The US Federal Bureau of Investigation has quietly released details of plans to continuously monitor the global output of Facebook, Twitter and other social networks, offering a rare glimpse into an activity that the FBI and other government agencies are reluctant to discuss publicly. The plans show that the bureau believes it can use information pulled from social media sites to better respond to crises, and maybe even to foresee them.

The information comes from a document released on 19 January looking for companies who might want to build a monitoring system for the FBI. It spells out what the bureau wants from such a system and invites potential contractors to reply by 10 February.

The bureau’s wish list calls for the system to be able to automatically search “publicly available” material from Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites for keywords relating to terrorism, surveillance operations, online crime and other FBI missions. Agents would be alerted if the searches produce evidence of “breaking events, incidents, and emerging threats”.

Agents will have the option of displaying the tweets and other material captured by the system on a map, to which they can add layers of other data, including the locations of US embassies and military installations, details of previous terrorist attacks and the output from local traffic cameras.

Read more here.

One of the hallmarks of a major innovation is that it doesn’t just let you do the same-old things better, it helps you do things differently. Cable television was first developed to help rural areas get a better broadcast signal by using a community antenna located in a better stop that on the top of one’s own house. It blossomed into a new media revolution. Hydraulic diggers took a long time replacing steam shovels, but really took off when they were used to create smaller specialized earth moving tools such as backhoes and trench diggers (for use in areas that large steam shovels couldn’t get to). When electric motors replaced centralized steam or water powered belt systems to run machinery, factories could be redesigned along the lines of the production flow not the power source — thereby greatly increasing productivity.

Now we are beginning to see the same phenomena with 3D printing. In numerous earlier postings, I’ve talked about how 3D printing (or “additive manufacturing”) is becoming a replacement for customized fabrication. For example, one of the growing uses appears to be in the creation of customized medical devices, like hip replacements. Now users are finding that additive manufacturing allows for the fabrication of items that could not be made before. A story last month in The Economist (“The shape of things to come“) describes some of 3D printing products that would be difficult or impossible to make using existing techniques. One example concerns artificial hips that not only better follow the curves of the patient’s bones but also reproduce the lattice-like internal structure of natural bone making the implant lighter and stronger. Another is a heat exchanger in an optimum shape that resembles a fish gill. Yet another are objects that are stiff on one end and flexible or soft on the other. Each of these are not simply substitutes for existing manufacturing processes, but processes that allow for a new type of product.

As the cost of 3D printers come down and more users become familiar with their capabilities, expect to see a lot more of these never-before-seen creations. Just as precision machining made possible manufacturing revolution of mass production using interchangeable parts, additive manufacturing may spark a new manufacturing revolution with opportunities and consequences that we can barely conceive of today.

Hat Tip: BIN

Back when the smoking bans were spreading across the country, those of us opposed to them made the point that you could make many of the same arguments about perfume and cologne that ban proponents were making about second hand smoke. (And there’s about as much evidence that fragrances are a health risk, which is to say very little.)

But you can’t really make a reductio argument for too long before someone embraces it.

Many women love wearing perfume, but have you ever gotten a headache from someone who has sprayed on way too much of a scent you don’t like? Back in 2008, Susan McBride, sued Detroit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming a co-worker’s fragrance made it hard for her to breathe and do her job. She was eventually awarded $100,000, and the city warned workers to avoid using scented products like perfume, cologne, deodorant, lotion, and aftershave. Now New Hampshire is looking to do the same.

State representative Michele Peckham is sponsoring House Bill 1444 which hopes to ban state employees who work with the public from wearing perfume. Apparently a constituent with extreme allergies approached Peckham with the proposal. “It may seem silly, but it’s a health issue,” Peckham told the Union Leader. “Many people have violent reactions to strong scents.”

The author then poses an honest question that puts this nonsense into the proper perspective:

Allergies and annoyances aside, should the government be able to regulate what we smell like?

The bans at the moment are just for state employees. But that’s merely where these ideas start. Just to hammer the point home, this, from  a tweet from Stacy Malkan, head of an organization called the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

Fragrance is the new secondhand smoke.

Of course, body odor is fairly offensive to the senses as well. Don’t we deserve protection from that? Clearly the proper balance here is for the federal government to require regular showers and the application of deodorant, but ban all but the unscented varieties. All of this would be proper under the authority  of the Commerce Clause, of course.

A recent study has found that Monsanto’s Roundup pesticide may be responsible for causing infertility. After reviewing the many already well-documented negative impacts Roundup has on the environment and living creatures, it is no surprise to add yet another item to the list.

Monsanto’s Best-Selling Herbicide Roundup Linked to Infertility 

Researchers tested roundup on mature male rats at a concentration range between 1 and 10,000 parts per million (ppm), and found that within 1 to 48 hours of exposure, testicular cells of the mature rats were either damaged or killed. According to the study, even at a concentration of 1 ppm, the Roundup was able to affect the test subjects by decreasing their testosterone concentrations by as much as 35%.

