Barbara Larson

Barbara Larson

Starting around eight years ago, browsers could be tapped by websites to provide an approximate to exact notion of where you are. Fortunately, from nearly the beginning, there was an understanding by those developing standards and implementations that such information should require affirmative permission—opt-in! From the advent, in nearly every case, you’ve been prompted whether or not you wanted to give a site your current location, often with some limitations

It’s very handy to offer up your whereabouts to, say, a retail chain or bank site, where it can automatically show the nearest locations without you having to type in a zip code. We’re used to this convenience in mobile devices, and iOS has extremely granular app-based location controls. But in a mobile browser, as long as the browser can use location, any site you visit can request position; the permission granted is unique to each site.

However, once you’ve provided your location, it gets trickier. Do you want to opt in for all eternity? Every major browser has a different way of handling your initial and subsequent choices and how to change “forever” decisions you made in the past.

Google just improved one underlying security weakness, which prompted this column, but also makes me wonder whether other browser makers will step up.

Cloak and decloak

Desktop versions of Safari, Chrome, and Firefox each have a different approach in the permission you can initially grant to a site.

Safari first relies on system-wide location permissions, something that Firefox and Chrome bypass, even though you’d think that should be forbidden? You can disable all app-based location privacy at a go, or prevent Safari from even asking. In the Security & Privacy system preference pane, click Privacy, and then click the lock in the lower-left corner and enter your password. You can now uncheck Enable Location Services or scroll through the list and uncheck Safari.

You can also set a variety of limits within Safari. In Preferences > Privacy, you can disable all location prompts by choosing Deny Without Prompting. I have mine set to “Prompt for each website once each day.” Oddly, even with that choice, Safari’s prompt when a site requests your location leaves the checkbox “Remember my decision for one day” unselected. (The results of this interaction aren’t totally clear.)

If you choose “Prompt for each website one time only” in Safari’s preferences and leave “Remember my decision for one day” unchecked, Apple doesn’t provide a suggestion about deleting this choice except for selecting Safari > Clear History, which wipes cookies, location, cache, and history. (Hold down the Option key and it just deletes browsing history.)

privatei safari location prompts

Safari in OS X (left) and iOS prompt in the same way, but you can’t delete individual choices in iOS.

However, I found an undocumented feature. In Preferences > Privacy, click Details below “Remove all website data” (it may take a moment for the Details button to appear), then search on a site for which you want to remove your location preference. Delete the entry by clicking Remove. In my testing, this resets the preference.

Chrome will prompt by default if a site requests your location, but you can only opt in or out—not for a period of time. Once you’ve made that choice, you can modify it. Visiting chrome://settings/content lets you scroll down to Location and click Manage Exceptions where you can see all the sites you allowed and denied to track.

private chrome location

Chrome lets you set your sharing preference for all sites, and then edit individual choices later. You can also make changes while visiting a site.

Firefox has a bit of the worst of both Safari and Chrome. It lacks an option to share your location for a day or other period, asking only whether you want to allow or not, and doesn’t let you edit these permissions without visiting a site. It’s a bit problematic and paradoxical that you have to visit a site you no longer want to allow to track you in order to disable that site’s ability to track you. (On a given page, use Tools > Page Info, click the Permissions tab, and modify the settings for Access Your Location.)

Firefox has a somewhat florid prompt. You can change permissions for a site only by revisiting it.

In iOS, Safari will prompt you just as it does in the desktop version. However, while you can disable Safari location awareness entirely (Settings > Privacy > Location Services > Safari Websites), you can’t remove or change settings for an individual site. You can reset all site preferences via Settings > Safari > Clear History and Website Data, which is a nuclear option and, if you’re signed into the same iCloud account on multiple iOS devices and Macs, wipes all that information from every copy of Safari on those pieces of hardware.

Broadcasting from a secure location

Websites have always been able to place someone approximately using the Internet protocol (IP) address that’s part of the browser’s connection to a Web server. If you use anonymizing services (like Tor) or virtual private network (VPNs) tunnels, this can obscure where you are to a site. Outside of that, you can’t outright prevent sites from guessing about where you are.

Browser-based geolocation is a lot more private, though, and the long-imposed safeguards that require a browser asks permission are a nice exception in a digital world that doesn’t seem to value our privacy over the interests of advertisers and marketing.

There remains one outstanding security weakness, however, that Google just addressed after months of alerting website developers to the change. As of Chrome version 50, the browser only provides a location response if the connection is secured.

As Google’s developer’s blog neatly explains, “If the user’s location is available from a non-secure context, attackers on the network will be able to know where that user is. This seriously compromises user privacy.” Because the information could be sent in the clear, an attacker could be at any position in the network, from a public Wi-Fi network through intervening network connections and backbones to a data center. That’s a big area of risk.

Safari and Firefox, however, worked just fine with a number of sites that request location using unencrypted “http” connections instead of “https.” It’s probably past time that all browsers enforce this same policy.

Source : macworld.com

In the third presidential debate in late October, President-elect Donald Trump reiterated his intention to build a wall along the Mexico-US border.

"Now, I want to build the wall. We need the wall. The border patrol, ICE, they all want the wall. We stop the drugs; we shore up the border," he said. "One of my first acts will be to get all of the drug lords, all of the bad ones, we have some bad, bad people in this country that have to go out. We're going to get them out."

