Another Way FACEBOOK Spies on You

      We're all used to seeing "Log in with Facebook" or "Log in with Google" at sites around the Internet, such as CNN.com, the Guardian newspaper, Spotify, and tens of thousands of other online retailers, apps and games. Facebook gets 62% of all social log-ins across the tens of thousands of sites and Google is used 24% of the time. 
      It should be obvious that every time this is done, one is surrendering personal information to FACEBOOK's or Google's dossier on the user. Logging in to a website using a service such as Facebook or Google allows the website to make a request for data about you -- your birthday, friends list, email address, employment, colleges attended, photos and information that your friends have posted about you.  This data covers your habits and preferences, your Facebook Likes, products or articles you've liked. and which of your friends already use a particular website or what you do while on the site. 
      This can have serious repercussions. Allowing another account who has weak security practices means if this account is hacked, your data may be compromised and you will never know or be notified.
     People who use Facebook and Google log-in trade away some data privacy.

• Personal data is shared between the social network and the third-party app.
• Don't link a social profile to sensitive info like your Social Security number or financial details. Always use a separate account and password.

https://www.techlicious.com/blog/should-you-use-facebook-or-google-to-log-in-to-other-sites/

A SHORT HISTORY OF FACEBOOK'S PRIVACY GAFFES
https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-a-history-of-mark-zuckerberg-apologizing?mbid=nl_033118_daily_list1_p2&CNDID=48648177

The Weakest Security Link on your Computer - the Web Browser

How Criminals Can Build a “Web Dossier” from Your Browser

All kinds of personal information, from your location, work hours, habits, banks, applications, and even passwords are there for the taking. 

Web browsers store an incredible amount of sensitive information about you. Website developers have a variety of ways of using modern browsers to customize the experience for users. Advertisers also use these features to maximize the impact of ads shown on sites. The result is that a lot of information about you is stored deep in your browser, and it can potentially be exploited by cyber criminals in a number of ways. 

This blog will describe what we call the “web dossier” that can be created from these artifacts, how this profile can be exploited, and what you can do to protect yourself.

https://www.exabeam.com/security/criminals-can-build-web-dossier-browser/

What You are Worth on the Dark Web

Dark Web Market Price Index (Feb 2018 - US Edition)

Scammers are buying and selling your stolen personal info on the dark web and it's not just credit card details. With hacked dating profiles, streaming services, even Airbnb accounts for sale, we've created the Dark Web Market Price Index (US Edition) to monitor this illicit trade.

https://www.top10vpn.com/privacy-central/privacy/dark-web-market-price-index-feb-2018-us/

FACEBOOK Data Treasure Trove

FACEBOOK never forgets.  It retains a remarkable amount of information about anyone who has ever logged in.  With the recent data breach by Cambridge Analytica,
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/cook-county-illinois-sues-facebook-and-cambridge-analytica-over-data-breach/

users can kiss there personal records goodbye. Now how much does FACEBOOK have? EVERYTHING you or your "friends" have entered.  To find out just how much that might be
1) Open your FACEBOOK page
2) In the upper right hand-corner, click on the small black triangle
3) In the drop-menu select 'Settings"
4) On the page that opens locate Download a copy of your Facebook data.and click on it.

The data are sent to your email account associated with your FACEBOOK account in a very big zip file.

You recently requested a copy of your Facebook data. It's now ready for you to download.

Because this download may contain private information, you should keep it secure and take precautions when storing or sending it, or uploading it to another service.

Click the link below to go directly to your download. If the link redirects you to your account settings page, simply click "Download a copy of your Facebook data" to get redirected to the file we've prepared.

Please note: For security reasons, you can only download the copy we've prepared for you within a few days of this email being sent. You'll need to start the process again if you're unable to access your download.

 
7 Reasons Why Quitting Facebook Now Is Good For Your Future
https://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/7-reasons-why-quitting-facebook-now-good-for-your-future.html

What I Learned When I Quit Facebook
https://www.themuse.com/advice/what-i-learned-when-i-quit-facebook 

What to Look for in your Facebook Data—and How to Find It
https://www.wired.com/story/download-facebook-data-how-to-read/?CNDID=48648177&mbid=nl_032918_daily_list1_p3

How NRA Enables Gun Violence

Although gun violence is a major contributor to deaths, relatively little money is spend of research 

The fact that the NRA blocks most spending on research should be little surprise.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html

Nevertheless, Mother Jones has corrected many popular myths.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check/ 

Myth #1: They’re coming for your guns.

