriously, as bipartisanship—in fact, non-partisanship—is at the very core of the Committee’s charter and is essential to preserving the intelligence equities involved.”
In addition to the joint statement, the Senators offered additional comment separately.
“As I indicated in my December statement, the SSCI has focused a great deal of attention on Russia’s behavior around the world,” said Chairman Burr. “Over the last two years, we have held more than ten hearings and briefings on these issues, with four reviewing Russia’s so-called ‘active measures.’”
“The SSCI was established to oversee the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to ensure that the appropriate departments and agencies provided informed and timely intelligence to our nation’s leaders,” Burr added, “and part of our inquiry will necessarily be focused on what happened, and what didn’t happen, in this case.”
Of the investigation, Vice Chairman Warner said, “This issue impacts the foundations of our democratic system, it’s that important. This requires a full, deep, and bipartisan examination. At this time, I believe that this Committee is clearly best positioned to take on that responsibility, but whoever does this needs to do it right. If it turns out that SSCI cannot properly conduct this investigation, I will support legislation to empower whoever can do it right. That is my position now, and it will be my position for the duration of the investigation. I look forward to working with Chairman Burr on this tremendously important matter.”
* * *
More 'intelligence', more hearings, more war-talk aimed at Putin, and more 'claaified' reports... Or put another way, this will never end!
McCarthy, eat your heart out!
Stunning Before And After Pictures Of The California Drought And Devastating Rain Storms
via by Tyler Durden on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:15:16 GMT
Just as California's liberal elites had convinced everyone that climate change had permanently altered global weather patterns such that the entire state was doomed to be stuck in a perpetual drought which would inevitably render it about as inhabitable as the surface of Mars within years, an unrelenting series of storms has struck and in a matter of days filled lakes, overflowed rivers and buried mountains in snow. And just like that, 40% of California was lifted from a drought that had plagued the state for a decade.
Of course, that much rain, in such a short period of time, can have devastating consequences as this video from Big Sur illustrates.
River campgrounds and cabins at Big Sur under water as river rages through #CAstorm #CAflood pic.twitter.com/jV1gxcMlIb
— Evan Sernoffsky (@EvanSernoffsky) January 9, 2017
As does this dashcam video of a flash flood in norther California.
In all, the rainfall totals from around Northern California over the past 14 days are staggering with certain areas receiving nearly 2 feet of rain according to SFGate.
Downtown San Francisco has received 5.53 inches of rain since Jan. 1. The last time the city has seen a number higher than this was 1982 when 7.53 inches fell between Jan. 1 and Jan. 11. During last year's El Niño year, S.F. had received close to three inches by this date.
More impressive numbers: The coastal range mountains outside Guerneville, where roads and homes went underwater when the Russian River flooded, has received some 21 inches of rain since Jan. 4.
In Downieville, where the Yuba River gushed with a heavy flow all week, some 23 inches of rain were recorded in the past seven days.
And as bad as the flooding has been in parts of Northern California, it would have undoubtedly been even worse but for the the ability to divert some of the excess water into previously depleted reservoirs scattered throughout the state.
The super soakings have filled reservoirs that were mere mud puddles, their cracked lake beds once exposed at the height of the drought that plagued the state for five-plus years and still persists in many regions, especially in Southern California.
The reservoirs in Northern California have gained some million acres of storage in the past seven days, Michael Anderson, a climatologist with the California Department of Water Resources estimates. And total surface storage for the state is roughly 97 percent of average, with the the total storage for the largest reservoirs being at 111 percent of normal.
Lake Oroville, the state's second-largest reservoir, gained a bit more than 620,000 acre-feet in the first 10 days of January alone.
"That is almost 18 percent of its capacity," Anderson said. "Since Oroville was about 750,000 acre-feet below its storage limits during flood season (a consequence of the drought), they can keep all that water for future use and largely offset storage impacts from the drought."
Meanwhile, the transformation of the state's reservoirs, in just a matter of weeks, is astonishing.
