The addition of the "WBI/AIT/Nude-o-Scope" and the "grope-down/freedom pats" offered upon refusal has come since the Obama administration.
Granted they'd have come regardless whether Obama or McCain, or any "non-fringe" candidate was elected in '08. I feel confident in this, as the bureaucracy and crony capitalism surround the DHS and its chief asset, the TSA, added the ban on liquids and removing one's shoes during the Bush administration. You don't speak out against one of the biggest wells of taxpayer boondoggles without watching your campaign contributions dry up while the opposing camp(s) attack your position of "aiding and abetting the terrorists."
“The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” -- Abraham Lincoln. This may be the only hope of undoing the absurdity and wastefulness of this agency. Rather than continuing to write your congress-critter stating you won't fly until some sanity is returned to airport security screenings, keep imagining new potential terror plots against airplanes and propose even more costly and invasive steps to prevent them--"A bomb could be surgically implanted in a terrorists abdomen, therefore all passengers should undergo a full body MRI!"
I've never been a heavy business air-traveler. However, I regularly would fly to see relatives, go on vacation, etc. Figure 2-6 flights per year on average.
I've only flown round-trip once post-TSA, and never post AIT/WBI. My criteria for going on vacation now is that our destination must be within easy driving distance. Thankfully mountains, lakes, beaches, & casinos are accessible, so we are able to get away to different locales. As most of my extended family lives ~2000 miles from me, it has kept me from visiting on holidays, or attending weddings and funerals.
I have no fear of flying, heck I would volunteer to visit the ISS or the moon! I'm not terribly concerned about hijackings or other terrorist activities--I am aware that I'm far more likely to die driving to the airport than by an airplane crash--accidental or not. But I *refuse* to be irradiated/strip-searched/groped by someone who applied for a job on a pizza box.
I agree 100% with reinforced cockpit doors. I don't think all that much has been done with regard to explosive detection: The puffer tests are time consuming and therefore not practical for mass scanning. WBI machines may or may not detect explosives, as several recent articles have pointed out. Add regular explosive-trained K9 patrols throughout the terminal, and this would be quite effective--There would be some false positives, but probably far fewer of them than the "no-fly list" generates. Use a puffer test as a follow-up to a positive, and you'll probably screen out 99.5% of explosives with minimal hassle.
The other biggest change on 9/11 is that passengers and crew will no longer cooperate with a hijacker even if resisting means certain death! Really no chance for most any disorderly conduct for that matter--even from flight attendants or pilots as recent stories prove. The TSA has had absolutely diddly-squat to do with this change as United Flight 93 proved.
Keep the reinforced cockpit doors, add explosives-trained canines, and restore all other aspects of airport security to the level they were on 9/10/01,
Since I don't have any mod points to give you right now, I'll respond.
Despite the rejection of the "Just following orders" defense at the Nuremberg trials, it really is what led many presumably smart, honest, good-natured individuals to carry out horrific atrocities against millions.
It is a universally basic human social structure that one respects and obeys authority. Most people have their parents as their primary authority figures, then teachers, a religious leader perhaps, the media, their doctor, the police/government officials, and usually ultimately their boss/supervisor.
Any well-trained, disciplined military force, by definition, eschews any sense of individualism, or questioning of authority--You follow orders without question or you will face punishment--Anything from doing extra push-ups to facing a firing squad. And the non-questioning definitely includes not bringing up any personal objections--especially to never go too far up the chain of command--the last thing anyone, from a buck private to a battalion commander, wants is a visit from the Inspector General.
The leadership can often, in a sense, be just as naive as the troops they command. A general directive is given from the top: "Gather intelligence", "secure the bridgehead", "relocate the Jews" and it is left up to the captains and sergeants (middle management) to form a plan of action for the rank and file to carry out. Achieving the objective(s) without undue involvement from the top brass is considered showing initiative and dedicated leadership, and earns you ribbons and medals. Questioning orders at this level is considered treasonous.
Sounds like a perfect recipe for the power without accountability which Mr. Zimbardo spoke of.
But who, even among IT security experts, OGA ops, etc., is going to enter a long, complicated passphrase to unlock their phone every time they get a new text or email? The most diligent probably avoid storing or accessing anything particularly sensitive on their smartphones, and relying on their firewalled desktop in their Faraday caged office to access such data. It wouldn't surprise me to find that many such people eschew smartphones entirely in favor of cheap, disposable prepaid phones to make calls, and use a fully encrypted laptop to access information on the go.
