Massive camera hack exposes the growing reach and intimacy of American surveillance
A breach of the camera start-up Verkada ‘should be a wake-up call to the dangers of self-surveillance,’ one expert said: ‘Our desire for some fake sense of security is its own security threat’
the anniversary of 15 days to flatten the curve came and went without fanfare
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
Lobbying Expenditures and Campaign Contributions by the Pharmaceutical and Health Product Industry in the United States, 1999-2018
the pharmaceutical and health product industry spent $4.7 billion, an average of $233 million per year, on lobbying the US federal government; $414 million on contributions to presidential and congressional electoral candidates, national party committees, and outside spending groups; and $877 million on contributions to state candidates and committees. Contributions were targeted at senior legislators in Congress involved in drafting health care laws and state committees that opposed or supported key referenda on drug pricing and regulation.
@peter4jc said:
Those numbers seem way, way, too low. I would've guessed they'd be way higher. How much money changes hands that nobody knows about?
A comely young spokeswoman from a company making cancer drugs invites the senator to discuss cancer research aboard the company yacht. She seems to be a complaisant gal. Smells nice enough. Once she has left, a manila envelope full of cash mysteriously appears upon the credenza. No one knows who may have left it.
In an entirely unrelated manner, after his son Beau's death from brain cancer, the senator set up a 501c3 charity to raise money for cancer research. That charity receives ten million from the cancer drug company's sister company's lie firm.
In an entirely unrelated matter, that charity disburses exactly zero ($0) for any cancer research whatsoever. All monies received go into board member salaries.
In an entirely unrelated matter, all the board are family members or business associates on whose generous hearts the noble senator may depend.
etc.
You have only to maintain plausible deniability. If plausible deniability is ever threatened, kill the messenger.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
Still wanna know how a congresscrook is worth 20+ million after 6 years at 194K per annum. Follow the money and you'll find out who's really running things.
I'm still troubled by what I did for that Klondike bar...
@Trykflyr_1 said:
Still wanna know how a congresscrook is worth 20+ million after 6 years at 194K per annum. Follow the money and you'll find out who's really running things.
After Epstein got whacked, someone got that very idea: Follow the money..
I forget who went to court to gain access to the dead pedo's bank records. The case came before a lady judge in North Jersey. Soon after, a feller showed up and rang her door bell. Dad and son answered the door. WHACK WHACK those two were gunned down. Gunman strides into the house and finds the judges' sister WHACK. The gunman figured he got the judge. He left. Not so... the judge happened to be down in the basement doing the laundry at the time.
Just a few minutes later, a corpse was discovered two blocks away. It was a lawyer who had lost a case in that judge's court. He had been shot point blank. We were immediately told that this lawyer was pissed at the judge because she had ruled against his client, and so had shot the judge, then himself.
Not so... the judge happened to be down in the basement doing the laundry at the time.
So we are to believe that a lawyer was so pissed at a judge who he could not even recognize because his client lost a case?
That's the last we heard of that following the money.
Nor do I think we'll hear much more following Hunter's money.
Nor much about the four hundred some mil hush money we just gave Ukraine as part of the latest stimulus
Follow the money. It's one of those things that sounds real good if you say it fast.
Now consider this: Say you kick that crookster out. Who comes in next? It's like killing flies. The more dead squirrels, the more flies.
a.k.a. power corrupts.
The liberal says "government stinks, so let's have more." The conservative says "government stinks, so let's keep it like it is." The libertarian says "government stinks, so let's knock it down to a dull roar." Two out of three of these strategies make big money; the third can't even get off the ground.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
The problem with that analysis is that it assumes the debt will somehow be repaid. If you can imagine me up a scenario in which that is apt to happen, I have a bridge to Zimbabwe I'd like to sell you.
Instead, we add two trill to perpetual debt. The cost of perpetual debt is theoretically infinite.
The cost of simply servicing that debt is slippery. It actually costs more when the economy does well. This year, we'll pay our lucky banksters $400 bil interest. But interest is at an all time low. On a perpetual debt, how much will our great-grands pay? Who knows. The cost in 2030 is predicted to be like $650 bil. But no one can predict this crap.