What a difference a year makes with most reservoirs now near capacity....
...versus ~30% of capacity last year.
But we're sure this abundance of rain is ever bit as much due to global warming as the lack of rain was last year...but we're still waiting for official confirmation on that from our respected political leaders in Sacramento.
JPMorgan Chase Reports Blockbuster 4Q Earnings
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:08:00 GMT
"Have It Your Way" Retirement Accounts: 4 Things to Know About Self-Directed IRAs
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:05:00 GMT
Facebook due for a Face-lift after Fake-News exposes Fakebook
via by globalintelhub on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:04:20 GMT
Facebook (FB) is no doubt one of the most popular tech stocks out there. The market cap of Facebook as of this writing is 368 B - it's nearly the size of Amazon.
But what does Facebook really do? This question has been asked of tech stocks since the .com bubble. But many tech stocks, for example Amazon (AMZN) perform a number of useful, tech services. In the case of Amazon they have hundreds of niche services many haven't even heard of, such as Amazon Web Services (which is cloud computing, hosting, and related services), publication services for authors including a full life cycle publishing solution through Kindle, Shipping storing fulfillment and logistics services for small businesses; the list goes on and on and on.
This opinion about Facebook isn't rare - there's actually a huge movement of users who have deleted their profiles and refuse to ever use the service again. Here's one power user, a Forbes contributor, who dumped Facebook, and explains reasons why:
It's official. I'm off the Facebook FB -0.02% grid. Nobody offended me. I didn't have a bad experience. While I'm not thrilled about the idea of Big Brother watching my every move, I'm not particularly paranoid about social media sharing. Therefore, I'm sharing why I'm dumping Facebook and committing to Twitter and Instagram. 1) Facebook sucks time from my life, and unlike money, time is a zero sum game 2) Most of my Facebook friends aren't (actually friends).3) There are other (better) options for photo sharing.4) Facebook brings out the worst in people.5) I learn more on Twitter. 6) The presence of ads on Facebook is getting ridiculous. 7) Less is more. Goodbye, Facebook. Follow me on Twitter: @TimMaurer.
This is just one example. There's actually a flood of people fleeing the platform, they've even created names for Facebook to describe their feelings, like "Fake Book" and others.
What is the straw that broke the camel's back? It was the recent election news cycle. "Fake News" was blamed as having a part in shaping an online discussion about political issues. Sites that broadcast this alleged "Fake News" like Facebook (FB) are being investigated, and users are questioning their use of the sites:
For weeks, Facebook has been questioned about its role in spreading fake news. Now the company has mounted its most concerted effort to combat the problem.
Since the election drama, there's all sorts of accusations both internally and from users as well:
Facebook has been in the eye of a postelection storm for the last few days, embroiled in accusations that it helped spread misinformation and fake news stories that influenced how the American electorate voted. The online conversation among Facebook's executives on Tuesday, which was one of several private message threads that began among the company's top ranks, showed that the social network was internally questioning what its responsibilities might be.
Even as Facebook has outwardly defended itself as a nonpartisan information source - Mark. Zuckerberg, chairman and chief executive, said at a conference on Thursday that Facebook affecting the election was "a pretty crazy idea" - many company executives and employees have been asking one another if, or how, they shaped the minds, opinions and votes of Americans.
We need to take a step back and understand the origins of Facebook as have been revealed in the last years. Facebook isn't just a startup, it has some interesting backers and partners. It was revealed recently that Facebook was part of a broad program to collect user information they publicly volunteered on social media platforms on behalf of the intelligence community. PRISM is just one program but the most bright example of how social media was used to collect intelligence - you can read more about PRISM here. Not only was the NSA and CIA seed stage investors in Facebook under NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) they were active customers. This data they extracted didn't come free - they would pay for it, both with cash and favors. Favors that helped Facebook become the 368 B market cap behemoth that it has become.
All of this however, can potentially crumble. Not only is Facebook under investigation about manipulating public opinion with their 'news algorithm' - it's under scrutiny from potentially one of the most powerful people in the world, president-elect Trump.
