The Senate and House have both voted to overhaul veterans' health care. Their votes come amid the controversy over long wait times at VA facilities for veterans seeking care.
With the World Cup kicking off in Brazil today, many commentators have questioned the state of Brazil’s economy, considering the costs associated with the soccer championship.
Click on the audio player above to hear a discussion about the economics underlying the competition with Adolfo Laurenti, Chief International Economist at Mesirow Financial, and Leon Krauze, host of “Open Source” on Fusion TV.
Al-Qaida-linked fighters have taken Mosul and Tikrit, while Kurdish fighters have seized Kirkuk. Meanwhile, a news report says the U.S. rejected Iraqi calls for an airstrike against the militants.
Britain's National Trust now has a Rembrandt on its hands. Well, it's had the painting -- a portrait of the artist -- for several years, but until a few weeks ago the work of art was held in storage, thought to be a fake.
After months of investigation, analysts and researchers are putting the price of the painting -- deemed authentic -- at $50 million, several times what it was worth before.
Click the audio player above to hear art critic Blake Gopnik discuss the business of art, branding, and the worth of the master's hand.
So how much is a "selfie" worth?
The Rembrandt has been referred to as one of the more expensive "selfies" ever created. Sure, the Ellen Oscar selfie has cache, but can it compare to the most pricey paintings and photographs artists have made of themselves throughout history?
While Britain's National Trust has no plans to sell their new Rembrandt, many "selfies" have been auctioned for millions of dollars.
Click through the slideshow above to see some of the most expensive "selfies" ever sold.
This month marks the first anniversary of the Edward Snowden leaks that changed our understanding of online privacy. Just like the subject matter of the leaks, the reporting over the last year has offered a deluge of information. So this week, we're posting a short series about all that data. Every day we'll bring you another number that reminds us how much we have learned in the last year about online surveillance and the reach of the NSA.$278,000,000
spent in 2013 by the NSA on "corporate-partner access project
"This is the amount spent by the NSA in fiscal year 2013 under what it calls its corporate-partner access project," Says Susan Crawford, visiting Professor at Harvard Law School. "What they're doing is reimbursing telecommunications companies for domestic surveillance of all internet traffic"
The National Security Agency says that it's pulling data on only non-US citizens. Telecom companies, as well as tech companies, need to comply with these surveillance orders made possible through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But they're still not allowed to be fully transparent on what data they're being paid to give up.
Crawford says, "We do know that the fiber optics cables that NSA is getting access to carry everything - all of our phone calls, all of our emails - and our concern is that domestic surveillance can be carried out through these foreign intelligence programs.”
First up, an exploration of the economic effects of the World Cup on countries around the world. Plus, with the expense of hosting the games, some are questioning whether the Brazilian economy can handle the cost. Also, why some think that cutting a game of golf in half might make the sport more popular.
I was at a dinner table about a year ago, right after the first Edward Snowden leaks, when I heard for the first time an argument I've heard many times since.
"Why should I care? I'm not doing anything wrong."
This appears to be the opinion of the majority when it comes to the idea of the government using surveillance to fight terrorism. By Pew Research's estimates, 56 percent of Americans support the government listening in while it fights the "bad guys." And it has been this way for something like 12 years -- right after the September 11th attacks and the beginning of the war on terror.
Whichever side of the line you're on, part of my job as a journalist is to give you information. But as a consumer of journalism, I've found the stream of information about government surveillance over the last year to be exhausting and desensitizing. Heck, even data tracking and run-of-the-mill privacy online seems like such a huge issue that you want to just go Vint Cerf and suggest that privacy is an anomaly. But it's important to at least try to understand and remember the impact of government surveillance and what we know about it. That's why all this week we've been talking about your location data, your phone calls, and your address books for the Data on Our Data series.
I get the "why should I care" argument, I swear. I've echoed it myself a few times. But I'd be lying if I said it didn't worry me. I support our law enforcement agencies protecting us from attacks. But I also know governments are not static; they are living, breathing organizations that change and evolve drastically over time. And when it comes to surveillance, the big question is how and whether we are thinking about a time when our government might aggressively use ready access to data against its citizens.
It was hard enough for me, last year, to dust off my basic understanding of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Patriot Act, and other legislation that has built the world we currently live in. But especially this week, I've been thinking about how governments aren't static, and how easy it is to forget the things we've put in place in the name of self-preservation.
All of this thinking about surveillance, government, and legislation has also reminded me of a chapter in my own history that I haven't thought of in a while. During my junior year of college in 2003, I worked in the D.C. office of a moderate Republican Congressman. My main job was to answer constituent correspondence with letters that represented the Congressman's policy positions, which he would then sign. One day near the end of my spring semester, I had an assignment I couldn't complete: I was supposed to answer a constituent letter about a proposed expansion of the Patriot Act. The letter had been sent, and signed, by librarians throughout the Congressman's home state who were opposed to the Patriot Act's allowance of officials to access library records. They were asking the Congressman to oppose any extension or expansion of the legislation, and really to roll it back entirely. As I was preparing to tell the librarians that the congressman fully supported the legislation, I made a discovery. One of the librarian signatures on the constituent letter was familiar to me. It belonged to my mother.
