1) Ex-IMF Chief Strauss-Kahn To Launch Hedge Fund (FIN Alternatives) - Anyone who gives this clown money is not only an idiot, they're also a terrible human being. He was recently charged with "aggravated pimping" here in France, which I suppose is what he's up to in China as we speak.
2) SEC Announces Charges Against Brokers, Adviser, and Others Involved in Variable Annuities Scheme to Profit From Terminally Ill (SEC.gov) - God, this scam is just gross on so many levels. Just goes to show you that some guys will do anything to turn a buck.
3) Tech billionaire buys record-setting $201 million insurance policy (CNBC) - You know what I find amazing? Not that some Silicon Valley tech shmoe bought a $200 million life insurance policy, but the fact that we have no way of knowing which one. It's good to be king, I guess.
4) Brazilian Billionaire Creates Plan to Beat Death (Bloomberg) - I think you have to be a billionaire to even want to beat death. I mean, life is great and all, but if you're not a baller death gives you something to look forward to.
5) How Taco Bell's Lead Innovator Created The Most Successful Menu Item Of All Time (Business Insider) - If you're anything like me, you probably haven't given a lot of thought to who created the Taco Bell Doritos Locos Taco and why. So here's a surprisingly interesting breakdown of the genesis of this billion-selling gut-bomb.
6) Cosmic News: Astronomers Find the Twisted Fingerprints of Inflation in the Background Glow of the Universe (Slate) - You may have heard this week that a major scientific breakthrough happened in the field of astrophysics. An observatory in the Antarctic has documented cosmic inflation, which basically proves the Big Bang theory. Here is Phil Plait to explain the discovery to you in plain English.
7) Here's How NASA Thinks Society Will Collapse (National Journal) - The good folks over at NASA are jumping on the wealth inequality bandwagon, but at least they've got science to back them up. And you thought it would be an asteroid...
8) Acid test: LSD used as drug therapy for the first time in 40 years (The Verge) - Where the hell do I sign up???
9) THE SATANIC TEMPLE WEIGHS IN ON THE IMPENDING DEATH OF THE LEADER OF THE WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH (VICE) - Now that Fred Phelps has taken the dirt nap, rival woo-peddler and head of the Satanic Temple Lucien Greaves says Phelps should prepare himself for a gay old time in the afterlife. How's that? The Satanic Temple plans to hold a Pink Mass for him, which will turn him gay posthumously. Hey, if the Mormon's can baptize dead people, why not?
10) Wesley Warren Jr., Man With 132-lb. Scrotum, Dead At 49 (Huffington Post) - Ugh. I honestly can't think of a worse way to go through life. This goes waaaay beyond M.C. Hammer pants.
Video of the Week:
For the first time in Bonus Bananas history I'm showing back-to-back Videos of the Week of the same guy. That's because what he has to say is more important than almost anything for the future of humanity, and I don't think that's hyperbole. Power abhors change and will go to any length to maintain power, even to the detriment of the evolution of our species. The Internet is perhaps humanity's greatest invention and the people in power (all over the world, not just the US) are doing everything they can to destroy it. Whatever you think about Ed Snowden, you should listen to what he has to say. There's a reason he got a standing ovation for this:
That's it for this week, stallions. Have a fabulous weekend and let me know what you think about this week's Bananas in the comments!
Love the physics article however can't help but be a little skeptical of some of their conjectures. I mean, knowing exactly how many billionths of a nano-second that it took expansion to take place seems like a very very liberal hypothesis. Although, I'm by no means a physicist.
Kind of like how an Exeter-Harvard-Goldman-KKR guy knows for sure his DCF is right, because he says so?
You're an idiot if you haven't realized by now that the world is full of bullshit, along with everyone in it.
I've always liked to think that science is more of a science; although, I am an idiot.
