Tag Archives: chinese

Santorum Holding Onto Debate Stage By His Fingernails in Latest CNN Poll

by LatriceHarrhy Posted on July 1, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Fox News will be sponsoring the first Republican debate on August 6, and they have decided to limit the stage to the top ten candidates. The lucky winners will be the ones who “place in the top 10 in an average of the five most recent, recognized national polls leading up to Aug. 4.”

So how is everyone doing so far? CNN is certainly a recognized national poll, so they’ll be part of the eventual winnowing. And their most recent poll shows Jeb! at the top followed by Trump, Huckabee, Carson, and Rand Paul. The bottom three candidates—Christie, Cruz, and Santorum—could easily lose a point or two just due to statistical churn, to be replaced by Jindal, Kasich, and Fiorina.

I’m looking forward to the Trump-Christie showdown for the Annoying Loudmouth Award, and to the Carson-Cruz showdown for the Looneybin Award—though both men have been disappointingly circumspect lately, hedging their beliefs as if they really wanted to win this thing.

But there’s still a chance of Rick Perry melting down in amusing fashion. That should make the whole thing worth watching.

See the original post:

Santorum Holding Onto Debate Stage By His Fingernails in Latest CNN Poll

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Santorum Holding Onto Debate Stage By His Fingernails in Latest CNN Poll

Resentment and Outrage Are All That Matter in Europe Now

by DanaOFerrall Posted on June 20, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Larry Summers thinks it will be a catastrophe if Greece repudiates its debt and “financially separates from Europe.” Greece will become a failed state; Europe will face a refugee crisis; and both Europe and the IMF will face huge defaults on their loans. Oh, this might not cause financial contagion throughout all of Europe, but then again, that’s what everyone said about Long-Term Capital Management, subprime mortgages, and the fall of Lehman Brothers. And look what happened there.

So what does Summers think should happen? Here’s his prescription:

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras needs to do what is necessary to make reaching an agreement politically feasible for his fellow Europeans….He needs to be clear that he will accept further value-added tax and pension reforms to achieve primary surplus targets this year and next, but that he expects a clear recognition that if Greece does its part, debt will be written off on a large scale.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European authorities must do what is necessary to make policy adjustments politically tenable in Greece. That means acknowledging that the vast majority of the financial support given to Greece has gone to pay back banks rather than to support the Greek budget. They must agree on debt relief and recognize the degree of adjustment in Greek spending that has taken place: with nearly 30 percent of government workers laid off. It also means announcing their intention to accelerate economic growth throughout Europe.

In case that wasn’t clear, here’s a translation: the leaders of Europe are idiots. Everyone with a room temperature IQ has known for years that something like this is the deal that needs to be made. It’s been discussed endlessly in meeting rooms, op-eds, scholarly papers, and conferences. Not only is it not a secret—or rocket science—it’s been the obvious solution forever. But Europe vs. Greece is now like the Hatfields vs. the McCoys. Nobody cares anymore how it started, whose fault any of it was, or what the catastrophic results of continued obstinacy will be. They don’t even care much about inflicting pain on their own people as long they also inflict pain on the other side.

They are idiots. Not stupid, mind you, but idiots all the same. They know what needs to be done. They’re just too committed to their own resentment and outrage to do it.

Continue at source – 

Resentment and Outrage Are All That Matter in Europe Now

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Resentment and Outrage Are All That Matter in Europe Now

It’s Long Past Time For South Carolina to Stop Flying the Confederate Flag

by CarmenLje3106 Posted on June 20, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

As I’m sure everyone knows by now, flying the the Confederate battle flag on the grounds of the state house is hardly a longtime South Carolina tradition. In fact, it’s only been up since 1961. I was googling around on a different but related subject and happened to come across this account of how it happened. It’s written by Brett Bursey and based mainly on the recollections of Daniel Hollis. In 1959 President Eisenhower commissioned a national Civil War Centennial, and Hollis was named a member of South Carolina’s commission to plan the state’s observance of the 100th anniversary of the War Between the States.