A substantial part of his campaign focused on "the wall" and a deportation-centric, closed immigration policy. But now that he won the election, will anyone actually build (and pay for) the 1,954-milelong border wall?

Business Insider consulted a few architects to get some perspective. Here are some reasons why the project would be nearly impossible (or, at the very least, unrealistic and a drain on US resources).

The cost will be huge.

As Citylab points out, Trump is pledging to construct the largest infrastructure project since the US highway system and the Erie Canal. He has shared few logistic details about how it will be built, except that Mexico will pay for it (though, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said his country refuses to foot the estimated $25 billion construction cost).

This giant pricetag makes the project immediately infeasible, Rosa Sheng, a senior architect at the San Francisco-based firm Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, tells Business Insider.

"The US [is] currently as a $19-plus trillion deficit. Rather than spending our country's resources on building a wall, we should be focusing our energy on building bridges — both literal and figurative," she says. This includes "infrastructure improvements and transportation in major cities that support interstate supply chains, and alternative green energy production that will address not only climate change, but also challenge our dependency on fossil fuels."

us mexico border

A boy looks at a fence that is part of a section of the U.S.-Mexico border wall at Sunland Park, U.S. opposite the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, September 9, 2016. Picture taken from the Mexico side of the U.S.-Mexico border.Reuters/Jose Luis Gonzalez

Historically, we have seen that building a wall requires a significant amount of money and time, Sheng adds. The Great Wall of China, for example, resulted in 400,000 deaths of the soldiers and convicts who built it. 

"At such a great cost, we have to ask ourselves, 'could we be putting our country's economic and material resources to better use?'" she says.

The wall challenges the ethics of architecture.

William J. Martin, a freelance architect, says Trump's wall refutes the philosophy of architecture in and of itself.

"Architects design walls, not as barriers, but as a way to organize space," he tells BI. "Architects include features such as doors and windows which allow people to move through, and light to illuminate the other side."

Members of the American Institute of Architects and the American Society of Civil Engineers, which include architects and engineers around the country, are both bound by codes of ethics, which might conflict with building a border-wall. The codes include statements like, "Members should uphold human rights in all their professional endeavors" and "exercise unprejudiced and unbiased judgment." 

us mexico border

People hold flags on the Mexican side of the border fence between Ciudad Juarez and El Paso, United States while they take part at the banks of the Rio Bravo in a bi-national Mass in support of migrants and to pray for migrants who died trying to cross illegally into the U.S, in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico November 5, 2016. Reuters/Jose Luis Gonzalez

"The [American Institute of Architects] does not dictate what clients members can accept," Cornelius DuBois, chair of the AIA national ethics committee, told Citylab. "However, there are a number of points in the Code of Ethics that should encourage [members] to think of the ethical challenges of accepting a commission or project. And it is by no means certain that an architect would even be involved in designing such a wall, which is primarily an engineering project."

Sheng believes that Trump isn't even serious about building a physical wall. She understood his frequent mentions of "the wall" as a rhetorical campaign strategy.

"Even if we were able to temporarily suspend the philosophical arguments of what building a wall represents (i.e. if we were to pretend that everyone would be in favor of doing such a thing), other practical questions arise as well," she says.

Building a wall would pose construction challenges.

us mexico borderBuildings in Nogales, Mexico (R) are separated by a border fence from Nogales, Arizona, United Sates, October 9, 2016.Reuters/Mike Blake

The US-Mexico border stretches almost 2,000 miles, and about 650 miles already have vehicle and pedestrian fencing, according to a 2016 report from the US Government Accountability Office. To build a wall on top of that would be a redundant use of resources, Sheng says.

Building Trump's wall may require about 339 million cubic feet of concrete, or three times what was used to build the Hoover Dam, according to the IB Times.

There are also reasons why certain parts of the border that don't have fences: they are rocky, uneven, and arid, Mexican architects from Estudio 3.14 told BI. Added complications of the mountainous areas near the US-Mexico border mean that the wall would cost even more time and money to build in these parts.

Estudio 3.14's designers estimate the construction would take 16 years, and made renderings of what the wall, stretching from the Pacific Coast to the Gulf of Mexico, might look like. The architects said that the physical challenges would make its construction nearly impossible.

trump wallEstudio 3.14's vision for Donald Trump's proposed wall along the Mexico-US border.Agustin Avalos/Estudio 314

To redesign the US-Mexico border, there are better alternatives than constructing a wall.

A wall is not the only option when it comes to building on the border. Many architects are thinking critically about how to design border control stations that are both secure and humane. For example, the Arizona-based firm Jones Studio designed a station along the Arizona-Mexico border, called the Mariposa Land Port of Entry.

"The Mariposa Land Port of Entry is a study in balancing security with a dignified welcome ... and strives to be a cultural connection – rather than a division," the designers wrote

Mariposa_05The Mariposa Land Port of Entry on the Arizona-Mexico border by Jones Studio. Jones Studio/Facebook

Constructed in 2014, the 216,000-square-foot port features a vehicle and pedestrian processing station, a lush garden, and a system that allows it to collect, use, and recycle rainwater.

"There's an opportunity for architects to leverage design to make more humane entry control points," Sheng says. "Just a wall by itself is not an act of humanity."