Myth #2: Guns don’t kill people—people kill people

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer

Myth #7: Guns make women safer

Myth #8: “Vicious, violent video games” deserve more blame than guns

Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners

Myth #10: We don’t need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have

Another Reason Just to "Tune Out"

      Saying “it is a whole new world in ‘News Media’” has got to be a naïve under-statement.  This article explains why it is probably best just to turn off Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.
https://www.wired.com/story/how-liberals-amped-up-a-parkland-shooting-conspiracy-theory/
      It is beyond comprehension how automated the whole matter of Fake News has become. Many people were naïve enough to assume the Russians were the bad actors, mostly. Not even close.
      It has been reported that 60% of Millennials get their news through social media and nothing else.  Now that has got to be scary.
      A good start is always to first check WIRED for media bias via
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wired-magazine/
     (This checker can be found at http://mtskeptics.blogspot.com/2018/02/media-biasfact-check.html)
      The world of cyber criminality is now moving just too fast.  Is anyone who actually can make a difference paying attention?

CSI's Continued Climate Disgrace

      When in 2007 the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) later renaming itself as the Committee for Scientific Inquiry (CSI) proclaimed a policy of the organization that Global Warming was irrefutable and that humankind was primary cause, we assumed the data must be undeniable.  Nevertheless, even though supported nearly all of CSI's stands, we decided to do a little critical analysis and check the data.
     It was hardly irrefutable.  In fact, serious debate challenging this claim was underway led by some credible, highly-respected climatologists.  It seemed obvious that the premier skeptic organization should be the ideal platform on which to have a meaningful SCIENTIFIC investigation of the FACTS that were becoming government policy. 
      No way! In a completely disgraceful manner CSI only doubled down on its questionable position.
     We don't dispute global warming.  We don't dispute humankind's contribution to global warming.  We are disappointed in CSI abysmal failure to standby the principles of Scientific Inquiry, thereby severely discrediting its work on addressing other significant matters of pseudo-science.
     We had little influence on matters at CSI.  The only way we could protest this failure of the skeptical method and critical thought was to terminate our small financial support.
     Now a decade later CSI adds to its failure to be a credible skeptical organization by announced that Michael Mann had been elected as a 2017 Fellow of CSI. 
     Mann was the topic of the book "A Disgrace to His Profession."  He hardly stands with the likes of Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, B.F. Skinner, Philip J. Klass, Paul Kurtz, James Randi, Martin Gardner, and Ray Hyman. Mann only disgraces their legacy and their once skeptical mission.

Media Bias/Fact Check

      The website Media Bias/Fact Check (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/) claims to be the most comprehensive media bias resource on the internet. With over 2200+ media sources currently listed in its database, it can help weed out the Fake News sources. Use the name or URL to search and check the bias of any source. 

      Founded in 2015 as an independent online media outlet, it is dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices.  It's aim is to inspire action and a rejection of overtly biased media and to return to an era of straight forward news reporting. 
Funded solely from site advertising, individual donors, and the pockets of its bias checkers, its collective of volunteers follow a strict methodology for determining the biases of sources. 

In its work Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) also provides occasional fact checks, original articles on media bias and breaking/important news stories, especially as it relates to USA politics.

      Unfortunately, when determining bias, no true scientific formula is 100% objective.  Whereas some objective measures can be calculated, some degree of subjective judgement is always present. 

      On each page MBFC has put up a scale with a yellow dot that shows the degree of bias for each source.  Each page also has a “Notes” section that gives some details about the source and an explanation of their bias.  When calculating bias MBFC is not just looking at political bias, but also 

• how factual the information is and 
• if they provide links to credible, verifiable sources. 

Each page encourages readers to vote on the bias of the source, thereby providing additional information to decide how trustworthy the source might be. This technique is similar to how movie sites such as IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes rate their movies.  
This voting poll also allows MBFC News to calibrate its rating methodology. When large discrepancy happen, MBFC says its team re-examines that source and after a thorough review adjusts its rating.

POTUS SOTU Speech 2018

As expected, the most credible FACT CHECKERS had a field day with President Trump's first SOTU speech.  The general consensus was that it was an unusually long exhortation of exaggerations, hyperbole, and falsehoods.  In other words it was pretty much "standard fair" from what the world has learned to expect from Donald Trump.

President Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address was filled with several repeat claims about the economy, tax cuts and immigration that we’ve fact-checked before, as well as new false and misleading statements on auto plants, judicial appointments and development aid. FACTCHECK.ORG

Trump’s statements cycled through every Truth-O-Meter rating, except for Pants on Fire. We tallied two False statements, three Mostly False, one Half True, three Mostly True, and one True. POLITIFACT.COM

We fact checked 15 Trump State of the Union points. Some rang true, others mostly false or exaggerated USA TODAY 

The obviously biased Main Stream Media and Trump-hater reports were even more merciless.  Also as expected, Fox News cherry-picked a few of less significant and less mendacious aspects of the Trump speech ignoring what was obvious to everyone else.