Here’s his recollection:

Hollis remembers the day the Confederate flag was hoisted over the State House to commemorate the war. The centennial kicked off on April 11, 1961, with a re-creation of the firing on Fort Sumter. The flag went up for the opening celebrations.

“The flag is being flown this week at the request of Aiken Rep. John A. May,” reported The State on April 12. May didn’t introduce his resolution until the next legislative session. By the time the resolution passed on March 16, 1962, the flag had been flying for nearly a year. (This explains why the flag is often erroneously reported to have gone up in 1962).

“May told us he was going to introduce a resolution to fly the flag for a year from the capitol. I was against the flag going up,” Hollis said, “but I kept quiet and went along. I didn’t want to get into it with the UDC United Daughters of the Confederacy girls.” The resolution that passed didn’t include a time for the flag to come down and, therefore, “it just stayed up,” Hollis said. “Nobody raised a question.”

….The day the flag went up, headlines in the local newspapers were full of unrest. Besides the centennial controversy, the news that week included:

Sen. Marrion Gressette, the head of the State Segregation Committee, created in 1951 to recommend measures to maintain segregation, was supporting a resolution condemning former North Carolina Gov. Frank Graham, who had spoken at Winthrop College defending the civil rights movement and calling for integration.
Thurmond was fighting in Congress to keep federal funding for segregated schools. Political sentiment against school integration was so strong that state politicians vowed to stop all funding to public schools rather than integrate.
The Freedom Ride with integrated bus loads of civil rights workers was on the road, and there were reports of violence along the route.
The major story of the week was Kennedy’s executive order to end segregation in work places that do business with the government. The forced integration of South Carolina’s mills outraged politicians and editorial writers.

Hoisting the Confederate flag over the State House didn’t generate any controversy at the time. Perhaps those most offended by it were too busy fighting real-life battles to expend any energy on symbolic ones.

So the flag went up partly to commemorate the Civil War and partly as a fairly safe way to protest against the civil rights movement. In either case, it’s hardly a legacy issue that strikes at the honor of the Palmetto State. It was originally intended to stay up for only a year, and South Carolinians would do well to remember that. The year is long since up. Take it down.

View article – 

It’s Long Past Time For South Carolina to Stop Flying the Confederate Flag

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s Long Past Time For South Carolina to Stop Flying the Confederate Flag

There are just 97 of these adorable porpoises left

by ArdenHatchett Posted on June 19, 2015

Doing It On Porpoise

There are just 97 of these adorable porpoises left

By on 19 Jun 2015commentsShare

Heads up, animal lovers: This is going to be a sad one – sadder than starving sea lions (gasp!), tick-infested moose (the horror!), and even dying penguin chicks (NO!).

The latest addition to the list of dying critters: These adorable vaquita porpoises, which get ensnared and then drown in gill-nets off Mexico’s Gulf of California. Now there are only 97 vaquitas left in the world, The New York Times reports.

Recent data from acoustic monitoring show that the species is declining by an average of 30 percent a year — much higher than the previous estimate of 18.5 percent, which scientists said was the steepest decline of cetaceans on record.

The decline is still going strong despite Mexican government officials implementing a two-year moratorium on gill-net fishing. Some fishermen are still using the nets illegally to catch totoaba fish, a Chinese delicacy. Activists are still fighting for the tiny porpoises, but time is running out.

“I was out there about a month ago and saw blatant gill-net setting within the vaquita refuge,” said Barbara Taylor, a member of the vaquita recovery committee and a conservation biologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

While there was a strong law-enforcement presence when the refuge was established in 2008, efforts have trickled to virtually nothing in the past few years, Dr. Taylor said. The committee has urged Mexico’s government to increase patrols, including nighttime surveillance, to ensure that gill-net fishing ceases.

“Unless there is nearly perfect enforcement, it’s game over for vaquita,” she said.

