Saturday, December 22, 2012
As the stay-at-home father of a newborn, I find myself suddenly interested in what you do.
Unfortunately, the spectacle you've made of yourself in attempting to quash complains about your company and service (which appears to have suffered catastrophically as of late) guarantee my money will not be spent with your company.
Congratulations on managing to alienate customers before you've had any contact with them whatsoever.
Also, I noticed that you promised to cancel the account of *anyone* associated with that group. In doing so you've managed to prevent critics from buying from you, who wouldn't buy from you in any case, as well as your supporters, which is an impressive method of turning supporters into critics.
Well played, sir! Telling people who have already quit that they are fired requires a lack of business accumen I didn't realize was possible.
Welcome to social media.
PS: I completely forgot to mention that I'm an infant-through-pre-K photographer with a really, really large national chain. I talk to thousands of parents, teachers and directors every year and when the subject of clothes comes up (and it always does), I'll be bringing up Wittlebee, cherrypicked review pages and alleged 12am phone calls threatening to "destroy" critics.
I realize, of course, that it's easy to claim I conveniently have this kind of access to Wittlebee's demographic so here's proof.
You'll notice that I do not list pre-K photography on my site, my contract forbids competing with my employer.
If there is still doubt that I photograph this age professionally:
Sean, your attempt to threaten honest criticism of your business just cost you a ton of money. You, *personally*, and that's before one even considers what the people I talk to tell their friends. I really hope someday you look at your actions and think, "boy, THAT was a good idea!"
But somehow I doubt it.
Saturday, December 01, 2012
Was just listening to Matt Miller, moderator of KCRW's Left, Right and Center podcast (and a guy I normally agree with). In addressing the fiscal cliff, and the perceived insanity of not reforming the so-called "entitlement programs," he complains:
"It's not widely understood that people get back many many many more dollars in benefits than they actually paid into the system, so the typical -- I'm working on a column on this now -- typical medical beneficiaries maybe paid in $120-$140k into the program during their lifetime get back $350k."
...as if the government shoves your money under a mattress and it does nothing for the 47 years you pay into the system.
The math of this isn't complex.
Let's use $130k for the amount paid into the system, that's right in the middle of his quoted range. Divide that into the forty seven years that beneficiary pays into that system, that's $2,765 per year the average individual pays into the system.
The Dow Jones average has gone from 880 in 1965 to 13,025 in 2012. That's an increase of 1,400%, or 14x. In other words, if you'd invested $1 into the DJIA index itself -- which is not an individual company but a stock which reflects the market as a whole -- today you'd have $14, which puts the rate of increase around 5.65% per year.
Keep in mind that this 1,400% return spans 1966 through 1984 where the DJIA literally didn't move, the Savings and Loan collapse of 1988 and the the Bush presidency where the market opened 2000 at 13,113 and closed out Bush's term at 12,800. Some years were better, some were worse, but if you simply started with $1 in 1965, you'd have $14 in 2012.
So now we take that $2,765, put it in the bank at 5.65% per year (I won't even compound it monthly, this is simple interest) and repeat for 47 years, here's the year-end balances:
So Miller is complaining that people pay $130k into the system, the government pays out $350k then pockets the remaining $321k?
Somehow this is a system that needs REFORM by way of LESS benefits for citizens?
Thursday, November 15, 2012
"I absolutely reject that notion. ... I don't think that represents where we are as a party and where we're going as a party. ... That has got to be one of the most fundamental takeaways from this election."
Actually, Bobby, if there's any takeaway to be had, this view of the 47% is PRECISELY where you are today as a party.
That's why you lost.
I know there's a lot of navel gazing going on but isn't that a given? Isn't that your jumping-off point, not what remains to be discerned?
As for where you're heading, you're right, but what it implies for your party is disastrous. It's spectacular irony that party of global warming deniers, and whose electorate deeply rejects the mechanics of evolution, faces certain destruction by being unwilling and unable to adopt systemic changes because you fear those corrections will kill your party just as assuredly.
The problem your party faces comes from a built-in inerrancy doctrine, all truths obtained by way of God or Reagan and not necessarily in that order. It's truth and, as such, it's set in stone and not open for interpretation or debate. It's the opposite of "big tent" which, until now, has been your bedrock. You have employed a single, comforting, cogent message to great effect for decades while Democrats, seeking to be a voice for many different views, have largely been unable to offer a coherent counter message.
