Technology makes our lives easier in many ways… but could technology actually be enslaving us?
Tag Archives: Technology
The school of the future is nothing like we are used to. The Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut changed everything.
In the name of “safety”, now kids in a South Texas school district who ride a bus to school must have their fingerprints on file to ride the bus. They say the fingerprints “will not be available to outside sources”…. you tell me if you believe that!
– – – – – – –
IMPROVING CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE CYBERSECURITY
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Repeated cyber intrusions into critical infrastructure demonstrate the need for improved cybersecurity. The cyber threat to critical infrastructure continues to grow and represents one of the most serious national security challenges we must confront. The national and economic security of the United States depends on the reliable functioning of the Nation’s critical infrastructure in the face of such threats. It is the policy of the United States to enhance the security and resilience of the Nation’s critical infrastructure and to maintain a cyber environment that encourages efficiency, innovation, and economic prosperity while promoting safety, security, business confidentiality, privacy, and civil liberties. We can achieve these goals through a partnership with the owners and operators of critical infrastructure to improve cybersecurity information sharing and collaboratively develop and implement risk-based standards.
Sec. 2. Critical Infrastructure. As used in this order, the term critical infrastructure means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.
Sec. 3. Policy Coordination. Policy coordination, guidance, dispute resolution, and periodic in-progress reviews for the functions and programs described and assigned herein shall be provided through the interagency process established in Presidential Policy Directive-1 of February 13, 2009 (Organization of the National Security Council System), or any successor.
Sec. 4. Cybersecurity Information Sharing. (a) It is the policy of the United States Government to increase the volume, timeliness, and quality of cyber threat information shared with U.S. private sector entities so that these entities may better protect and defend themselves against cyber threats. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security (the “Secretary”), and the Director of National Intelligence shall each issue instructions consistent with their authorities and with the requirements of section 12(c) of this order to ensure the timely production of unclassified reports of cyber threats to the U.S. homeland that identify a specific targeted entity. The instructions shall address the need to protect intelligence and law enforcement sources, methods, operations, and investigations.
(b) The Secretary and the Attorney General, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish a process that rapidly disseminates the reports produced pursuant to section 4(a) of this order to the targeted entity. Such process shall also, consistent with the need to protect national security information, include the dissemination of classified reports to critical infrastructure entities authorized to receive them. The Secretary and the Attorney General, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish a system for tracking the production, dissemination, and disposition of these reports.
(c) To assist the owners and operators of critical infrastructure in protecting their systems from unauthorized access, exploitation, or harm, the Secretary, consistent with 6 U.S.C. 143 and in collaboration with the Secretary of Defense, shall, within 120 days of the date of this order, establish procedures to expand the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program to all critical infrastructure sectors. This voluntary information sharing program will provide classified cyber threat and technical information from the Government to eligible critical infrastructure companies or commercial service providers that offer security services to critical infrastructure.
(d) The Secretary, as the Executive Agent for the Classified National Security Information Program created under Executive Order 13549 of August 18, 2010 (Classified National Security Information Program for State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities), shall expedite the processing of security clearances to appropriate personnel employed by critical infrastructure owners and operators, prioritizing the critical infrastructure identified in section 9 of this order.
(e) In order to maximize the utility of cyber threat information sharing with the private sector, the Secretary shall expand the use of programs that bring private sector subject-matter experts into Federal service on a temporary basis. These subject matter experts should provide advice regarding the content, structure, and types of information most useful to critical infrastructure owners and operators in reducing and mitigating cyber risks.
Sec. 5. Privacy and Civil Liberties Protections. (a) Agencies shall coordinate their activities under this order with their senior agency officials for privacy and civil liberties and ensure that privacy and civil liberties protections are incorporated into such activities. Such protections shall be based upon the Fair Information Practice Principles and other privacy and civil liberties policies, principles, and frameworks as they apply to each agency’s activities.
(b) The Chief Privacy Officer and the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shall assess the privacy and civil liberties risks of the functions and programs undertaken by DHS as called for in this order and shall recommend to the Secretary ways to minimize or mitigate such risks, in a publicly available report, to be released within 1 year of the date of this order. Senior agency privacy and civil liberties officials for other agencies engaged in activities under this order shall conduct assessments of their agency activities and provide those assessments to DHS for consideration and inclusion in the report. The report shall be reviewed on an annual basis and revised as necessary. The report may contain a classified annex if necessary. Assessments shall include evaluation of activities against the Fair Information Practice Principles and other applicable privacy and civil liberties policies, principles, and frameworks. Agencies shall consider the assessments and recommendations of the report in implementing privacy and civil liberties protections for agency activities.