You can read more about the vaquita’s sad story here and here. No need to be embarrassed, friend. We’re crying right along with you.

Source:
Disappearing Porpoise: Down to 97 and Dropping Fast

, The New York Times.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

Follow this link:

There are just 97 of these adorable porpoises left

Posted in alo, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, TOTO, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on There are just 97 of these adorable porpoises left

No Matter How You Slice It, Obamacare Reduces the Federal Deficit

by MackMarsden Posted on June 19, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

We now live in the blessed era of dynamic scoring, something that Republicans have lusted over for decades. When the Congressional Budget Office makes economic projections, it can no longer just look at spending and taxes and subtract one from the other to get deficits. No siree. First they have to pay homage to the Laffer Curve and acknowledge that lower taxes will supercharge the economy and higher taxes will tank the economy. Then they recompute how much tax revenue they’re really going to get.

Anyway, CBO is now required to do this, so here’s their projection about how Obamacare will affect the federal deficit. Under the old-fashioned method, it will lower the deficit by $118 billion in 2025. But using the sleek new dynamic scoring system insisted on by Republicans, the truth becomes evident and Democratic evasions are exposed for all the world to see. Obamacare will, um, still reduce the deficit. But only by $98 billion.

In truth, this stuff is so open to interpretation and assumptions (and future congressional action) that neither number means much. Still, if you want to know if Obamacare pays for itself using our best estimates, it does. Even using dynamic scoring, it pays for itself. That’s more than Republicans ever do with their programs.

Read the article:

No Matter How You Slice It, Obamacare Reduces the Federal Deficit

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No Matter How You Slice It, Obamacare Reduces the Federal Deficit

Cell Phone or Porsche? Cable TV or First Class Travel? Quien Es Mas Macho?

by JermainFsm Posted on June 19, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Via Brad DeLong, I see that Matt Bruenig has finally taken on a question that’s bugged me for years. The question, in a nutshell, is this: Adjusted for inflation, would you rather live today with an income of $30,000 or back in the 1980s with an income of $60,000?1 Would the extra income be enticing enough to persuade you to give up 300 channels of high-def TV, cell phones, and universal access to the internet?

Now, the reason for asking this question usually has something to do with how we measure inflation. If you answer no—that is, you’d prefer today’s world even with a lower income—it suggests that our inflation measures are inadequate. I mean, you’re saying that $30,000 today buys more satisfaction than $60,000 in 1980 even though these are real, inflation-adjusted numbers. In other words, people today are quite a bit better off than official figures suggest. Officially, if your income had dropped in half over the past three decades, you’d be in dire shape. But in fact, this thought experiment suggests you’re actually happier. So maybe income hasn’t dropped in half in any practical sense.

This becomes meta-meta-economic very fast, so it’s best not to get wound up in it right now. Because the thing that’s always bugged me about this question is not so much its philosophical implications, but that it asks someone today what they’d think of living in the past. But that’s rigged. I grew up in the world of today. I’m accustomed to all the gadgets at hand. The idea of giving them up naturally sounds horrible.

But that’s not the only way to think of it. How about if we asked someone in 1980 about their preference. Would you rather have twice your current income, or would you rather have better TVs, portable phones, and instant access to all the information in the world? Well, these folks aren’t accustomed to all that stuff. Sure, it sounds cool, but jeez, would I really use it much? Hmmm. I think I’ll go with the extra income.

In other words, it’s all a matter of what you’re accustomed to. If you’ve been sleeping on the ground all your life, you have no trouble sleeping on the ground. Who needs a bed? If, like me, you’ve been sleeping on a bed all your life, you’d become a wreck trying to sleep on the ground. You’d pay a considerable sum of money just for an air mattress and a blanket.