Then there's the cost of monetizing new debt. I remember reading about this when the first bailout occurred. That was years ago, so some of these factoids might be poorly remembered by now or even changed by now. Someone wants to do the research and check my "facts", feel free. But here goes:
They like to say monetizing cause that makes the rest of us sound ignorant when we complain the FED is printing money. But the FED actually charged 23 cents per hundred for the cost of printing a hundred dollar bill back when Bush & then Obama were doin' it. It cost half that to actually print one; but the FED charged 23 cents even though they don't print them. 23 cents ain' much; but 23 cents times 2 tril divided by 100 = $one schidtpile. It costs a couple key strokes and a mouse click for banksters to profit a thousand Malibu mansions. For doin' next to nuttin.
What they actually do, IIRC, is buy up two tril worth of treasury bonds to retire that much debt, then sell new ones. The first beautiful thing is, they don't have to pay face value for what they buy. They can buy bargains. They know guys. The second beautiful thing is they make money selling new ones face value. Nobody's gonna know what they bought for versus what they sold for, so we don't know the profit on this.
Think this way: If you re-financed your $200k house every year, paying points and closing costs, trying to squeeze enough cash out each time to buy a new car, then, how much would you pay monthly in, say, 30 years?
If I were one of them banksters, I, too, could jet from the Hamptons to my Monte Carlo villa, or board my 132' yacht well-stocked with complaisant aspiring "models". I might even whip out my satellite phone to call presidents and prime ministers on speed dial and offer them deals they could not refuse.
Then there's inflation... which the proponents of this kinda con game refuse to admit takes place. It's not what's in your pocket. It's what can it buy.
No. Nobody's paying off two trill that cheap.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
If one reviews the history of most of the European wars for the last 500 years or so, it was nearly always about someone not wanting to pay the National Debt of the time.
How long can it be before we tell China we're not paying?
How long before the Dollar follows the Lire and the Yen?
No wonder the Left keeps trying to get everyone to give up their guns. A population that shoots back is a lot more difficult to control.
Left-leaning members are free to disagree. I'm sure your intentions are rooted in your deep trust in the goodness of humanity.
I don't share those feelings, as much as I'd like to.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
@Amos_Umwhat said:
If one reviews the history of most of the European wars for the last 500 years or so, it was nearly always about someone not wanting to pay the National Debt of the time.
How long can it be before we tell China we're not paying?
How long before the Dollar follows the Lire and the Yen?
No wonder the Left keeps trying to get everyone to give up their guns. A population that shoots back is a lot more difficult to control.
Left-leaning members are free to disagree. I'm sure your intentions are rooted in your deep trust in the goodness of humanity.
I don't share those feelings, as much as I'd like to.
I'd consider myself right leaning, but it's worth noting that over the past 50 years, republicans have been the party of debt increase. Ronald Reagan increased the debt by 186% (average of 93% per 4 year term). George H.W. Bush is second at 54%, then his son at 50.5% per term comes in third. Gerald Ford is fourth at 47% (he's really higher because that's only 3 budgets to get 47% instead of 4), and then we finally get democrat Jimmy carter in fifth at 43%. That's 23 years out of 50 of republican presidency before we get to a democrat budget. In terms of actual dollars, Trump is far and away the leader with 6.7 trillion added over 4 years, but that's not the accurate way to measure the debt increase, because the dollar is much more worthless than it was back in the day. In terms of percentage increase, he's at 33%, and Obama is at 37%.
The craziest part is that republicans campaign on reducing the debt, because it's what their constituents want, while democrats don't care. Then they get into office and become "corrupted absolutely". It's one of the main reasons I refuse to call myself a republican, and instead say conservative. Republican politicians need to start doing what their constituents want, instead of being giant hypocrites who are just making insider trades and enriching themselves.