How Trump's reported plans to restructure the intelligence agencies figure into this plan remains to be seen. This week, he selected former senator Dan Coats as his Director of National Intelligence, a position he reportedly considered abolishing earlier.
But case in point; Trump is in a quagmire due to his extensive international business units that can all pose a potential conflict of interest when he's in office. As a President first and business owner second, he's dealing with it. But from that perspective, would he perceive that it's a conflict of interest for the intelligence community to directly invest, control, and partner with US tech companies on US soil - especially those such as the CIA that according to their mandate, only operate internationally? According to the CIA's own website:
By law, the CIA is specifically prohibited from collecting foreign intelligence concerning the domestic activities of US citizens. Its mission is to collect information related to foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence. By direction of the president in Executive Order 12333 of 1981 and in accordance with procedures approved by the Attorney General, the CIA is restricted in the collection of intelligence information directed against US citizens. Collection is allowed only for an authorized intelligence purpose; for example, if there is a reason to believe that an individual is involved in espionage or international terrorist activities. The CIA's procedures require senior approval for any such collection that is allowed, and, depending on the collection technique employed, the sanction of the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may be required. These restrictions on the CIA have been in effect since the 1970s.
That's probably why InQTel makes their host clients sign NDAs! If Facebook can't disclose them as an investor, it can never be proven they are involved in domestic intelligence even if indirectly, as the evidence could be thrown out of court due legal technicalities of how it entered the process of discovery (against the NDA). The author is not a lawyer to elaborate on how the NSA and CIA protect themselves from classified disclosures and lawsuits or worse, but they do have the best lawyers in America and even their own special court, called the FISA court, which is like a secret, classified court.
So if the NSA/CIA is 'restructured' - would they look at InQTel and their affiliates? Is it a potential conflict of interest that the NSA/CIA has a vested interest in a company like Facebook that has been accused of shaping the election domestically? It's unusual for the NSA/CIA to get involved in domestic politics. They have a history for fixing foreign elections, there are more than 100 countries where the NSA/CIA has either fixed the elections, or tried to, or tried to manipulate the local politics. But they've never done it domestically, at least to this extent. If they are investigated and restructured, and 'de-politicized' - it can also lead to an investigation or restructuring in the least, of their public tech assets, companies like Facebook . This may sound like a big roundabout way to make a case; but consider that the NSA/CIA's connection to Facebook is 1) not often talked about and 2) widely misinterpreted. In fact, they are a large part of the success of Facebook because well, they have really good connections!
Readers should note that, the CIA takes direction from the NSC, which is led by the President.
Facebook itself doesn't develop technology or offer a 'product' as does a company like IBM (IBM) or even Apple (AAPL). Facebook 's entire model is based on advertising, and now they have been buying companies that actually build and develop technology. But the core of Facebook is essentially, a house of cards built on the egos of its users and the illusionary world they allow people to create for themselves. This is not a stable business!
None of this is going to be reflected in the numbers, it's hard to quantify. Even with a huge collapse Facebook is going to be around probably forever, but shareholders should take note of these major demographic trends that can cause a severe decline in the stock price as well as en-masse abandonment of the platform, at least from it's US users. In foreign markets, it's not clear if Facebook can be the dominating platform, as countries have their own platforms specific to their own culture, the best example being Russia's VK which penetrates 99% of the market. Other countries have their own respective VK's - so it's not clear if Facebook could make up for the US issue with non-US business.
Finally, Facebook is littered with spam and fake accounts. Facebook claims to be aware of this issue, but it continues to be an ongoing problem. Local Police are even creating fake accounts for the purpose of monitoring local activity:
Police departments around the nation have taken predictive crime prevention to a new level by building fake user accounts, as well as posing as genuine people to gather information about local events, Tech.Mic reports.
Local agents put on a "digital mask" and pose as "members of the community," allowing them to gather personal information about suspects they consider a high risk of being involved in a future crime or have existing charges.