(c) In producing the report required under subsection (b) of this section, the Chief Privacy Officer and the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of DHS shall consult with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
(d) Information submitted voluntarily in accordance with 6 U.S.C. 133 by private entities under this order shall be protected from disclosure to the fullest extent permitted by law.
Sec. 6. Consultative Process. The Secretary shall establish a consultative process to coordinate improvements to the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure. As part of the consultative process, the Secretary shall engage and consider the advice, on matters set forth in this order, of the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council; Sector Coordinating Councils; critical infrastructure owners and operators; Sector-Specific Agencies; other relevant agencies; independent regulatory agencies; State, local, territorial, and tribal governments; universities; and outside experts.
Sec. 7. Baseline Framework to Reduce Cyber Risk to Critical Infrastructure. (a) The Secretary of Commerce shall direct the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (the “Director”) to lead the development of a framework to reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure (the “Cybersecurity Framework”). The Cybersecurity Framework shall include a set of standards, methodologies, procedures, and processes that align policy, business, and technological approaches to address cyber risks. The Cybersecurity Framework shall incorporate voluntary consensus standards and industry best practices to the fullest extent possible. The Cybersecurity Framework shall be consistent with voluntary international standards when such international standards will advance the objectives of this order, and shall meet the requirements of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 271 et seq.), the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113), and OMB Circular A-119, as revised.
(b) The Cybersecurity Framework shall provide a prioritized, flexible, repeatable, performance-based, and cost-effective approach, including information security measures and controls, to help owners and operators of critical infrastructure identify, assess, and manage cyber risk. The Cybersecurity Framework shall focus on identifying cross-sector security standards and guidelines applicable to critical infrastructure. The Cybersecurity Framework will also identify areas for improvement that should be addressed through future collaboration with particular sectors and standards-developing organizations. To enable technical innovation and account for organizational differences, the Cybersecurity Framework will provide guidance that is technology neutral and that enables critical infrastructure sectors to benefit from a competitive market for products and services that meet the standards, methodologies, procedures, and processes developed to address cyber risks. The Cybersecurity Framework shall include guidance for measuring the performance of an entity in implementing the Cybersecurity Framework.
(c) The Cybersecurity Framework shall include methodologies to identify and mitigate impacts of the Cybersecurity Framework and associated information security measures or controls on business confidentiality, and to protect individual privacy and civil liberties.
(d) In developing the Cybersecurity Framework, the Director shall engage in an open public review and comment process. The Director shall also consult with the Secretary, the National Security Agency, Sector-Specific Agencies and other interested agencies including OMB, owners and operators of critical infrastructure, and other stakeholders through the consultative process established in section 6 of this order. The Secretary, the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads of other relevant agencies shall provide threat and vulnerability information and technical expertise to inform the development of the Cybersecurity Framework. The Secretary shall provide performance goals for the Cybersecurity Framework informed by work under section 9 of this order.
(e) Within 240 days of the date of this order, the Director shall publish a preliminary version of the Cybersecurity Framework (the “preliminary Framework”). Within 1 year of the date of this order, and after coordination with the Secretary to ensure suitability under section 8 of this order, the Director shall publish a final version of the Cybersecurity Framework (the “final Framework”).
(f) Consistent with statutory responsibilities, the Director will ensure the Cybersecurity Framework and related guidance is reviewed and updated as necessary, taking into consideration technological changes, changes in cyber risks, operational feedback from owners and operators of critical infrastructure, experience from the implementation of section 8 of this order, and any other relevant factors.
Sec. 8. Voluntary Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity Program. (a) The Secretary, in coordination with Sector-Specific Agencies, shall establish a voluntary program to support the adoption of the Cybersecurity Framework by owners and operators of critical infrastructure and any other interested entities (the “Program”).
(b) Sector-Specific Agencies, in consultation with the Secretary and other interested agencies, shall coordinate with the Sector Coordinating Councils to review the Cybersecurity Framework and, if necessary, develop implementation guidance or supplemental materials to address sector-specific risks and operating environments.
(c) Sector-Specific Agencies shall report annually to the President, through the Secretary, on the extent to which owners and operators notified under section 9 of this order are participating in the Program.