Now, if you’re still reading this, you may be nodding along a bit but nonetheless thinking that it’s all just dorm room BS. We can’t go back in time and ask people about the internet and cell phones, so what’s the point of bringing it up? There are two reasons. First, I just wish more people realized that asking this question of current consumers stacks the deck and therefore doesn’t tell us nearly as much as we think it does. Second, Matt Bruenig has come up with a clever way that kinda sorta does allow us to go back in time and ask people this question.

As he points out, we have a group of people who did indeed lead adult lives in the 80s and are still with us: senior citizens. And they can decide which technologies they want to use. So what do they choose?

Using smartphone adoption as a proxy for these people’s technological preferences, it’s clear that the people who actually lived as adults through both technological periods overwhelmingly prefer older technologies:

Judging from these people’s preferences, you’d have to conclude that, in fact, older technologies are preferable to newer technologies. You don’t need a hypothetical to determine whether living in the past was better: these are people who lived in the past and the present and clearly prefer the way they lived in the past, at least when it comes to the technologies that are supposed to have made life dramatically better (as incomes stagnated).

Now, this is obviously not a bulletproof comparison. Maybe old people just get stubborn, and that’s all there is to it. Or maybe cell phones are a bad comparison. Even (or especially) senior citizens would probably be unwilling to go back to the medical technology of 1980. Plainly this is not the final answer to the tech vs. money question.

Still, it’s an interesting approach, and it would be interesting to try to extend it. Behavioral economics tells us that people respond to losses much more strongly than gains, so asking people to give up something they like really is stacking the deck—especially if they have little conception of what the extra income in 1980 would gain them. People will always react far more intensely to a sure loss than to an offer of something new.

Anyway, more like this, please. For example, how about turning this around. Which would you prefer: (a) a doubling of your income right now, or (b) a world with driverless cars, internet chips implanted in your brain, and vacation flights to the moon? For a lot of people, this would not be an obvious choice at all.

1Note that this question is normally asked with bigger numbers: say, $50,000 vs. $100,000. I lowered it because I think it makes a difference. $30,000 really starts to make you think, doesn’t it?

Taken from – 

Cell Phone or Porsche? Cable TV or First Class Travel? Quien Es Mas Macho?

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Cell Phone or Porsche? Cable TV or First Class Travel? Quien Es Mas Macho?

The "Umbrella Revolution" Just Scored a Major Victory in Hong Kong

by HannahLombardo Posted on June 19, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last fall, the streets of Hong Kong filled with protestors demonstrating for greater autonomy after China proposed an election system that would undermine their right to vote for the city’s highest official. Students and concerned citizens camped outside of government buildings and blocked major thoroughfares for weeks on end wielding umbrellas to protect against police tear gas (leading to the name “Umbrella Revolution”). Eventually the demonstrations lost steam and protestors acquiesced to government demands to evacuate the streets. Many feared that the end of the protests meant a win for China and a blow to democracy in Hong Kong.

However early Thursday, Hong Kong’s legislature voted down the Chinese proposal that instigated the massive demonstrations. Pro-democracy supporters are calling it a major legislative victory. In order to understand why, we have to back up a bit.

Hong Kong becomes part of China…sort of: In 1997, the United Kingdom handed over control of Hong Kong to China. Under an agreement known as “one country, two systems,” however, China promised that Hong Kong would maintain political autonomy and many civil liberties that are not afforded to mainland Chinese (Vox does a good job laying out this confusing transition). One right citizens of Hong Kong did not get was the ability to directly vote for the city’s executive chancellor. Instead, a mostly pro-Beijing 1,200-member election committee has chosen the leader through simple majority every 5 years. In 2007, though, China told Hong Kong it would be allowed to elect its leader by popular vote in 2017.

Fall 2014, protests begin: But then, in August of 2014, the Chinese Communist Party released a proposed election plan outlining their version of a popular vote. In it, a special committee controlled by the Chinese Communist Party would choose up to three candidates for whom Hong Kong’s 5 million eligible voters could cast a ballot. Hong Kong’s current chief executive, Leung Chun-Ying, supported the proposal but thousands of Hong Kong citizens viewed this system as a “sham democracy” that would allow China to continue exercising control over Hong Kong. They took to the streets flooding the area surrounding Hong’s Kong’s government buildings for weeks before finally going home.