Source : businessinsider

After reiterating his promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, President-elect Donald Trump has indicated that he may keep two of the law’s most popular provisions. One is straightforward enough — children up to age 26 being allowed to stay on their parents’ plan. The other — preventing insurance companies from denying coverage because of preexisting conditions — offers a perfect illustration of why Trump and most of the other Republicans critics of Obamacare don’t understand the health insurance market.

Let’s say that in the beautiful new world of “repeal and replace,” insurers are required to sell you insurance despite the fact that your kid has a brain tumor. Insurance companies know what to do with that. Their actuaries can calculate that kids with brain tumors typically require (I’m making this number up) about $200,000 a year in medical care. So they’ll offer to sell you a policy at an annual premium of $240,000.

At this point your response will probably be that such an outcome is not fair. When the law says insurance companies can’t discriminate on the basis for preexisting conditions, surely what it means is that they have to charge roughly the same price for health insurance, irrespective of your preexisting condition. In the language of insurance, that’s called “guaranteed issue at community rates.”

Unfortunately, in the states that have tried guaranteed issues at community rates, the insurance markets have collapsed. That’s because if you guarantee everyone the right to buy health insurance at community rates, then some consumers will game the system. The young and healthy ones won’t buy any health insurance at all — they’ll go without until they are diagnosed with diabetes or a brain tumor or get hit by a truck crossing the street. And when that happens, they will immediately call up Aetna or Anthem and exercise their right to buy health insurance at the low community rate, irrespective of their medical condition. It won’t be long before insurance companies begin losing a ton of money and are forced either to raise premiums through the roof or stop writing policies altogether.

So how do you prevent that kind of gaming of the system by consumers? Well, that’s easy. You require that everyone buy some minimal level of insurance at the beginning of every year, so they can’t buy insurance only after they get sick. Let’s call that an” individual mandate.” But because you can’t expect poor people to pay $1,000 a month, they will require subsidies to keep their out-of-pocket costs to something like 10 percent of income. To pay for the subsidies, a new tax will be required.

So let’s review what just happened. To guarantee that people with preexisting conditions can get affordable health insurance, you need to have rules requiring guaranteed issue and community rating. To keep insurance companies in business because of guaranteed issue and community rating, you need to have an individual mandate. And because poor people can’t afford health insurance, you need subsidies. Combine all three, and what you have, in a nutshell, is ... Obamacare.

Yes, it’s more complicated than that, but not much. It’s possible to allow insurance companies to charge twice or three times as much to people who are older or sicker. You can let healthy people buy somewhat more bare-bones “catastrophic” policies to satisfy their obligation under the individual mandate. You could even avoid community rating by sending sick people into “high risk pools,” where their premiums would be subsidized by a tax on everyone else’s health-care premiums.

But at the end of the day, once you decide that everyone, regardless of age or medical condition, should be able to buy health insurance at an affordable price, you have essentially bought into the idea that young and healthy people have an obligation to subsidize the older and sicker people in some fashion. And once you do that, it’s sort of inevitable you end up where every health-reform plan has ended up since the days of Richard Nixon. You end up with some variation on Obamacare.

Of course, if you want to scrap guaranteed issue, scrap community rating, scrap the individual mandate and scrap the subsidies, as Republicans propose, then you end up where the country was in 2008: with a market system that inevitably gives way to an insurance spiral in which steadily rising premiums cause a steadily rising percentage of Americans without health insurance.

There are no easy solutions here, no free lunches. You can’t have all the good parts of an unregulated insurance market (freedom to buy what you want, when you want, with market pricing) without the bad parts (steadily rising premiums and insurance that is unaffordable for people who are old and sick).

At the same time, you can’t have all the good parts of a socialized system (universal coverage at affordable prices) without freedom-reducing mandates and regulations and large doses of subsidies from some people to other people. Anyone who says otherwise — anyone promising better-quality health care at a lower cost with fewer regulations and lower taxes — is peddling hokum.

Source : washingtonpost.com

Performance marketing platform Criteo, best known for its programmatic display product ad retargeting capabilities, is expanding into search. The new product, Criteo Predictive Search, is aimed at bringing predictive optimization to Google Shopping campaigns.

Google Shopping continues to grow, with same-store sales increasing between 30 and 50 percent over the past year, according to Channel Advisor. Recent research by Engel Research Partners, commissioned by Criteo, found Google Shopping now accounts for 21 percent of the average retailer’s digital marketing budget. While there has been significant innovation on the engine side, Jason Lehmbeck, general manager of search at Criteo, said in an interview that retailers are looking for partners to help turn the added complexity that’s come with this innovation into more sales. A lot of the tools just haven’t kept up, he said.

Criteo Predictive Search is designed to automate the entire optimization process for Google Shopping campaigns without increasing the retailer’s cost per order. It uses machine learning to identify opportunities for better matching and bidding opportunities down to the product level. Every aspect of the campaign from structure to remarketing to bids is modified automatically through the system. The predicitive technology, in part, learns from Criteo’s existing access to and analysis of over 1.2 billion users it delivers advertising to per month for over four billion SKUs.



Roughly 30 retailers, including Telefora, Camping World and Revolve, have been testing the product in closed beta. Criteo says early testers have seen as much as a 22–49 percent lift in revenue at constant cost. The product is priced on a revenue share model, and there are no annual contracts or charges as a percentage of spend.

Criteo Predictive Search is launching in the US on Tuesday, with more markets to follow in 2017. It does not encompass Local Inventory Ads at this time.