Now this bedrock, this unyielding lump of divinely-inspired conservative principle, stands to be your undoing. What substantive platform modifications can you make that will not cause your base to exodus? Immigration reform? Reproductive rights? Progressive taxation?
If you replace a Mercedes Benz, part-by-part, with a Jeep, at what point does it become a Jeep?
If you replace the GOP policy with Democratic policy, at what point does the GOP become the Democratic party?
Evangelical leader Gary Bauer argues that the election loss was due to a party too focused on appealing to moderate voters.
"I think it's due, at least in part, to folks in our party that seem intent on attacking the fact that we're the conservative party in the United States. ... There's no yearning by the American people for a second pro-abortion party. I mean, we've already got one of those."
The Republican party has two options; do what they've been doing and enjoying the same results, or internecine civil war.
Bobby, I can give you two guesses as two which path the GOP leadership takes but you're only going to need one.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
- J. Christian Adams, writer for PJMedia and election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice
Despite an election that should have taught conservatives that the electorate does not share their views, nor does it reject Obama in apocalyptic terms like they do, the wingnuts continue to perceive their universe not how it actually exists but how they'd like for it to be.
"Racially polarized" means ethnic groups were either sharply for or against a candidate and yet Obama was popular among whites, blacks, hispanics and asians.
56% of Obama's support came from whites, 25% from Black, 14% from Latino and 4% from Asian.
On the other hand, 42.5% of Romney's 48.1% of the vote count was from white voters, so a stunning 88% of Romney's support was white. In fact, Romney had less support from all non-white voters combined than Obama had from Latinos alone.
Only in right-win la-la land can a candidate with virtually non-existant cross-ethnic appeal NOT be the polarizing figure.
Only in right-wing la-la land is the party that appealed broadly across the ethnic spectrum the one engaging in race polarization politics.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Saturday, November 10, 2012
I don't recall Bernie Maddoff having to wear a sandwich board in front of anyone or anything. In fact I don't EVER recall seeing anyone making more than $50k/yr ever being sentenced to public humiliation in the United States, have you?
Money doesn't talk, it f*cking yodels, kids, and a lack of money is a target painted on your backside.
Justice might be blind but it can tell the difference between a nickel and a benjamin with its eyes shut, that's for sure.
I was surprised to learn that this is not illegal. Sorta.
Setting aside class protections which may exists in a few scattered states, Federal Law 18 USC § 594 reads:
"Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
Since the law makes it illegal to influence a vote, which necessarily must happen before the voting date occurs, my reading of the law is that firing a person for voting a particular way, or failing to vote a particular way, would not be illegal.
Intimating one would or might fire an employee for voting for a particular candidate, or failing to vote for a particular candidate, regardless of whether or not the threat was consummated, would be illegal.
This is important because the burden of proof is not upon the employee to prove whether the firing was related to the vote, which is obviously difficult to prove. Rather, it hinges upon the threat before the fact, which might be difficult to prove but is an action on the part of the employer as opposed to a state of mind of that employer.
Whether or not a statement like "If Obama is elected I will have to let some people go" is vague enough to get away with, I don't know, but the sheer number of conservatives who are full-on giddy at the attempt to tamper with democracy is disturbing. This is not a handfull of wingnuts, there are literally thousands of Republicans in ONE thread on ONE facebook page not only defending the tactic but encouraging more of it.
I find it difficult to imagine something more central to the American ethos than the right to vote, unmolested, nor would I be engaging in demagoguery by suggesting those who would champion such a tactic be summarily rounded up and deposited just past the border.
Having found ours lacking, perhaps they can coerce each other into a more perfect union.
Thursday, November 08, 2012
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
What's that called again? It's on the tip of my tongue ...
Oh, right, BIPARTISANSHIP. Something the Romney camp swore they'd be FOR.
I do not think that word means what they think it means.
Remember all that gushing adoration for the people on the streets post-Sandy, about how they didn't ask each other if they were Republican or Democrat, they just pitched in to help their fellow man and were grateful for whatever help they got?
Now we eviscerate our politicians for thinking about nothing but what the country needs and we have the chutzpah to wonder why they never f*cking do it?
