Think Twice Before Giving The Gift Of Technology

This Christmas, technology gifts are on many lists for people playing Santa around the country. It isn’t only mobile phones, computers, and iPods but there are now wifi-enabled gadgets of every shape and size. But you should think twice before giving these gifts, especially to children, or getting them for yourself.

I’m not anti-technology by any means but just because something is new and high-tech doesn’t mean that it is a must-have. For example, a wifi-enabled toaster wouldn’t necessarily a marked improvement over a traditional toaster. Do you really need to check the status of your toast via the internet or be able to control the settings on the device remotely? Probably not.

Even devices that have legitimate reasons to be connected to the internet also come with downsides. One of the most obvious is the potential for internet addiction. The proliferation of smartphones has already left us a nation of social media devotees who eschew real human contact for the instant gratification of likes in an app. Sites like Twitter and Facebook are designed to make people addicted and keep checking the unending timelines.

If this is a problem for adults now, it will be even worse for the next generation who are growing up in with screens constantly in front of their faces. Smartphones and tablets are used as babysitters for young children even though the American Society of Pediatrics recommends that children under two should not get any – zip… zero… zilch - screen time. Children older than two should only get one to two hours of screen time per day. The Society also recommends that screen time be limited for older kids, something that is very difficult when kids have their own personal devices.

It isn’t just that watching digital media can affect the physical, mental, and emotional development of young brains, television has been described as a stranger that we welcome into our homes who then undermines the values that we teach our kids. The internet makes that problem even worse.

Probably the majority of internet videos are unrated. As Forest Gump said, “You never know what you’re gonna get” and you never know what your kids are watching. Many internet videos are laced with profanity and often ridicule the things that we teach our kids, such as respect for God and country or even the idea that you should be polite and kind to others. On the internet, offensiveness has become a virtue. It would be difficult (but not impossible) for kids to get away with watching porn on the living room television, but it is a simple matter for them to do so on their phones and tablets.

Modern video games are not like Pac-Man or Space Invaders. Many of the most popular games are rated mature for foul language, graphic violence, drug use, and casual sex. Your teenagers will want these games. Even kids much younger than teenagers are playing these games because many parents simply don’t care. If you don’t get these games for your kids, they will still have access to them when they visit friends.

The problem isn’t limited to kids with their devices either. If you’re watching this sort of stuff with your kids around then they are absorbing it just as surely as if they clicked play themselves. Parents with a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do mentality are undermining their own parenting.

There are other factors as well. The internet is a good way to go broke $10 at a time. Just about every app that you download requires a subscription or has in-app purchases. Some have both. In addition to the cost of the device and the internet or cell service, you will want to sign up for services such as Disney Plus ($6.99), Netflix ($8.99), or Hulu ($5.99). Premium plans cost more, of course. Gaming apps and video games have in-app purchases for things that kids will want to enhance their experience. After you buy a game console, your kids will want the membership plan that allows them to play against their friends (and strangers) online. For instance, an Xbox Live subscription is another $9.99 per month. Naturally, most of these subscriptions are set up on recurring credit card billing so it’s easy to lose track of just how much you are spending.

Finally, security is an issue with internet-connected devices. By now, we should all be aware of the threats of strangers who meet online and stalk in real life as well as cyber theft of credit card information. Phishing attacks in which you click on a deceptive link can allow all of your devices to compromised. It was a simple phishing attack through an email with a fake link that allowed the Russians to hack the Democratic National Committee in 2016. Clicking the link allowed the Russians to access the entire DNC network.

The proliferation of internet-connected devices provides many other opportunities for hackers. Smart appliances often do not have cyber defenses that are as robust as computers and smartphones. The gap could compromise your entire home’s network. As far back as 2014, computer security experts traced a cyber attack to a “botnet” made up of home appliances such as internet-enabled refrigerators. Keep in mind that internet-based security cameras, baby monitors, and other home devices could also be accessed by hackers and stalkers.

I’m not saying to avoid technology purchases, but tech products do come with responsibility. If you get your kids devices, you owe it to them to limit their screen time and monitor how the devices are being used. This isn’t easy, but there are tools to help parents. One good resource is Funamo, a cloud-based service that allows parents to monitor and control their children’s phones and tablets for a one-time fee of $19.99.

You should also educate both yourself and your children on internet security. Predators can stalk children online and kids can unwittingly click a bad link that could allow hackers to infiltrate your other devices via a common network. You wouldn’t leave small children alone in the mall with your ATM card. You shouldn’t leave them alone online either.

The key to safe technology is education, awareness, and common sense. Learn about web-based threats and be aware of what your family members are doing online. And don’t buy a wifi-toaster.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Supreme Court Upholds Internet Sales Tax

Brace yourself. Prices are about to go up for many online transactions after today’s Supreme Court ruling that states can tax internet businesses even if the retailer does not have a physical presence in the state.

The 5-4 ruling came in the case of South Dakota v. Wayfair, which challenged South Dakota’s application of its sales tax law to retailers without a physical location or employees in the state. The ruling overturned a 1992 ruling in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota which held that it was unconstitutional for states to tax companies that had no physical presence in the state.

“Quill Court did not have before it the present realities of the interstate marketplace, where the Internet’s prevalence and power have changed the dynamics of the national economy,” Kennedy wrote in the decision. “The expansion of e-commerce has also increased the revenue shortfall faced by States seeking to collect their sales and use taxes, leading the South Dakota Legislature to declare an emergency.”

