I'd like to think I'm one of the good guys here. I was one of the inventors of RSS and Atom and worked to push open content and social media.
I started a social data search platform named Datastreamer (http://www.datastreamer.io/) which is basically a petabyte-scale content indexing engine.
We provide API feeds to search engines and social media analytics companies needing bulk data but don't want to have to build a crawler.
For the last 5 years we've had major problems with customers coming to us asking for data which we felt was unethical (at best).
We actually had Saudi Arabia approach us... It was clear that they were intending to something pretty evil with the data.
Their RFP questions were a bit frightening:
- can you track people by religion?
- can you give us their email address?
- can you provide their address?
- can your provide their ethnicity?
- can you provide their social connections?
We're actually losing business to other companies that are performing highly unethical and probably illegal techniques.
We just can't compete with data at that type of fidelity.
If you're a researcher and you want to access bulk data for combating this type of non-sense WE WILL PROVIDE DATA AT COST. We can provide up to 1PB of data but for now we have to charge for the shipping and handling of that data. We're reaching out to some other companies like Google and also the Internet Archive to see if we can provide more cost effective solutions.
I'm working on more tools to give the power back to the users.
Polar (https://getpolarized.io/) is a web browser which allows people to control their own data. The idea is that I can keep a local repository of data and eventually build our own cloud platform based on open systems like IPFS and encrypt the data using group encryption.
By Onwuka is a blog of thoughts an musings of an onlooker.
Dark money
The following is an email from Friends of Sherrod Brown:
--
"When it comes to voters' knowledge about the deep-pocketed donors who are trying to influence their vote, the 2014 election cycle is on track to be the darkest election in recent history. And that's saying a lot, as each of the last three elections has shattered dark money records set in the preceding cycle." -- Robert Maguire, OpenSecrets.org, 4/30/14
Dear [redacted],
"Dark money" refers to funds spent on elections and provided by people who remain anonymous thanks to a loophole in the tax code. In the 2012 cycle, we saw $265 million in "dark money" -- and thanks to the Koch brothers and Karl Rove, we're likely to see much more than that this time around.
Yes, the majority of all this dark money is directed by three people -- Charles and David Koch, and Karl Rove. Seriously, when you read about this stuff, you almost can't believe that just three people wield such incredible influence over our politics.
But Rove and the Kochs do wield that outsized influence, and it's up to us to fight back. Please chip in $5 or more to help his stay strong against outside spending.
http://action.sherrodbrown.com/e140513
All those political ads airing around the country? The vast majority of them aren't coming from campaigns, but rather from outside groups.
According to the Wesleyan Media Project, a group that tracks political ads, "The 2014 campaigns are currently dominated by interest group advertising. And the bulk of the interest group money is coming from dark money groups who don't disclose their donors."
Grassroots campaigns like ours need to fight back against dark money -- give $5, $10, or whatever makes sense for you.
http://action.sherrodbrown.com/e140513
Thank you.
Sherrod
***Paid for by Friends of Sherrod Brown***
http://www.sherrodbrown.com
This e-mail was sent to [redacted]
Click here to unsubscribe: [redacted]
--
Affirmation: This came as an email to me. I am not a member of the Democratic Party. I have not received any payment for publishing this email newsletter. I sincerely believe that the contents of this email are public information and that everyone should know about the money power play happening in politics.
No need to rush: There is no need to rush, HillRaisers
You've probably noticed Peter Nicholas' article on the front page of the wall street journal on Monday. I don't think there is anything to be gained by declaring candidacy this early. It only gives the other side more time for attack ads. With recent crumbling of regulations, it is easier than ever for a few back room billionaires to carpet bomb elections all across the nation.
Meanwhile, please pay attention to your local and state governments and prepare for the mid-terms.
Best wishes,
xx
Is the whole go to college message overdone, questions the WSJ
I agree with the journal on this one, at least partially. Here is my thought: You should not have to take massive loans to go to college or to send your kids to college. I don't know what to say though. Assuming a 12% rate of inflation, for a child born in 2011 going to UT Austin in 2029, I would need to invest at least $2,830.72 per month to reach the goal with a 95% chance of success.
Assumptions:
Based on your selection of Portfolio 2027
A $656,021.00 investment goal
A $.00 one time lump sum payment
An 95% success rate
Now imagine you are a 26-year-old who puts away five thousand dollars per year into his IRA. $5000 per year for twenty years compounded annually at six percent is $183,900. The cost to attend UT Austin for fall 2013 is $5,107 for the school of engineering. Let's round it up to $5,500 to allow some incidental cost. That's $11,000 per year. Now, if you plan on having a kid four years from now in 2017, they'd want to college in eighteen years, that is beginning 2035. Assuming a modest six percent hike in prices, you'd need about $173,405.02 for tuition. So basically, if you put away as much for your kid as much as you will for your IRA, you will at least be able to cover his tuition to go to a state school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)