Source:  searchengineland.com

Apple hasn't yet managed to keep up with iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus demand, suggesting that the company's new iPhones are a hit. In fact, iPhone sales in the September quarter came in slightly higher than Wall Street was expecting, even though supply of both new models was severely constrained. But even though Apple's iPhone 7 and 7 Plus have been so far, demand for next year's new iPhones is expected to dwarf this year's models thanks to a massive iPhone redesign that Apple fans have been waiting for.

As exciting as next year's new iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus sound, however, new evidence suggests that Apple is working to bring an exciting new feature to its iPhone lineup that could be the biggest smartphone game-changer the world has seen since the first iPhone was released nearly a decade ago in 2007.

According to a number of solid early reports, next year's iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus are going to feature huge improvements in a number of key areas. First, they'll sport the first big iPhone redesign since 2014, when Apple released the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus. Since then, Apple has used roughly the same design on 2015's iPhone 6s and 6s Plus, as well as on the new iPhone 7 series.

In 2017, the iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus will supposedly feature a fresh new design with a glass front and back that are connected by metal around the edges. The display, which is believed to be an OLED screen for the first time ever on an iPhone, will reportedly take up much more of the iPhone's face thanks to the removal of the home button on the front of the phone. A next-generation Touch ID fingerprint scanner will then be embedded beneath the display, and 3D Touch gestures will take care of the rest of the home button's functionality.

Apple's upcoming new iPhones are expected to feature plenty of other enhancements as well, such as better cameras and a new A11 Fusion processor that is even faster than the A10 Fusion chip in Apple's iPhone 7 and 7 Plus. But mounting evidence suggests that the company is working on the biggest game-changer that the smartphone industry has seen since the very first iPhone was unveiled nearly 10 years ago at the Macworld convention in January 2007.

When someone asks you about your biggest pain point, what's the first thing that comes to mind? Survey after survey suggest that battery life is at the top of most lists. Even the iPhone 7 Plus, which is among the best smartphones in the world when it comes to battery performance, needs to be charged at least once each day. Many phones won't even carry you through a full day of usage without needing to be recharged.

Fast-charging tech is great and current wireless charging solutions are nifty as well, but what if you never had to even think about charging your smartphone again?

Earlier this year, we turned your attention to some early evidence that suggested Apple was working with a company called Energous to build next-generation wireless charging into future iPhones. When I write "wireless charging," I'm not referring to the technology that's already on the market in a number of Android phones and other devices. This is something completely different, as I mentioned almost two years ago when I first previewed the tech.

Using technology developed by Energous, a smartphone or just about any other gadget can be charged wirelessly from across the room. A small chip on the phone's main board connects wirelessly to a base station and can charge a device's battery from distances of 15 feet. In other words, a view strategically placed base stations in your home and office could ensure that your iPhone is charging constantly while it's in use or sitting in your pocket, on your desk or anywhere else.

Ahead of Energous' third-quarter earnings report on Monday, new evidence surfaced that seems to further suggest the company may be working with Apple to build this exciting new technology into iPhones in the near future. I don't need to go back through all of the earlier indications that tie the two companies together, but in a nutshell: Energous has repeatedly stated on earnings calls that it is working with a "tier 1" smartphone manufacturer, and all signs in the past have pointed to Apple.

Now, the company announced that it is has taken a $10 million strategic investment from Dialog Semiconductor, a company that builds power management solutions for consumer electronics. As noted by technology analyst and Disruptive Tech Research founder Louis Basenese, Dialog Semi's top customer is Apple. Energous also took an investment earlier this year from Pegatron, another major Apple partner.

The other possible partner that has been tossed around as the mysterious "tier 1" smartphone maker Energous keeps referring to is Samsung, but that's looking less likely as time moves on.

"According to Bloomberg data, 68.56% of Dialog’s sales come from Apple (AAPL)," Basenese wrote in a note to investors on Monday. "The next biggest contributor is Panasonic at 1.23%. Samsung checks-in at a scant 1.03%. So this is another [Energous] partner that is a major AAPL supplier. You’ll recall, Pegatron, which WATT announced as a partner in March 2016, derives 52.98% of sales from AAPL and 0% from Samsung. The evidence in support of APPL as the Tier 1 continues to outweigh evidence pointing to Samsung."

Again, this is all just speculation until Energous or Apple confirm something. Also, the biggest question surrounding this potential partnership remains unchanged: Why wouldn't Apple simply acquired Energous for peanuts (the company's market cap was about $280 million as of Monday's close, and that was after a big spike from these new rumors) and lock in exclusivity?

Only time will tell if these rumors pan out, but don't expect anything to materialize from this supposed partnership in 2017 with the iPhone 8. If and when Apple does add long-distance wireless charging to its iPhone lineup, however, it will be the biggest disruption the industry will have seen in more than a decade.

Trending right now:

  1. Hey Apple, why are you trolling us?
  2. OnePlus is officially releasing an even faster smartphone
  3. What happens if today’s Presidential election ends in a tie?

Source : yahoo

If you aren't inspired at your job and are ready to call it quits, stop and really think about it.

Before you give your two weeks notice, former Google career coach Jenny Blake recommends you try a "career pilot." It's an experiment where you test whether or not you'd like to transition into a new role. Blake has used it to help hundreds of employees figure out their next moves.