The Court did not issue states a carte blanche for internet taxation. Kennedy noted that the South Dakota law excluded companies that only did limited business in the state and had a single, state-level tax. It also provided software for retailers that granted immunity from audits. The South Dakota law was not applied retroactively.

The decision was authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy and the other justices seemed to unanimously agree that the Quill ruling was wrong, but disagreed on whether the Court or Congress should fix the problem. The ideologically-mixed group that joined Kennedy’s decision included Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Neil Gorsuch. Chief Justice John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented, arguing that the Court’s Quill ruling was wrong, but that Congress should pass a law to change the taxing authority for the states.

Brick-and-mortar retailers sided with South Dakota, arguing that the tax-free status of internet sales created an unfair advantage for companies. The Trump Administration and 35 states also backed South Dakota’s tax law.

“In light of Internet retailers’ pervasive and continuous virtual presence in the states where their websites are accessible, the states have ample authority to require those retailers to collect state sales taxes owed by their customers,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote in a court brief submitted by the government.

The stocks of internet retailers fell on news of the ruling. Wayfair, the company named in the case, was down more than six percent as of this writing. Amazon, one of the nation’s largest companies, was down 1.3 percent.

Amazon was singled out by President Trump earlier this year for escaping tax liability. The company, which has a physical presence in many states, was not directly involved in the ruling and will be minimally affected since it already collects sales taxes on its direct sales. Third-party retailers hosted by Amazon’s site are responsible for collecting their own sales taxes and not all do.

The internet tax battle will now move to the states where legislatures will decide their own tax policy.  Only five states (New Hampshire, Oregon, Montana, Alaska and Delaware) do not have a statewide sales tax, but not all currently collect taxes on internet sales. With today’s ruling, that number is certain to increase and taxes will be going up.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Russian Trolls Posted Fake Hillary Sex Video

As if launching cyberattacks against state election agencies was not bad enough, Russian trolls have now outdone themselves. The Russians are now confirmed to have posted a video so heinous that it could be considered a WMD, a weapon of mass distraction. Yes, it's true. The Russians were responsible for a Hillary Clinton sex tape.

A joke went around the internet in 2016 that warned, “If you get an email that says it's a Hillary Clinton sex tape, don't click the link!” The punch line added, “It's really a sex tape of Hillary Clinton.”

In this case, the video is not authentic. NBC News reports that the video was traced back to a Reddit account known to be a Russian front. The account, Rubinjer, has already been shut down, but was one of Russia's most popular known accounts with more than 100,000 up-votes.

The sex tape was posted to two popular porn sites, which we won't name here, before the 2016 election. (If you want to see it for some reason, you'll have to find it for yourself.)

To their credit, internet users were skeptical of the claim that the video featured Hillary. “If it’s her I think we'd see her face at least once,” once user commented.

A whistleblower from Russia's Internet Research Agency, a notorious troll farm, told Russia's TV Rain last year that the video was produced by the group. “We did the most ridiculous things we could think of,” Alan Baskaev said, adding that he feared retaliation for speaking out.

It's doubtful that the sex video had any effect on the election, but it does show the lengths to which the Russians went to stir up public opinion in the United States during the election. The video was clearly an illicit attempt to influence the outcome of the election.

It also is a warning sign for future elections. The video of Hillary Clinton was not believable, but as technology gets better and the Russians get more adept at understanding American politics, future attempts might not be so transparent. Would a video that purported to feature Donald Trump be so laughable? What about Ted Cruz or Mike Pence?

In an era of high stakes and closely fought elections, it is more and more likely that Russian trolls can influence enough voters to sway an election. Given that the aim of Russia is to destabilize and weaken the United States there is no guarantee which candidate will be given their backing next time.

So carefully consider what you watch and read on the internet. If it sounds too stupid to be true, it probably is (although in this day and age it is difficult to be sure). If it seems far-fetched, then you should at least check with other reliable sources before believing and spreading it.

And, by the way, if you see a link for a Hillary Clinton sex tape, don't click on it.

Originally published to the Resurgent

Former Facebook Exec Says Social Media Is Ripping Society Apart

There are plenty of voices decrying the pernicious effects of social media on society, but when one of those voices is an architect of Facebook’s rise to near omnipresence, it draws a bit more attention. That was the case when Chamath Palihapitiya, a former Facebook executive, spoke to a group of graduate students at the Stanford University School of Business last month.

“I feel tremendous guilt,” Palihapitiya, currently the CEO of Social Capital and owner of the Golden State Warriors, said. “I think we all knew in the back of our minds — even though we feigned this whole line that there probably aren’t any really bad unintended consequences — I think in the back deep, deep recesses of our minds, we kind of knew something bad could happen, but I think the way we defined it was not like this.”

“It literally is at a point now,” he continued, “where I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works. That is truly where we are.”

Palihapitiya explained how online popularity is a vicious circle, prompting more and more outlandish and extreme behavior to keep the “likes” coming. “The short-term dopamine driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works,” he said. “No civil discourse, no cooperation, misinformation, mistruth.”

“We curate our lives around the perceived sense of perfection,” he added, “because we get rewarded in these short-term signals. Hearts, likes, thumbs up, and we conflate that with value, and we conflate it with truth. And instead, what it really is, is fake, brittle popularity.”

“It is eroding the core foundations of how people behave,” Palihapitiya said.