We wonder what's wrong with the country.
What's wrong with it is US.
The popular vote was within 2.5m but let's not forget why we have the electoral college; it prevents a candidate with lopsided regional popularity -- for example, massively popular in the north and the opposite in the south -- from being elected, thereby failing to represent a full half of the country.
It forces candidates to have broad appeal. It forces a candidate to represent the centrist interests and values of the country at large.
This leads us to the obvious question, "What are these interests and values?"
Same sex marriage amendments pass in Maine and Maryland, the first states to do so by vote and not legislation or court order. Minnesota voters shoot down a same-sex constitutional amendment.
Marijuana flat-out legalized in Washington and Colorado.
And Obama elected in a landslide.
Yet somehow conservative talk radio is awash with two interpretations of the election results; Obama doesn't have a mandate and the electorate wants more conservatism.
Let them keep thinking it. When you do not see something clearly, what you perceive as a solution is often just digging the hole deeper. Samsara.
This election was brought to you by the words "Tea" and "Party" and the conservative fetishization of party purity.
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Romney's hold on Florida looks like an ICBM and I'm talking about the "ballistic" part, no so much on the "intercontinental." Seriously. Looks just like of one of those cherub statues peeing in a koi pond, which is just ripe with metaphor, all things considered.
Ohio is 10% which means the transaction fee to sell is more than the worth of the stock.
Colorado is down to 36%.
Wisconsin is 11% after a brief rally.
Stick a fork in it kids, this party is done. If you still want moar, tune into the wingnut talk radio circular firing squad, I predict some full-bore freakouts in 3, 2, 1...
Florida bricked 12%, now a full-blown toss-up at 50% for Romney. If Obama takes Florida there is literally no path for Romney. Game over.
Romney picked up 11% in Ohio, now 30%, so not terribly disconcerting.
Virginia picked up 20% in Virginia, flipping what WAS 40% into 60%. Virginia has 13 votes.
Iowa dropped 7%, now 26%. Romney is probably dead in the water.
New Hampshire dropped 10%, now 22%, also probably DOA to the Republican column.
So here's the breakdown and I'm going to try to make this as simple as possible, which is not exactly easy...
If we make one simple set of assumptions -- that Obama takes Wisconsin (10 votes), Iowa (6), Nevada (6) and New Hampshire (4), Mitt Romney MUST win Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia and Colorado.
Romney's numbers in each of these states:
North Carolina: 80%
Since I took the last numbers and wrote all this, Romney has cratered to 17% in Ohio (ie, not reflected in the graph below). I could rewrite it all with new numbers but then they'd be wrong by the time I was done and f*ck that.
Bad for Romney:
Good for Romney:
New Hampshire: +7%
This puts Florida MAYBE back in play and pushes Virginia and Iowa from "maybe" into "gfy" territory.
It's not impossible this could shift to Romney's favor but the big EC states (Pennsylvania, Ohio) aren't anywhere close and not trending and the smaller EC states need to break in clusters that seem to be even less likely.
I think it's a foregone conclusion that Florida and North Carolina go to Romney.
If we also concede Virginia (46%), Colorado (46%) AND Iowa (47%), that still puts him at 263 electoral votes.
At 263, neither Nevada nor New Hampshire can put him over the top (only 6 and 4 electoral college votes, respectively) and the remaining states in play are all but confirmed for Obama; Pennsylvania (14%), Ohio (32%), Michigan (10%), Wisconsin (24%), Minnesota (9%).
Here's the latest numbers.
Specifically, Pennsylvania is -4% but that's not terribly significant, we're talking 19.6 => 15.8. Tho Ryan is on the phone right now telling Hannity that Pennsylvania is "in play."
Colorado is -4.8%, 44.9% => 40.1%.
Wisconsin is +4.2%, 20.2% => 24.4%.
InTrade has Obama with 305 EV's, Romney with 235.
Romney still looks likely to take Florida (68.3%) and North Carolina (80.0%) but Romney is down 19.1% in Colorado and down 14.3% in Virginia. Everywhere else there's a 20% gap or greater.
Romney is down a jaw-dropping 39.8% in Ohio.
But every year I make the mistake of following election day from the moment I get up and I should know by now to not look at anything until about 3pm at the earliest. =)
Here's the Election Markets on the swing states updated every 60 seconds.