In a social media guide for law enforcement officialspublished by the Justice Department, the document details, officers create fraudulent profiles even though Facebook officially bans the practice.
That's right - the Police have a guide on the creation of fake accounts in order to participate in the growing field of 'pre-crime' published by the Department of Justice. You can download and read this manual by clicking here. From the introduction:
Police departments also have begun to explore the use of social media to obtain information, especially for tactical purposes, such as gathering information about threats of mob violence, riots, or isolated criminal activity during otherwiselawful mass demonstrations.
There's even guides on how to create a fake account on sites like lifehacker.com - that's not considering the companies that have made a business out of facebook-spam including but not limited to the US Military, via their Ntrepid software:
The U.S. Military is about to get into the business of lurking on forums and hanging around social media sites in a big way. Central Command (Centcom) is teaming up with a company called Ntrepid on software that will allow military users to create and manage multiple fake-but-convincing social media accounts, "replete with background, history, supporting details, and cyber presences that are technically, culturally and geographically consistent."
The military says these sockpuppet accounts will support "classified blogging activities on foreign-language websites to enable Centcom to counter violent extremist and enemy propaganda outside the US."
So here we have several cases of PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS where organizations have stated PUBLICLY that they are creating fake accounts EN MASSE. That doesn't consider the thousands or perhaps millions of companies that do this privately, as a business. Here's just one example of a site that simply sells Facebook (FB) accounts, buyaccs.com and why not, they have a 'bulk' discount for lazy spammers that don't want to go through the trouble of creating their own army of fake accounts like the US military says they will do. Here's an image of the site in case it gets taken down - you can see price per account, and how many accounts available per provider. If these are all 'real' accounts - who would 'sell' their Facebook account? And how would they possibly have so many in such large quantities?
Facebook and supporters of Facebook is in denial about how spammy Facebook has become. They are further blinded by the fact that ad-dollars have continued to roll into Facebook's ad platform, which has put the issue of fake accounts on the back burner.
As an aside, Google (GOOG) has always had a problem with click fraud, but they developed highly sophisticated algorithms to detect click fraud, it's not 100% accurate but works really well, according to advertisers and publishers. Legitimate publishers and advertisers both don't want fraudulent clicks even if it's as simple as a publisher clicking on his own ad (this is filtered by a simple IP algorithm). Google protects advertisers by finding invalid clicks (not genuine) and refunding the fees generated and in extreme cases, banning the publisher involved. It's unknown how much Google invested in the development of this system, but it works.
Not only has Facebook not attempted to do something like this, they don't even go after companies who have made a business out of hacking and spamming Facebook - they encourage it! They have changed their 'real name policies' but that's superficial, robots that create fake accounts have always used real names or names that sound real, i.e. Archimbaldo Ultsright, James Terefin, Haggo de Blazio, Horatio de Pulpa, if you aren't creative here's a fake name generator, similar to what all the robots use.
All of this information is of course, from the technical perspective of Facebook it says nothing about the earnings, the actual revenue Facebook has received and so on. Detractors of this Fakebook theory will claim this is all being dealt with. What they are failing to realize is how fragile the Facebook model is. Take a look at another example - many think Apple is overpriced. But Apple can't be replicated in one weekend with a few million dollars - Facebook can, and has. There are thousands of competition social network sites that many have started using instead of Facebook . As isn't sitting on a really unique technology / patent portfolio, the only thing keeping them at the top are their really high end connections, including but not limited to Silicon Valley and associated Billionaires, the NSA/CIA apparatus, and the marketing / advertising industry which has a vested interest to see Facebook be an 'alternative' to the main stream media which is declining in relevance.
So, longs should be concerned about this and at the least, hedge your positions and in the most prudent, get out and find something with real value like Overstock.com (OSTK) as we have mentioned in a previous article. There's hundreds of better tech plays out there that are real deep value plays. Facebook is due for a major face-lift, and the current management is not willing to face the facts: Facebook is Fake.