To anyone on Facebook or Twitter who has ever watched their post go viral, this sounds familiar. The feeling of validation that comes from a popular post is psychologically comforting, but also addictive. You want to keep the affirmation coming. That requires more viral posts

The easy way to get your posts noticed above all the background noise of the internet is to be extreme. The truth of the parental wisdom that some children misbehave because any attention is better than being ignored is proven everyday online.

“I don’t have a good solution,” he said. “My solution is I just don’t use these tools anymore.” He also said that he does not allow his children to use social media.

“You don’t realize it, but you are being programmed,” Palihapitiya said. “It was unintentional, but now you have to decide how much you’re willing to give up.”

While social media is not inherently evil, it is engineered to keep users coming back so that companies like Facebook and Twitter can generate more revenue from advertising and other services. The ultimate solution is for people to discipline themselves to limit their consumption of social media sites. For some, that might mean deleting the apps from your phone to keep yourself from compulsively checking your notifications every few minutes. Others might find it necessary to delete their accounts altogether.

The world can live without knowing our political opinions or what we had for dinner. We can live without knowing all the little details of other people’s lives as well. We have one life to live. We should make the most of it. Each of us must decide whether we want a real life or virtual one.

“If you feed the beast,” Palihapitiya said “that beast will destroy you.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Response to the Busta Troll hoax

In light of the revelations regarding the hoax of Busta Troll’s alleged outing and retirement, I feel that a few personal comments are necessary to complete the record.

First, the world of Facebook politics, goats and trolls is a shadowy world where many people on both sides protect their anonymity with fake names and “alts,” fictitious accounts. “Busta Troll” is simply one (or possibly several) of many people with a fake identity on Facebook. With such a high premium placed on anonymity, it can be extremely hard to verify who is who and what is true.

This is not to say that I posted the article without fact-checking. Busta suggests that searches for “Christopher Lyman” in Orono, Maine would yield no results. This is not true. I found several results for Christopher Lyman in Maine, some close enough to the Orono area that they could be considered legitimate hits. What I did not find was a phone number that I could use to call and make a direct verification.

Addresses are funny things. Depending on the area, who one is talking to, and what medium is used, a person might give different answers to the question of “Where do you live?” For example, a person from New York City might answer that he lives in Queens, the neighborhood of Astoria, or on 50^th Street in addition to saying that he lived in New York. All three different answers could be equally truthful. In smaller towns, the address might be a post office in the larger city nearby, but a small, unincorporated community could legitimately be listed as a hometown on a medium such as Facebook.

Additionally, I attempted to check the legitimacy of Kevin Kopper, another anonymous source. No one seemed to know who Kopper was, but everyone seemed to consider him legitimate. Anyone who has seen the goats harass people online could understand Kopper’s desire for anonymity.

When dealing with anonymous sources, especially on the internet, there is always the chance that they are lying or are not who they claim to be. This is particularly true when dealing with goats who, by definition, base their online personas and actions on deception and dishonesty. That turned out to be the case with both Christopher Lyman and Kevin Kopper. Nevertheless, the information in the article was the best available at the time.

As it turned out, the deception was only half false. Christopher Lyman was Busta Troll. When I submitted a series of questions in good faith to Lyman, it was Busta who answered them as he admits in his video. Busta trumpets the fact that I published his unedited replies, but that was always the point. I submitted the questions to him because I and my readers wanted to know what made a liberal troll tick, why they do what they do. By definition, an interview is an attempt to find out what someone else thinks and to communicate it to others. In that, I was successful. The fact that Busta’s answers were not based in fact is an indictment of him and not me. I chose not to rebut Busta’s answers in the interview piece because that was not its purpose, but I can do so here.

First, I must agree with Busta that it irks me to see “ridiculous rumors that can be easily debunked by five minutes of searching Google.” In fact, I’ve written more than a few “tinfoil hat” articles that debunk conspiracy theories from the right. Some recent examples include the rumors that Barack Obama was planning to run for an unconstitutional third term and that Obamacare would make beheadings legal in the U.S. Where I disagree with Busta and his trolls is their notion that people with “ridiculous” ideas don’t have as much right to share them as anyone else. The best cure for ridiculous and untruthful speech is more speech.

Further, Busta seems to have a partisan view of what is “ridiculous.” I’m not aware of any liberal pages ever being goated in spite of the fact that there are some liberals spout stories just as outlandish as any conservative site. In fact, the idea that Barack Obama is not a “natural born” U.S. citizen is not a right wing idea at all; this conspiracy theory has its roots in a 2007 memo from Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, according to Businessweek. Further, as late as 2011, Politico reported that more than half of Democrats subscribed to 9/11 conspiracy theories propagated by liberals such as Michael Moore.

Second, Busta’s claim that page owners “posted pure hate and lies” and “refused to talk about it, listen to reason or even debate in a civil manner” is not true in every case. Some page owners had posted indefensible material such as the infamous “noose” meme. Others were guilty only of operating conservative pages.

I first became aware of the goats when they took my friend Jason Doolin’s “Citizens’Post” Facebook page. Doolin did post the “noose” meme “in an attempt to defend the original poster.” The goats never contacted him with their objections to the meme, however. In fact, Doolin says that he doesn’t think that he realized that they existed prior to their hijacking his page.