On a humorous note, I just heard Geraldo Rivera say goodbye to a guest on his show and added "...and you're easy on the eyes."
What year is this again?
The domestic books are breaking hard to catch up over the last two days; IEM moved sharply yesterday and is evening out, InTrade's move is less sharp but prolonged.
The difference between the two candidates passed 50% yesterday with the current span at 53.7%.
As far as EC goes, Mitt looks very strong in Florida and a lock in North Carolina but the only other swing state where Romney is within 20% of Obama in Virginia (40.1% vs. 60.0%).
If we assume Romney takes NC and VA and the rest go to Obama, that's 235, leaving Romney 35 short. That's going to be a challenge.
All graphics today will be the same data for 11/5 and earlier with 11/6 data changing.
Monday, November 05, 2012
The gap between Romney and Obama widened 3-10% depending on who you're looking at.
As for the Electoral College and Romney's path to 270, he's looking strong in Florida and North Carolina, an underdog within striking distance in Colorado (-5%) and Virginia (-12%) but literally, that's it.
Everywhere else he's a 2:1 dog.
If the markets are accurate, and they are notoriously difficult to beat, then this race is over. I'm not counting anything until ...you know, whenever the Supreme Court picks a winner, but I'll take markets over polls any day of the week.
Rush Limbaugh freaks out about Obama's job approval ratings in the wake of Hurricane Sandy and how Obama's ratings haven't been this high since ...since ...lord, Rush just can't remember when they were this high...
For example, just now he said politicians that come out of Ohio have "dry balls." I have no idea what that means but it's funny.
"That boy's been back in the hotel with a dog collar on. By the hooker. C'mon dude. That boy's lost his mind."
It's gonna be a fun day...
Overnight there were some changes, most dramatic, one mild, all benefitting Obama.
Changes in terms of gap between the candidates:
And overnight, Art Garfunkel turned 71.
Sunday, November 04, 2012
A few weeks ago, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted successfully reduced early-voting weekends from one to five. Why? Because early voting on the weekends helps blue collar workers who might otherwise not be able to vote. A last-minute decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals forced Husted to reinstate the last weekend.
Last Friday, at 6pm -- the last possible moment such an order could have been executed -- Husted issued a directive contrary to his own standard in how ballots are accepted.
In short, the standard Husted endorsed, and the process Ohio agreed to in a consent decree, declares that if a ballot is missing the type of ID used to verify the identity of the voter, the poll worker fills in this information.
Ohio Rev. Code § 3505.181(B)(6) provides that, once a voter casting a provisional ballot proffers identification, "the appropriate local election official shall record the type of identification provided, the social security number information, the fact that the affirmation was executed, or the fact that the individual declined to execute such an affirmation and include that information with the transmission of the ballot . . . ."
The directive Husted entered at the last minute was to require that the voter enter this information themselves. Now, if the ballot is information is missing, the ballot worker fills in nothing, the poll worker does nothing, the information is missing and the ballot is not counted
But, you know, Republicans ONLY concern is that no voter fraud transpires.
We're beginning to see a bit of a rift between the US-based markets; Intrade moved 2% in Romney's direction, IEM did just the opposite.
The pro sports books have remained stable for the last two days.
The graph doesn't reflect this but Intrade has had the Electoral College at 281 for Obama, 235 for Romney every day except one (10/27). In the last three days, Obama's count has bumped to 290 thanks to Colorado occasionally moving from "tossup" to "leaning democrat."
Obama is averaging 72%, Romney is averaging 28%, a 46% spread with a little over two days left until the polling stations close.
Saturday, November 03, 2012
Friday, November 02, 2012
The decision to divert critical resources (generators, police) from the rescue effort to the NYC Marathon is unconscionable.
What the hell is Bloomberg thinking?
I'm going to roll that back a little, Ed Koch just got on the air and defended the continuation of the marathon, apparently there is no shortage of generators, they're readily available.
I'm not unsympathetic to the argument that the marathon acts as a morale boost.
I'm still skeptical the police can't be used, however, I just got a dispatch from a fb friend saying they need people to monitor emergency work sites, direct traffic, etc.
I've changed the colors up a bit to make differentiating between them easier.
IEM has joined the professional books in tanking Romney, only InTrade is holding the line, three of the four markets dropping the GOP challenger 2.5-3% over night.
