Wednesday, April 9, 2014

SPY APPS - Has Facebook crossed the line?


So my Android facebook app started nagging me about an upgrade. I see no reason to do this as there is nothing wrong with my previous version. But I was intrigued. Most of the changes seem to be access rights to my phone which I feel they have no need, or right, to know.
  • Here is an incomplete listing – It should horrify anyone who reads it.
  • Read your text messages. – So essentially, if you have ever sent or plan to sent any personal or confidential texts, Zuckerburg can now read them.
  • Allow the application AT ANY TIME to collect images and video the camera is seeing. This is just downright scary.
  • Allow the application to access the audio record path (i.e. turn on and listen to your microphone.) Are they planning to go into the blackmail business?
  • Send email to guests without owners knowledge or permission. There should be no reason why they need to do this.
  • Read calendar events, (including those of your friends and co-workers) your profile data, (and this bit is really disturbing)…your confidential information
  • Read (and / or modify) ALL your profile data and optionally send your profile data to unspecified others.
  • Read ALL the contact data stored in your phone. So if I install this I am giving facebook YOUR information. How do you feel about that?
  • Modify or delete (and by implication read,) your USB storage contents.
  • Use your phone (without your permission) to directly call phone numbers even if that service costs you money.
  • Read Google service configuration. Discover and manage all your other accounts including password data. It can even create new accounts.

According to facebook 500,000,000 people have already downloaded this app. In an age where every piece of information about you has an associated dollar value – does anyone have any idea what this is worth?

Stephen R. Drage
Author: MUD LANE            

 

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Sickly Sweet


In December 1965 a scientist called James Schlatter, employed by a drug company called Searle worked to perfect an Ulcer medication, but by accident he discovered something very different.
He discovered a substance that was 200 times sweeter than sugar and had no calories. This was huge.

In a world taking it first faltering steps towards a preoccupation with looking thin this was the holy grail of dietary additives, and had the potential to make Searle a fortune.

But there were two problems.

a) To introduce this substance into foods requires approval by the food and drug administration.
b) It was comprised of Methanol, Synthetic Aspartic Acid and synthetic phenylalanine which made it a poison that caused brain tumors.

But Searle decided that public health should not stand in the way of corporate profits and began safety tests, eventually submitting numerous test results to the FDA showing that it was safe for human consumption. They called it Aspartame, you may know it as Equal or NutraSweet or the stuff in the little blue packet.
Trusting Searle’s test results the FDA approved the limited use of aspartame in dry goods in 1974
But how is this possible? How could something this dangerous this dangerous could get FDA approval
Well Jim Turner, consumer advocate and his colleague Dr. Olney wondered the same thing and began to investigate Searle’s Lab practices.
They discovered that large numbers of the test subjects (Monkeys and mice) had experiencing a range of adverse effects including seizures, brain lesions and tumors. Many had died suddenly during the tests. They even discovered that specimen that had developed brain tumors, were surgically operated on to remove the tumors and reintroduced back into the test as if nothing had happened to them. In short – Searle had provided the FDA with inaccurate conclusions resulting from manipulated data derived from poorly-designed studies.
Turner and Olney informed the FDA of their findings and the FDA immediately reversed its decision to approve aspartame in dry goods. Additionally they requested that the U.S. Department of Justice convene a federal grand jury to determine if Searle should be criminally indicted.
So things were not going at all well for Searle, and they realized that the solution was not to be found by white coated chemists but by blue suited politicians and in 1977 Searle hired a well connected politician as CEO and GD to run the company. This new leader had no chemistry or even business experience but did possess the necessary political connections. Three term US Representative, ex Secretary of defense, and exec assistant to President Ford.
His name was Donald Rumsfeld, and he made aspartame approval his top priority.
Now this guy really made things happen.
Samuel Skinner, the US Attorney heading the Grand Jury investigation suddenly resigned from the Justice Department’s and took a job with the law firm representing Searle.
But Rumsfeld’s big break came in 1981 when he was part of Ronald Reagan’s transition team, a team that hand picked The new FDA commissioner Dr. Arthur Hull Hays Jr.
One of the first things Hays did was to approve Aspartame for use in dry goods again. A difficult task considering that a decade’s worth of data proved conclusively that aspartame was deathly poisonous to lab animals and caused a statistically significant number of them to develop brain tumors
But Hayes’s FDA career was short lived and by 1983 he left the office in Scandal amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favors. Imagine that!
His next job was in the private sector where he served as a high-paid senior medical adviser for Searle’s public relations firm, but not before he had approved aspartame for use in beverages.
For nearly 30 years this insidious poison, has been arguably the most dangerous food additive we know of.
Aspartame comprises over 80 percent of consumer complaints filed with the FDA.
The FDA has generated a list of 92 symptoms associated with aspartame consumption that include nausea, dizziness, irritability, insanity, blindness, deafness, weight gain and death.
Dementia among all ages (especially the elderly) and learning disabilities among children, in the U.S. and abroad, have been skyrocketing since 1981.
All metabolites of aspartame (formaldehyde, methanol, and formic acid) are toxic to the human body and are especially toxic to the brain.
As of today, the number of scientific studies showing that aspartame is, indeed, an underlying cause of chronic physical and mental illness and death out number studies proving its safety by at least 400 to zero.