The timing actually refers to the order of magnitude, rather than an exact interval of time. It's indeed strange to think that we can have such precision, but it is just an oom that comes from the theory based on the observations, and not something we are measuring by a stopwatch. Good article though
Great articles. This one this week had me solidify my hate for LI and future generations...should be good for next week.
http://www.businessinsider.com/lipartystories-twitter-2014-3
https://twitter.com/LIPartyStories/media
The physics article was really interesting...kind of awe-inspiring when you think about it. Sometimes I wish I was a scientist.
And while we're on the subject of creation of the world...looking forward to watching Noah :)
I'm trying to figure out at what point Edward Snowden became an accepted authority on all things internet, privacy and digital security. This guy went from a middling computer scientist to world-renowned expert giving TED Talks? You'll have to forgive me if I don't take his opinion very seriously.
Is that a joke?
The guy is likely to win a Nobel prize (and a Pulitzer while he's at it), but yeah, middling computer scientist. Whatever, dude.
Yes, but why? Because he misappropriated information from the NSA, not because of his peculiar genius or talent. I am making no moral judgment about his actions. Instead, I am merely observing that he has done nothing of his own merit - other than bravely diverting information from the U.S. government - to warrant my appreciation for his opinions on politics, security, the internet or privacy.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Wow. Eddie, you're killing me. Just because a guy scans a hard drive containing all of our nations secrets and then moves to Russia, it makes him an authoritative figure?
Snowden was a middling computer scientist in Hawaii doing marginal government work and he took advantage of a poorly managed security clearance system. Of the million of files he "scanned", only a portion were actually related to the NSA spying. I'm sure he's made some nice $$$ from all of the secrets he has sold. I think we should worship him.
I would argue that Snowden has moral authority. He made what I and many others consider a very moral decision.
I agree that I would not want to hear his opinions on purely technical matters, but I do think his opinion on ethical matters hold some weight.
Fair point, but wouldn't the fact that you see yourself as being in a position to adjudicate the morality of his decision implicitly indicate you are merely hoping to hear your own morality parrotted back to you? You want to hear from him because you feel he is a bastion of your morality; presumably, then, you wouldn't want to hear from him had he done something you judged immoral and would likely be unmoved if he came on stage (or on screen, as it were) and conceded "what I did was immoral". That is, your desire to hear from him has nothing to do with his authority on the matter and everything to do with your happenstance affinity to his morality.
Say I took a job with the NSA and subsequently leaked more information regarding surveillance techniques - an action for which I was awarded the Pulitzer (or pick whatever prize fits your fancy). I have no background or knowledge of the issue, I have merely communicated private information to public outlets. Should you now consider me a global authority on security, surveillance and privacy, despite my utter lack of informed opinion?
Thought for a second you were going into a Will Hunting monologue.
I don't think Snowden is an "authority" per se, he's just the best we've got right now. His view is authoritative in light of a lot of others, and I think that while other people may know more, they just aren't as well recieved or willing to talk about it. As for the middle level: you think a VP wouldn't have any clue what's going on inside a bank?
His is definitely not the only voice, but he is mostly credible. Most of what he's talked about has been verified. I hate that he's doing what he's doing....but I really hate that he has to a whole lot more.
Of course not! You seem to be misunderstanding me: I'm making no statements about the credibility of the information he has leaked. I'm merely observing that I don't think him an expert on issues of privacy, internet security, etc. Snowden was a brave whistleblower, for which he deserves respect. Conversely, his personal opinions on surveillance, foreign policy and internet security are no more informed than another faceless, nameless infrastructure analyst / system administrator at Booz Allen or Dell.
He may be a convenient figurehead for the movement (and, in fact, I support a great deal of what he says!), but this is expedience rather than merit at play. And I worry about venerating the messenger.
I agree with the sentiment. He is vocal, willing to engage the issues and recognizable. I think it's great that he has surfaced an international dialogue about surveillance ethics. I do not, however, think his information leaks are in any way relevant to his qualification as an authority in that dialogue.