The wingnuts have skipped from denial right to depression, completely skipping anger and bargaining in the Kübler-Ross Stages of Grief. I think they're going to slip back to anger in the final 48 hours.
Remember when the September jobs report came out, 114,000 jobs added, unemployment at 7.8%, the lowest in Obama's presidency, and conservatives had themselves a temper tantrum, claiming "these Chicago guys" (Obama & surrogates) had pressured the Bureau of Labor Statistics to put out bunk numbers?
October numbers out today, conservatives were certain those numbers would expose the lie. Unemployment is at 7.9%, 171,000 jobs added. This is nothing to cheer about to be sure but I'm listening to Don Imus and he sounds so deflated.
Haven't heard a single one even mention the September accusations much less hear the party of personal responsibility acknowledge the accusation was bullshit.
Steve Doocy of Fox News hopefully and impolitically suggests to Chris Christie -- governor of New Jersey, 2012 GOP Convention Keynote Speaker and Romney surrogate -- that Romney might "do some storm-related events" with Christie.
Christie destroys him on the spot and tells Doocy precisely what he thinks of political grandstanding when 2.4m of his constituents are suffering.
In boxing terms, Doocy would have been out cold before his head hit the canvas.
Plus we get the bonus visual of Samantha Bee performing an extended air jerk ASL-style which is itself a reason to watch.
Monday, October 22, 2012
I didn't say anything about it for the first month because you all know I'm Captain StartAProject. But as it stands, for the last month I've been getting up at like 7AM, driving Elia to work, stopping at the athletic center and getting in the pool.
At first it was kind of just show up and do what I felt like doing but it's now settled into a swim+run or swim+bike every day, never missing more than one day (when I can help it, they were closed for two days in a row this weekend).
The jagged appearance of the charts is on purpose. Sure, I could just make entries for the days I work out but by making entries even for days when I don't, I can visually track how different schedules (2-on-1-off-2-on vs. alternating days) affect my trend. And even with the dips, the trend is still obvious.
Monday, June 25, 2012
I would definitely avoid doing business with this company. Can't say I've ever seen anything this shady in my life.
Keep in mind that this is not a swipe at AAA, they were awesome, though they may want to reconsider doing business with these clowns.
Your company has been with my family for as long as I can remember. I'm getting old, so this is a significant portion of time.
We almost never need you. I can't remember the last time we did. And I can't remember any time where we had any complaints of any kind, so today came as kind of a shock.
My daughter's church group planned a get-together shopping event to Lee Outlet Malls in Lee, Massachusetts. Upon finishing our shopping at the outlet, we discovered our car would not start. I attempted a jump from my daughter's car, no luck, would not even turn over.
I realized I had AAA but I was unsure if this covered myself or my car I was travelling in.
I called my wife, she said she thought it covered *me* but was not sure, so I called AAA and the first thing out of my mouth was "Does my AAA membership cover myself or the car I'm in?" The AAA representative said my membership covered me.
I requested a tow, and a local company ("R W Towing") was dispatched.
After a few minutes I receive a call from the towing company. The woman on the other end sounded instantly and profoundly irritated. I informed her of the situation, specifically told her that one car would be towed to Springfield while I went toward Albany; it is Father's Day, I'm a father, wife was waiting in Troy, NY, unfortunately the original plan to visit extended family in Chicopee would have to be scrapped due to the car difficulties.
A truck was dispatched. It arrived in a reasonable amount of time.
The driver got out, walked to the front of the car, took one look at the Hispanic family in our group, and starts shaking his head. I'm standing to his left. He's not even looking at me while I'm speaking to him, he's just looking at the family, still shaking his head "no."
I don't know what he's saying "no" to. I'm confused. So I address the driver.
"We need to have this car towed to Springfield. Do you need my AAA info?"
He's still shaking his head no, not saying anything.
"You don't need my membership info?"
I was told he would need it so now I'm even more confused.
"OK. There are six people, I know you can only take two, so two are going to ride with you, the other four are getting a ride back separately."
Tow driver is still shaking his head "no."
"I can't take six people."
"You don't have to, two are going to ride with you, four are getting a ride back."
Tow driver is back to shaking his head.