(d) The Secretary shall coordinate establishment of a set of incentives designed to promote participation in the Program. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretary and the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce each shall make recommendations separately to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs, that shall include analysis of the benefits and relative effectiveness of such incentives, and whether the incentives would require legislation or can be provided under existing law and authorities to participants in the Program.
(e) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of General Services, in consultation with the Secretary and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, shall make recommendations to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs, on the feasibility, security benefits, and relative merits of incorporating security standards into acquisition planning and contract administration. The report shall address what steps can be taken to harmonize and make consistent existing procurement requirements related to cybersecurity.
Sec. 9. Identification of Critical Infrastructure at Greatest Risk. (a) Within 150 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall use a risk-based approach to identify critical infrastructure where a cybersecurity incident could reasonably result in catastrophic regional or national effects on public health or safety, economic security, or national security. In identifying critical infrastructure for this purpose, the Secretary shall use the consultative process established in section 6 of this order and draw upon the expertise of Sector-Specific Agencies. The Secretary shall apply consistent, objective criteria in identifying such critical infrastructure. The Secretary shall not identify any commercial information technology products or consumer information technology services under this section. The Secretary shall review and update the list of identified critical infrastructure under this section on an annual basis, and provide such list to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs.
(b) Heads of Sector-Specific Agencies and other relevant agencies shall provide the Secretary with information necessary to carry out the responsibilities under this section. The Secretary shall develop a process for other relevant stakeholders to submit information to assist in making the identifications required in subsection (a) of this section.
(c) The Secretary, in coordination with Sector-Specific Agencies, shall confidentially notify owners and operators of critical infrastructure identified under subsection (a) of this section that they have been so identified, and ensure identified owners and operators are provided the basis for the determination. The Secretary shall establish a process through which owners and operators of critical infrastructure may submit relevant information and request reconsideration of identifications under subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 10. Adoption of Framework. (a) Agencies with responsibility for regulating the security of critical infrastructure shall engage in a consultative process with DHS, OMB, and the National Security Staff to review the preliminary Cybersecurity Framework and determine if current cybersecurity regulatory requirements are sufficient given current and projected risks. In making such determination, these agencies shall consider the identification of critical infrastructure required under section 9 of this order. Within 90 days of the publication of the preliminary Framework, these agencies shall submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Director of OMB, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs, that states whether or not the agency has clear authority to establish requirements based upon the Cybersecurity Framework to sufficiently address current and projected cyber risks to critical infrastructure, the existing authorities identified, and any additional authority required.
(b) If current regulatory requirements are deemed to be insufficient, within 90 days of publication of the final Framework, agencies identified in subsection (a) of this section shall propose prioritized, risk-based, efficient, and coordinated actions, consistent with Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and Executive Order 13609 of May 1, 2012 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation), to mitigate cyber risk.
(c) Within 2 years after publication of the final Framework, consistent with Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 13610 of May 10, 2012 (Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens), agencies identified in subsection (a) of this section shall, in consultation with owners and operators of critical infrastructure, report to OMB on any critical infrastructure subject to ineffective, conflicting, or excessively burdensome cybersecurity requirements. This report shall describe efforts made by agencies, and make recommendations for further actions, to minimize or eliminate such requirements.
(d) The Secretary shall coordinate the provision of technical assistance to agencies identified in subsection (a) of this section on the development of their cybersecurity workforce and programs.
(e) Independent regulatory agencies with responsibility for regulating the security of critical infrastructure are encouraged to engage in a consultative process with the Secretary, relevant Sector-Specific Agencies, and other affected parties to consider prioritized actions to mitigate cyber risks for critical infrastructure consistent with their authorities.
Sec. 11. Definitions. (a) “Agency” means any authority of the United States that is an “agency” under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).
(b) “Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council” means the council established by DHS under 6 U.S.C. 451 to facilitate effective interaction and coordination of critical infrastructure protection activities among the Federal Government; the private sector; and State, local, territorial, and tribal governments.
(c) “Fair Information Practice Principles” means the eight principles set forth in Appendix A of the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace.
(d) “Independent regulatory agency” has the meaning given the term in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).
(e) “Sector Coordinating Council” means a private sector coordinating council composed of representatives of owners and operators within a particular sector of critical infrastructure established by the National Infrastructure Protection Plan or any successor.