If those 23 years with the highest debt increases has a few democrats sprinkled in, then I'd be willing to listen to complaints, but republicans have no one to blame but themselves. Hopefully one day, some more republicans can survive getting into congress while actually remaining conservative instead of turning into authoritarians. There's my monthly political rant that I always try to avoid, but sometimes can't resist.
@Amos_Umwhat said:
If one reviews the history of most of the European wars for the last 500 years or so, it was nearly always about someone not wanting to pay the National Debt of the time.
How long can it be before we tell China we're not paying?
How long before the Dollar follows the Lire and the Yen?
No wonder the Left keeps trying to get everyone to give up their guns. A population that shoots back is a lot more difficult to control.
Left-leaning members are free to disagree. I'm sure your intentions are rooted in your deep trust in the goodness of humanity.
I don't share those feelings, as much as I'd like to.
I'd consider myself right leaning, but it's worth noting that over the past 50 years, republicans have been the party of debt increase. Ronald Reagan increased the debt by 186% (average of 93% per 4 year term). George H.W. Bush is second at 54%, then his son at 50.5% per term comes in third. Gerald Ford is fourth at 47% (he's really higher because that's only 3 budgets to get 47% instead of 4), and then we finally get democrat Jimmy carter in fifth at 43%. That's 23 years out of 50 of republican presidency before we get to a democrat budget. In terms of actual dollars, Trump is far and away the leader with 6.7 trillion added over 4 years, but that's not the accurate way to measure the debt increase, because the dollar is much more worthless than it was back in the day. In terms of percentage increase, he's at 33%, and Obama is at 37%.
The craziest part is that republicans campaign on reducing the debt, because it's what their constituents want, while democrats don't care. Then they get into office and become "corrupted absolutely". It's one of the main reasons I refuse to call myself a republican, and instead say conservative. Republican politicians need to start doing what their constituents want, instead of being giant hypocrites who are just making insider trades and enriching themselves.
If those 23 years with the highest debt increases has a few democrats sprinkled in, then I'd be willing to listen to complaints, but republicans have no one to blame but themselves. Hopefully one day, some more republicans can survive getting into congress while actually remaining conservative instead of turning into authoritarians. There's my monthly political rant that I always try to avoid, but sometimes can't resist.
I can't disagree with a word of that.^^^
It's always seemed to me, my feeling and not research, that the Republicans either want to borrow more money, or pass the debt on the future generations, while the Democrats want to print more money, or take it out of someone's pocket who works and give it to someone who won't.
Either way, I get screwed.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
― Frédéric Bastiat
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
Comments
plant based beverages!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/10/verkada-hack-surveillance-risk/
Massive camera hack exposes the growing reach and intimacy of American surveillance
A breach of the camera start-up Verkada ‘should be a wake-up call to the dangers of self-surveillance,’ one expert said: ‘Our desire for some fake sense of security is its own security threat’
the anniversary of 15 days to flatten the curve came and went without fanfare
Thinking they don't want to remind folks. After all, the experts continue to prove themselves wrong every day.
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.
Bought this just now:
Lobbying Expenditures and Campaign Contributions by the Pharmaceutical and Health Product Industry in the United States, 1999-2018
the pharmaceutical and health product industry spent $4.7 billion, an average of $233 million per year, on lobbying the US federal government; $414 million on contributions to presidential and congressional electoral candidates, national party committees, and outside spending groups; and $877 million on contributions to state candidates and committees. Contributions were targeted at senior legislators in Congress involved in drafting health care laws and state committees that opposed or supported key referenda on drug pricing and regulation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7054854/?fbclid=IwAR1Lr-vwTH1TzNmqtQ1fKk5uWo0hHZYEnni2_v6vytZuc5QdFHmE8SMXZFQ
Those numbers seem way, way, too low. I would've guessed they'd be way higher. How much money changes hands that nobody knows about?
yeah. This is a good site. For instance here's 'socialist' Bernie and who has a hand in his election:
https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/bernie-sanders/contributors?id=N00000528
A comely young spokeswoman from a company making cancer drugs invites the senator to discuss cancer research aboard the company yacht. She seems to be a complaisant gal. Smells nice enough. Once she has left, a manila envelope full of cash mysteriously appears upon the credenza. No one knows who may have left it.