"Career pilots are one of the most underutilized but effective ways to add value within the company that you work for or even in your own career," says Blake, a career strategist and the co-founder of Google's career development program.

Instead of packing up and leaving a job (and your main source of income), it's a less risky way of transitioning job roles, Blake explains in her recently published book, "Pivot: The Only Move That Matters Is Your Next One."

"Not all career moves have to be huge ones," Blake says. "You can start really small with a side project that you commit 15 minutes a day or one hour a week to."

Businesswoman working at laptop in lobby
Hero Images | Getty Images

The first step, she says, is to identify a skill or job title you would want to pivot toward by asking yourself these three questions.

1. Do I enjoy this?

Pitch a project related to this new area to your boss and give it a try. To start the conversation with your boss, Blake recommends saying, "I really would love to work on [X] for 10 percent of my time."

You could also start a book club on the topic or simply start reading more about the new skill, she says.

2. Can I become an expert at it?

Figure out if there are ways you can learn more about this area, Blake recommends. Is there an online class, an after-hours course or someone who can teach you?

3. Is there room to expand in the market?

Try to get a sense of whether your team or company needs these new skills, she recommends. If that search leads to a dead end, see if there is a need for the desired role at other companies.

Blake found success with this method in her own life. Her first role with Google was in Adwords, the search engine's advertising program. But after a few years, she grew tired of the role and was feeling unhappy at work.

Jenny Blake, author of “Pivot” and career strategist
Jenny Blake, author of “Pivot” and career strategist

Once she realized that she enjoyed helping others with their career paths, Blake enrolled in a course to improve her coaching skills. In a chance encounter with a colleague, she found out that Google was looking for someone with these skills for a new role.

Blake got the new job and stayed with the company for several more years. Now, she runs her own business and career strategy firm and writes about career success.

"You would be amazed at how often [a career pilot] can turn into a more robust part of your role later on," Blake says, "oftentimes even creating entirely new roles in the process."

Source : cnbc

Online scams are a headache, and social media has become more and more saturated over time. With the proliferation of its content, the power of social media has been tapped by many industries: advertising, marketing, and even the academe. With new web applications being built everyday, it's no wonder that criminal and legal work has come up with applications of their own.

Used to deepend and filter through social media results, Social Detection is a robust search engine that can crawl and churn results from various social media websites such as Facebook, Craigslist, and more. These results are used as variables in case analyses for private investigation and information security, tracking data leaks, and aggregating online evidence for use in court. Invented by Michael Petrie and Scott Catron, who both work as professional private investigators, the web-based application replaces the often arduous process of stakeouts with a more technical approach.

Today, our digital footprint creates a trail of hard evidence for investigators. The increase in our public visibility means that our lives' personal details become shared relentlessly. Securing one's online accounts is a step towards making the web a safer place to share, as there are many scams and malvertising schemes that litter online. According to a report by CNET, Social Detection offers a comprehensive analysis of results over time, all of which can be filtered through with specific categories.

In a report by Chicago Tribune, Michael Petrie said that "If there is fraud, it will be found, provided there's a web presence," such that this presence will reflect as a kind of online credibility. "It's not a reputation anymore. It's a webutation," the private investigator adds. The current limitation with Social Detection's web service, however, forbids individuals from making use of its interface. Professional licenses and legal papers through insurance companies are required for an account to be created, hence also securing other individual's privacy.

Future applications of the service remain unknown, but Petrie has stated that "we know it belongs in almost every category of business where people need to make critical decisions about people," maintaining that the service will most likely evolve into a database search for the public. This can help reconnect people who've lost contact with family and friends, as well as create connections for professional use. Check out this lecture video and learn more.

Source : parentherald

Tuesday, 08 November 2016 23:47

Google offers new way for US election coverage

CALIFORNIA: The tech giant Google has announced that starting today (8 November), it will display the 2016 presidential election results directly on Google Search.

The information on election results will be available in 30 different languages and will be out as soon as polls close. The tech giant also said that YouTube will live-stream election result coverage from various news organisations such as NBC, PBS, Bloomberg and more. The live-streaming coverage will begin at 7pm ET on 8 November (12am GMT, 9 November).


Google VP of engineering Shashi Thakur said, “Starting when the polls close on Election Day, you will be able to find U.S. election results integrated right into your Google searches in over 30 languages around the world. You’ll also be able to see detailed updates and results of the Presidential, Senatorial, Congressional, Gubernatorial races as well as state-level referenda and ballot propositions.”

Thakur said that in comparison to the 2012 elections, Google has noted a 233% rise in traffic for “how to vote”. Additionally, people in the “battleground states” such as Philadelphia, Ohio, North Carolina and Florida have been “actively searching” for “where to vote,” indicating a high voter interest and possible turnout in 2016 presidential elections.

Source:  arynews.tv

Stay informed on election day.

As soon as the polls close on Tuesday, Nov. 8,Google GOOG 1.26%  will display continuously updated election results through its search engine the company said. The search giant plans to show up-to-the-minute information detailing the progress of multiple U.S. election day races and other referenda to anyone who queries for “election results.”

Google said it would deliver the updates every 30 seconds in more than 30 different languages, according to a blog post by Shashi Thakur, vice president of engineering on the Google search team. Included in the briefings are the presidential, senatorial, congressional, and gubernatorial races, as well as other ballots throughout the U.S.