(f) “Sector-Specific Agency” has the meaning given the term in Presidential Policy Directive-21 of February 12, 2013 (Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience), or any successor.
Sec. 12. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. Nothing in this order shall be construed to provide an agency with authority for regulating the security of critical infrastructure in addition to or to a greater extent than the authority the agency has under existing law. Nothing in this order shall be construed to alter or limit any authority or responsibility of an agency under existing law.
(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(c) All actions taken pursuant to this order shall be consistent with requirements and authorities to protect intelligence and law enforcement sources and methods. Nothing in this order shall be interpreted to supersede measures established under authority of law to protect the security and integrity of specific activities and associations that are in direct support of intelligence and law enforcement operations.
(d) This order shall be implemented consistent with U.S. international obligations.
(e) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Source: White House
ARGUS is the worlds highest resolution camera. 1 million terabytes a day saved forever. Five thousand hours of video surveillance. Saved. All funded by DARPA.
The ARGUS array is made up of several cameras and other types of imaging systems. The output of the imaging system is used to create extremely large, 1.8GP high-resolution mosaic images and video.
The U.S. Army, along with
Boeing, has developed and is preparing to deploy a new unmanned aircraft called the “Hummingbird.” It’s is a VTOL-UAS (vertical take-off and landing unmanned aerial system). Three of them are being deployed to Afghanistan for a full year to survey and spy on Afghanistan from an altitude of 20,000 feet with the ability to scan 25 square miles of ground surface.
A123 Systems received, in 2009, a $249.1 million federal grant from “Dear Leader” Barack Hussein Obama’s wildly successful (NOT) stimulus program. A123 also received over $100 million in grants and tax credits from Massachusetts. A123 was, however, deeply in debt, and in October 2012, filed for bankruptcy. A123 sold $125 million of its auto assets to Johnson Controls, which will provide financing to A123 in bankruptcy. The remainder of A123 was then purchased in December 2012 by the Chinese company Wanxiang Group, through an auction run by Latham and Watkins, a law firm that contributed more than $200,000 to Obama’s re-election bid. Cozy, huh?
A123 has drawn just over half of its grant money, $129 million, to build a factory in Michigan. Speaking of A123’s factory, here is what Obama had to say in 2009:
“This is about the birth of an entire new industry in America – an industry that’s going to be central to the next generation of cars. When folks lift up their hoods on the cars of the future, I want them to see engines and batteries that are stamped: Made in America.”
A123 Systems, co-founded in 2001 by Yet-Ming Chiang, a materials scientist at MIT who had developed a new technology for fast-charging lithium-ion batteries, had, in 2009, what appeared to be a great idea. But that “great idea” didn’t pan out. The batteries A123 supplied to Fisker for its electric car caused fires, forcing Fisker, in 2011, to recall 239 Karmas for battery replacement, costing A123 $50 million.
The fact that A123 went bankrupt after receiving taxpayer money is bad enough. What’s worse, IMHO, is that Obama placed bets on future technology with taxpayer money. The entire situation would have been fine had Obama placed bets with venture capitalists’ money. Venture capitalists could have examined A123’s prospectus, its technology forecasts, and production plans, then decided whether or not to invest. But the evaluation task was assigned to the totally unbiased “experts” at Obama’s Department of Energy (DOE), under the Obama crony Dr. Steven Chu. We taxpayers, who footed the investment bill, were never consulted.
What’s even worse is that now the A123 Systems technology that we paid for is going to the Chinese. What does all of this mean (or potentially mean)? Dean Popp, former acting United States assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics, and technology, and co-chair of Strategic Materials Advisory Council (therefore, not some ignorant blowhard) said:
“We are not taking a critical look at what China is doing in terms of assembling a portfolio of things that allow her to control our supply chain and control our national security concerns. These batteries are used in satellites; these batteries are used in combat vehicles; these batteries are used in precision munitions – you know, wherever there’s sensitive stuff. It is the technology not only of the hour, but of the decade.”
Popp also expressed concern that the U.S. is losing its manufacturing, industrial and technological strength, and becoming more vulnerable to China.
So, I guess Obama’s reelection and paybacks for cronys (I mean, “campaign contributors”) is more important to him than national security.
But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.
Megyn Kelly and Judge Napolitano discuss the new counter-terrorism plan which allows the government to gather information on all Americans.
The military is actually tracking cars on the highway using drones… here in the United States.