In an entirely unrelated manner, after his son Beau's death from brain cancer, the senator set up a 501c3 charity to raise money for cancer research. That charity receives ten million from the cancer drug company's sister company's lie firm.
In an entirely unrelated matter, that charity disburses exactly zero ($0) for any cancer research whatsoever. All monies received go into board member salaries.
In an entirely unrelated matter, all the board are family members or business associates on whose generous hearts the noble senator may depend.
etc.
You have only to maintain plausible deniability. If plausible deniability is ever threatened, kill the messenger.
Still wanna know how a congresscrook is worth 20+ million after 6 years at 194K per annum. Follow the money and you'll find out who's really running things.
After Epstein got whacked, someone got that very idea: Follow the money..
I forget who went to court to gain access to the dead pedo's bank records. The case came before a lady judge in North Jersey. Soon after, a feller showed up and rang her door bell. Dad and son answered the door. WHACK WHACK those two were gunned down. Gunman strides into the house and finds the judges' sister WHACK. The gunman figured he got the judge. He left. Not so... the judge happened to be down in the basement doing the laundry at the time.
Just a few minutes later, a corpse was discovered two blocks away. It was a lawyer who had lost a case in that judge's court. He had been shot point blank. We were immediately told that this lawyer was pissed at the judge because she had ruled against his client, and so had shot the judge, then himself.
Not so... the judge happened to be down in the basement doing the laundry at the time.
So we are to believe that a lawyer was so pissed at a judge who he could not even recognize because his client lost a case?
That's the last we heard of that following the money.
Nor do I think we'll hear much more following Hunter's money.
Nor much about the four hundred some mil hush money we just gave Ukraine as part of the latest stimulus
Follow the money. It's one of those things that sounds real good if you say it fast.
Now consider this: Say you kick that crookster out. Who comes in next? It's like killing flies. The more dead squirrels, the more flies.
a.k.a. power corrupts.
The liberal says "government stinks, so let's have more." The conservative says "government stinks, so let's keep it like it is." The libertarian says "government stinks, so let's knock it down to a dull roar." Two out of three of these strategies make big money; the third can't even get off the ground.
Source: The Committee to Unleash Prosperity via issuesinsights.com. https://issuesinsights.com/2021/03/25/sorry-america-all-that-free-money-isnt-so-free/
The problem with that analysis is that it assumes the debt will somehow be repaid. If you can imagine me up a scenario in which that is apt to happen, I have a bridge to Zimbabwe I'd like to sell you.
Instead, we add two trill to perpetual debt. The cost of perpetual debt is theoretically infinite.
The cost of simply servicing that debt is slippery. It actually costs more when the economy does well. This year, we'll pay our lucky banksters $400 bil interest. But interest is at an all time low. On a perpetual debt, how much will our great-grands pay? Who knows. The cost in 2030 is predicted to be like $650 bil. But no one can predict this crap.
Then there's the cost of monetizing new debt. I remember reading about this when the first bailout occurred. That was years ago, so some of these factoids might be poorly remembered by now or even changed by now. Someone wants to do the research and check my "facts", feel free. But here goes:
They like to say monetizing cause that makes the rest of us sound ignorant when we complain the FED is printing money. But the FED actually charged 23 cents per hundred for the cost of printing a hundred dollar bill back when Bush & then Obama were doin' it. It cost half that to actually print one; but the FED charged 23 cents even though they don't print them. 23 cents ain' much; but 23 cents times 2 tril divided by 100 = $one schidtpile. It costs a couple key strokes and a mouse click for banksters to profit a thousand Malibu mansions. For doin' next to nuttin.
What they actually do, IIRC, is buy up two tril worth of treasury bonds to retire that much debt, then sell new ones. The first beautiful thing is, they don't have to pay face value for what they buy. They can buy bargains. They know guys. The second beautiful thing is they make money selling new ones face value. Nobody's gonna know what they bought for versus what they sold for, so we don't know the profit on this.