Who says he's an authority? He's just the guy in the limelight right now, and what he has to say is relevant. If he doesn't have some understanding of these issues worth sharing....how did he beat the system so well?
We're sitting in an office working for the man....he's in Russia to avoid the repurcussions of exposing a global security issue. I'm going to assume he's worth the three minutes or whatever. If he gets retarded or someone else comes out with even better or more relevant data, then I'll hear them out. I don't see Snowden 'controlling' any dialogue as an authority, he's just getting a lot of airtime. A few years ago, it was Assange. And there are others.
Eddie,
Regarding Nr. 5, that is a fantastic look into the art of food science. I wish there was more information in the article, but it really hits home on how, from a simple overview perspective, that some of these great food ideas take years to see fruition. From the McRib to the Doritos Locos taco, it's all about finding that right balance. It's also scary because it means that the book "Salt, Sugar, Fat" was spot on with all of the details about the food science.
With respect to Nr. 8, that stuff has always fascinated me. I can understand using LSD for psychotheraphy and I think it's interesting that scientists are revisiting the drug have such potent mind altering effects. While I can't say that I am a fan of using LSD given the obvious question of dosage in micrograms versus a minimum threshold to achieve whatever is needed to reach an open state of mind, I think that other drugs (Certain Phenethylamines and Tryptamines like MDMA and DMT) may be better suited for this kind of study. Actually, I think DMT is the far superior choice to LSD. While both are Tryptamines, the pharmological and pharmokinetic nature of DMT might work better given what we know about the Brain especially when weighed against the fact that we do naturally produce DMT, unlike LSD which needs to be synthesized outright. Not just that, DMT is a trace amino of Tryptamine, which may actually be better suited for this kind of work.
Then again, I really do think that there is value in the drugs that have been synthesized by Shulgin for their entactogenic response; this is something important that I don't think the article really harped on. The original "discoverer" of DMT (basically - he figured out how to synthesize it), Stephen Szara, valued psychedelics like LSD and DMT and views them as a tool to help understand the brain. When you add in the work of Terrence McKenna and Dr. Rick Strassman, an MD who has spent the last 20+ years studying DMT and its effects on the brain with varying degrees of success, these may be the right choice of drugs to help fuel new therapies for our own psychosis. At least scientists are moving forward in studying these compounds and their applications for use. That's a good thing.
It's funny, because just the other day I was kicking around the idea of an organized WSO ayahuasca vacation. I know a couple guys on the site who would jump at the chance (my name's on that list, obviously).
I'd like to try DMT. My one experience with LSD was negative (not the drug's fault, it was all circumstantial), but I'd definitely give it another go in the right environment. I hear great things about MDMA, but it's hard to imagine something topping the Ecstasy of the early 90's. Shrooms are still far and away my favorite out of body experience, and I'd love to climb into the isolation tank while shrooming. Alas, these are pursuits for people unencumbered by impressionable offspring and judgmental spouses.
But yeah, therapy.
I really do think that a great deal of the experiences with psychedelic drugs are circumstantial. I'm a believer that a bad trip is caused by your state of mind and who you are with when you trip. I saw a friend of mine do shrooms while in a bad state of mind and he was depressed for a good month and a half afterwards. Never did mushrooms again.
DMT's a strange one. The more I research it, the more intriguing it really is to me. I wouldn't be shocked if some of the research being done actually results in clinical use.
And it sounds like you want to be William Hurt in Altered States. Nice reference with the isolation tank on shrooms.
Yup... Psychotherapy.
In for the organized ayahuasca vacation, Eddie. You should get that rolling
Okay lets get this straight, Snowden works for the CIA, he either doesn't know shit about or is purposefully giving out shit information. If you think that Snowden could survive this long with out being under the protection of some agency well I would suggest you take a trip down the local psych ward. He was on a Google hangout for fucks sake, there is far better and much more secure ways of communicating on the internet than a Google hangout with VPNs and proxie servers.