If you invest in individual stocks you will likely, or should, be steering clear of Apple (AAPL).
Apple shares are now more than 25% off their September levels, but the question long term investors should ask is why? Is it because Mr. Jobs passed and the new leadership is unable to innovate? The answer is an unequivocal “YES.”
Where are the really new products?
So far Apple has offered a smaller version of the iPad and an iPhone with a slightly bigger screen. These are not the game-changing technological leaps that we are used to from the technology company.
As if to put an exclamation mark on the the idea, Samsung has unleashed a series of effective adds showing the iPerson faithful standing in line for a device that does no more than to move the headphone jack to another side of their signature device.
Apple continues to offer devices that are unfriendly to those needing productivity while Andoid and Microsft put out portable devices intended for the working community.
The Microsoft “Surface” comes with Windows 8 and Microsoft Office built into the device and Android has google docs. Apple has cool apps – the same cool apps that work on everything they’ve ever had.
Apple is failing to innovate while Samsung and Microsoft find better uses for mobile technology. Investing in a company that can only make smaller or larger versions of their existing technology is illogical. Apple is no longer the cool new thing.
A while ago I read that the abortion debate would become moot with further advancements in technology. This video shows that an embryo at two to three months clearly isn’t just a blob of cells:
Titled jOBS, the biopic stars Ashton Kutcher as the iconic Silicon Valley visionary, and will shed new light on Steve Jobs’ most defining and personal moments, motivations, and the people that drove him. The film covers Jobs from his early years as an impressionable youth and wayward hippie, through his initial successes and infamous ousting, to his storybook return and ultimate triumphs as a man who set out to change the world and did just that.
Executive producer Mark Hulme and Five Star Feature Films launched the production immediately following Jobs’ retirement in August 2011. Screenwriter Matt Whiteley, while penning the script, utilized a team of expert researchers based on months of exhaustive research and interviews with Steve Jobs’ friends, colleagues, and mentors to develop the most truthful and gripping picture of Jobs’ life.
From director Joshua Michael Stern (Swing Vote, Neverwas), and Oscar winning cinematographer Russell Carpenter (Titanic), jOBS details the major moments and defining characters that influenced Steve Jobs on a daily basis from 1971 through 2000.
jOBS chronicles the 30 most defining years of Steve Jobs’ life, as seen through his, colleagues’, and friends’ eyes. Dark, honest, and uncompromising, jOBS plunges into the depths of his character, creating an intense dialogue-driven story that is as much a sweeping epic as it is an immensely personal portrait of Steve Jobs’ life.
A rousing narrative of this business and tech icon, jOBS pulls no punches and does not speculate, telling only the candid and captivating account of the life of Steven Paul Jobs.
The film is represented by Creative Artists Agency.
jOBS will be released in late fall 2012. For more information go to www.thejobsmovie.com.
SAN JOSE, Calif., May 18, 2012 /PRNewswire/ — Facebook users today filed an amended consolidated class action complaint in federal court in San Jose, California in the case In re: Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD. The class action asserts federal statutory and California State causes of action related to the revelation in September 2011 that Facebook was improperly tracking the internet use of its members even after they logged out of their accounts. The action consolidates 21 related cases filed in more than a dozen states in 2011 and early 2012.
The plaintiffs assert claims under the federal Wiretap Act, which provides statutory damages per user of US$100 per day per violation, up to a maximum per user of US$10,000. Even if Facebook’s alleged actions constitute a single violation of the Wiretap Act per class member, that implies more than US$15 billion in damages across the class. The complaint also asserts claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Stored Communications Act, various California Statutes and California common law.
The class action is being led by court-appointed co-lead counsel Stewarts Law US LLP and Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Gorny, P.C. David Straite, Partner at Stewarts Law, stated: “This is not just a damages action, but a groundbreaking digital privacy rights case that could have wide and significant legal and business implications.”
In addition to co-lead counsel, the court has appointed a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee which includes Keefe Bartels in New Jersey; Mandell, Schwartz & Boisclair in Rhode Island; Eichen Crutchlow Zaslow & McElroy in New Jersey; Bergmanis Law Firm in Missouri; Burns, Cunningham & Mackey in Alabama; and Murphy, Falcon & Murphy in Baltimore. The court has also appointed a committee of former State Attorneys General to advise the class, including former Mississippi AG Mike Moore, former Arizona AG Grant Woods, former Hawaii AG Margery Bronster, and former Louisiana AG Richard Ieyoub.
