Rich people get away from the NSA
dj Wilson 1st period May 21, 2014
original By Jillian Eugenios May 16, 2014
Rich people are buying their selves out of having their things "erased" off the internet. Technically nothing can be erased off of the internet but I guess they're taking it off for the moment.
"We can remove something that shouldn't be there," said Chris Dinota, the CEO and founder of Solvera Group. This is not okay. What do they mean by things that shouldn't be there? Could it be personal things like contact info or things that pertain to there family? Or could it be things that could harm us? The cost that it takes for them to "erase" it is from 50,000 to 300,000. Just to erase a little bit of information. It cant be something that isn't important to protect their lives that costs that much money.
I could understand why they wouldn't their information there anymore because nothing is private anymore.The government has access to any social media any website that you go to. Everything.
I just watched a documentary about the terms and conditions on social media and how no one reads them. Well if you do look into it, it says that the NSA has access to anything you look up or post. In 2000 goole's terms and conditions said that you would be anonyms. but the year after that every thing changed. If you look up its terms and conditions now it doesn't say that anymore. Why would they want to hide that when they posted it themselves? Only google knows why. But i'm pretty sure everyone knows why. nothing is private anymore.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
original by
Romina Boccia and Matthew Sabas
What is the government really spending money on?
The government has a lot of money. More than you can imagine. They also have more power than you can imagine, so what happens when you have two of things. Most of the time you spend it on necessary things like funding for schools and the community etc. Then they get carried away and spent it on things that they think they need.
For example, The Interior Department spent nearly $100,000 to install an outhouse on an Alaskan trail, which includes a single toilet with no internal plumbing. Why and how do put an outhouse in the middle of nowhere? It's a trial, no one needs to use the restroom when they're using that trail.
Another one is when they put "lavish" bus stop with heated pavement was built in Arlington, VA, but it has failed to keep commuters warm or dry. Alright.. who needs a heated bus stop... I'm pretty sure no one is going to be travelling when the snow is four feet high.
This one is weird. The State Department went on a bender the week before the government shutdown, purchasing $5 million of "exquisite" crystal glassware to presumably drink the $400,000 in booze they purchased in 2013. Why would you buy expensive glasses to drink alcohol that was already expensive. First of all you can't buy alcohol before you have glasses to drink out of. You also shouldn't buy expensive glass when they sell them at the dollar store or at wal-mart.
This one is interesting. They spent $82,000 for The National Institutes of Health to fund a study “to use Twitter for surveillance on depressed people”. Twitter is already popular and by using twitter to spy on depressed people is scary and controlling. No one needs to see what people do in their personal life on social media.
Romina Boccia and Matthew Sabas
December 30, 2013
What is the government really spending money on?
The government has a lot of money. More than you can imagine. They also have more power than you can imagine, so what happens when you have two of things. Most of the time you spend it on necessary things like funding for schools and the community etc. Then they get carried away and spent it on things that they think they need.
For example, The Interior Department spent nearly $100,000 to install an outhouse on an Alaskan trail, which includes a single toilet with no internal plumbing. Why and how do put an outhouse in the middle of nowhere? It's a trial, no one needs to use the restroom when they're using that trail.
Another one is when they put "lavish" bus stop with heated pavement was built in Arlington, VA, but it has failed to keep commuters warm or dry. Alright.. who needs a heated bus stop... I'm pretty sure no one is going to be travelling when the snow is four feet high.
This one is weird. The State Department went on a bender the week before the government shutdown, purchasing $5 million of "exquisite" crystal glassware to presumably drink the $400,000 in booze they purchased in 2013. Why would you buy expensive glasses to drink alcohol that was already expensive. First of all you can't buy alcohol before you have glasses to drink out of. You also shouldn't buy expensive glass when they sell them at the dollar store or at wal-mart.
This one is interesting. They spent $82,000 for The National Institutes of Health to fund a study “to use Twitter for surveillance on depressed people”. Twitter is already popular and by using twitter to spy on depressed people is scary and controlling. No one needs to see what people do in their personal life on social media.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
original by Eric Weisbrod
March 21st, 2014
Are college athletes earning they're share?
Well according to Mr. Eric, the athletes don't see any money. "The highly-anticipated sporting event is watched by millions and generates over a billion dollars, but none of that goes to the players." Now isn't that something? where is the money going you may ask? One would like to say funding to the college or funding to the community. But no one really knows.
"Legendary NBA basketball Hall-of-Famer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar argues in favor of giving college football and basketball players a salary. "There’s so much money being made and the people who are creating this wealth do not get to participate," says Jabbar. "College athletes are vulnerable and if they get hurt, they lose their scholarship, then what?" This is something that people need to open their eyes to. If the player gets injured then that means they go the hospital. Going to the hospital means paying bills. Hospital bills are nothing to play with. Guess who has to pay for those? the player! The college pays ZERO money for that whatsoever. Which is sad because playing sports takes risks to injuries.