I'd say there's a huge difference between pwning n00bz in WoW for 15 hours a day and intensive hands-on training in AI, robotics, e-commerce, cryptography, rocketry, etc.. We have more than enough kids trained in the former, and so precious few skilled in the latter.
You are correct. Our current political system will not allow more than 2 parties with any significant chance of electability.
So let's peer into the crystal ball, and see Romney becoming the Republican nominee.. Many folks, as have I, have said Romney and Obama are virtually indistinguishable from each other. I don't predict that aside from their stance on "social issues" there'll be any significant difference in policy statements or actions between them. Lately Obama has shown a slight edge over Romney in polling, but that can easily see-saw depending on events largely outside of either man's control.
But let's entertain a situation (however implausible) not unlike the premise of the movie Swing Vote. Romney and Obama each end up with a proportional amount of popular and electoral votes, and somehow it comes down to you to cast the deciding vote with the world's eyes all upon you. If you were a staunch party-line voter, then there'd be no suspense.. Likewise if you were an Evangelical Christian or a Gay Rights' activist, your decision would probably be pretty clear cut.
But for the rest, if you'd be indifferent enough to cast your ballot on a coin flip, wouldn't you send a much stronger message by voting for a 3rd party candidate? Sure, that candidate would still not win the election by a long shot, and you've left the election results deadlocked. But as a result, you'd draw far more attention to the fact that neither candidate appears to be able to effectively set a domestic and foreign agenda, or gain the support of a majority in Congress, let alone the populace as a whole.
Now let's get back somewhere toward reality... We'll still assume Romney and Obama running within the margin of error in November. Which would make a bigger impact: A vote cast for either of them, or a vote for any 3rd party candidate? It would draw far more attention if all 3rd party candidates combined received about 10% of the vote vs. the roughly 1.5% given to them in 2008. That's not saying it'd have to be one single 3rd party candidate, You'd never get that kind of consensus in a million years. (though a write-in vote for Stephen Colbert would be fitting) But to deny Romney and Obama both a simple majority of the popular vote would send a stronger message that a simple vote for them or their chief rival.
And how would you pay someone if the total was $3.15, you had the dollars, a couple dimes, but you didn't have a quarter? The penny needs to disappear yesterday! Also, eliminate the dollar bill, so people will finally adapt to using the billions of dollar coins which are now languishing in federal vaults. But I see no practical way to eliminate the nickel as long as a quarter represents $0.25. And messing with that would pretty much gum up the works and annoy everyone.
Oh, their constituents were not only fully informed of the ways the legislation would affect them, they were the one's who wrote it in the first place.
Remember, as Mitt Romney said not too long ago, "Corporations are people, my friend."
I'll once again stand on my soapbox, and state (as others' have already) that the Democratic and Republican parties are just two sides of the same coin. Aside from a few "social values" differences on things such as gays rights, reproductive choice, or school prayer; the two parties are indistinguishable. The highly polarized rift is just a shell game. Everything that's wrong with the country is completely the other party's fault. Therefore, we're going to prevent them from enacting anything else, and when we get the majority, we're going to repeal those few things that did manage to slip through.
Therefore, the way forward IMHO is to vote them *all* out! That doesn't mean just the incumbents, but also to not vote for their main rivals from the opposite major party. Vote instead for third party candidates. Which ones?--I don't care! Ideally, you should vote for the candidates whose values best match your own. But unless you truly believe a 3rd party candidate will win a race, a random vote would work too. Otherwise It'll take a fair bit of legwork to find those best fit candidates:
They'll largely be self-financed, and most likely will be struggling to pay the filing fees just to get on the ballot. They won't have gazillions of ads on television, robocallers interrupting your dinner, or staffers knocking on your door. If that alone isn't enough reason to vote for them, then consider that without any of the huge donations from investment firms and other large corporate enterprises, they'll be far more likely to listen to your input than the one who's just too busy hosting $10,000 a plate dinners to speak with you.
Odds are pretty good that in all but the smallest of races, none of these 3rd party candidates will win enough votes to qualify for a run-off election, let alone win an outright majority. Especially if Bob's voting for the Libertarian, Joe's voting for the Green, and Lisa's voting for the Independent candidate, etc. So in all likelihood, a Democratic or a Republican candidate will end up filling that seat anyway.