Fake Weather Data

Did the weather seem unusually cool last year, but the Main Stream Media reported it was unusually hot?  What gives?  Just maybe they made up their own statistics to meet the needs of their agenda.  In fact REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE reports that nearly 42% of receive temperature averages is missing and the reporters just "make it up".
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

According to this report the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. 

The problem with the NOAA data is fake. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century.  NOAA is adjusting the data to match global warming theory. This is known as Policy Based Evidence Making.  NOAA has always known that the US is not warming.

Mirrors and Mazes

“Mirrors and Mazes is written for intelligent laymen who like to think for themselves. The book reviews all of the issues that touch on the current climate debate: the nature of greenhouse gasses; clouds; the sun; sea level; extreme weather; polar ice; etc. Equations are avoided, but numbers are given when essential, for example, in discussions of rising sea level, where Dr Brady is an expert. There are well-chosen illustrations and good references for those who would like to dig deeper. Dr Brady’s discussions of the complicated interplay of the climate movement with religion, politics and the media are especially insightful, perhaps because of his youthful training in theology.

“I am especially fond of Mirrors and Mazes. It would be an excellent addition to the personal library of anyone who wants to understand climate facts, stripped of propaganda and emotion.”
 
William Happer
Professor f Physics, Emeritus
Princeton University, USA

This book about the climate change debate includes up-to-date scientific information provides facts that the general readership can fully grasp. It clearly explains the science. Its explains the motives of those who cling to their opinions irregardless of scientific facts. It discusses the controversies about the science of global warming including the clash between economic realities and the monstrous remedial actions proposed by radical environmentalists, assisted by media sensationalism.

Much of the debate arises from the significant difference between actual data and the computer-based predictions of the heavily politicized U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These models predict a large amount of global warming produced by man-made CO2 which differs wildly from the very small, if any, CO2 induced warming observed from ancient indicators to modern satellite measurements.  On the other hand CO2 producing fossil fuels are essential in meeting current energy needs, and CO2 is our life-giving gas which is vital to agriculture.

https://www.amazon.com/Mirrors-Mazes-through-climate-debate-ebook/dp/B077NXZ8DV/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&tag=wattsupwithth-20&qid=1511819792&sr=1-1&keywords=Mirrors+and+Mazes+climate+debate 

The Genius of Trump?

      C-span Book TV interviewed the Dilbert creator Scott Adams on his book "Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter."   He had another take on why Trump won that has little to do with politics, disgruntled underemployment, or appeals to racism. 
The entire 73 min interview can be seen here.  

     Adams predicted a Trump victory back in 2015.  Without a doubt the video at C-SPAN is a MUST VIEW.

The Renewable Myth

      We have spent the last two centuries getting off renewables because they were mostly weak, costly and unreliable. Half a century ago, in 1966, the world got 15.6% of its energy from renewables. Today (2016) we still get less of our energy at 13.8%.
     With our concern for global warming, we are ramping up the use of renewables. The mainstream reporting lets you believe that renewables are just about to power the entire world. But this is flatly wrong.

Read the whole story:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/26/the-big-slide-in-renewable-energy-tells-the-real-story/

Dilbert and Curry Explain Lack of Science in Climate

Dr Judith Curry is a leading Climate Scientist.  She is in the considered to be in the fallacious 97% consensus statistic that climate scientists that support global warming. However, the crazies in climate alarmist POLITICS consider her to be a dangerous climate skeptic.  Here is her perspective.

Dr. Judith Curry Explains The Reality Of Bad Climate Science And Bad Politics

Gore's Climate Sequel Is A Snoozer

From an article in August 4, 2017 issue of The Week magazine, Jordan Hoffman said in TheGuardian.com, "barely finds a way to keep viewers awake.  It's more a portrait of Gore than a call to arms."

Emjily Atkin in the NewRepublic.com said, "The former vice president is, of course, the most polarizing figure in climate politics -- disputed on the Left, and widely loathed on the Right."

The Week summarizes the movie as a middling sequel to the 2006 An Inconvenient Truth.

In July 27, 2017 Wall Street Journal, Bjorn Lomborg said,

     They say the sequel is always worse than the original, but Al Gore’s first film set the bar pretty low. Eleven years ago, “An Inconvenient Truth” hyped global warming by relying more on scare tactics than science. This weekend Mr. Gore is back with “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.” If the trailer is any indication, it promises to be more of the same.
     The former vice president has a poor record. Over the past 11 years Mr. Gore has suggested that global warming had caused an increase in tornadoes, that Mount Kilimanjaro’s glacier would disappear by 2016, and that the Arctic summers could be ice-free as soon as 2014. These predictions and claims all proved wrong.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/al-gores-climate-sequel-misses-a-few-inconvenient-facts-1501193349

New York Times Is Engaged in Climate Fraud

The New York Times said yesterday that heatwaves in the past were “virtually unheard of in the 1950s”, temperatures approaching 130 degrees didn’t used to occur, and summer temperatures have shifted towards more extreme heat.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/28/climate/more-frequent-extreme-summer-heat.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1 

Every single claim in the article is patently false, and the exact opposite of reality. The authors intentionally started their study in a cold period, after the extreme heat of the 1930’s.