For a quick primer on the financial system checkout SPLITTING PENNIES - YOUR POCKET GUIDE TO MAKE YOU A FOREX GENIUS
Citadel Pays $22 Million Settlement For Frontrunning Its Clients
via by Tyler Durden on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:55:45 GMT
Last May we reported that, after years of railing against Citadel's dominant position at the intersection of HFT trading and retail orderflow - Citadel was recently found to be the largest private US trading venue - Federal authorities were investigating the market-making arms of Citadel LLC and KCG Holdings looking into the possibility that the two giants of electronic trading are giving small investors a poor deal when executing stock transactions on their behalf.
As a reminder, Citadel is so big and its own private stock-trading platform is so large that, if it were an official exchange recognized by the Securities and Exchange Commission, it would one of the largest registered exchanges in the United States - bigger than Nasdaq. Citadel Execution Services, the firm’s wholesale market-making unit, recently executed 35% of all trades by retail investors in U.S.-listed stocks.
It was this retail trading giant that authorities were probing, and specifically looking at internal data concerning the firms’ routing of customer stock orders through exchanges and other trading systems, to see whether they are giving customers unfavorable prices on trades in order to capture more profit on the transactions.
In other words, the DOJ is looking into whether Citadel is frontrunning its clients, something we have claimed for years.
So what would happens if the DOJ did find what has been obvious to most market participants for years, namely that Ken Griffin's firm was frontrunning retail orderflow fore years?
As we summarized at the time, if authorities do move ahead, they would be marching forcefully into the debate over high-speed trading. Critics of HFT, such as this website, have alleged that firms with the fastest trading technology are using speed to manipulate stock prices, giving investors a raw deal. The industry counters that its technology delivers cheaper and more transparent trades to investors.
It also delivers guaranteed profits to itself, because while on one hand Citadel is a massive market-maker, responsible for the biggest portion of retail flow traffic, on the other it happens to be the most leveraged hedge fund in the world in terms of regulatory to net assets.
* * *
Or maybe nothing at all. Because fast forward to today, when without much fanfare at all, Citadel announced it would pay $22.6 million to settle allegations that it "misled clients about pricing trades", a euphemism for it was frontrunning its clients.
The Securities and Exchange Commission, soon to be run by a former deal lawyer who was particularly close to Goldman Sachs, said in a statement on Friday that Citadel, without admitting or denying the findings, had agreed to pay $5.2m disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, plus interest of $1.4m, in addition to a $16m penalty.
The SEC found precisely what we had said all along: that the company's business unit handling retail suggested to its broker-dealer clients that it would internalize retail orders to provide the best price, but it used algorithms that failed to perform the task from 2007 to 2010; i.e. Citadel was actively trading against the best interests of its clients, and adverse in its own best interests.
"These two algorithms represented a small part of Citadel Securities' internalization business, but they nevertheless affected millions of orders placed by retail investors because of Citadel Securities' large role in that market," said Robert Cohen, co-chief of the SEC enforcement division's market abuse unit.
Citadel, which has since discontinued use of the algorithms, said in a statement Friday that it takes legal compliance "very seriously."
Today, Citadel Securities resolved an issue related to the adequacy of certain disclosures from late 2007 to January 2010. We take very seriously our obligations to comply fully with all laws and regulations. As the market leader we are committed to providing superior service and execution quality to our clients each and every day.
To those who want to see a Citadel internalizer algo in action, we recommend you read the following article by Nanex' Eric Hunsader, who explains the entire process: "Retail Trades Disadvantaged by Direct Feeds Internalizers buy at the direct feed price, sell to retail at the SIP feed price."
Why GameStop, Hovnanian Enterprises, and Ryerson Holding Slumped Today
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:58:00 GMT
Why Myriad Genetics, Inc. Stock Dropped 61% in 2016
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:44:00 GMT
Trump's Enemies See An Opening
via by Tyler Durden on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:40:00 GMT
Submitted by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,
“Fake news!” roared Donald Trump, the work of “sick people.”
