Please email me at:
![Jason [at] LiveRealNow [dot] net](https://liverealnow.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/email.jpg "Jason [at] LiveRealNow [dot] net"){kind=small}
Or use the form below.
[contact-form 1 “Contact form 1”]
The Library vs Amazon
A few weeks ago, I discovered the queue at my public library’s website. The process is simple: Select your books, wait a few days, then pick them up. They are available from any library in the county, delivered to my local library. That’s awesome. Much more convenient-and cheaper-than Amazon
So I moved a couple of pages of my Amazon wish-list into the library’s queue.
I must not have been thinking, because two days later, I got an email telling me that 19 books were ready to be picked up and 10 more were in transit.
In this county, each checkout is good for 21 days. For items that don’t have a waiting list, you can reserve 3 times. That’s 12 weeks for 29 books. Hopefully, I’m up to the challenge. Please keep in mind, I’m a father of three, two of whom are in diapers, and I’m married, and I have a full time job.
I have frugally blown every second of spare time for months.
Update: This was another post written in advance. When all of the books came in, I suspended my request list. Little did I realize, the suspension cancels itself after 30 days. That was 30 more books. Whee!
PRISM: Did the NSA kill privacy?
Revelations have been continuing to emerge regarding widespread surveillance tactics being internationally deployed by the United States government. PRISM is the codename of the project, which was implemented by the Protect America Act of 2007 that President George W. Bush signed. Their data collection activities remained obscured for years until a contractor employed by the National Security Agency leaked internal documents regarding the invasive system to the public.
The Scope of Surveillance
Because the intrusive monitoring is being conducted under a shroud of secrecy, it is difficult to estimate the magnitude of governmental spying. Federal agents have direct access to any online conversations conducted between Americans and international locations. These authorities have permission to conduct individual surveillance operations on any person for up to seven days before they need to acquire an official warrant. This scenario indicates that the guise of personal privacy has expired.
Logistics Versus Application
The details that have been released about the program illustrate serious setbacks for privacy activists. Fortunately, the public population vastly outnumbers the amount of authorities with access to these surveillance capabilities. Statistically, this means that that are far too many people to be personally tracked. In all likelihood, most people have not been targeted for individual monitoring; however, the story creates an appearance of governmental omnipresence that instills a need for self-censorship. The exposé about wiretapping operations simply confirms the common knowledge that the expression of incendiary rhetoric is dangerous in any arena. It would be naïve to believe that records of online activities were not being stored before the government had access to them. The permanent imprints of internet use were always available; therefore, it was only a matter of time before the legal authorities started accessing the material.
Unequal Privacy
Technically, the surveillance measures have institutionalized extreme privacy for the secret courts that have legalized extensive wiretaps. The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court operates in a completely classified fashion. They issue rulings that have fundamental impacts on American democracy, but they only conduct closed hearings. Additionally, they issue secret rulings that form the basis of laws that citizens do not know about. The court is comprised of heavily partisan members. This is based on the fact they are all appointed by John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Only one appointee was not a Republican, but the FISA Court is so concealed from the general public that conflicts of interest cannot be thoroughly vetted. These judges are privy to unfettered secrecy while they simultaneously deny the public of rights to their own privacy.
Public Backlash
Privacy still exists, but it has been neglected in favor of flashier technologies that are not secure. Fortunately, people have started returning to conventional methods of communication, which cannot be easily traced. Several organizations are developing secure ways to conduct discrete transactions online, and physical cash may now avoid its inevitable obsolescence. Ultimately, these startling announcements about governmental eavesdropping are generating a resurgence of non-digital media to regain privacy in all interactions.
Related articles
Zimmerman Wins Lottery: A Prank, but What Are the Real Odds of Winning?
Satirical reports regarding George Zimmerman have been misconstrued as factual by several media outlets, which have led to the belief that the man who killed Trayvon Martin is now a multimillionaire due to a lucky lottery ticket. The improbability of the story is astounding, but the more inconceivable notion is that reporters actually believed it enough to pass it on to their audience. The origin of the hoax was the same source that profligates fake news items on a regular basis: The Onion.
The outlet makes no claims about their veracity, and yet they have been regarded as a legitimate resource on innumerable occasions. This is an ultimate embarrassment for any organization that failed to recognize the comedic parody as satire. Errors like this indicate an inhuman lack of humor in tandem with a dense mind. Fortunately, news consumers were not to be deluded, and immediately subjected the reporting to a fact check.Through metaphorical symbolism, the original faux news story implied that Zimmerman’s recent acquittal has visible parallels with a lottery victory because both scenarios seem to bestow an improbable fortune. The report
was obviously meant to be disseminated as sarcasm, but the writers must feel tremendous pride in their ability to dupe the mainstream media. An unintended prank has a marvelous ability to generate a lasting reputation for the satirist. Notoriety is now something the author has in common with Zimmerman.
A stark contrast exists between lotteries and trials, and they are not equivalent. The justice system strides to avoid occurrences of random chance while lotteries promote the notion that anyone can win. The legal process is supposed to rely on evidence. Regardless of the circumstances, a victory in the courtroom has to be vigorously earned. Contrarily, there is nothing anyone can do to increase their chances in a lottery short of buying massive amounts of tickets. In a trial, the concept of reasonable doubt exists to exonerate the defendant, which should eliminate any potential for a toss-up. Courtrooms operate using evidence while lotteries are strictly statistical; therefore, the comparison is non-existent.