Still want to put this stuff in your iced tea?

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Fixing the voting process




Well the smoke has finally cleared from the 2012 election. I'm glad its over, but the bitter taste remains of a process that is so hopelessly disorganized that when the election was called by all the major networks a little after 11 PM, people were still in line to vote in Florida.

The problems:
Not enough polling places, confusion as to where they are, and the cumbersome and time consuming nature of the process.

The solution:
We need a way to allow everyone prior access to the ballot to familiarize themselves with the choices, create polling places on every street corner, and streamline the process of voting.

The fix:
Every week I take a piece of paper and mark it to indicate my lotto numbers. I then walk to any street corned and feed my paper into any machine, where my numbers are instantly sent to the central lotto database – and I get a lotto ticket. Done. Less than a minute.

So we create a new open source software load for the lotto machines that turns them into voting machines, and presto – problem solved.
Instead of lotto numbers I mark my choice for our nations future leaders. Instead of a lotto ticket I get an audit trail of my vote - and I could go on line ten minutes later and check that my vote is in the system – and that it was actually counted.
Its relatively easy to validate the voter, and route the data to a central counting system (which should also be run on open source software.)
Easy. Simple. Quick.

Are there problems with this proposal? Probably. But are they insurmountable, or worse than the problems that already exist with the current system? Probably not.    

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Did President Obama lose the debate on purpose?



I didn’t get caught up in all the hysteria of the first so called Presidential debate. My idea of how this should have been done is to stick them in front of a camera on a random day without practice, preparation, or polish and don’t tell them what the questions will be – oh and if either of them tell a lie, empty one of those Nickelodeon buckets of slime on them.

But that's not what happened, and the day after the carefully scripted and well rehearsed performance the vast majority of viewers declared Romney victorious. It's very clear that Truth, and Jim Lehrer were both losers, but is it too soon to put Obama into that category.

Prior to the debate President Obama had a ridiculous lead in the polls, so much so that Romney's funding was in danger of drying up - the rumor being that the money would be used down ticket to help Republican Senators. So consider this: with the Republicans almost certain to retain control of the House, and Democrats holding a narrow 4 or 5 seat lead in the Senate, would that funding – if used to win the seats for the Republican Senators, give them control of both the House and the Senate – a situation that would make it extremely difficult for a Democratic President to achieve anything. Maybe this was a risk the Obama Campaign was not prepared to take, and the 'loss' was intentional - to divert money away from the Senate race  and into a candidate that the Democrats think they can still beat.  

When the dust clears, it's unlikely that Romney, as a result of this short lived victory and the inevitable cash injection to his campaign, will gain enough political momentum to catch President Obama and the Democrats will still hold the Senate.

Watch for a more emotional and forceful performance from the President on Oct 16th.

Friday, August 24, 2012

And another one.




To all my supposed friends who have joined the BranchOut app on facebook.
Thanks a lot – you just gave this third party organization, who I suspect you know nothing about, access to MY personal information, including; my location, education history, work history, my picture, gender, facebook user id, and email address. (The email address alone would have been bad enough) You also did this for ALL your other friends. This is not what friends do.
Regardless of how good this app might be – I refuse to join it because I feel that I have no right to surrender your personal data to them.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Child Support ???

At the risk of sounding like one of those hysterical, flamboyant, opinionated, talking haircuts on gossip TV, I just had to comment on a story I saw this week on GMA.
So a Super model, one Linda Evangelista, is getting divorced from her billionaire husband, and wants money for child support. So far so good - nothing new here.

But the story becomes fuel for debate when we discover that she is actually looking for $46,000 a month. Now I know that raising a child is expensive, but does the kid really need 24 hour nanny care, drivers, armed security details, and a Manhattan apartment for his 'play day.'

GMA interviewed a family law attorney - Alexandra Leichter, and asked if $46,000 a month is not to much. Her reply, "Not if he's a billionaire."

This logic is somewhat peculiar, and if applied to the rest of the world, it would mean that the cost of goods and services are somehow relevant to the size of the customers bank roll. In this bizarre world, It would cost Donald Trump $119,000 for a car wash and Bill Gates would be paying as much for a gallon of milk as the rest of the seething unwashed masses pay for a house.

I get that she is angry at the dollar-drenched-Dad, but using the kid as an excuse to extract cash from him is just pathetic. If she cares so much for the child she should give up her modeling job and take care of him.


Stephen R. Drage
Author: MUD LANE            

 

Thursday, April 12, 2012

“are you sure.”


I rent a movie.
The box asks me if I want to give an email address.


I say NO. It says “are you sure.”








Why doesn't it ask “are you sure?” If I answer YES?



Stephen R. Drage
Author: MUD LANE              





http://www.facebook.com/read.mud.lane
http://twitter.com/#%21/stevedrage
http://gplus.to/mudlane
http://www.mudlane.net/