The president-elect was referring to a 35-page dossier of lurid details of his alleged sexual misconduct in Russia, worked up by a former British spy. A two-page summary of the 35 pages had been added to Trump’s briefing by the CIA and FBI — and then leaked to CNN.
This is “something that Nazi Germany would have done,” Trump said. Here, basically, is the story.
During the primaries, anti-Trump Republicans hired the ex-spy to do “oppo research” on Trump, i.e., to dig up dirt.
The spy contacted the Russians. They told him that Trump, at a Moscow hotel in 2013, had been engaged in depraved behavior, that they had the films to blackmail him, and that Trump’s aides had been colluding with them.
When Trump won the nomination, Democrats got the dossier and began shopping it around to the mainstream media. Some sought to substantiate the allegations. None could. So none of them published the charges.
In December, a British diplomat gave the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who personally turned it over to James Comey of the FBI.
On Jan. 7, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and his colleagues at the NSA, CIA and FBI decided the new president needed to know about the dossier. They provided him with a two-page synopsis.
Once CNN learned Trump had been briefed, the cable news network reported on the unpublished dossier, without going into the lurid details.
BuzzFeed released all 35 pages. The story exploded.
Besides Trump’s understandable outrage, his Jan. 11 press conference produced related news.
U.S. intelligence agencies had for months contended that it was Russia who hacked the DNC emails and those of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta. Putin’s objectives, they contend, were to damage both U.S. democracy and Hillary Clinton, whom Putin detests, and to aid Trump.
Trump had previously dismissed claims of Russian hacking as unproved conjecture, and also as being advanced to delegitimize his victory.
Wednesday, Trump conceded Russia did it: “As far as hacking, I think it was Russia,” adding, Vladimir Putin “should not be doing it.”
The stakes in all of this are becoming huge.
Clearly, Trump hopes to work out with Putin the kind of detente that President Nixon achieved with Leonid Brezhnev.
This should not be impossible. For, unlike the 1970s, there is no Soviet Empire stretching from Havana to Hanoi, no Warsaw Pact dominating Central Europe, no Communist ideology steering Moscow into constant Cold War conflict with the West.
Russia is a great power with great power interests. But she does not seek to restore a global empire or remake the world in her image. U.S.-Russian relations are thus ripe for change.
But any such hope is now suddenly impaired.
The howls of indignation from Democrats and the media — that Trump’s victory and Clinton’s defeat were due to Putin’s involvement in our election — have begun to limit Trump’s freedom of action in dealing with Russia. And they are beginning to strengthen the hand of the Russophobes and the Putin-is-Hitler crowd in both parties.
When Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson went before the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Marco Rubio demanded to know why he would not publicly declare Putin a “war criminal.”
The more toxic Putin-haters can make the Russian president, the more difficult for President Trump to deal with him, even if that is in the vital national interest of the United States.
The sort of investigation for which McCain has been clamoring, and the Beltway drums have now begun to beat, could make it almost impossible for President Trump to work with President Putin.
The Washington Post describes the engine it wishes to see built:
“The investigators of Russian meddling, whether a Congressional select committee or an independent commission, should have bipartisan balance, full subpoena authority, no time limit and a commitment to make public as much as possible of what they find.”
What the Post seeks is a Watergate Committee like the one that investigated the Nixon White House, or a commission like the ones that investigated 9/11 and the JFK assassination.
Trump “should recognize,” writes the Post, “that the credibility of his denials of any Russian connections is undermined by his refusal to release tax returns and business records.”
In short, when the investigation begins, Trump must produce the evidence to establish his innocence. Else, he is Putin’s man.
This city is salivating over another Watergate, another broken president. But President-elect Trump should be aware of what is at stake. As The Wall Street Journal writes:
“Mr. Trump’s vehement denials (of collusion with Moscow and corrupt behavior) also mean that if we learn in the future that Russia does have compromising details about him, his Presidency could be over.”