But despite the common saying, you are *not* throwing your vote away by doing this! If you agree with the position that there isn't any real substantive difference between the two major parties, then it makes no difference which one wins. However, gaining pluralities, if not majorities in votes cast for all 3rd party candidates combined will send a much stronger message to whomever is ultimately elected than either an individual vote for them or for their chief rival.
Which is why I beg people to vote for 3rd party candidates. Independent, Green, Libertarian, Constitution, whichever... From your local alderman to the POTUS. Pick someone whose positions reflect your values and beliefs Odds are infinitesimally slim that any of them will be elected, but if you don't support the actions of the two major parties, what difference does it make? I'd bet that if all 3rd party presidential candidates combined received a plurality of the popular vote; that would have a much bigger impact on whichever Republican or Democratic candidate was ultimately elected than either a vote for them or their chief rival.
TMobile has a plan that seems perfect for the heavy data user/occasional caller. Its prepaid Monthly4G plan.
Choose "Unlimited Web & Text with 100 Minutes Talk" for $30/mo gets you 5GB of 4G data per month and then you'll be throttled down to EDGE most likely.
But don't just merely vote for the other side... Vote Third Party (VTP).. Independent, Libertarian, Green, whichever.. However, don't vote for any former Republican or Democrat who decides to run as an Independent.. They had their chance--begone!
VTP clearly goes against the grain of the establishment. It'll be extremely difficult to even locate most of these candidates, since in order to run a modern campaign requires boatloads of money. Consider: Barack Obama's 2008 campaign cost something like $680 million dollars, his official compensation over a four-year term is under $2 million dollars. You don't raise that kind of capital without selling your soul to a lot of big businesses.
Therefore, to properly participate in VTP requires you, average joe citizen, to do a little legwork. Decide what issues are most important to you--Take time to mull them over--things are almost never as black as white as the old talking points make them out to be. Take for instance legalizing drugs: Against? How do you expect to solve the problem? We've locked up users and dealers, but there's no sign of abatement in drugs, drug use, or violent criminal enterprise associated with its trafficking. So you're for legalization then? Think Cialis ads are annoying? Wait until promos for cocaine start airing during prime time. Or when you step on a heroin needle disposed of on your lawn.
Once you've decided where you stand on issues, start researching people running for office not only at the national level, but at the state and local levels as well.. Turn off the television and start visiting websites like factcheck.org, politifact.com, opensecrets.org, and vote-smart.org. Find the candidates whose positions best match your own and mark them on your sample ballot--use the write-in section if necessary, then go to the polls and vote for those people.
If someone asks you who to vote for or who you're voting for, just say 3rd party, and give them websites like the ones I've listed so they can come up with their own candidate. It doesn't matter if your neighbor ends up voting for a candidate with positions totally opposite to what you believe in, so long as the candidate they voted for represents their interests.
The end result should be that no single candidate receives a majority of the vote. Thereby defeating the two-party infrastructure of this country. It would result in run-off elections amongst those who received the largest pluralities of votes, and while it would be chaotic, it would also be empowering as the populace hears more viewpoints and a general consensus is formed.
Let me rehash a post I made elsewhere.. Mind you, I've been a regular voter (major and minor elections) since I became of legal voting age.
But right now the presidential race itself is becoming a race against an incumbent who despite his campaign pledges to overturn Bush tax cuts, torture, err I mean, "enhanced interrogation" and wars which were started under fall pretenses, no only perpetuated these policies, but in the latter case actually committed an unprovoked act of war in ordering a drone attack in a sovereign nation whom we're not at war with for the sole purpose of an extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen!
Or I can choose from a field of Republicans. A handful of which think there should be no separation between Church and State, mandate Creationism in public schools, and who would undo years of protections in order to rape our environment for more fossil fuels. We have one whom the media has all but declared the winner, even when polls say otherwise. I doubt it's coincidental that he happens to be the one with the biggest corporate background. There's also a guy who's done quite well in polls whom the media largely ignore, who seems to think wholesale dismantling of the US government is a pretty good idea.
I'm sure I can Google a few 3rd party candidates with some more sensible ideas. And yet even if I could wave a magic wand and get the majority of Tea Partiers and #OWS'ers behind just one of these people; and garnered financial contributions from all of them into a SuperPAC, it still would be no match for the corporate money that funds the current system which is strongly aided and abetted by the electoral college system, that ensures that only a candidate who serves them rather than the public will ever be elected.
So I'll likely cast a write-in ballot for "None of the Above."