Okay, so what just happened: Hong Kong’s Legislative Council voted today on whether or not it would enact the the election system proposed by China. It was struck down with only 8 lawmakers out of 70 voting for the proposal, a big hit to the Chinese Communist Party and victory for the pro-democracy camp.

What‘s next: Pro-democracy activists are praising the legislature’s move, but also point out there is a long way to go before real democracy is achieved. Because China’s election plan was voted down, the current system will stay in place until at least 2022. Some believe a more productive short-term approach to reforming Hong Kong’s election system would be pushing the current election committee to better represent the people of Hong Kong instead of Chinese interests.

Continue at source:  

The "Umbrella Revolution" Just Scored a Major Victory in Hong Kong

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, Free Press, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The "Umbrella Revolution" Just Scored a Major Victory in Hong Kong

Jeb Bush Has Announced the Perfect Republican Economic Plan

by Micki0192q Posted on June 18, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Rand Paul says his secret to success is that his tax cut plan will supercharge economic growth. Jeb Bush says his secret to success is that merely by being president he will supercharge economic growth.

I guess I have to give this round to Paul. He at least tried to come up with some math salad to justify his belief that a Rand Paul presidency will bring about economic nirvana. Bush simply declared ex cathedra that he’d make the economy grow at an astonishing 4 percent per year. Why? “It’s a nice round number. It’s double the growth that we are growing at. It’s not just an aspiration. It’s doable.”

Um, OK. He gets points for copping to a sort of amiable idiocy, I suppose. But in case you’re interested, here’s economic growth since the Reagan administration:

Reagan managed 4 percent growth four times in eight years. George H. W. Bush managed it zero times. Bill Clinton did it five times in eight years. George W. Bush did it zero times. Barack Obama has (so far) done it zero times. And no president in history has averaged 4 percent growth over the course of his presidency. No one.1

If you want all the gory details, Matt Yglesias has much more here about just how unlikely this kind of growth is. But politically speaking, the details aren’t what’s interesting. What’s interesting is that Bush’s comment is an unusually clear peek behind the curtain, one that demonstrates how unseriously Republicans take the economy. It’s all just cotton candy for the gullible. Cut taxes on the rich and this will—somehow—supercharge the economy. Slash regulations and this will—somehow—unleash business activity and supercharge the economy. Now Bush has decided to dispense with even the mumbo jumbo explanations. He’s distilled the GOP economic message down to its essence: Elect me president and—merely because I’m a Republican and I say so—I’ll supercharge the economy.

And there’s more. If you assume the economy is going to skyrocket, there’s no need to address niggling concerns about spending or budget deficits. There will be money for everything! And when it doesn’t happen? Oops. Sorry. Next time we’ll get serious for sure. Honest.

1OK, OK, it’s true that FDR did it. How? By starting at the bottom of the worst depression in history and ending with the biggest wartime boom in history. This basically makes the case for just how unlikely this is to ever happen again.

Read More – 

Jeb Bush Has Announced the Perfect Republican Economic Plan

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Jeb Bush Has Announced the Perfect Republican Economic Plan

Paul Ryan’s Vision of a Dickensian Hellhole Is Up For a Vote Next Year

by PearleneJenks Posted on June 16, 2015

Mother Jones

Jon Chait points out today that it doesn’t really matter very much whether Hillary Clinton moves a little leftward, a little center-ward, or frankly, in any other direction during the upcoming presidential campaign. Oh, it might help her get elected, but once in office Republicans aren’t going to pass any of her proposals, no matter what they happen to be. Nonetheless:

The presidential election carries hugely important stakes, not just in policy realms where the president wields significant influence on her own, like foreign policy and judicial appointments, but also on domestic policy. It’s just that the stakes have nothing to do with Clinton’s proposals. What’s at stake is the Paul Ryan budget.