Yes, indeed, very big stakes.
Why Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. Stock Jumped 9% on Friday
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:35:00 GMT
Why Sanchez Energy, DexCom, and Pandora Media Jumped Today
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:26:00 GMT
YouTube Joins The "Fake News" Crusade, Shuts Down Popular Conservative Channel
via by Tyler Durden on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:15:00 GMT
Late last night YouTube blocked the channel of the influential conservative politics and law website, "Legal Insurrection," citing copyright infringement claims. The creator of the website, Cornell University Law Professor William Jacobson, told Fox News he was given no warning of the action and no opportunity to defend himself, saying "it’s very frustrating, it’s very scary, to have 8 years of content removed without a chance to defend yourself."
Without notice, YouTube replaced Legal Insurrection's channel with the following notice:
While the infringement notice from YouTube cited "multiple third-party claims", earlier this morning, Legal Insurrection posted the following update to their website noting the complaint came solely from the Modern Language Association and was based on a couple of short excerpts borrowed from a 2-hour video from MLA that were "well-within fair use."
UPDATE 1-13-2017 9:50 a.m. — I just received notice from YouTube that the copyright claims were filed by the Modern Language Association based on excerpts of audio of pro- and anti-Israel speakers at the MLA Annual Meeting we reported on in this post, Massive DEFEAT for BDS at Modern Language Association.
We intend to fight this both at the YouTube and legal level. It is highly questionable that MLA owns the copyright for oral presentations at the Annual Meeting, and even if it did, the limited excerpts we used from the nearly 2-hour video posted by MLA on YouTube are well-within fair use. What I think is really going on here is that anti-Israel activists at MLA complained to MLA that MLA had posted the audio on YouTube. MLA took down its own 2-hour video and now seeks to silence our reporting.
Which, of course, led Jacobson to the logical conclusion that YouTube's decision was seemingly nothing more than the latest attempt of Silicon Valley's liberal elitists to censor conservative media outlets, saying "clearly this was a politically motivated move...these were perfectly legitimate fair use excerpts with great news value."
In an email, Jacobson said that he never received notice of the claims prior to the channel's removal on Thursday. On Friday the publisher received notification from YouTube that the copyright claims were filed by the Modern Languages Association (MLA) based on audio posted of a recent MLA vote on a resolution to boycott Israeli universities. The boycott resolution at the MLA Delegate Assembly failed.
"Clearly this was a politically motivated move," he told FoxNews.com. "I never received any request or complaint from MLA. These were perfectly legitimate fair use excerpts with great news value."
"This is an attempt to silence our reporting on a matter of great public importance," added Jacobson, whose website reported on the vote. "We intend to pursue all available remedies, and call on YouTube to restore our account."
For those not familiar with the site, Legal Insurrection gets over 1.5 million page views per month and is a well-respected conservative blog that has been widely cited over the years by not only other conservative media outlets, but mainstream media publications as well.
Legal Insurrection now is one of the most widely cited and influential conservative websites, with hundreds of thousands of visitors per month. Our work has been highlighted by top conservative radio personalities, such as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, and Professor Jacobson regularly appears as a guest on radio shows across the nation.
Our writings have been linked by virtually every major conservative publication and many mainstream media publications, including The Atlantic Wire, The National Review, The Hill, New York Magazine’s “Daily Intel”, The Christian Science Monitor, The Boston Herald, The New York Times, Gothamist, CBS News, The Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, The Washington Times, AOL News, The Week, and many, many others.
“We take copyright issues very seriously both on YouTube and our website," he said. "We have a large readership, and the videos that disappeared included substantial original content that has been shared widely at other websites."
But we're sure this was just an innocent mistake by YouTube and not another blatant attempt of Silicon Valley's tech giants to censor dissenting political opinions.
Short-Sellers Are Piling Onto Fitbit, Inc.
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:15:00 GMT
Netflix, Inc. Earnings: 3 Important Metrics to Watch
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:04:00 GMT