That also depends on your threshold of crime. Quite likely you could achieve 99.9% accuracy if your machine always spits out, "Is a criminal"
Do you ever drive even a mile over the posted speed limit? Do you ever neglect to pay sales tax to your state for tax-free purchases made online? Do you possess any commercial software or music which has not been properly purchased through approved distributors? Have you jailbroken your iPhone or rooted your Android? Ever shared prescription pain medication or smoked pot?
I haven't even touched upon the "weird" laws like ones which prohibit peeling oranges in hotel rooms or whatnot..
This is why any refusal of consent to have one's vehicle, bag, or person searched should always be immediately followed with this bifurcated question: "Am I free to go, or am I under arrest?"
~$800/week doesn't go very far in NYC though. Meanwhile he's not only pulling precious metals and gems out of sidewalk cracks but also shards of glass, toxic substances (cadmium, lead, etc) bacteria from animals and the homeless, and likely other hazardous substances. He has to get up close and personal with it to retrieve it and then bring all the material to his friend's studio and sift through it by hand.
He's likely uncovering finds deposited over the last 100 years or so, and while occasionally someone loses an earring on the street, most likely he's collecting faster than it's being generated. Advertising his income stream to the world not only will get copycats out there, but will alert the tax authorities to his activities if they were not already in on it.
He's turned a potentially dangerous profession with only a moderate income with little future growth potential into something a whole lot worse by sharing his story.
8-bit computers replaced hobbyist built 4-bit machines which were NOT a mass consumer item. Cassettes replaced 8-tracks, vinyl, and wax -- none of which were easily recorded to by consumers. Yet recordable CD and DVD media is readily obtainable. VHS (and Betamax) replaced nothing really, unless you wanted to set your 8mm video camera on a tripod in front of the television. or watch a film on a home movie projector/screen. I don't really see tablets as a replacement for laptops, which are still widely sold. I'd consider them more as an offspring of a laptop and a PDA, as opposed to a smartphone which is the child of a PDA and a cellphone.
True, user created content is nowhere near as easy with latest evolution of these technologies, excepting CD-R/DVD-R which could hardly be simpler. Also a large percentage of the populace now has a video camera of some sort, be it their phone, the dying Flip-type pocket camcorder, or a more conventional camcorder. None weigh 10+ pounds as they did in the late 80's, and only the most professional quality ones come close to the cost of an entry level one from that era. What's more, with the ability to post videos to YouTube, it has seriously democratized the creation of A/V content.
Yes, the **AA organizations will continue to try and keep technology manufacturer's in check, making it as difficult as technologically and legally possibly to duplicate commercial content and balancing that with not making it too difficult for license holders to view/use said content (Refer to any of thousands of/. articles on this topic) But I believe we are in a golden age of democratic content creation. See also: Wikipedia.
Another vote for TeamViewer. I manage the ThinClient (VoIP server) on my network this way. Allowing it to sit sans peripherals next to my cable modem and router in the closet.
Okay, first off, destroy all your credit cards, shopper loyalty cards, library cards, driver license, etc. Disconnect your telephone, and throw your cellphone away. Best bet is to douse your entire home in a chemical accelerant and set it ablaze to hopefully destroy 99.95% of your DNA residue. Next, you should stowaway about a freighter headed across the Pacific. When reasonably close and when no one is looking, dive overboard and swim toward an atoll. As researching uninhabited islands will leave too many bread crumbs, you're going to have to take the luck of the draw on which one though, be it inhabited, irradiated from nuclear bomb tests, has edible flora or fauna, or be it a research or military base of sorts.
If you succeed and survive the journey and you are able to find a way to locate, trap, and prepare food to eat along with many other necessities of life, then you will have regained some privacy. However it may be fleeting as any fires, shelters or other evidence of your presence may be spotted by sea or by air at any time. And even in the best case scenario, you'd lose all contact with family and friends, the internet, electricity, indoor plumbing, and news of the world outside of your new home.
Otherwise, expect nearly everything you do in the modern world, even things as mundane as flipping a light switch will be compiled into individual databases, and in turn, aggregated in a massive psychographic profile allowing certain government and private entities far more insight into your daily routine and habits than you are likely aware of possessing yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
The addition of the "WBI/AIT/Nude-o-Scope" and the "grope-down/freedom pats" offered upon refusal has come since the Obama administration.