As I described in an article in January, a goat purporting to be Patrick Blair contacted Doolin and several others with promises to help them expand their page reach. Blair claimed to be a representative of the Freedom Alliance, a real organization. The goats say that they were given control of the pages and that they have done nothing wrong. In reality, their actions are a textbook example of fraud. In other cases, their actions could be considered slander, harassment, and cyber stalking.

In fact, the trolls seem to be part of a left wing that is focused on shutting down debate through harassment and intimidation. Some of the most famous harassment of conservatives came during and after California’s “Prop 8” definition of marriage campaign in 2008. The blog Tom O’Halloran has compiled a list of incidents against Prop 8 supporters that include harassing emails and phone calls, attempts to jeopardize employment, vandalism, threats and actual acts of violence. Liberals are attempting to use campaign disclosure laws and other means to attempt to intimidate other conservatives as well. The ultimate fulfillment of the liberal intention to stifle debate is the Udall Amendment which would gut the First Amendment and allow Congress to regulate money “that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to” candidates.

Third, Busta’s concerns about conservative harassment and endangering children were revealed to be totally false. In fact, it was Busta himself who put an innocent man, the real Christopher Lyman, a firefighter in Maine, in danger of losing his job. By citing his fictitious role as an umpire in a real Little League, Busta also was the one who brought innocent children into a potentially dangerous situation. In essence, Busta did what he accused conservatives of doing. If anyone endangered children, it was Busta himself. The fact that Busta claims to have planned the hoax for more than a year speaks volumes as well.

For what it’s worth, I do have to admit to laughing at a number of goat memes. There are some clever and creative people among the goats and trolls. The problem is how they use their talents as a tool for bullying and conning others. Perhaps they will take to heart the words of President Obama who said, “Bullying can have destructive consequences for our young people. And it's not something we have to accept.” In 2011, Obama pointed out that “bullying is just a harmless rite of passage or an inevitable part of growing up.” It doesn’t make it better when the behavior is that of adults.

Debunked: Obama’s third term

An alert reader recently sent a link that purported to prove that President Obama “wished to seek an unprecedented 3^rd [sic] term as Commander in Chief.” The article, published as “breaking news” by the Rand Paul Review website claims that Obama made the announcement of his intention to seek a third term “earlier this week” in a “speech to supporters.” The reader cited this article as proof of President Obama’s intent to subvert or alter the Constitution and install himself as an authoritarian ruler.

Upon investigation, Examiner has determined that the article is a hoax. Red flags were raised immediately by the undated article which was not attributed to a legitimate news source. The date of the article was determined to be August 2013 by examining the link’s URL. There is also no author listed.

An obvious problem with the article’s claim was that the quote from President Obama did not announce his intention to run for a third term. Additionally, a third term would not be “unprecedented” since President Franklin Roosevelt was elected to a third term in 1940 and fourth in 1944.

According to the Rand Paul Review, Obama told supporters:

“I would put [my administration] up against any prior administration since FDR,” Obama said. “We didn’t ask for the challenges that we face, but we don’t shrink from them either.” He continued, “And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades. It will require common effort, shared responsibility, and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one.”

The author of the article jumps to the conclusion that, because Obama says that “it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades,” he intends to run for a third term. The author never makes the claim that Obama had explicitly declared his candidacy for 2016.

An additional problem with the claims made in the article is that Obama did not make that speech in 2013. A search of the internet found a Politico article that referenced the same Obama quote. The date on the Politico piece? May 27, 2009. This was a mere four months into President Obama’s first term.

In fact, the Politico quote is slightly different from the Rand Paul Review quote. In the Politico piece, which is accompanied by a video clip of the quote, President Obama actually says, “I would put these first four months up against any prior administration since FDR”[emphasis mine]. He then continues, “We didn't ask for the challenges that we face, but we don't shrink from them either."

The authors of the Rand Paul Review apparently edited the Obama quote to conceal the fact that the President’s words were from 2009 and not 2013. In context, the president is clearly referring to the next three years of his first term and not announcing his intention to seek a not-unprecedented third term.

The Politico article also gave the location of the speech in question. It reportedly took place during a Democratic National Committee fundraiser at the Beverly Hills Hilton. The date was presumably May 27 or shortly before.

With this information the original speech can be located on the White House website. The speech titled, “Remarks by the President at a DNC fundraiser reception” and gives the location as the Beverly Hills Hilton. The published version of the speech is dated May 29, 2009. Interestingly, the text of the speech does not contain the FDR comparison. Another video on the Politico site shows the president with a microphone in hand giving the speech on the White House website while he was at a podium in the first video. This may mean that the FDR comparison was not part of the president’s speech, but was given at a question-and-answer session. In either case, Obama definitely made the remark only four months into his presidency.

When Examiner contacted the Rand Paul Review, Kevin G., a spokesman for the site, responded that the article is “labeled as political satire and links to a petition that calls for term limits for all Congressman [sic]. This issue is important to those of at Rand Paul Review, as well as Rand Paul's campaign and superpacs” [sic]. The Rand Paul Review does note on its Facebook page that it is a “grassroots effort” and states that it is “not Rand Paul’s official page,” but this is not apparent on the website.

While the article was not real, Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.) did introduce a bill in 2013 that would repeal the 22^nd Amendment and allow President Obama to run for a third term. The bill has apparently died in committee in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives since no action has been taken. Govtrack gives the bill a zero percent chance of becoming law.