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/07/new-york-times-shifts-towards-extreme-climate-fraud/

Oren Cass in City-Journal.org reporting of this kind of hyperventilating said, "What hysterical nonsense."

Jonah Goldberg in NationalReview.com said, "The public remembers past doomsday predictions about environmental catastrophies that didn't happen."

In fact even atmospheric scientist Michael Mann said in WashingtonPost.com, "Climate doomism in fact can be just as destructive as climate-change denial"

In US, Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low

The percentage of U.S. adults who believe that God created humans in their present form at some time within the last 10,000 years or so -- the strict creationist view -- has reached a new low. Thirty-eight percent of U.S. adults now accept creationism, while 57% believe in some form of evolution -- either God-guided or not -- saying man developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.

• 38% say God created man in present form, lowest in 35 years
• Same percentage say humans evolved, but God guided the process
• Less-educated Americans more likely to believe in creationism

http://www.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx 

Nearly Everyone Will Develop a Psychological Disorder

According to a July 14, 2017 article in Scientific American mental illnesses are so common that almost everyone will suffer at least one diagnosable mental disorder at some point in their lives. Most of these people will never receive treatment. At any time, approximately a quarter of the population experience psychological distress severe enough to impair functioning at work, school or in their relationships. Recent National surveys suggested that close to half the population, would experience a mental illness at some point in their lives.

In a new study, published earlier this year in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology found that if they follow people and screen them regularly using simple, evidence-based tools, the percentage of people who develop a diagnosable mental illness at any point in their lives jumps to well over 80 percent.

The latest research suggests, for the most common psychological complaints, the disorder is often short-lived, of lesser severity or self-limiting. It is not a livelong ailment.

Even short-lived or self-limiting individuals with mental illness need support.

Three years ago Mental Health America launched a Web-based tool (click here) to allow individuals to discreetly screen themselves for possible psychological disorders. Since then over two million people have used the tool, with over 3,000 people a day now logging on to determine if they may have a condition that could benefit from treatment.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/mental-illness-is-far-more-common-than-we-knew/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20170719 

Dr Novella Gives Skeptical Opinion of Low Cal Drinks

According to Dr Steven Novella in his blog post, New Review of Artificial Sweeteners, July 19, 2017,

If you are trying to lose weight replacing sugary drinks with low calorie drinks can be a helpful part of your overall strategy. It will not be a panacea, or make weight loss easy. The research shows the most effective strategies involve making permanent changes to your lifestyle regarding food consumption and exercise. Avoiding sugary drinks can be part of those lifestyle changes, and you should not fear drinking LES because of an alleged backfire effect. The research, including this recent review, does not show such an effect in humans.

He clarifies this conclusion as follows:

I think the bottom line is that weight loss is difficult and complex. . . There are many variables, and no study will ever be able to control for all of them. The net effect of consuming LES vs sugary drinks or water is likely dependent on the individual and the situation. But I do think we can draw a couple of conclusions from all the available research. 

The first question is this – is there a health or weight disadvantage to consuming sugar? I think the answer here is a clear yes. Sugary drinks contain many calories that add to total calorie consumption and are counterproductive if your goal is calorie control for weight management. Replacing high calorie sugary drinks with low calorie drinks is therefore advantageous.

The second question is this – is there an unintended backfire effect to consuming LES, because it tricks the brain into being more hungry or some other hormonal or metabolic effect? Here I think the answer is probably no,. . . Randomized controlled trials in humans supersede cohort studies and animal studies in addressing this question. Those studies find, if anything, a modest benefit to consuming LES.. . The randomized trials clearly do not show any disadvantage – no backfire effect.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/new-review-of-artificial-sweeteners/

Conciousness

In late April, an editor of Slashdot raved about a TED talk that he had just watched. We tried to find that talk, but it was never posted by people at TED.  Finally, we received notice that it was available. Alhough we are a TED talk junkies but we agree with the editor at Slashdot, this presentation is thought provoking.

https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality#t-896523 

Right now, billions of neurons in your brain are working together to generate a conscious experience -- and not just any conscious experience, your experience of the world around you and of yourself within it. How does this happen? According to neuroscientist Anil Seth, we're all hallucinating all the time; when we agree about our hallucinations, we call it "reality." Join Seth for a delightfully disorienting talk that may leave you questioning the very nature of your existence.