Think this way: If you re-financed your $200k house every year, paying points and closing costs, trying to squeeze enough cash out each time to buy a new car, then, how much would you pay monthly in, say, 30 years?
If I were one of them banksters, I, too, could jet from the Hamptons to my Monte Carlo villa, or board my 132' yacht well-stocked with complaisant aspiring "models". I might even whip out my satellite phone to call presidents and prime ministers on speed dial and offer them deals they could not refuse.
Then there's inflation... which the proponents of this kinda con game refuse to admit takes place. It's not what's in your pocket. It's what can it buy.
No. Nobody's paying off two trill that cheap.
The national debt is on track to hit $30 trillion by the end of 2021.
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
If one reviews the history of most of the European wars for the last 500 years or so, it was nearly always about someone not wanting to pay the National Debt of the time.
How long can it be before we tell China we're not paying?
How long before the Dollar follows the Lire and the Yen?
No wonder the Left keeps trying to get everyone to give up their guns. A population that shoots back is a lot more difficult to control.
Left-leaning members are free to disagree. I'm sure your intentions are rooted in your deep trust in the goodness of humanity.
I don't share those feelings, as much as I'd like to.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Probably about the time oil stops being priced by the dollar.
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
I'd consider myself right leaning, but it's worth noting that over the past 50 years, republicans have been the party of debt increase. Ronald Reagan increased the debt by 186% (average of 93% per 4 year term). George H.W. Bush is second at 54%, then his son at 50.5% per term comes in third. Gerald Ford is fourth at 47% (he's really higher because that's only 3 budgets to get 47% instead of 4), and then we finally get democrat Jimmy carter in fifth at 43%. That's 23 years out of 50 of republican presidency before we get to a democrat budget. In terms of actual dollars, Trump is far and away the leader with 6.7 trillion added over 4 years, but that's not the accurate way to measure the debt increase, because the dollar is much more worthless than it was back in the day. In terms of percentage increase, he's at 33%, and Obama is at 37%.
The craziest part is that republicans campaign on reducing the debt, because it's what their constituents want, while democrats don't care. Then they get into office and become "corrupted absolutely". It's one of the main reasons I refuse to call myself a republican, and instead say conservative. Republican politicians need to start doing what their constituents want, instead of being giant hypocrites who are just making insider trades and enriching themselves.
If those 23 years with the highest debt increases has a few democrats sprinkled in, then I'd be willing to listen to complaints, but republicans have no one to blame but themselves. Hopefully one day, some more republicans can survive getting into congress while actually remaining conservative instead of turning into authoritarians. There's my monthly political rant that I always try to avoid, but sometimes can't resist.
I can't disagree with a word of that.^^^
It's always seemed to me, my feeling and not research, that the Republicans either want to borrow more money, or pass the debt on the future generations, while the Democrats want to print more money, or take it out of someone's pocket who works and give it to someone who won't.
Either way, I get screwed.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Hey, @stubble!!! Looka heyah!!! Foun' yer Nirvanah!!
got to admire the citizens of Myanmar, fighting off the military with rocks, slingshots, etc., putting their lives on the line.
https://apnews.com/article/aung-san-suu-kyi-min-aung-hlaing-myanmar-5bd5fd1e20adc5c5e16a0bb2a3db3102
No Second amendment for Myanmar.
Don't let the wife know what you spend on guns, ammo or cigars.
time to start hoarding toilet paper again!!!!
lol
https://fox8.com/news/toilet-paper-shortage-possible-amid-shipping-container-crisis-suppliers-report/
https://gizmodo.com/these-mutant-rabbits-walk-on-two-legs-and-geneticists-1846562358
zoom made $600,000,000, gave top execs $300,000,000 in stock options, wrote it off as expense, pays no federal tax this year. The details here:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/zoom-no-federal-taxes-2020/
If Cigar.com had a loop hole to allow you to get boxes of cigars free.... would you? I blame the government.
The guvmint is to blame for most of America's problems.
Trapped in the People's Communits Republic of Massachusetts.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
― Frédéric Bastiat