Granted they'd have come regardless whether Obama or McCain, or any "non-fringe" candidate was elected in '08. I feel confident in this, as the bureaucracy and crony capitalism surround the DHS and its chief asset, the TSA, added the ban on liquids and removing one's shoes during the Bush administration. You don't speak out against one of the biggest wells of taxpayer boondoggles without watching your campaign contributions dry up while the opposing camp(s) attack your position of "aiding and abetting the terrorists."
“The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” -- Abraham Lincoln. This may be the only hope of undoing the absurdity and wastefulness of this agency. Rather than continuing to write your congress-critter stating you won't fly until some sanity is returned to airport security screenings, keep imagining new potential terror plots against airplanes and propose even more costly and invasive steps to prevent them--"A bomb could be surgically implanted in a terrorists abdomen, therefore all passengers should undergo a full body MRI!"
Sure, they've got all those emails. Unfortunately, you don't have the security clearance needed to get them back.
I've never been a heavy business air-traveler. However, I regularly would fly to see relatives, go on vacation, etc. Figure 2-6 flights per year on average.
I've only flown round-trip once post-TSA, and never post AIT/WBI. My criteria for going on vacation now is that our destination must be within easy driving distance. Thankfully mountains, lakes, beaches, & casinos are accessible, so we are able to get away to different locales. As most of my extended family lives ~2000 miles from me, it has kept me from visiting on holidays, or attending weddings and funerals.
I have no fear of flying, heck I would volunteer to visit the ISS or the moon! I'm not terribly concerned about hijackings or other terrorist activities--I am aware that I'm far more likely to die driving to the airport than by an airplane crash--accidental or not. But I *refuse* to be irradiated/strip-searched/groped by someone who applied for a job on a pizza box.
I agree 100% with reinforced cockpit doors. I don't think all that much has been done with regard to explosive detection: The puffer tests are time consuming and therefore not practical for mass scanning. WBI machines may or may not detect explosives, as several recent articles have pointed out. Add regular explosive-trained K9 patrols throughout the terminal, and this would be quite effective--There would be some false positives, but probably far fewer of them than the "no-fly list" generates. Use a puffer test as a follow-up to a positive, and you'll probably screen out 99.5% of explosives with minimal hassle.
The other biggest change on 9/11 is that passengers and crew will no longer cooperate with a hijacker even if resisting means certain death! Really no chance for most any disorderly conduct for that matter--even from flight attendants or pilots as recent stories prove. The TSA has had absolutely diddly-squat to do with this change as United Flight 93 proved.
Keep the reinforced cockpit doors, add explosives-trained canines, and restore all other aspects of airport security to the level they were on 9/10/01,
Since I don't have any mod points to give you right now, I'll respond.
Despite the rejection of the "Just following orders" defense at the Nuremberg trials, it really is what led many presumably smart, honest, good-natured individuals to carry out horrific atrocities against millions.
It is a universally basic human social structure that one respects and obeys authority. Most people have their parents as their primary authority figures, then teachers, a religious leader perhaps, the media, their doctor, the police/government officials, and usually ultimately their boss/supervisor.
Any well-trained, disciplined military force, by definition, eschews any sense of individualism, or questioning of authority--You follow orders without question or you will face punishment--Anything from doing extra push-ups to facing a firing squad. And the non-questioning definitely includes not bringing up any personal objections--especially to never go too far up the chain of command--the last thing anyone, from a buck private to a battalion commander, wants is a visit from the Inspector General.
The leadership can often, in a sense, be just as naive as the troops they command. A general directive is given from the top: "Gather intelligence", "secure the bridgehead", "relocate the Jews" and it is left up to the captains and sergeants (middle management) to form a plan of action for the rank and file to carry out. Achieving the objective(s) without undue involvement from the top brass is considered showing initiative and dedicated leadership, and earns you ribbons and medals. Questioning orders at this level is considered treasonous.
Sounds like a perfect recipe for the power without accountability which Mr. Zimbardo spoke of.
But who, even among IT security experts, OGA ops, etc., is going to enter a long, complicated passphrase to unlock their phone every time they get a new text or email? The most diligent probably avoid storing or accessing anything particularly sensitive on their smartphones, and relying on their firewalled desktop in their Faraday caged office to access such data. It wouldn't surprise me to find that many such people eschew smartphones entirely in favor of cheap, disposable prepaid phones to make calls, and use a fully encrypted laptop to access information on the go.
I'd say there's a huge difference between pwning n00bz in WoW for 15 hours a day and intensive hands-on training in AI, robotics, e-commerce, cryptography, rocketry, etc.. We have more than enough kids trained in the former, and so precious few skilled in the latter.