Read the full article on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Globalair.com introduces new mobile site for pilots

Globalair.com has introduced a new mobile version of its website for pilots. The site is free, but resembles many downloadable applications in both appearance and utility. The site contains a wealth of information for pilots and can be a valuable resource. Additionally, the site can be easily used by nonpilots since it does not require a pilot license or any login information.

The mobile site, which was introduced to the public at Oshkosh, contains three sections, which are selectable from the home page. Users can choose from “Aircraft for Sale,” which lists aircraft classified ads. The “Airport Resource Center” provides pilots with access to airport, airspace and weather information. The “Aviation Directory” contains listings for a variety of aviation businesses.

Clicking the “Aircraft for Sale” button takes the user to a listing of broad categories of aircraft such as “jets” or “single engine pistons.” Selecting the desired category will open a menu of manufacturers, which can then be opened into that company’s various aircraft types. Many of the listings include pictures as well as buttons to send an email to the seller or to call the seller’s phone number with a single touch.

Realistically, most people probably will never buy an airplane, but it can be fun to browse the listings and dream. For example, what red-blooded pilot wouldn’t be tempted by the listing for a 1945 North American P-51 Mustang (dual controls, based in Texas, with only 135 hours since major overhaul on its Rolls Royce Merlin engine)? If you have $2.1 million, it can be yours. (Have you bought your lottery ticket yet?) The stunning photos of this beautiful warbird alone are worth scanning the listings.

Another interesting find is a 1967 Mikoyan Gurevich MiG-21 Fishbed. This former Soviet jet fighter, which now lives in California, can be acquired for the bargain price of $79,500. This is cheaper than many single-engine propeller planes.

Speaking of single-engine piston airplanes, pilots looking for a trainer or a family airplane won’t be disappointed. There are myriad listings for more traditional airplanes such as Cessna, Piper, Cirrus, Beechcraft, and the like. Many of these smaller airplanes will fit even limited budgets, such as the 1970 Cessna 150 that lists for $20,500.

The “Aviation Resource Directory” section contains listing for many aviation related businesses and organizations. The listings contain links to websites as well as phone numbers. There are numerous categories (and subcategories) so that users can find whatever service they are looking for. Business owners and organizations can also submit their own company information for a free listing.

Probably the most useful aspect of Globalair.com’s new mobile site for the pilot on the go is the “Airport Resource” section. This section allows the user to search for a variety of aviation facilities by state or by name. Unlike many websites or apps, Globalair.com allows the user to refine their search to seaplane bases, heliports, balloon ports or STOLports.

When a facility is selected, the information about the airport is available to the user. This includes common items such as an airport diagram if available, runway information, weather, terminal procedures and an airport business directory. Globalair.com also goes a step further by including a phone numbers and directions for nearby hotels and restaurants for those pilots seeking the proverbial “$100 hamburger.” The listings even include nearby golf courses.

Users can also use the Globalair.com mobile site to look up airspace fixes. In the age of GPS when going direct to a fix is often the primary means of navigation, Globalair.com is an easy way to find important details about fixes such as latitude and longitude, the chart where it can be found, the controlling air route traffic control center, and nearby airports.

Globalair.com also provides weather information to the pilot’s smartphone or tablet. In addition to METARs and TAFs, Globalair.com includes aviation weather charts that are often not found on other weather sources. There are the expected radar and satellite weather maps, but also turbulence and icing potential charts, convection outlooks, winds and temperatures aloft, and significant weather prognostication charts. The lack of ability to zoom may affect the utility of some charts for users with devices that have small screens, but in general pilots and weather fans will appreciate the availability of so much information in one place at no cost. A local radar map is available on the airport resource page.

One of the most unique and useful aspects of Globalair.com’s site is the ability to compare fuel prices. In addition to listing fuel prices in the airport information section, the site has the ability to map fuel prices over a geographic area. The feature can be used for either jet fuel or 100 low-lead avgas. Think Gas Buddy for airplanes.

For example, suppose a flight crew will be flying the boss to a meeting in Denver. The meeting is downtown so the boss doesn’t have a preference on which airport to use. If the captain searches for Denver area fuel prices on Globalair.com, he would see a map of the Denver area with airports labeled. The pilot could then touch each airport to go to the airport resource page for the most recent fuel prices and other information.

Scrolling to the bottom of the map yields a list of the 10 lowest fuel prices for airports within a 50 nautical mile radius. In the case of our hypothetical flight to Denver, the cheapest jet fuel can be found at Denver’s Centennial airport (KAPA) at $4.31 per gallon. A minor drawback is that the fuel prices on the “10 cheapest list” are by airport only. The user must click the airport name on the list or icon on the map to find out which FBO has the best price. On the airport resource page, the pilot finds that Tac Air is currently the home of Denver’s cheapest jet fuel.

Because the Globalair.com is a mobile site rather than an application, it functions well for either Apple or Android products. Much of the information available on Globalair.com would cost several dollars for an app and perhaps more for a subscription. The Globalair.com site is totally free and users are not even required to log in. Users seeking the full functionality of Globalair.com can also choose to view the full site on their mobile devices.

Pilots and nonpilots alike will enjoy Globalair.com’s new mobile internet site. Whether perusing the catalog of aircraft for sale, planning a flight or checking the weather, Globalair.com provides a wealth of useful information for users.

Originally published on National Aviation Examiner

Verizon phone records are different from IRS scandal

This week’s revelations of widespread data gathering by the federal government have shocked many Americans.  Coming on the heels of the recent scandals about Justice Department spying on reporters and IRS agents harassing political opponents, the new information about America’s intelligence gathering activities have drawn widespread opposition and indignation.  There are important differences between the activities of the National Security Agency and the other scandals, however.