Even when it comes to jury selection, the process is not chaotically uncontrolled. Both sides have a general composition is mind, and they meticulously scrutinize prospective jurors as they whittle the numbers down. The pool is always sifted for bias. They are analyzed with hopes of picking people that will be sympathetically swayed towards a certain point of view. At the end, one side picked a better jury. Lotto victors cannot pick the numbers that will be responsible for their fate. Winners of lotteries do not stalk unarmed teenagers with a gun and fatally shoot them, but apparently winners of trials in Florida do.
Lotteries are often labeled as a tax for dumb people; coincidentally, this demographic is the same segment of the population that was targeted by the falsified journalism. In fact, real lottery odds are mathematically insignificant. An ABC News study declares it would take 1,684,841 years for the average lottery player to win a jackpot. Not even Zimmerman is that lucky.
Related articles
Refinancing Through the HARP Program
HARP Refinance
If you owe more than your house is worth, and want to refinance to today’s low interest rates, you need to check out the HARP program. Millions of homeowners with underwater homes are finding relief in a new version of the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP). Refinancing to lower interest rates could slash your monthly mortgage payment or shorten the time it takes to pay-off your mortgage.
The new HARP loosened qualification rules, making it it easier for underwater homeowners to qualify for a refinance. When HARP 2.0 was released in November 2011 you had to work with your original lender. Since March 2012, when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac rolled out the automated underwriting systems, you can work with any participating HARP lender. That means more competition for your business and better rates for you
HARP 2.0’s Hurdles
There are two series of hurdles you must clear before you can refinance your loan under HARP 2.0. The first set of hurdles concerns the loan itself. The three key eligibility questions are:
- Is the loan owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac?
- If so, was the loan purchased by Fannie or Freddie on or before May 31, 2009?
- The loan was not refinanced under HARP before (some exceptions apply).
If you answer yes to these three questions, then your loan may be eligible for HARP.
Tip: If your loan is a FHA loan, then check out a FHA streamline refinance loan.
The second set of hurdles concerns your finances and property. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac set up the basic guidelines. There are two basic ways your loan can be processed:
- Manual Underwriting System: Only your original lender (who is also your current servicer) can process a HARP loan through the manual underwriting system.
- Automated Underwriting System: Any participating lender can process a HARP loan through the automated system.
Keep in mind that lenders are free to have stricter qualifying rules than the basic Fannie and Freddie requirements.
When shopping for a HARP loan, here are some of the main points to look out for:
- Credit Score Requirements: Fannie and Freddie have no minimum FICO score requirements. However, each lender has its own credit score requirements, so if you are denied by one lender, keep shopping.
- Income Requirements: Your original lender can approve a loan with no debt to income ratio (DTI) requirement. However other lenders must qualify you based on your DTI. The rule-of-thumb for a HARP loan is a 45% maximum DTI.
- Timely Mortgage Payments: The HARP program allows for no late mortgage payments in the last 6 months and one late (30 days) payment in the preceding 6 months. However, some lenders do not allow any late payments.
- Investment Properties Qualify: You can refinance a second home or rental property under HARP 2.0.
- Fees: Lenders are not consistent in the fees or the interest rates they charge for HARP 2.0 loans. Some lenders charge a few hundred dollars for HARP 2.0 loan fees, and others charge thousands. It pays to shop around, so you can compare interest rates and fees.
- Condos: While HARP guidelines for condos are tricky, many more condo owners will qualify for a loan under HARP 2.0 than under the first version of HARP.
Applying for HARP
First, go to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Web sites to learn if either owns your loan and whether they bought your loan on or before May 31, 2009. If so, you can contact either your current mortgage servicer or shop around with the many lenders who are offering the HARP 2.0 loan.
If your application is rejected, ask for the specific reason why. If you applied with your original lender, find out whether the lender used the manual or automated system. Request manual underwriting if your original lender turned you down based on automated underwriting, as it may result in your loan being approved.
It pays to shop for HARP 2.0 refinance. Many homeowners report one lender will reject their application, but another will offer them an attractive refinance. Second, lenders are not consistent in their offers. As mentioned, closing costs are all over the map. Interest rates vary, too.
Summary
HARP 2.0’s rules are technical. Each lender creates different overlays. If you believe you qualify for HARP 2.0, be persistent! The rules that are in place today could very well be expanded in the future. This is one instance in life where shopping can be the solution to your problem.
Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-07-03
- I miss electricity. #
- @prosperousfool Do you still need a dropbox referral? in reply to prosperousfool #
- @prosperousfool Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTE1Mjk2OTU5 in reply to prosperousfool #
- Don't let anyone tell you otherwise: Electricity is the bee's knees, the wasp's nipples and lots of other insect erogenous zones. #
- @prosperousfool Throw in a Truecrypt partition and the PortableApps launcher and it gets really neat. in reply to prosperousfool #
- @prosperousfool Universal accessibility. I put an encrypted partition on it so any receipts or credit card info or login info would be safe in reply to prosperousfool #
- RT @untemplater: RT @jenny_blake: Deep thought of the day: "How people treat you is their karma; how you react is yours." -Wayne Dyer #quote #
- @FARNOOSH So what's happening to the one good show on SOAPNet? in reply to FARNOOSH #
- RT @flexo: RT @mainstr: 1 million Americans have been swindled in an elaborate credit card scam and they may not know http://bit.ly/cr8DNK #