"USA Today columnist Christine Brennan says that it's not possible to pay them under the current model because of Title IX, which protects people based on discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities." Well we aren't talking about only spending money on one specific sport and gender. We're speaking of every single sport gender etc. no one likes favoritism.
March 21st, 2014
Are college athletes earning they're share?
Well according to Mr. Eric, the athletes don't see any money. "The highly-anticipated sporting event is watched by millions and generates over a billion dollars, but none of that goes to the players." Now isn't that something? where is the money going you may ask? One would like to say funding to the college or funding to the community. But no one really knows.
"Legendary NBA basketball Hall-of-Famer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar argues in favor of giving college football and basketball players a salary. "There’s so much money being made and the people who are creating this wealth do not get to participate," says Jabbar. "College athletes are vulnerable and if they get hurt, they lose their scholarship, then what?" This is something that people need to open their eyes to. If the player gets injured then that means they go the hospital. Going to the hospital means paying bills. Hospital bills are nothing to play with. Guess who has to pay for those? the player! The college pays ZERO money for that whatsoever. Which is sad because playing sports takes risks to injuries.
"USA Today columnist Christine Brennan says that it's not possible to pay them under the current model because of Title IX, which protects people based on discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities." Well we aren't talking about only spending money on one specific sport and gender. We're speaking of every single sport gender etc. no one likes favoritism.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
March 21, 2014
OK so Obama care.... anyways the original deadline for people who are applying for the health care is being extended to March 31, 2014. the original deadline was in December, i guess they had a change of heart and acted like they really care.
There's a lot of people applying for health care already and those ones who wait to the last minute are getting pretty lucky. "We are preparing for a surge in enrollment, and if consumers are in line on the 31st and can't finish, we won't shut the door on them," said Dept of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters. Even those who are stuck in the enormous long lines get lucky because they wouldn't usually do that. "To be clear, if you don't have health insurance and do not start to sign up by the deadline, you can't get coverage again until next year," she said. This is really crucial because what if something happens to a person without health care and they need to go to a clinic. They can't be helped. They can't get vaccines either.
"Americans who don't have insurance this year will face a penalty of $95, or 1% of income, whichever is greater." This is bad. If you can't afford insurance in the first place how do you think they can afford a penalty? Not everyone applies through paper form. People can apply through the Internet or on the phone and the same leeway goes for them also. "Some states running their own exchanges are already giving applicants more leeway. The Nevada Health Link board decided Thursday to create a special enrollment period for people who are not able to complete the process by month's end. Those who apply online, by phone or through paper forms but run into technical issues have until May 30 to finish signing up."
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Obama's "rolling" idea
So I picked a topic of legalization of marijuana and how it had affects on the white house. In the article it says "The administration has taken a fuzzy stance on the matter: in states where it's legal to puff, the government will pass on punishment." which is very interesting because if you're going to legalize something like that as a recreational use, why would you punish them by using it?
There's something that Obama said that puzzled me and made me wonder how he does things. "We're going to see what happens in the experiments in Colorado and Washington," President Barack Obama said in a recent interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. This is definitely setting up someone for a disaster because a drug like this is very easy to get addicted to for recreational use. Now if it's being used medically than people will find ways to slip through the system and get the pot and sell it. Which leads to crime consequently. That's why it should be legalized because the crime rates would go down. Then again people will find more things to sell which brings more crime.
There's something interesting that the president said, "As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life," the President told the New Yorker in a recent interview. "I don't think it is more dangerous than alcohol." He has a good point with the habit part but smoking cigarettes is way more dangerous than smoking weed. Cigarettes have tobacco and tar within it. Smoking weed eases pain and a state of euphoria. That doesn't kill as opposed to cigarettes. And alcohol is way more dangerous than any of these. Not only does it kill your liver but you can kill other people by driving while intoxicated.
There's something that Obama said that puzzled me and made me wonder how he does things. "We're going to see what happens in the experiments in Colorado and Washington," President Barack Obama said in a recent interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. This is definitely setting up someone for a disaster because a drug like this is very easy to get addicted to for recreational use. Now if it's being used medically than people will find ways to slip through the system and get the pot and sell it. Which leads to crime consequently. That's why it should be legalized because the crime rates would go down. Then again people will find more things to sell which brings more crime.
There's something interesting that the president said, "As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life," the President told the New Yorker in a recent interview. "I don't think it is more dangerous than alcohol." He has a good point with the habit part but smoking cigarettes is way more dangerous than smoking weed. Cigarettes have tobacco and tar within it. Smoking weed eases pain and a state of euphoria. That doesn't kill as opposed to cigarettes. And alcohol is way more dangerous than any of these. Not only does it kill your liver but you can kill other people by driving while intoxicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)