On Wednesday, leaked court documents demanding that Verizon turn over phone records to the federal government sparked an uproar over the NSA’s phone surveillance program.  On Friday, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, released more details about the program.  Reported by the Associated Press, Clapper noted the program, which presumably includes other companies as well as Verizon, is reviewed every 90 days and the government is prohibited from indiscriminately examining the records of Americans.  The information obtained by the NSA does not contain the content of the calls, but only “metadata” such as the phone numbers involved, time, location, and duration of the call.

On Friday, the Washington Post also published leaked reports of PRISM, a secret program that analyzes internet traffic in a manner similar to the NSA’s examination of phone records.  According to the leaked documents, “e-mail, chat, videos, photos, stored data, VoIP, file transfers, video conferencing, notifications of target activity...log-ins, etc., online social networking details” were available from major internet companies.  A CNET analysis of the PRISM documents indicates that it is theoretically possible that the government has been reading private emails of American citizens.

Even though the amount of information collected by the NSA and PRISM is staggering, there is so far no evidence that it has been used to spy on Americans or intrude on their privacy.  Instead, it seems that the federal government has been engaged in a process called “data mining.”  Data mining is the use of computer programs to discover hidden patterns in data.  Private companies frequently use data mining to target advertisements to likely customers.  Cookies on websites and tracking software collect information about internet users, which is then sold to internet advertisers.  Computer programs can even “read” your emails to target ads to your screen.  Similar programs might be used to block suspicious credit card transactions based on the user’s past history. 

While the NSA is not interested in selling anything to Americans, it is presumably interested in suspicious contacts between the United States and known terrorists in other countries.  On Thursday, Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told Politico that “Within the last few years, this program was used to stop a terrorist attack in the United States.”  Rogers added, “It is a very valuable thing. It is legal.”

Rogers appears to be correct.  Both programs appear to be legal if they were implemented properly.  In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Maryland that telephone users have no expectation of privacy with regard to telephone numbers dialed because telephone companies regularly track such information.  Likewise, CNET points out that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 2008 and the Protect America Act of 2007 permit intelligence gathering of internet data.  The Protect America Act is limited to people “reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States” (Section 105A) and the Section 702 of the FISA Act clarifies that U.S. citizens or people within the United States cannot be targeted. 

On Friday, President Obama defended the NSA programs, saying, “Nobody is listening to your telephone calls.” In a PBS transcript, Obama continued, “By sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. Now, with respect to the Internet and e-mails, this doesn't apply to U.S. citizens, and it doesn't apply to people living in the United States.” 

In a separate speech on Friday, transcribed by NBC Bay Area, Obama noted that “ if people can't trust not only the executive branch but also don't trust Congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.”

The other scandals of the Obama Administration have worked to diminish public trust in government, however.  Even before the recent scandals, Pew showed public trust in government at all-time low levels.  The reports of systematic abuses of power against the president’s political opponents (summary on Examiner.com) and spying on reporters have only heightened the crisis of confidence in the federal government.   A June 5 Rasmussen poll showed that an unprecedented 56 percent of Americans view the federal government as a threat to individual rights.  Even normally trusted agencies such as the FBI have been implicated in the Obama Administration’s apparent suppression of conservative groups.   Even the New York Times said Thursday that “The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.”

Unlike the data mining by the NSA, the allegations against Obama Administration in the IRS and DOJ media spying scandals include the specific targeting of American citizens.  The IRS has admitted that it specifically targeted conservative groups and an investigation by McClatchy News confirmed that no liberal or nonpartisan groups received unfair treatment.  Several IRS employees have said that their scrutiny and harassment of conservative groups was directed by IRS officials in Washington according to the Associated Press.  Likewise, Attorney General Holder personally approved the warrant for surveillance of Fox News reporter James Rosen according to MSNBC.  Unlike the NSA surveillance, which was apparently a legitimate program directed at foreign terrorists, the IRS and Justice Department programs were specifically directed at Americans and apparently had political motives.

The NSA’s surveillance programs are not new.  They have been public knowledge since 2005 when the New York Times published an account of the program.  However, the programs are likely viewed with more concern by many Americans due to the recent reports of spying and abuses of power against American citizens.  If the IRS and DOJ could illegally target Americans for political purposes, many are concerned that NSA data might be used for the same reason.  

Originally published on Examiner.com

Boston bomber linked to radical Muslim cleric

The International Business Times reports that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the FBI’s Suspect Number One for the Boston Marathon Massacre who died today after an early morning gun battle with police, was influenced by a radical Muslim cleric in Australia. Tsarnaev’s Youtube channel contains numerous links to videos featuring Feiz Mohammad. Tsarnaev and Mohammad also apparently shared an interest in boxing.

Feiz Mohammad is a member of the fundamentalist Wahabi sect of Islam according to The Australian. In 2005, the police investigated Mohammad for his DVDs, the “Death Series” and “Signs of the Hour.” The Australian reports that the Australian Federal Police looked into whether the series broke sedition laws and incited violence. In the videos, Mohammad called Jews “pigs” and denounces non-Muslims as “kaffirs,” which he says is “the worst word ever written, a sign of infidelity, disbelief, filth, a sign of dirt.” He also called upon Muslim children to “put in their soft, tender hearts the zeal of jihad and a love of martyrdom.”