How can such small levels of exposure have such a profound effect on the reproductive system?

Roundup, being a glyphosate-based herbicide is also known to have endocrine disrupting properties.

Much like BPA, glyphosate-based herbicides have the ability to interfere with the natural hormonal balance in the human body, thereby introducing a number of health risks along with even the smallest levels of exposure. These chemicals are strong enough to affect your metabolism, behavior and mood, reproductive organs, and even provoke cancer.

As a result, any plants that are sprayed with Roundup carry with them a chemical effect similar to that of other endocrine disruptors, offsetting the hormonal balance and causing adverse effects, despite even the smallest levels of exposure. This in part contributes to the number of males with increased fertility issues in more recent times.

It is no surprise that Monsanto, a company already infamous for a whole slew of dangerous concoctions, would also be responsible for affecting another major aspect of human health on a large scale.

Ultimately it is highly important to avoid any products sprayed with pesticides or herbicides for the many associated health risks – now fertility included. In addition to avoiding food which has been tarnished by this pesticide, you may also want to consider investing in a water filter. Glyphosate, the carcinogenic chemical Roundup contains, has been found to be contaminating the groundwater in areas where it is being applied.

Being aware of the hormonal disruptors you face in your daily life such as BPA and now Roundup is a must. Even the smallest levels of exposure can have large negative effects.

Explore More:

1. Monsanto’s Carcinogenic Roundup Herbicide Contaminating Water Supply
2. World’s Top Commercial Weed Killer Linked to Infertility: Scientist
3. USDA: Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide Damages Soil
4. Exposure to this Chemical is Linked to Birth Defects
5. Monsanto’s Roundup Spawns Superweeds Consuming Over 120 Million Hectares
6. Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Crops Leading to Mental Illness, Obesity

Please visit Natural Society for more great health news and vaccine information.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb and called for continued diplomatic and economic pressure to persuade Tehran not to take that step.

As he has previously, Panetta cautioned against a unilateral strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities, saying the action could trigger Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces in the region.

..”We have common cause here” with Israel, he said. “And the better approach is for us to work together.”

Panetta’s remarks on CBS’ Face the Nation, which were taped Friday and aired Sunday, reflect the long-held view of the Obama administration that Iran is not yet committed to building a nuclear arsenal, only to creating the industrial and scientific capacity to allow one if its leaders to decide to take that final step.

The comments suggest the White House’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear strategy has not changed in recent months, despite warnings from advocates of military action that time is running out to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear-armed state.

Iran says its nuclear program is only for energy and medical research, and refuses to halt uranium enrichment

Several Republican candidates have called for a tougher line against Iran, saying they believe it is committed to building the bomb. “If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon,” said Mitt Romney. “And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.”

Rick Santorum has said that the U.S. should plan a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities and “say to them that if you do not open up those facilities and close them down, we will close them down for you.”

Iran has opened two dozen of its facilities to international inspectors, but has refused in defiance of the U.N. Security Council to suspend its uranium enrichment.

A leading hardline Iranian newspaper reported Sunday that Iran has begun uranium enrichment at a new underground site well protected from possible airstrikes.

Kayhan daily, which is close to Iran’s ruling clerics, said scientists have begun injecting uranium gas into sophisticated centrifuges at the Fordo facility near the holy city of Qom.

In a talk at a Brookings Institution forum in December, Panetta said an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would “at best” delay Iran’s nuclear program by one or two years. Among the unintended consequences, he said, would be an increase in international support for Iran and the likelihood of Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces and bases in the Mideast.

Panetta did not discuss the issue directly on Sunday’s “Face the Nation.” But Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, appearing with the defense secretary, said that he wanted the Iranians to believe that a U.S. military strike could wipe out their nuclear program.

“I absolutely want them to believe that’s the case,” he said.

Panetta did not rule out launching a pre-emptive strike.

“But the responsible thing to do right now is to keep putting diplomatic and economic pressure on them to force them to do the right thing,” he said. “And to make sure that they do not make the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon.”

Panetta said if Iran started developing a weapon, the U.S. would act. “I think they need to know that — that if they take that step — that they’re going to get stopped.”

Dempsey also said that Iran has the military power to block the Strait of Hormuz “for a period of time” if it decides to do so, but that the U.S. would take action to reopen waterway. “We can defeat that,” he said.

Panetta said closing the strait would draw a U.S. military response. “We made very clear that the United States will not tolerate the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz,” he said. “That’s another red line for us and … we will respond to them.”

A number of experts say Iran is unlikely to close the strait, through which Gulf oil flows, because the action could hurt Iran as much as the West.