ATLANTA, May 18, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Crown Financial Ministries CEO Chuck Bentley outlined reasons that should concern investors who plan on “liking” Facebook for their portfolios. He discussed his hesitance in a national e-blast to supporters of the 35-year non-profit that helps people and businesses who are struggling after making bad financial decisions and working to build a strong foundation to “do well.”
“The buzz on Wall Street this week surrounds the long-anticipated initial public offering (IPO) of the wildly popular social media giant, Facebook. It’s being hyped as one of the biggest initial public offerings in history for an Internet company, and investors are lining up to own a share. I’m not one of them,” Bentley told supporters.
“There are plenty of reasons not to ‘like’ Facebook’s initial public offering—despite the hype that it’s the hottest investment opportunity going. One is the past performance of two other technology darlings—Groupon and Netflix. When Groupon “went public” last November, its stock opened at $28 a share. I just checked the ticker—it’s now trading at around $14 a share.
“Last summer, Netflix was trading at nearly $300 a share, but for a variety of reasons, including a substantial price hike for its service, revenues have dropped and so has the price of Netflix stock—now trading at around $78.50 a share … If Groupon and Netflix weren’t reason enough to avoid the Facebook IPO, don’t forget the epic fall of MySpace, once a contender as the leading social hub on the web. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. purchased it for a whopping $580 million in 2004 and was happy to find a buyer for it last year at $35 million.
“A closer look at the numbers reveals that Facebook will likely follow a similar pattern of over-subscription based upon opening day hype, only to be followed by a struggle to maintain original market valuation … Facebook intends to offer 337.4 million shares at a price of $28 to $35 on NASDAQ under the symbol, FB.
Although advertising revenues are estimated to reach $6.1 billion in 2012, the valuation would price Facebook stock at 24 times revenue, compared to 5 times revenue for Google.
“Further, the company is still led by Mark Zuckerberg, who turned 28 this week. He’s the unquestioned genius who founded Facebook in 2004 from his Harvard dorm room and promptly dropped out of school to build the business. If the reports of Mr. Zuckerberg that I’ve read are at all accurate, I would be leery about placing confidence in his leadership,” wrote Bentley. “There are always more geeky college freshmen with highly marketable ideas. New and disruptive technology can surface overnight, and there is little to keep users loyal to one over the other.”
Whenever you stumble upon a website, Twitter account, or Facebook page that posts “LOL! GOP!”, you know you’ve wandered into unfriendly territory. This is terminology that’s used by people who consider John Stewart’s comedy to be “sophisticated”. And more often than not, they’re not as interested in the truth as they are mocking conservatives.
So imagine my surprise, when I came across this post on Gizmodo.com: How Conservatives Made #iLikeObamaCare The Number One Topic On Twitter. In case you didn’t know, Gizmodo is a site where one would normally go to find out what the next iPhone might look like or other such random tech news. And while stories involving Twitter technically are technology news, it seems strange that they’d choose one with such political overtones.
If you scroll to the bottom of the page, you’ll notice that Gizmodo is part of a family of websites that includes Gawker.com. Gawker has been known to have bad blood with conservative outlets such as Fox News Channel, so maybe that has something to do with the seemingly odd dig.
Things are forever changing in the Social Media world. Twitter has had recent updates and changes, Google recently announced the G+1, Facebook now has the Timeline, and Lego has announced they are jumping in the Social Media arena.
PC Magazine has asked the question: Should you use Facebook’s new Timeline Apps?
Daily Mail said: Forget about the “Like” button.
Business Insider tells you the first 12 apps you need to check out for your Timeline.
Where there is growth, there is always growing pains.
While we have not been able to confirm this, Anomalous Media has learned that there may be an additional change that’s recent to Facebook. We are still investigating, but it very well may have something to do with the new Apps they have released.
If you “like” a page, you will get the feed from that Facebook page posted to your wall.
However, with the recent changes, it seems as though it takes a little more work on your part to continue receiving the feed.
We have not been able to confirm the time Facebook has allotted, but it appears as though if you have not “liked” a link from that particular page’s newsfeed recently, you will no longer receive the feed to your wall.
To make sure you continue receiving the newsfeeds you like, be sure to click the “like” button on a link here and there from that particular feed!
Also, be sure to let your voice be heard! If you read a post that you like or dislike, be sure to make a comment!