Here’s a glimpse of what the search tool should look like, per the blog post:


The rundown includes real-time statistics on the matchup between Hillary Clinton, the Democratic contender for the White House, and Donald Trump, the Republican candidate. Alongside details of the tug-of-war for the executive office are key numbers concerning open legislative seats, battleground states, and the top two political parties (blue for Democrats, red for Republicans).

Although this is not the first time that Google has offered informational tools during an election, this year marks a notable increase in the company’s efforts to meet consumer demand as more people turn to the web—and increasingly their smartphones—for news. Google said that it had seen traffic for the search term “how to vote” more than triple in the past four years, up 233% from 2012.

In addition to the political précis that will appear on election day (above), Google has already debuted tools detailing how to registerhow and where to vote, and info on who is running—including an election-themed Google Doodle.

Google said that YouTube, its video division, would stream live coverage from a number of news outlets as well, including NBC, PBS, MTV, Bloomberg, Telemundo, and The Young Turks starting at 7 p.m. ET on Tuesday. “From the ballot box to tomorrow’s late-night returns, we hope Google’s tools help guide you through Election Day in a simple, clear and informative way,” Thakur said.

Source: fortune.com

Donald Trump has had a lot of success in business, but how would he be for the economy as president? Here's how his economic policies would play out.

This story was originally published in October 2015. With Election Day almost here, it's worth taking another look at what the U.S. economy may look like under a President Trump. Also, check out our Donald Trump Stock Portfolio, which we'll be tracking until November 8. The sections below on immigration, taxes and trade have been updated.

There's no denying Trump has done a good job of making himself rich -- he's worth somewhere between $4.5 billion and $10 billion, depending who you ask. Can he make the rest of America rich, too?

The economy isn't something Trump looks forward to tackling. In a January interview with "Good Morning America," Trump offered up a bleak assessment of the U.S. economy but added that, in terms of fixing it, it's a task he'd rather skip.

"We're in a bubble," he said. "And, frankly, if there's going to be a bubble popping, I hope they pop before I become president because I don't want to inherit all this stuff. I'd rather it be the day before rather than the day after, I will tell you that."

In an April interview with the Washington Post, Trump reiterated his doomsday view of the economy, suggesting we might be headed for recession. But this time around, he appeared more open to the idea of his being in charge of finding remedies. "I can fix it. I can fix it pretty quickly," he said. And most recently, he maligned the Federal Reserve for creating what he says is a "false economy."

Many Americans appear to believe that is the case and that, more broadly, a Trump presidency would be good for the economy. According to a March CNBC All-America Survey, Americans rate Trump and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton evenly on key economic issues. And a recent CNN/ORC poll shows Trump rating higher than Clinton on the economy among voters.

Trump has certainly been this election cycle's most riveting figure. He initially focused his attention on immigration reform, calling for a wall to be built between Mexico and the United States and demanding the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants. He has wavered on that last point as of late

He has since rolled out other policies and positions: a major tax code overhaulrepeal and replace Obamacarerenegotiate or "break" NAFTA; stop hedge funds from "getting away with murder" on taxes; reforming the Veteran's Administration; and impose import tariffs as high as 35%. All while keeping the deficit in check, growing the economy and leaving entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security untouched. Immigration remains a major pillar of his campaign, and he has moved on to the question of Muslim immigration as wellHe has laid out a plan to make Mexico pay for the wall, too.

Trump has made plenty of enemies along the way as well, including but limited to fellow GOP contenders Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, Fox News journalist Megyn Kelly, the media in general and even the Pope.

Those who fear Trump's plans should find common cause with those who love them: "I'm not sure how much of what he actually says today will be his positions a year from now," said Michael Busler, professor of finance at Stockton University.

Trump's own campaign has suggested he is playing "a part" to garner votes.

While Trump certainly has some grandiose ideas -- and equally lofty rhetoric to accompany them -- deciphering the exact nature of his economic policies is a complex task, according to John Hudak, a fellow in governance studies at Washington, D.C.-based think tank the Brookings Institution.

Not to mention the fact that if he does make it to the Oval Office, Trump won't have a free pass from Congress, even if it remains under the control of the Republican Party (as you'll see, many of his positions don't exactly hew closely to GOP policies).

Taking legislative hurdles out of the equation, what will the U.S. economy and markets look like if Trump becomes No. 45.

Trump's Expensive Immigration Plan

Trump's immigration plans cost him a handful of business deals, but they might cost the United States much more.

The American Action Forum, a right-leaning policy institute based in Washington D.C., estimates that immediately and fully enforcing current immigration law, as Trump has suggested, would cost the federal government from $400 billion to $600 billion. It would shrink the labor force by 11 million workers, reduce the real GDP by $1.6 trillion and take 20 years to complete (Trump has said he could do it in 18 months). 

"It will harm the U.S. economy," said Doug Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and chief economic policy adviser to Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. "Immigration is an enormous source of economic vitality."

The impact would be felt on both supply and demand.

A number of industries that depend heavily on cheap immigrant labor would be devastated -- especially agriculture. "There would be an abrupt drop in farm income and a sharp rise in food prices," said John McLaren, professor of economics at the University of Virginia with expertise in international trade, economic development and the political economy.

Companies that sell to the immigrant population would be affected as well, leading to decreased revenues for local businesses and a loss of American jobs.

