munky.org|v3.0

Believe in me, because you know no other answers

This is in response to one of the repertoire of questions generally asked to atheists, which would be where did the Universe come from.

Now that I’ve said that, you have probably guessed I am an atheist. And you guess would be, correct! Sorry, you don’t win a prize though. Was I always this way? Well, no. But I did start this way. When I was born (and you too!) I was an atheist. Then God and Jesus and all of Christianity was introduced to me. Now, I did not live in an evangelical house hold. But Christianity was a part of my life, although all of the facts were not, since my parents were both more on the “Faith” side of Christianity, vs the religious side. I was baptised as a Catholic (sadly enough, that priest has been accused of molesting a couple of boys back in the day, one at the same church I was baptised, a few years before I was born, eeek!). Eventually I spent a year at Catholic school, was an altar boy (no, I was not molested, it was a different priest, and I still hold him in high regard, as he really is a genuinely nice man), and even contemplated being a priest.

I was brought up on creationism was a proven concept, with evolution being just a “theory.” Even as a drifted away from the Catholic church, I still was a by-faith Christian. Problem was, I never realized just how hypocritical I was. Why? Because beyond religion, I thoroughly enjoyed science. And science teaches you to question EVERYTHING. If we didn’t, well, we’d still be living in caves, chasing  animals and foraging for food.

The older I got, the more I questioned. As I began to be more technical in my life, I questioned even further, and smarter. This more technical side? I began going to college finally, spending 3 years at night to get a general Associate of Science, spending a year on my Bachelors of Science in Mechanical Engineering and Physics (which I am currently on break from due to financial hardships I had to address).

The more I questioned, the less I believed, until eventually I discovered that my faith was nothing more than a hollow shell, supported by 0 evidence. None. In fact, the only viable question that would have me to question is, where did the universe come from.

And there are theories out there regarding this, but in all reality, it is going to be extremely difficult to prove or disprove particular theories. And either way, it still leaves the question of what was around before the universe, etc., and since infinity is not a real number, the answer is difficult.

But you know, that particular question made me think onto a number of other things. First, let’s take a look at Christianity and its Jewish origins. Remember, back then scientific knowledge wasn’t like it was today. We now know about how hallucinations result from mental illness or drug use. We know the full motions of the moon (and it is a giant rock in the sky reflecting sunlight, not just a bright light). We know what causes earthquakes, whether patterns, disease, retardation, etc. There are reasons for these things, scientifically explainable, and without the need of theological thought.

Now read the Bible. It is a HUGE book, so I will not argue specific passages, because the passages alone already fill a book. Read about the signs that god presents. Nowadays, most people hear about an earthquake, they make think of a tectonic plate before they think “oh, this is a sign from God that ______.” Or the guys, walking around on the streets, screaming about whatever prophecy, we think mental illness, not that God has chosen to speak through him. Now, I say most, because some people still believe that God uses earthquakes and tsunamis to punish the wicked, etc. Except that these natural events have occurred much longer than people have been around.

The argument here is simple. If we could go back in time, and live in that lifetime, with the knowledge we have today, our beliefs would be shaken. Solar Eclipse would be cool, while people run frightened because it was an ominous sign from God.

Which is the same thing that all belief systems have done, probably even before recorded history. It is an attempt to explain the world around, because there were no better options around at the time. And if those answers become apparent, then the belief system either changes, disappears, or is ignorant of the knowledge. Christianity has been a prime example of the mixture of change and ignorance. As ancient knowledge was challenged and proven wrong, Christianity, and not just the Catholic church, has either been ignorant of it, contesting that these challenges are heresy. Or they have come to accept them, and change the belief to fit around it. Think about germ theory. Some faiths are ignorant of current knowledge, claiming them to be sinful, and instead rely on prayer to cure. The power of prayer is equal to the power of the placebo.

Other faiths have accepted germ theory and modern medicine, but they still believe that it is up to God if you live, or that the illness is still from God, even though we know that no divine hand is needed to spread bacteria and viruses.

Faith is a belief in something without evidence. Faith was needed in a time when there was no knowledge of why things happened the way they did. However, we now have knowledge, so that faith becomes ignorance.

While I may pity those who buy into religion or faith of a supreme being or beings, I generally don’t have a problem with those who hold those beliefs. Religion is more like a treatable mental health problem. However, I do I have problem with a person or persons who try to use their beliefs to be little and intimidate others, attempting to control them. Like the heated debates with gay marriage and abortion, the root of the underlying argument is a religious belief. Marriage is “sacred,” and must be between a man and a woman. Just because some man wrote that thousands of years ago, and it was put in a book that other men said was from the hand of god, doesn’t give someone the authority to force another human to submit to and live by their beliefs.

So to answer the question, where did the universe come from? I don’t know. But really, the only faith I need is that scientists are asking the same questions, trying to answer it too. It doesn’t prove the existence of a god or gods, only that we still have no unlocked all of the knowledge of physics in the universe. But science gives humanity a better outlook on how to deal with the future than a book of legends can ever provide.