You are correct. Our current political system will not allow more than 2 parties with any significant chance of electability.
So let's peer into the crystal ball, and see Romney becoming the Republican nominee.. Many folks, as have I, have said Romney and Obama are virtually indistinguishable from each other. I don't predict that aside from their stance on "social issues" there'll be any significant difference in policy statements or actions between them. Lately Obama has shown a slight edge over Romney in polling, but that can easily see-saw depending on events largely outside of either man's control.
But let's entertain a situation (however implausible) not unlike the premise of the movie Swing Vote. Romney and Obama each end up with a proportional amount of popular and electoral votes, and somehow it comes down to you to cast the deciding vote with the world's eyes all upon you. If you were a staunch party-line voter, then there'd be no suspense.. Likewise if you were an Evangelical Christian or a Gay Rights' activist, your decision would probably be pretty clear cut.
But for the rest, if you'd be indifferent enough to cast your ballot on a coin flip, wouldn't you send a much stronger message by voting for a 3rd party candidate? Sure, that candidate would still not win the election by a long shot, and you've left the election results deadlocked. But as a result, you'd draw far more attention to the fact that neither candidate appears to be able to effectively set a domestic and foreign agenda, or gain the support of a majority in Congress, let alone the populace as a whole.
Now let's get back somewhere toward reality... We'll still assume Romney and Obama running within the margin of error in November. Which would make a bigger impact: A vote cast for either of them, or a vote for any 3rd party candidate? It would draw far more attention if all 3rd party candidates combined received about 10% of the vote vs. the roughly 1.5% given to them in 2008. That's not saying it'd have to be one single 3rd party candidate, You'd never get that kind of consensus in a million years. (though a write-in vote for Stephen Colbert would be fitting) But to deny Romney and Obama both a simple majority of the popular vote would send a stronger message that a simple vote for them or their chief rival.
And how would you pay someone if the total was $3.15, you had the dollars, a couple dimes, but you didn't have a quarter? The penny needs to disappear yesterday! Also, eliminate the dollar bill, so people will finally adapt to using the billions of dollar coins which are now languishing in federal vaults. But I see no practical way to eliminate the nickel as long as a quarter represents $0.25. And messing with that would pretty much gum up the works and annoy everyone.
Oh, their constituents were not only fully informed of the ways the legislation would affect them, they were the one's who wrote it in the first place.
Oh. Did you mean the general public?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......
(deep breath)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Remember, as Mitt Romney said not too long ago, "Corporations are people, my friend."
I'll once again stand on my soapbox, and state (as others' have already) that the Democratic and Republican parties are just two sides of the same coin. Aside from a few "social values" differences on things such as gays rights, reproductive choice, or school prayer; the two parties are indistinguishable. The highly polarized rift is just a shell game. Everything that's wrong with the country is completely the other party's fault. Therefore, we're going to prevent them from enacting anything else, and when we get the majority, we're going to repeal those few things that did manage to slip through.
Therefore, the way forward IMHO is to vote them *all* out! That doesn't mean just the incumbents, but also to not vote for their main rivals from the opposite major party. Vote instead for third party candidates. Which ones?--I don't care! Ideally, you should vote for the candidates whose values best match your own. But unless you truly believe a 3rd party candidate will win a race, a random vote would work too. Otherwise It'll take a fair bit of legwork to find those best fit candidates:
They'll largely be self-financed, and most likely will be struggling to pay the filing fees just to get on the ballot. They won't have gazillions of ads on television, robocallers interrupting your dinner, or staffers knocking on your door. If that alone isn't enough reason to vote for them, then consider that without any of the huge donations from investment firms and other large corporate enterprises, they'll be far more likely to listen to your input than the one who's just too busy hosting $10,000 a plate dinners to speak with you.
Odds are pretty good that in all but the smallest of races, none of these 3rd party candidates will win enough votes to qualify for a run-off election, let alone win an outright majority. Especially if Bob's voting for the Libertarian, Joe's voting for the Green, and Lisa's voting for the Independent candidate, etc. So in all likelihood, a Democratic or a Republican candidate will end up filling that seat anyway.
But despite the common saying, you are *not* throwing your vote away by doing this! If you agree with the position that there isn't any real substantive difference between the two major parties, then it makes no difference which one wins. However, gaining pluralities, if not majorities in votes cast for all 3rd party candidates combined will send a much stronger message to whomever is ultimately elected than either an individual vote for them or for their chief rival.