….Jeb Bush has already endorsed the Ryan budget. Marco Rubio has voted for it and said, “by and large, it’s exactly the direction we should be headed.” The other candidates have positioned themselves to their right….The overall thrust is perfectly clear: deep cuts in marginal tax rates along with large reductions in means-tested spending, and a deregulation of the energy and financial industries. Its enactment would amount to the most dramatic rollback of government since the New Deal.

….News coverage has oddly failed to frame this question as the center of the election. Journalists like personal drama, and they prefer to place the candidates and their individual ideas in the center of the portrait.

In fairness, the general election is a long way off. It’s pretty understandable that campaign reporters are currently spending most of their time on primary jockeying and not on the details of policy proposals—especially since most of the candidates haven’t yet done more than outline their domestic agendas anyway.

That said, no one took this very seriously in 2012, even though the Ryan budget was at stake then too. I’ll toss out three reasons I suspect the same thing will happen this time too:

  1. The eventual Republican candidate will insist that the Ryan budget is “a great roadmap” and “the direction our administration will move in,” or some such waffle. But he will refuse to flatly endorse the document itself (“As the Constitution requires, details will be negotiated as part of the congressional budgeting process blah blah blah”), and this refusal will be taken at face value.
  2. As I’ve mentioned enough times to be a bore about it, Republicans generally get a pass from the press corps when they advocate some militantly right-wing position. It’s taken as little more than an applause line they “have” to deliver to appease the base, not something they’ll actually do once they’re in office.
  3. And in the case of the Ryan budget, the truth is that when Republicans are out of power they do always say that the budget is a looming apocalypse and needs to be slashed—but when they’re in power it usually turns out they like spending money too. Sure, they always have a period of remorse and backbiting after they’ve been turfed out of office, swearing that next time they’ll slash the budget for sure. But they never do. They just run big deficits. So it’s hardly surprising that seasoned campaign reporters take this stuff with a grain of salt when they hear it.

So are Republicans serious about it this time? Beats me. I don’t really want to risk finding out, but I honestly have no idea.

More: 

Paul Ryan’s Vision of a Dickensian Hellhole Is Up For a Vote Next Year

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Paul Ryan’s Vision of a Dickensian Hellhole Is Up For a Vote Next Year

Corporations Want to Follow Your Every Move, Whether You Like It Or Not

by LoreneVDFI Posted on June 16, 2015

Mother Jones

Last year the Commerce Department put together a group to make recommendations for regulating facial recognition technology. The group included nine privacy advocates, but Dan Froomkin reports that it didn’t go well:

“At a base minimum, people should be able to walk down a public street without fear that companies they’ve never heard of are tracking their every movement — and identifying them by name — using facial recognition technology,” the privacy advocates wrote in a joint statement. “Unfortunately, we have been unable to obtain agreement even with that basic, specific premise.”

….After a dozen meetings, the most recent of which was last week, all nine privacy advocates who have participated in the entire process concluded that they were totally outgunned. “This should be a wake-up call to Americans: Industry lobbyists are choking off Washington’s ability to protect consumer privacy,” Alvaro Bedoya, executive director of the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law, said in a statement.

“People simply do not expect companies they’ve never heard of to secretly track them using this powerful technology. Despite all of this, industry associations have pushed for a world where companies can use facial recognition on you whenever they want — no matter what you say. This position is well outside the mainstream.”

I had no idea that anyone was even considering the regulation of facial recognition software, so this is news to me. It’s yet another indication that in the future we will have virtually no privacy left at all. Either that or we’ll all start walking around in tinfoil-shielded space suits whenever we leave our tinfoil-wallpapered houses.

Source:

Corporations Want to Follow Your Every Move, Whether You Like It Or Not

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Corporations Want to Follow Your Every Move, Whether You Like It Or Not