As the U.S. Open golf tournament starts today in Pinehurst, North Carolina, the event’s organizers kick off a campaign aimed at golfers, encouraging them to play shorter games: 9 holes, instead of 18.
Golf has been losing players by the hundreds of thousands, partly because it takes so long to play — up to five hours for 18 holes.
“If you go to a movie it takes two hours, if you go to dinner it takes two hours,” says Hunki Yun, of the U.S. Golf Association. “So, a five-hour round of golf is not necessarily compatible with today’s lifestyles.”
David Hueber takes some responsibility for the problem. As head of the National Golf Foundation in the 1980s, he helped launch a strategy to open more courses. “Unfortunately,” he says, “we developed a product our customers — that is, golfers — didn’t want to buy.”
The new courses were designed by marquee architects to be hard, meaning they took a long time to play.
They were also designed to be big — partly to satisfy the real-estate developers who funded them. The bigger the course, the more houses the developer could sell overlooking it. “Take a typical hole,” says Hueber. “If you add 50 yards to it, with home-sites on both sides, you’re going to pick up four home sites. You know, that could be a million dollars.”
Multiply that by 18, and a half-mile’s walk has been added to every game.
One of the scariest lines a bad guy in a movie can say is, “I know where you live.”
But these days, thanks to location data, online advertisers almost always know where you are.
In fact, Twitter and the Weather Channel want to let them in on still more information about potential customers -- a newly announced partnership will target ads, or “promoted Tweets,” to users based on where they live and what the weather’s like.
By letting advertisers know a customer is shivering or sweating, they’re hoping to help the company target its products.
“Sixty degrees might be cold in Miami, which means that you want hot coffee," says Curt Hecht, the global chief revenue officer at The Weather Channel. “Sixty degrees in Chicago means I’m getting an iced coffee, right?”
Hecht says The Weather Channel’s service doesn’t take into account users' interests through past posts or searches, but rather tries to predict their needs based on current and upcoming weather conditions. In the past, the company has worked with Pantene to market anti-fizz hair products to customers on days with high humidity.
“If previously we used to think more about different advertising for different people, now we’re starting to think different advertising for the same people at different states of their environment -- in this case weather,” explains Oded Netzer, a marketing professor at Columbia Business School.
There’s a strong correlation between weather and consumption, says Netzer. Knowing what the weather’s like is really useful for advertisers. Studies show that customers are generally more likely to buy things on nice days and even spend more for the same product if the weather is good.
“There’s some evidence that companies might be able to charge a little bit higher prices during warm weather conditions,” he says. “Whether this will be ethical to do and whether consumers react to that if companies do it is a whole different story.”
In other words, a consumer might find it helpful to see an ad for an umbrella right before it’s supposed to rain. Jacking up the price of air conditioners on a really hot day – not so much.
We looked at 15 top companies and services that handle your email or store your data every day to see what steps they take to keep it from prying eyes. See how they stack up.
With Dave Brat's defeat of Rep. Eric Cantor, a tiny Virginia college fell into the political spotlight. Both Brat and his new opponent, Democrat Jack Trammell, teach at Randolph-Macon.
The fast-growing startup is operating in more than 100 cities around the world. But Uber, which is valued at $17 billion, faces opposition from traditional taxis and regulators.
Drakes Bay Oyster Company is resisting the expiration of its lease in Marin County, Calif. The debate may reach the Supreme Court, and it's dividing residents of the San Francisco Bay Area.
The sheriff's department in San Francisco is now enrolling inmates in post-jail health coverage as soon as they enter the system. But even with insurance, former inmates can have trouble getting care.
Immigration was a key issue in Tuesday's primary. Rep. Eric Cantor's defeat may discourage others from promoting policy changes. But some advocates say the outlook for overhaul isn't so bleak.
Scientists can't prove a causal link, but the disturbing correlation in the data deserves a closer look, researchers say. Some countries seemed more resilient than others.
The Dubai-based airline says the contract for the new planes, which was worth $16 billion, had "lapsed," but did not elaborate.
A trivia question that will perhaps win you a drink at happy hour tonight (but probably only if you're at a weird politico-economic happy hour in Washington, DC).
Dave Brat, now the Republican nominee for Eric Cantor's seat, is a PhD economist. He'll be the only one in Congress.
So here's the question:
Who was the last one?
Scroll down for the anwer.
Answer: Democrat Tom Lantos from California.