"Who has the money?" I point out the gentleman who is handling the payment, at which point the driver starts rattling off what this is going to cost.
"It's three dollars per mile, plus toll fees, plus a gas surcharge, plus a sixty dollar hookup fee..."
At his point I interrupt the guy. This sounds wrong.
"We were told about the $3/mile after the first three miles, plus the tolls charge, nothing about a gas surcharge or a hookup fee."
"Well, that's what it'll cost."
"I'm going to call AAA."
"You can do whatever you want, it's going to be at least $250-$300."
"What's your name?"
At this point I walk away and start dialing. The driver keeps talking to me in a pretty rude manner, telling me, in different ways, "that's what it costs and calling won't change that."
I ask him to stop talking to me. Twice. Three times. By this time I'm definitely irritated and my voice is definitely louder. This is as irate as I got with the driver and I certainly did not use anything approaching foul language. I think I asked the driver to "chill out."
He's still talking, I walk away.
I get an AAA rep on the phone and start explaining the problem.
"You mean he wants to charge you more money than the mileage and tolls?"
"It sounds to me like he's trying to scam you."
The driver, meanwhile, has an epiphany, no doubt entirely unrelated to my being on the phone with AAA, and now he's quoting "$160-$170." Remarkable.
I relate this to the AAA representative and tell him that the tow driver is attempting to jump the car, the AAA rep tells me, EMPHATICALLY, to NOT let the driver do anything to the car. I put the phone down and tell the driver, "The AAA representative is telling me to tell you that you should not do anything with the car."
The driver replies, "OK," gets into his truck and drives off.
All of our jaws are on the ground. The sun has been out all day so the ground is hot. We pick up our jaws.
At this point I feel horrible because there is a very young child, it's *really* hot, and by following the AAA rep's advice, combined with the driver's beligerence, I've just set back our efforts to get back home by two hours, minimum.
I relate this information to the AAA rep. He asks if he can put me on hold, no problem.
The rep who helped me was quite nice, I should mention.
While I am on hold I get a phonecall, it's the towing company, specifically the perpetually annoyed woman who I spoke to initially. She sounds roughly as annoyed as she did during our first conversation.
"You have a problem with my driver?"
"I'll let AAA deal with that issue."
The woman pauses.
"It's not even *your* car." She says this with an oddly smug "gotcha" tone.
I know this is not my car. AAA knows this is not my car. The fact that this was not my car was the very first thing I said to AAA when I called them to arrange the tow.
(a) The dispatcher is unaware of what services their agreement with AAA covers or;
(b) her mind was completely blown by the possibility of a caucasian riding with a hispanic family.
I ask her if there's anything else I can help her with. She proceeds to berate me for being rude to the driver. I hang up.
I'd like to understand a few things better. Specifically:
- Why was the towing service demanding money in excess of their agreement with AAA and, by extension, me?
- What, exactly, convinced the driver that his quote was incorrect since he was not in contact with AAA, his garage or me during his sudden change of heart?
- Why did the towing service feel that the car not being owned by myself was germane to providing service?
- Why did the tow driver abandon us?
- Why did the towing service feel it was appropriate to call and berate me after the driver left?
I would suggest that your service agreement with this independent towing companies be reviwed so everyone is on the same page.
I would also suggest that this complaint be attached to "R W Towing" and reviewed when future business with this company is considered.
I complain about service just about never. Almost every call I ever make to customer service, while rare, is to compliment good service because I've been in customer service most of my life, I know it's a difficult and (often) thankless job.
Thanks for your attention, I look forward to hearing back from you.
Member ID# [redacted]
Friday, April 27, 2012
Since twoplustwo.com got hacked, I figured I would share my password generation method. By memorizing one very short number, such as 5724, plus some simple rules, you can create a strong, secure password that is unique for any site you use, without having to remember the password or use any kind of USB fob or password management software.
I'll just jump in with an example.
First, come up with your four numbers. Doesn't matter what they are, I'll use the 5724 mentioned above. What each of these numbers mean is some kind of rule (offset or addition) to our password. My rules might look like this.
5 (go up five letters from the first letter of the domain)
7 (multiply the number of letters in the domain by 7)
2 (go up two letters from the last letter of the domain)
4 (capitalize the fourth letter)
After you've remembered your numbers and what they mean, there's no more remembering, the rest is just generating the password.