So, I’ve been a on a kick lately, looking up videos and cases of Police brutality. Or should I just say abusive use of a power. Some of the stuff you come across, while it is claimed to be police brutality, is a lot of times the police doing what they have to do. If someone is resisting, then force is needed to gain physical control of the individual. Unfortunately, many times that use of force exceeds what is needed (excessive force). A lot of times it stems from a person still trash talking the officers. Sorry officers, but if you can’t handle being trash talked, then turn in your badge and your gun, and go work somewhere else. Other times, officers are just riled up from whatever brought them to that point, and they are unable to restrain themselves. Either way, it becomes assault once you go beyond that point. But, since you are sworn government officials, they like to use different terms like “official misconduct” or “civil rights violation.” It makes me sick, and a number of the videos I have shown to my dad (a 40 year law enforcement veteran, including during the civil rights movement) make him disappointed with the direction law enforcement has taken. The pack mentality, the abuse of authority. All stemming from a couple of issues. Poor screening of LEO recruits, and the institutionalized academy training.

We also agree that the big push since 9/11, with the Dept. of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, among other things, are an absolute joke. Prior to 9/11, this country did infact have the capabilities to stop the attacks prior to their commission. Instead of addressing the fact that our current serves were poorly utilized and disfunctional, they added a new law enforcement division, and a wide array of tools for them to use. However, prior to 9/11, they were unable to use the tools that they were provided in the first place. So what do we end up with? More public money spent with increasing abuses of authority, with little positive gain.

One of the changes since 9/11 was the growing suspicion of photography. Most of us have heard of, or seen footage of, videographers getting arrested for filming cops. I won’t delve too much in this subject, but to make it plain and simple, if you are an officer, and you don’t want to be filmed, then quit. You either have issues that should prevent you from being an officer in the first place, or you are knowingly doing something illegal. If you have a problem being under the microscope of the public eye, tough shit. You got your power through us (by proxy of our elected representatives), and we have and will use our right to ensure that you are not abusing your power. That is absolutely what the 1st amendment was for. And if you don’t care or disagree, once again, you need to quit. Because eventually you will end up like officer douchebag of the Suffolk Police, who arrested a man for “obstruction” because he was filming. “I been a cop for thirty years…” “you can hold nothing over me.” Oh, except that fact that you got proven wrong in FEDERAL COURT. How does a man become a 30 year law enforcement veteran without understanding the law? Beyond me.

But videographers aside. Photography of public places considered to be “infrastructure”  has become a hot topic amongst LEO since 9/11. Is it possible that that man over there is taking pictures (of video) of this stuff to potentially sell to a terrorist organization? Let’s detain him and find out. Case in point, the video below.

It’s amazing that that LEO didn’t know the rules, couldn’t properly ID even one terrorist event that involved photography, nor even come up with a logical reason for detainment in the first place. “How do I know you not are taking pictures of infastructure to sell to al-qaeda?” First off, there is nearly no way to ID that from the detainment. None. Zip. Zelch. Oh, unless he had a text message on his phone from Bin Laden himself (who was still alive at this time) stating he needed this guy to take pictures of a random f’n subway in LA. But really, why would al-qaeda pay this guy to take these pictures? Need to do survelliance and figure out these facts? It’s called GOOGLE. Or Yahoo! or Bing. Or “The Jihadest Search Engine of Potential Targets.” Just click here and see if you can gather this “senstive information” that terrorrists are paying people for. They were smart enough to highjack 4 airplanes and successfully crash 3 of them into high profile targets, but they are too dumb to use google? Wonder what kind of recon they would need to blow up that subway? Try a pack of explosives and a train schedule. Is it sad to say that this officer could probably fail terrorist training camp? Yet he has a badge and a gun and authority? It scary really.

Stopping people for photography is really, well, Nazi like. Can’t think of a better word. “Show me your papers.” The Supreme Court ruled that stop and ID laws are only legal is there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will be committed. Hate to say it, but the liklihood in this case of a crime being committed is 0. If this is a valid excuse, then “oh sir, you are carrying a briefcase, I will need to detain you to determine that you are carrying explosives,” becomes just as valid. Oh wait, this is the Police States of America 2011, so I’m sure it is. Nevermind. I guess that stuff that our ancestors fought and died for all those years ago doesn’t mean anything. If the police’s job is to protect us from bad guys (news flash, the Supreme Court said that that wasn’t their job either), then who is supposed to protect us from the cops? According to a USA Today article, federal prosecutors only go after 2% of all reported police brutality cases. And the numbers being reported have gone up from 2001-2007. It’s a serious problem. So apparently we are on our own, and until something is done about it, we will continue to have law enforcement try to intimidate us into submission to their interpretation of the law. Not the law itself. Or the even more primitive “right or wrong.”

Casey Anthony, © 2011 AP.