The data is our personal info. I don't care if he's looked at it. Snowden's issue, and about a billion other people's, is how that information was secretly collected. He was part of that, stole evidence to prove they are, and now he's exposing that data collection progam.
Are you seriously not understanding the difference between the two? The guy is barely educated and managed to fall up through the cracks into a sys admin role, then slipped through all the internal controls of the NSA. Then he slipped through the borders and legal loopholes to not only to talk about it, but present proof that the programs are very real and ever larger than anyone suspected.
I'd say that puts him in a pretty good position to talk about developing internet privacy issues. Yes?
No, it doesn't. What relationship does proficiency (despite limited education) on systems administration, data theft and international asylum have with privacy ethics?
And I support him in that endeavor! You seem to be of the erroneous view that I oppose Snowden's actions (despite my multiple clarifications).
Sounds like your contention is that this Snowden fellow should be praised but is currently being praised using incorrect reasoning. Lol.
LOL you're the guy that sees "4 years in XYZ product marketing" on a resume and says "what makes you think you're in any way qualified for XYZ.2 product marketing". You can choose what you want to believe, but I think you're slipping into denial, if you're not there already. Maybe listen in and decide for yourself, instead of just wasting your time assessing him by his credentials. He bought this topic front and center to the world, and literally blew the lid off of a massive gov't secrecy issue. This is not unlike when Seymour Hirsch got the pulitzer. His critics have long been forgotten, his work still stands for itself.
You're going to choose to see what you want, I just can't spell this out any more clearly.
You are completely misreading me, I don't know what to say.
Privacy ethics is not "version 2.0" of systems administration, espionage and political asylum.I have listened to his statements, and I largely agree with him. I do think he deserves the Pulitzer. I do think it is beneficial that he has raised awareness about this issue through his actions. I am not a "critic" of his actions. I am not assessing "him" by his credentials.
I am assessing his ability to talk about privacy ethics and foreign affairs based on his credentials in that area - which, let's be clear, are absent. The man was a brave whistleblower and made, by far, the most impressive contributions to journalism and public discourse this year. For that he deserves recognition; for informed views on public policy, I will look elsewhere.
And I suspect this is merely a continuation of your erroneous insistence that I feel moral reproach towards Snowden, which I do not. My criticism is with TED and the public for venerating him as an authority on privacy ethics, when in fact he is merely an information messenger.
Breat
Ah, I see.
I've thought it over. Who cares about this difference? No one is saying "He's the authority on privacy ethics", he's just sharing what he knows and putting it into context. What he's saying directly pertains to ethics. One does not need to be a tenured professor at GWU to have a position on this. He's rendering null a huge amount of disinformation and prior ethics positions, and very rapidly.
On top of that, he's speaking from some level of direct experience on the other side, so his position is substantially more credible than the rank and file in the media, academia, and certainly our own government propoganda. His former rank is irrelevant, the topic at hand is the focus. The majority of 'experts' on privacy ethics didn't even know about PRISM until he came around, so what they have to say is almost irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Snowden isn't presenting hypothetical abstractions, he's telling it like it is. I'm somewhat biased towards looking favorably on him, but I really don't see a problem.
Perhaps ask yourself why it's so easy to marginalize Snowden in your mind. Look at what he's done. Look at what he's telling us. And consider that there's still more to come. I'm not sure who you'd rather have in his place.
Sorry to give you such a hard time, I just don't understand where you're coming from.
I would argue that the supposed 'authorities' on the subject are not worth the time at this point. The 'experts' never saw this coming, and the government has been lying to us. Snowden is setting both records straight. In this context, he's the definition of an ethicist. I'm not sure what else someone would do to qualify for the classification.
And are we really debating classification? Wow. I need to do more with my life. This feels like back in the late 90's when it because faux pas to screw up the difference between thrash and mere metal....time to get out a bit more.
Not really. From where I sit, it seemed like you were basically getting at "he's done his thing and now he can shut up". All I'm getting at is that the guy is one of the leading voices in internet privacy, ethicist or not. I suppose we're on some level of agreeance. Apologies again for the undue friction.