Suppose we wish to create a password for CNN.com.
Rule #1 says to go up five letters from the first letter in the domain, so "C" => "H".
Rule #2 says to multiply the number by the letters in the domain, 7x3 = 21.
Rule #3 says to go up two letters from the last letter of the domain, so "N" => "P".
So with our two letters we use the first three letters of a name. Perhaps for this example, we turn H and P into "Harry" and "Peter," which would truncate to "har" and "pet."
Or if you're a fan of the phonetic alphabet, "Hot" and "Pap" (Hotel, Papa).
Combine these with the number and you wind up with har21pet.
Lastly, our final rule says to capitalize the fourth letter, so our password is now har21Pet. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
If a site you use gets hacked, it's very unlikely that they'll have your password to any site. Further, by looking at the password, they'll have no idea how the domain name relates to your password -- cnn bears no resemblance to har21Pet -- and it's extremely unlikely that your password is har21Pet anywhere else.
Heck, add one more rule and it becomes extremely unlikely to have a dupe. ie, your additional rule is to simply add the number of letters in the domain to the end, har21Pet becomes har21Pet3 in the case of CNN.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Well I was wrong.
Imagine going to a five star restaurant and getting a decent TV dinner. That's pretty much "The Hunger Games." Two hours and twenty two minutes of mediocrity.
The shaky-cam, something that normally doesn't phase me in the slightest, was pretty amped up for the first twenty minutes. Thankfully it didn't span the entire move.
The fight choreography was truly the bottom of the barrel, all shaky closeups, pans and cuts. How does a blockbuster screw up fight scenes in 2012?
The love-interest chemistry was so bad I couldn't quite tell if it was supposed to be there in the first place.
The villains were thin. The sardonic stablemaster was thin. The sympathetic figures were thin. The tragic figures were thin.
The elephant in the room, the implications for the human condition in having such a contest, isn't even winked at much less developed.
And with 142 minutes to work with, you'd think the ending would be something other than forced, rushed, boilerplate and almost laughable. If I had a nickel for every movie with this ending I'd ...well, I'd have a well-deserved refund.
In retrospect, the best part of the entire movie was realizing Donald Sutherlund was in it.
Even calling it mediocre is a bit of a compliment. There is literally nothing redeeming about this movie.
How they managed to get 80% of IMDB'ers to drink the coolaid is beyond me.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Wow. Let's take a look at the chart...
Yep, sure enough, down a full two percent.
Wait. Ah crap, that's 2000 through 2004, Bush's first term. My bad.
[Source: United States Dept. of Labor Statistics, 2000 - 2004]
Saturday, February 18, 2012
"Something very big will happen in America within the next 180 days. It will be more devastating than the credit crisis of 2008. For most people, it will hit them like a brick wall. It will touch Americans harder and deeper than anything else we've seen since the Great Depression."
Jesus. 180 days? Brick wall? I'd better investigate!
So I did. This Michael Lombardi person seemed like he knew what he was talking about. The article goes on to mention that the author "in 2006, [Mr. Lombardi] begged his readers to get out of the housing market...before it plunged. He was among the first (back in late 2006) to predict that the U.S. economy would be in a recession by late 2007. Michael correctly predicted the crash in the stock market of 2008 and early 2009."
Still, it involved buying something so point was moot. Then I did a search of my email archives and found:
9/19/2011 - "Something very big will happen in America within the next 180 days."
11/13/2011 - "Something very big will happen in America within the next 180 days."
12/1/2011 - "Something very big will happen in America within the next 180 days."
1/19/2012 - "Something very big will happen in America within the next 180 days."
1/18/2012 - "Something very big will happen in America within the next 180 days."
Clearly we have the second coming of Nostradamus in Mr. Lombardi. I do this sort of thing myself at red lights; every three seconds or so I go "light, become green!" and wave my hand. Works every time.
So I went to Google, used the advanced search option to look for this same phrase, turns out this warning was being pushed in banner-style advertisements as far back as late 2010.
Thank you, American Spectator, for being a shill for frauds. Not just any frauds, mind you, ones that could be sussed out by Jr. High School students with ten minutes and The Google. So your failure to catch it is, at worst, complicit and, at best, rank stupidity.
You will understand if I take your Obama prevarication with a salt lick.