"Immigrants, whether they are legal or illegal, always spend a portion of their earnings in the location where they have their jobs," McLaren said. "And in a lot of our urban centers, this is actually an important part of the economy."

He pointed to the case of Postville, Iowa, where in 2008 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raided a slaughterhouse and meat packing plant, detaining 389 undocumented workers (and jailing 300 of them). The raid caused most of the more than 1,000 immigrants not caught to leave the town of 2,300, devastating the local economy in the process.

He also noted his own research, which suggests each immigrant creates 1.2 local jobs for local workers, most of which go to U.S. natives. "Obviously, those jobs would disappear if the undocumented were just yanked away," he said.

It is worth noting that Trump appears to have backed away from his mass deportation stance slightly as of late, outlining priorities that would lead to the deportation of what The Washington Post estimates would be 5 million to 6.5 million immigrants. He has warned, however, that "anyone who has entered the United States illegally is subject to deportation."

Trump has also discussed reducing the number of jobs held by legal immigrants, namely by increasing the prevailing wage requirements for H-1B visas (visas that allow U.S. employers to recruit and employ foreign professionals) -- an element of his plan that is often overlooked. The Republican contender's thesis is that doing so would force companies to give jobs to domestic employees instead of overseas workers. The maneuver would benefit some, but not most.

"If I'm an American software programmer, I probably would benefit somewhat from making it harder for highly-skilled software programmers from elsewhere," McClaren said. "It's really hard to argue that the country, as a whole, benefits from that. It would be bad for most Americans, and it certainly would be bad for corporations."

An extreme anti-immigration policy could also cause collateral damage to the American image. "What's the American brand after we've rounded up 11 million people and sent them packing?" said Jim Pethokoukis, a columnist and blogger at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank based on Washington, D.C. "Do people still view America the same way?"

Perhaps it's a good thing the real estate magnate's immigration plans are essentially impossible to implement

Tax Cuts for Everyone, and Deficits, Too

Trump's tax plan, unveiled in September, is perhaps the most detailed proposal he has put forth yet. It essentially entails implementing tax cuts across the board and literally sets forth a scenario in which the lowest earners get to send a form to the IRS reading, "I win."

"His tax plan is one of the most dynamic and pro-growth tax plans out there," said Merrill Matthews, resident scholar at the Institute for Policy Innovation, a Texas-based, right-leaning think tank. "You would find a huge amount of new business investment and companies willing to put their money out there to begin growing the economy."

Trump's tax plan stacks up fairly well against his fellow Republican presidential contenders. It isn't as drastic as proposals put forth by Ted Cruz and Ben Carson but does, like most GOP tax structures, favor the rich. Perhaps the biggest distinguishing feature of Trump's proposal is his hard cap on business taxes at 15%, which might be especially appealing to freelancers and the self-employed.

But there's a catch: Trump's tax plan would reduce revenue enormously, and the federal budget deficit would almost inevitably skyrocket.

Nonpartisan tax research group the Tax Foundation calculates that Trump's plan would cut taxes by $11.98 trillion over the course of a decade. It would lead to 11% growth in the GDP, 6.5% higher wages and 29% larger capital stock as well as 5.3 million jobs. However, it would also reduce tax revenues by $10.14 trillion, even when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital.

"That tax cut would produce faster economic growth and a bigger economy -- as long as you pay zero attention to the fact that it would dramatically increase the deficit and budget debt," said Pethokoukis.

Trump in August adjusted his platform, calling for a top income tax rate of 33% rather than a past plan for 25% as well as the full expensing of capital investment and a deduction for childcare costs. The Tax Foundation notes that the change will reduce the revenue loss from his original plan, but it will depend significantly on how wide the new bracket thresholds are. 

Trump has promised to reduce spending, though he hasn't explicitly said how. Moreover, he has said he will maintain entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, two of the costliest parts of the federal budget.

"It reduces federal revenue by maybe a quarter. You can construct the United States at 75% revenue, but you have to have a plan for how you'd get there," said Alan Cole, an economist with the Center for Federal Tax Policy at the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan research think tank, based in Washington, D.C. "If there weren't any spending cuts that materialized, you would see the deficit widen substantially the moment the plan was enacted."

In the face of such an enormous deficit, creditors might begin demanding higher interest rates on U.S. bonds, and the markets would be spooked.

"I can't imagine markets would react well to it. I can't imagine global investors looking to relocate will look on a United States that is driving deliberately over a fiscal cliff," said Holtz-Eakin. "Sending the U.S. into a debt spiral where you're borrowing interest on previous borrowing will generate a market reaction that will be far from benign and that will, I think, in the end overwhelm the beneficial effects."

Of course, just because Trump hasn't yet explained how he will cut spending doesn't mean he won't. "It's not unusual for a politician to say, 'I'm going to cut spending,' and not give specifics," Matthews said.

Changing Views on Health Care

In his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, Trump touted universal health care and laid out an ideology on the subject that, frankly, looks pretty un-Republican. On the campaign trail, he has promised to "take care of everyone." But his campaign health care plan, released in March, sings a different tune.

The Trump camp finally outlined some of the details of his vision for health care reform in America after months of leaving voters to put together the pieces on his ideas about the issue. The seven-point plan calls for the repeal of Obamacare, the allowance of purchases of health insurance across state lines and block-grant Medicaid to states, among other things.