It seems like he still has more to add to the dialogue, I am merely observing that I take the man's pontification about prudent policy with a grain of salt. To the extent his polemical behavior rouses further discourse on this topic, I accept his public appearance for its expediency, but would shy away from rhetorical exaggerations like: "what this man is saying is more important than almost anything for the future of humanity".
All things considered, he is a technically adept man who misappropriated information from the NSA; he is not a scholar, he has not been tasked with managing surveillance techniques, he is not abreast to inter-agency intelligence efforts, he has not engaged the most difficult questions of privacy ethics and largely lacks context for the information he is disseminating. I pay attention to the information the man reveals and respect him for the courage that revelation must have required; I do not pay much attention to his interpretation of the ethical breaches revealed or his suggested path for the future of international and domestic policy.
These are very difficult policy issues, and you don't get any easy answers from listening to Snowden's moralizing about how the government "ought to function". Ironically, I mostly agree with his prescriptions but believe that he is ignoring the thrust of opposing arguments, which is likely a product of his lack of true scholarship and rigorous research on privacy ethics.
The moral authority stuff is BS. It's not a "moral" struggle. It's a NSA vs CIA issue, the mere fact that Snowden is alive is pretty conclusive evidence that he is working for an alphabet agency, most likely the CIA. He worked for a CIA run group before going to Booze Allen. It is not a leap nor even a step to make a valid assumption that he was working for the CIA while at Booze Allen. The NSA has been walking all over the CIA's toes leaking information about the drone program, enhanced interrogation programs, and other CIA operations.
While the moral argument is a great way to spin with the idiot population (citizens) the reality is that this is most likely agencies shitting on one another for increased funding.
The main reason that leads me to think this isn't the case, disregarding any conspiracy theory stuff, is that I don't think the CIA or whoever would want him to continue blabbering on and on and gaining a celebrity like cult following. Maybe if it was just a one time release and that is that but this is a long and drawn out blemish on the US, domestically and internationally. I'd imagine that is too high a cost for a little in fighting. But hey what do I know, I'm just a pawn on the chess board.
Iure repellat voluptas rem ducimus totam iure non. Qui aut deleniti incidunt ad delectus est corporis. Ut aut rem iure asperiores dolorum doloribus saepe pariatur.
Deserunt aperiam id voluptatum. Labore non modi autem ratione dolor sit id. Necessitatibus odio nemo laborum doloribus suscipit inventore. Sint et deleniti inventore quia nobis. Cupiditate doloremque voluptate velit nesciunt dolorem error exercitationem. Distinctio incidunt est itaque eos ex aut.
Unde quaerat quia repellat sit suscipit non omnis. Repellendus dolorem molestiae eos cum nam sed. Porro officia suscipit dicta quo. Eos omnis eveniet labore iure culpa qui vero.
Sit quibusdam provident omnis qui vitae animi et. Aut voluptates modi deserunt aperiam architecto quia aut et. Unde ipsam fugiat dolores cumque error. Corporis distinctio ipsam ut odit.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Sunt quas quia nam deleniti. Ipsa illum repellendus pariatur libero reprehenderit.
Ipsam modi tenetur exercitationem sit fugiat temporibus tenetur. Expedita optio quos rem. Et rerum occaecati eius commodi. Porro animi sunt laboriosam id.
Fugiat accusamus cumque saepe doloremque sit. Ipsum quo et eveniet quasi accusantium dolore tempora. Doloremque reiciendis vel assumenda magnam maiores necessitatibus.
Culpa repellendus recusandae magni officia aperiam ut corporis. Earum aliquid voluptatem id qui sunt magni. Ullam illum non aspernatur et quia aut aut. Enim corporis et iure sint a voluptatibus.
Dolorem magnam eum alias sapiente. Nostrum et sapiente consequuntur. Minima eius voluptas ut sint quia.