Which is why I beg people to vote for 3rd party candidates. Independent, Green, Libertarian, Constitution, whichever... From your local alderman to the POTUS. Pick someone whose positions reflect your values and beliefs Odds are infinitesimally slim that any of them will be elected, but if you don't support the actions of the two major parties, what difference does it make? I'd bet that if all 3rd party presidential candidates combined received a plurality of the popular vote; that would have a much bigger impact on whichever Republican or Democratic candidate was ultimately elected than either a vote for them or their chief rival.
TMobile has a plan that seems perfect for the heavy data user/occasional caller.
Its prepaid Monthly4G plan.
Choose "Unlimited Web & Text with 100 Minutes Talk" for $30/mo gets you 5GB of 4G data per month and then you'll be throttled down to EDGE most likely.
But don't just merely vote for the other side... Vote Third Party (VTP).. Independent, Libertarian, Green, whichever.. However, don't vote for any former Republican or Democrat who decides to run as an Independent.. They had their chance--begone!
VTP clearly goes against the grain of the establishment. It'll be extremely difficult to even locate most of these candidates, since in order to run a modern campaign requires boatloads of money. Consider: Barack Obama's 2008 campaign cost something like $680 million dollars, his official compensation over a four-year term is under $2 million dollars. You don't raise that kind of capital without selling your soul to a lot of big businesses.
Therefore, to properly participate in VTP requires you, average joe citizen, to do a little legwork. Decide what issues are most important to you--Take time to mull them over--things are almost never as black as white as the old talking points make them out to be. Take for instance legalizing drugs: Against? How do you expect to solve the problem? We've locked up users and dealers, but there's no sign of abatement in drugs, drug use, or violent criminal enterprise associated with its trafficking. So you're for legalization then? Think Cialis ads are annoying? Wait until promos for cocaine start airing during prime time. Or when you step on a heroin needle disposed of on your lawn.
Once you've decided where you stand on issues, start researching people running for office not only at the national level, but at the state and local levels as well.. Turn off the television and start visiting websites like factcheck.org, politifact.com, opensecrets.org, and vote-smart.org. Find the candidates whose positions best match your own and mark them on your sample ballot--use the write-in section if necessary, then go to the polls and vote for those people.
If someone asks you who to vote for or who you're voting for, just say 3rd party, and give them websites like the ones I've listed so they can come up with their own candidate. It doesn't matter if your neighbor ends up voting for a candidate with positions totally opposite to what you believe in, so long as the candidate they voted for represents their interests.
The end result should be that no single candidate receives a majority of the vote. Thereby defeating the two-party infrastructure of this country. It would result in run-off elections amongst those who received the largest pluralities of votes, and while it would be chaotic, it would also be empowering as the populace hears more viewpoints and a general consensus is formed.
Let me rehash a post I made elsewhere.. Mind you, I've been a regular voter (major and minor elections) since I became of legal voting age.
But right now the presidential race itself is becoming a race against an incumbent who despite his campaign pledges to overturn Bush tax cuts, torture, err I mean, "enhanced interrogation" and wars which were started under fall pretenses, no only perpetuated these policies, but in the latter case actually committed an unprovoked act of war in ordering a drone attack in a sovereign nation whom we're not at war with for the sole purpose of an extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen!
Or I can choose from a field of Republicans. A handful of which think there should be no separation between Church and State, mandate Creationism in public schools, and who would undo years of protections in order to rape our environment for more fossil fuels. We have one whom the media has all but declared the winner, even when polls say otherwise. I doubt it's coincidental that he happens to be the one with the biggest corporate background. There's also a guy who's done quite well in polls whom the media largely ignore, who seems to think wholesale dismantling of the US government is a pretty good idea.
I'm sure I can Google a few 3rd party candidates with some more sensible ideas. And yet even if I could wave a magic wand and get the majority of Tea Partiers and #OWS'ers behind just one of these people; and garnered financial contributions from all of them into a SuperPAC, it still would be no match for the corporate money that funds the current system which is strongly aided and abetted by the electoral college system, that ensures that only a candidate who serves them rather than the public will ever be elected.
So I'll likely cast a write-in ballot for "None of the Above."
Careful what you wish for. We'll end up with a story about a million virtual monkeys generating bitcoins!