"This strikes me as a mixture of what is mostly Republican orthodoxy...with a couple of oddball proposals," said Roger Feldman, professor of health policy and management at the University of Minnesota. One of the unique aspects of the plan: allowing consumers to re-import drugs from overseas.

At a February town hall event hosted by CNN, Trump was critical of Obamacare, noting that "rates are going up 25, 35, 45, 55 percent," and emphasized that he is not receiving campaign money from insurance or pharmaceutical companies "so I can do what's right."

"I don't think [Trump's health care proposal] is based on economic analysis, I think it's based on channeling a populist dislike of insurance executives," said Feldman in an October interview. "If he really tried to do the things he said he would do the insurance industry would be in the crosshairs."

The ability for consumers to buy their health insurance in other states is perhaps the health-related proposal Trump has discussed most on the campaign trail. The idea is not new -- such a bill was introduced in Congress a decade ago -- but it is impactful.

When pressed for detail on his plan at the February 25 Republican debate hosted by CNN, Trump focused on the state lines issue, repeating on a handful of occasions his proposal to get rid of "the lines" around each state "so we can have real competition."

"You get rid of the lines, it brings in competition," he said. "So, instead of having one insurance company taking care of New York, or Texas, you'll have many. They'll compete, and it'll be a beautiful thing."

"I think it could be a potentially significant improvement in insurance," Feldman, who in 2011 co-authored a paper on consumer response to a national marketplace for individual health insurance, said. "It would do that by allowing people to buy insurance in states with fewer regulations, and that would, in turn, cause a restructuring of the health insurance industry."

Based on a pre-Obamacare baseline, Feldman and other researchers concluded such a system would result in seven million more people being insured by opening up the insurance markets to more competition.

Of course, not everyone agrees.

"It doesn't actually achieve you much," said Matthews, pointing out that a policy in another state may not translate to access to the network of physicians and pre-negotiated prices locally-purchased policies often afford. "It's not a bad idea, but it is no panacea."

Too Tough on Trade?

Trump likes to talk trade. And while has said he is a "free trader," he has also clarified he doesn't like the deals the U.S. has done, such as NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Art of the Deal author has promised to negotiate better agreements.

"One of the things that's often lost is that [Trump] has a strong business background, he understands how commerce works," Hudak said. "He has more business training than any American president we've ever had."

But the ramifications of some of Trump's proposals might be less than ideal.

Take China, one of his top talking points. He has proposed negotiating with the country to prevent it from manipulating its currency and keeping it too low for American manufacturers -- and workers -- from competing.

"The reality is that when China devalues its currency, the goods that they produce become cheaper, and as a result, while we may lose some manufacturing jobs, the rest of the population gets to buy things a lot cheaper than they would if the products were made [in the U.S.]," said Busler. "The jobs he would bring back are yesterday's jobs."

In November, Trump released his full plan for U.S.-China trade reform, in which he pledged to immediately declare it a "currency manipulator," force it to uphold intellectual property laws and end its "illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards," among other measures, in order to help American manufacturers -- and workers -- compete.

Trump has also pinpointed imposing tariffs on imported goods, for example, suggesting a 35% tax on automakers that manufacture cars in Mexico. Such a maneuver might bring jobs back stateside, but it might not. Instead, it could just mean people paying more for what they're buying.

"If he puts 35% taxes on products, the manufacturing will still not come back to the U.S., and all it will mean is U.S. consumers have to pay 35% more for the products that are made outside the country," said Busler.

"American consumers would end up paying more for things, and that hurts the economy if you're putting tariffs on those other things," said Matthews.

The Trump Effect

Trump's brand has contributed an enormous amount to his net worth -- he says more than $3 billion. But how will that Trumpiness translate to the White House? Perhaps not well.

"That off-the-cuff, gruff, tell-it-like-it-is approach that Donald Trump has may be great for headlines and a stadium full for supporters, but what unguarded comments like that from a president do is make dramatic fluctuations in the world economy, in stock markets in the United States and in the world," said Hudak. "Think about how much the market reaction is to the choice of two or three words from the Federal Reserve chairman."

The words chosen by American officials can have serious economic repercussions, and the country -- and the world -- have equally high expectations for their commercial and diplomatic capabilities. The blunt way of speaking that has made Trump so popular among Republican voters could be detrimental once he's in the Oval Office.

"His brand of rhetoric would actually make for profound economic instability," Hudak said. In an October interview with The Hill, Trump warned of a looming recession and stock market bubble and targeted Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen in his comments. "She's keeping the economy going, barely," he said. Such comments coming from a presidential candidate are one thing -- coming from the president of the United States they would be another.

But Trump is a smart guy, and may be able to adjust. Matthews pointed to the Clinton administration, which took a few months to settle in.

"You wonder if the Trump administration would be the same until they got things under control, or got him under control," he said.

Not everyone agrees.

"I think Donald Trump is good for the Republican Party, and I think he's good for the country," Busler said. "Donald Trump is not afraid to face the public and raise his voice, even if it is politically unpopular."

Source : thestreet

airs logo

Association of Internet Research Specialists is the world's leading community for the Internet Research Specialist and provide a Unified Platform that delivers, Education, Training and Certification for Online Research.

Get Exclusive Research Tips in Your Inbox

Receive Great tips via email, enter your email to Subscribe.

Follow Us on Social Media