Mohammad is well known in Australia for blaming women for rapes in 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald quotes Mohammad as saying that rape victims had “no one to blame but herself. She displayed her beauty to the entire world…” with “strapless, backless, sleeveless, nothing but satanic skirts, slit skirts, translucent blouses, miniskirts, tight jeans: all this to tease man and appeal to his carnal nature.”

In 2010, Mohammad gained international notoriety when he called for the beheading of a Dutch politician. Geert Wilders was the producer of a film that was critical of Islam. He also said that the prophet Mohammed was “a warlord, terrorist and pedophile” according to The Age.

According to the International Business Times, there are no known direct links between Mohammad and al Qaeda, but he has broadcast sermons from Anwar al-Awlaki, the group’s spiritual leader, on his website. Awlaki was killed by U.S. predator drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

Tsarnaev’s fascination with Feiz Mohammad provides a possible motive for the terrorist bombing in Boston earlier this week. As more information about the Tsarnaev brothers becomes known, their purpose in carrying out the attacks may become clear.

Originally published on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/article/boston-bomber-inspired-by-radical-muslim-preacher

Islamic links to Chechen terrorists in Boston are likely

Yesterday the FBI publicly released photos of the two men believed to be responsible for the Boston Marathon massacre on April 15, which killed three people and left more than 100 wounded. Today, the FBI reported that one of the two men has been killed in a gun battle in Massachusetts. The men are reported to be brothers from the Chechen area of southern Russia by RT. Chechen radical Muslims are responsible for a long list of terror attacks. Given the nature of the attack and the history of recent attempted terrorist attacks in the United States, it is likely, although far from certain at this point, that the two men are Islamic radicals.

The two men are reported to be Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, and his brother, Tamerlan. Tamerlan was the suspect reportedly killed by police after a gun battle and car chase through Watertown, Mass. last night.

The nature of attacks suggests the possibility of involvement by Al Qaeda sources outside the United States as well. Bomb making is a very technical task, which may explain why many homegrown terrorists use weapons such as guns that are more readily available in the United States. The Pakistani immigrant who attempted to detonate a car bomb in New York’s Times Square in 2010 received explosives training in Pakistan, but the bomb still fizzled.

Bombings have long been a favorite tactic of Islamic terrorists and the tactic has come of age during the Iraq War. A common tactic has been to detonate a second bomb near the scene of the first explosion targeting security forces and rescue workers. The Boston attack included two bombs.

The nature of the bombs themselves also suggests Islamic terror. An army private who attempted to bomb Fort Hood in 2011 had planned to use similar devices. The plans for the bombs in both the Fort Hood plot and the Boston attack are available online in the Al Qaeda magazine, “Inspire.”

The target of the Boston bombings also suggests Islamic terror. While domestic secular terrorists sometimes do commit bombings, they usually have specific targets. Ku Klux Klan bombings targeted black churches. In the 1960s, the leftist Weather Underground targeted police and government buildings. Antigovernment terrorist Timothy McVeigh targeted the federal building in Oklahoma City. Eric Rudolph normally attacked abortion clinics, but on one occasion bombed a lesbian nightclub in Atlanta. He is best known for the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta during the 1996 Olympics. While the bomb was placed in a park, Rudolph called police with a warning before the bomb exploded in an apparent attempt to minimize the loss of life.

Islamic terror, however, often focuses on creating a large death toll. Public gatherings are popular targets for Islamic terrorists. Past targets include airliners, restaurants, subways, churches, synagogues, mosques, and crowded marketplaces. These targets are designed to make a political or religious statement by killing as many people as possible. This seems to have been the motivation of the Boston bombers.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/one-boston-terrorist-killed-islamic-terror-links-likely

New Year’s resolution: Unplug and connect

My New Year’s resolution for the coming year is to unplug and connect.

I plan to unplug in the sense that I won’t be so constantly wired in to the multiple electronic devices that I own and now consider indispensable. I plan to strike a balance between what is necessary and what is gratuitous. I have to have a cell phone and iPad for work. I don’t have to check them constantly for email or Facebook updates.

Beyond that, there is television. Television has become a ubiquitous presence in our society. Most of us have several in our homes. Restaurants from the smallest fast food chains to the ritziest bistros now usually have televisions blaring. In many cases, we probably don’t know or care what is on. It’s just there as background noise. If we did, we might realize that much of what is on is an affront to our values and is teaching our children things we might just as soon that they not learn. At best we are living vicariously the life that some screenwriter thinks we should. 

Do we really have to be entertained constantly? Are we so afraid of a little silence that we must be wired to gadgets 24/7? Perhaps we’re not just bored. Perhaps we’re afraid to realize how shallow and disconnected our lives have become as we replace real flesh-and-blood relationships with digital ones.

The second part of my resolution is to connect with my family and other people. It doesn’t do my wife and kids much good if I’m with them, but staring at a screen. Likewise, my kids can stare for hours at Youtube videos… if I let them.

The latest Facebook status update is not important. In the grand scheme of things, neither is the latest update on the fiscal cliff, Lindsay Lohan’s (or insert celebrity du jour here) escapades, sports scores or news of pretty much any sort. We have shockingly little control about what goes on in the world around us. If I could control events, Mitt Romney would have won in a landslide.

The biggest measure of control that we have in our lives in within our own families. We control how our kids grow up, largely by the example that we set. If we want to make a difference in the world, this is where we should start.