But a second Iranian newspaper, the Khorasan daily, on Sunday quoted a senior commander of the powerful Revolutionary Guard force as saying Tehran’s leadership has decided to order the closure of the strategic oil route if the country’s petroleum exports are blocked.

Iranian politicians have issued similar threats in the past, but this is the strongest statement yet by a top commander in the security establishment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/panetta-iran-is-seek…

Washington’s Blog

Haaretz

For General Electric Co., hawking subprime mortgages was a long way from making light bulbs and jet engines.

That didn’t stop the industrial giant from jumping into the subprime business in 2004, lending blue-chip respectability to the market for risky home loans by paying roughly half a billion dollars to buy California-based WMC Mortgage Corp.

What GE got in the bargain, former WMC employees say, was a place where erstwhile shoe salesmen, ex-strippers and even a former porn actress could sign on as sales reps and make big money pushing home loans. WMC’s top salespeople earned a million dollars a year or more and lived fast, swigging $1,000 bottles of Cristal and wheeling around in $100,000 Ferraris and Bentleys.

In pursuit of these riches and perks, several ex-employees claim, many WMC sales staffers embraced fraud as a tool for pushing through loans that borrowers couldn’t afford.

Dave Riedel, a former compliance manager at WMC, says sales reps intent on putting up big numbers used falsified paperwork, bogus income documentation and other tricks to get loans approved and sold off to Wall Street investors.

One WMC official, Riedel claims, went so far as to declare: “Fraud pays.”

How well did GE address WMC’s fraud problems?

GE says it did plenty to deal with the issue. Some ex-employees counter that GE officials didn’t do enough to rein in illicit practices, despite warnings from Riedel and other whistleblowers inside the lender. GE dispatched emissaries to look into the problem, the ex-employees say, but their efforts were too little, too late.

“They sent in people we thought were going to bring us back in the right direction,” Victor Argueta, a former risk analyst at WMC, says. “But it just never happened.”

By 2007, WMC was bleeding bad loans and red ink. General Electric shut the lender and reported related losses totaling more than $1 billion.

Read More…

The entire reason why SOPA’s authors and supporters have the money, influence, and power to put draconian bills like it forward in the first place is because of our daily patronizing of their corporations and the goods and services they provide.

SOPA supporters include the US Chamber of Commerce, the MPAA, and many of the mega-corporations Americans, and indeed people around the world, support on a daily basis. The key to stopping SOPA and the watered down feigned “concession” that will surely follow it is to undermine the unwarranted power and influence of the corporations and financiers backing it in the first place. If Americans withdrew their support from these corporations, if theaters were left empty, if Pepsi and Coke were left collecting dust on the shelves of an empty Walmart, bills like SOPA would not exist, let alone have a chance to be passed into law.

Below is just one letter signed by just one group of these corporations and organizations. Boycott, put out out of business, and replace these corporations with local alternatives.

Sponsors of this letter in support of “rouge sites legislation” include:

3M
Alliance of Automobile Manufactures
American Apparel and Footwear Associations
Autodesk Inc.
Bose Corporation
Broadcast Music Inc (BMI)
Caterpillar
CBS
Council of Fashion Designers of America
Electronic Arts (EA)
Ford Motor Company
GlaxoSmith Kline
Harley-Davidson Motor Company
Johnson & Johnson
L’Oreal
Macmillian
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
National Basketball Association (NBA)
National Football League (NFL)
NBC Universal
News Corporation (Fox News)
NHL
Nike
Nintendo of America
Oakley
Pfizer
PGA of America
Philip Morris International
Reebok
Rite Aid
Rolex
Rosetta Stone
Software & Information Industry Association
Sony
Dow Chemical
McGraw-Hill
Timberland
Walt Disney
Tiffany & Co.
Time Warner
Toshiba
US Chamber of Commerce
Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC)
Universal Music Group
Viacom
Wal-Mart
Warner Music Group
World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE)
Xerox Corporation
Zippo Manufacturing

If you can’t live without the endless crass torrent of “bread and circus” as well as trinkets provided by the above mentioned supporters of this corporate-fascist agenda – the literal crafting and backing of legislation of, by, and for corporations -you don’t deserve the freedom you believe yourself entitled to.

There is not one corporation listed above that society could not live without and in many cases replace with decentralized, superior local alternatives. Freedom is not simply voicing your opposition or choosing representatives to do so on your behalf. Freedom is also about the responsibility to keep in check the creation of unwarranted power and influence garnered from your daily payments in attention, money, time, and energy to corporations that would seek to impose their will upon society using the very mechanisms of governance designed solely for the people’s benefit.

Identity the source of power behind bills like SOPA, and indeed many of the government policies wrecking our society, miring us in endless war, and leaving us in economic destitution.Boycott them, and replace them. We cannot be blamed for the greed and depravity of the global corporate-financier elite, but we can be blamed for fueling their megalomania on a daily basis.