That also depends on your threshold of crime. Quite likely you could achieve 99.9% accuracy if your machine always spits out, "Is a criminal"
Do you ever drive even a mile over the posted speed limit? Do you ever neglect to pay sales tax to your state for tax-free purchases made online? Do you possess any commercial software or music which has not been properly purchased through approved distributors? Have you jailbroken your iPhone or rooted your Android? Ever shared prescription pain medication or smoked pot?
I haven't even touched upon the "weird" laws like ones which prohibit peeling oranges in hotel rooms or whatnot..
Johnny was a scientist,
but Johnny is no more.
For what Johnny thought was H20,
was H2SO4.
This is why any refusal of consent to have one's vehicle, bag, or person searched should always be immediately followed with this bifurcated question: "Am I free to go, or am I under arrest?"
~$800/week doesn't go very far in NYC though. Meanwhile he's not only pulling precious metals and gems out of sidewalk cracks but also shards of glass, toxic substances (cadmium, lead, etc) bacteria from animals and the homeless, and likely other hazardous substances. He has to get up close and personal with it to retrieve it and then bring all the material to his friend's studio and sift through it by hand.
He's likely uncovering finds deposited over the last 100 years or so, and while occasionally someone loses an earring on the street, most likely he's collecting faster than it's being generated. Advertising his income stream to the world not only will get copycats out there, but will alert the tax authorities to his activities if they were not already in on it.
He's turned a potentially dangerous profession with only a moderate income with little future growth potential into something a whole lot worse by sharing his story.
And?
8-bit computers replaced hobbyist built 4-bit machines which were NOT a mass consumer item. Cassettes replaced 8-tracks, vinyl, and wax -- none of which were easily recorded to by consumers. Yet recordable CD and DVD media is readily obtainable. VHS (and Betamax) replaced nothing really, unless you wanted to set your 8mm video camera on a tripod in front of the television. or watch a film on a home movie projector/screen. I don't really see tablets as a replacement for laptops, which are still widely sold. I'd consider them more as an offspring of a laptop and a PDA, as opposed to a smartphone which is the child of a PDA and a cellphone.
True, user created content is nowhere near as easy with latest evolution of these technologies, excepting CD-R/DVD-R which could hardly be simpler. Also a large percentage of the populace now has a video camera of some sort, be it their phone, the dying Flip-type pocket camcorder, or a more conventional camcorder. None weigh 10+ pounds as they did in the late 80's, and only the most professional quality ones come close to the cost of an entry level one from that era. What's more, with the ability to post videos to YouTube, it has seriously democratized the creation of A/V content.
Yes, the **AA organizations will continue to try and keep technology manufacturer's in check, making it as difficult as technologically and legally possibly to duplicate commercial content and balancing that with not making it too difficult for license holders to view/use said content (Refer to any of thousands of /. articles on this topic) But I believe we are in a golden age of democratic content creation. See also: Wikipedia.
Always heard BOSE as an acronym for "Buy Other Stereo Equipment."
They lost me at 3L = Two-Liter Bottle.
You mean I can win $1000 1-in-50 times with scratch-offs? Wooo-weee!, I'm gonna be rich!!!
Another vote for TeamViewer. I manage the ThinClient (VoIP server) on my network this way. Allowing it to sit sans peripherals next to my cable modem and router in the closet.
Okay, first off, destroy all your credit cards, shopper loyalty cards, library cards, driver license, etc. Disconnect your telephone, and throw your cellphone away. Best bet is to douse your entire home in a chemical accelerant and set it ablaze to hopefully destroy 99.95% of your DNA residue. Next, you should stowaway about a freighter headed across the Pacific. When reasonably close and when no one is looking, dive overboard and swim toward an atoll. As researching uninhabited islands will leave too many bread crumbs, you're going to have to take the luck of the draw on which one though, be it inhabited, irradiated from nuclear bomb tests, has edible flora or fauna, or be it a research or military base of sorts.
If you succeed and survive the journey and you are able to find a way to locate, trap, and prepare food to eat along with many other necessities of life, then you will have regained some privacy. However it may be fleeting as any fires, shelters or other evidence of your presence may be spotted by sea or by air at any time. And even in the best case scenario, you'd lose all contact with family and friends, the internet, electricity, indoor plumbing, and news of the world outside of your new home.
Otherwise, expect nearly everything you do in the modern world, even things as mundane as flipping a light switch will be compiled into individual databases, and in turn, aggregated in a massive psychographic profile allowing certain government and private entities far more insight into your daily routine and habits than you are likely aware of possessing yourself.