We can also connect with our families by working less. If we cut the consumption of the trendy digital devices that only serve to disconnect us from reality in the first place, then we need less money. We can cut out the overtime or take a more rewarding job, even if there isn’t a pay increase.

I also want to connect with friends. In the six years that we have lived in our current home, we haven’t made any deep friendships with our neighbors. I want to change that. Part of it is that we live in a small town with all of its family connections and cliques. Part of it is that we haven’t tried all that hard. We’ve had friends who lasted for a season, but we always ended up going separate ways for one reason or another.

In the coming year I want to find good people to befriend. People who share my values and who like to have fun. People with kids. People that we can relax and be ourselves with. People who also want to unplug and enjoy the real world.

In 2013, I’ll be looking at a screen a little less and looking at the real world a little more. That will lead to a bigger impact on the part of the world that is most important to me: my family.

Join me if you dare.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-year-s-resolution-unplug-and-connect?cid=db_articles

What is net neutrality?

jscreationzs

Georgians by now realize that the fancy, technical names given by politicians to laws and policies are often misleading. The Democrats seem especially guilty of this tactic since so many of their ideas would be unpopular if the people knew their details. After all, if the people of Georgia and America knew that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would actually drive up prices and lead to shortages of health insurance, it would have been even more unpopular than it already was.

Such is the case with net neutrality. If Georgians knew that it was going to result in more government regulation of the internet and higher costs to access the web, while at the same time discouraging investment and stifling innovation, they would have strongly opposed the policy. Instead, almost nobody noticed the bland-sounding policy.

The term “net neutrality” evokes images of protecting the internet from undue political or corporate influence, yet in reality the opposite is true. Net neutrality was a call from leftists groups for increased government regulation and oversight of the internet.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, John Fund describes the backers of net neutrality. The concept began as a media reform campaign by Robert McChesney’s Free Press organization. McChesney wrote that “the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies… but the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

Fund goes on to describe how a confederation that included most of the same groups that created the “Astroturf” movement demanding campaign finance reform has pushed net neutrality. Campaign finance reform resulted in the McCain-Feingold law, which was ultimately ruled to be an unconstitutional limit on free speech. These leftist groups, including Free Press and the Pew Charitable Trusts, sponsored studies backing net neutrality. These studies were prominently cited in the FCC’s “National Broadband Plan.”

The FCC originally tried to impose net neutrality in a ruling against Comcast in August 2008. However, in April 2010, a federal appeals court in Washington, DC decided that Congress had not given the FCC legal authority to regulate the internet.

The following month, a bipartisan group of congressmen sent letters to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski stating in no uncertain terms that his plans for net neutrality were a bad idea. A letter by seventy-four Democrats stated that it would “jeopardize jobs" and "should not be done without additional direction from Congress.” Thirty-seven Republicans wrote that Genachowski’s planned rules were “heavy-handed 19th century regulations" that are "inconceivable" and illegal.


In response, the FCC unilaterally decided to reinterpret its jurisdiction over telephones to include the authority to regulate the internet. This week’s vote to impose net neutrality rules in a party line vote among the FCC’s five-member board. Chairman Genachowski and two Democratic members of the board voted for net neutrality, while the two Republican members opposed it. The FCC essentially extended government control over the internet after being told by both Congress and the courts that it did not have that authority. President Obama appointed Chairman Genachowski and the FCC answers to the President.

What does net neutrality mean for you?

The new net neutrality regulations will prohibit internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking access to legal websites and allow the FCC to determine if ISPs are “unreasonable” in prioritizing internet traffic on its network.

However, there has been no history of companies blocking access to websites. This was a manufactured crisis (a la Rahm Emanuel) in order to justify increased regulation. In reality, ISPs have voluntarily refrained from blocking web access. In contrast, the federal government has been shutting down websites without due process.

The use of the word “unreasonable” is ambiguous. As Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell said, it is “perhaps the most litigated word in American history.” The wording leaves the enforcement of the regulations open to arbitrary interpretation. This means that, not only will there be legal challenges, but internet companies will be forced to lobby FCC and other government officials to gain approval for their business plans. As Woodrow Wilson said, “If the government is to tell big business men how to run their business, then don't you see that big business men have to get closer to the government even than they are now? Don't you see that they must capture the government, in order not to be restrained too much by it?”

Additionally, the new rules say that ISPs can charge more to customers who use more bandwidth. This means that, where most internet users now pay roughly the same, if you watch a lot of online videos or movies or play memory-intensive games, you might have to pay more for your internet access in the near future.

Finally, the new rules will likely inhibit investment and innovation. New regulations will likely make it harder for new companies to enter the web marketplace. In the past few years, new internet companies have risen from inception to multi-billion dollar firms in a few short years. Google and Facebook are both ubiquitous but less than fifteen years old. New hardware, software and websites are being introduced constantly. Government interference can only slow and hamper this process.

In summary, everyone is unhappy with the FCC’s net neutrality rules. Leftists who fear corporations and embrace government control want harsher rules. Conservatives and libertarians who believe in limited government feel that the FCC should stay out of the internet, especially since Congress has not extended the agency authority to regulate it. There will almost certainly be legal challenges due the vague and arbitrary nature of the law. Equally certain is that the Republicans will seek to rein in President Obama and his rogue agency when they take control of the House of Representatives next year.

Photo:  
http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=1152