Welcome to the Three Ring Circus of the Casey Anthony show. Watch as her attornies attempt to magically demonize her family (true or not, does it matter much?). Be amazed at how Casey has transferred into a grieving mother of a dead child. But don’t miss the best act of all: the trickery, where it is claimed that Casey had nothing to do with the disappearance of her child yet helped to cover up an accidental death, all at the same time! When I figure out that one I’ll let you know, but given I’m not mental, or a drug addict, this may take a while.

Or you could do as I do, and laugh at the attempts of the defense, and hope that she gets what she deserves. Because when it comes down to it, we know that her daughter was missing for a month before anything was reported, she has consistently been caught in her web of lies of deceit, and while she was supposedly worried because her daughter was missing, she was out partying up the good life. If you are a parent, you can quickly put 2 and 2 together. However, her defense is hoping the jury can’t count. Or even think for that matter. What is the purpose of their theatrics? My only real guess is to convince everyone there that she is mental. And we should spend tax money on her for the rest of her life so she can be comfortable in her own deranged world.

I’ll post up more on the trial as it comes, and as I have time.

Sometimes the motivation for weightloss starts from several sources, and sometimes for some of the least reasonable reasons. Looking at your flab in the mirror helps, at least until you eat that next pizza or double bacon cheeseburger. Then you don’t care! Finding out that now one of your parents and a second sibling has diabetes knocks you for a bit. But what really got me started? My high school 10 year reunion! Most of these people I haven’t seen in, well, 10 years, and those who have I’m not trying to impress. Whatever, this is my poison. And it’s been working.

I started a few months back going to the gym. Real regular visitor until I got hit with a nasty chest cold, then later when my truck got broken into up there. I did manage to loose around 10 pounds or so, and was feeling a lot better already. Then I made the attempt to quit smoking, which only helped to gain back 5 of those pounds! Ugh!

Then I got better idea. Several of my friends started working out with Insanity, a cardio intense workout from Beach Body. I had never heard of Insanity before, but I had heard of another one of their workouts, P90X. Knowing what kind of results I saw from people who used P90X, but not wanting to get all of the equipment, I decided to give Insanity a try.

It’s a lot more than just a simple cardio workout. It is an intense workout plan not only covering what workouts you do, but what you should eat, how often you should eat, etc. A dietary change and an intense workout, sounded like a plan to me.

Well, today is day 1. Sticking to the food plan (calculated I need to consume between 1900 and 2100 calories a day), I did the fit test. Wow that kick my butt!

Anyways, I’m going to update this once a week to show my progress, and so those of you who are thinking about committing to losing the buldge, or just bulking up and improving your cardiovascular level, can have something to guide by.

The results I have seen have varied from 10 pounds to 30 pounds of weight loss. Of course that’s not always a good indicator, since muscle weighs more than fat. So I will be including my stats each week.

Getting the economy to a well tuned machine...

The system is broken. Obviously it has been broken for a long, long time, sustained by a series of patches and hotfixes throughout the years. The Great Depression, The Great Recession, and all the recessions in between. The good news is we are not the only one suffering. Free and centrally planned markets have always proven that they are no match when pitted against the true sources of the market’s force, the consumers and the investors (and other elements as well). Sometimes people want to buy stuff, and everyone always wants to make more money.

Recessions are not all that bad though. You can always learn more from failure than success. That’s if we take away lessons learned.

Before we can learn things, we need to figure out what went wrong, bad enough to shake every market in the world. Yes every market, because even the great survivors are getting hit now with inflation and bubble fears of their own. No economy is immune.

So let’s first think about the market’s in the terms set out in “A Beautiful Mind,” a wonderful movie by Ron Howard about John Forbes Nash Jr., the author of the “Nash Equilibrium.” There are 6 guys, one smoking hot babe, and her 5 average friends.

• Centrally planned (the former Soviet Union) – The government matches 5 guys to the 5 average girls, arrests guy number 6 and takes the hot one for themselves.
• Limited centrally planned (China) – The government gives each guy a choice of one of two girls, but the one who gets the hot one gets arrested and the government takes her too
• Free Market (theory) – Best interest for the guys to decide which girl they should take, with the hottest girl going to the hottest guy. Other way around, the girls choose their man in a similar fashion. Men (investors) make rational decisions.
• Free Market (reality) – A couple of guys decide to choice average girls, the other all fight for the hottest. The losers spend a lot of money and time wooing the remaining girls.

There you have it in a nutshell.

But to further expand on this idea, let’s change this to engineering ideas.

• Centrally planned economies think of themselves as Swiss watch makers, know for precision devices.
• Reality is that the pieces don’t quite fit, so these economies either fail or allow for more error in their thinking. Modern China probably has the lead on this technique
• Free market economies relate more to a set of different shaped children’s blocks. Each shape fits only in its whole, and the markets forces everyone to come out correct
• In reality, sometimes the circle makes it through the square hole. If the government realizes this enough they regulate. If they don’t, eventually the entire system fails

Theory to realilty always sucks for economists, because their models are still far too concrete to comprehend in subjectiveness of the forces. Prices set by supply and demand, determined by investors who make rational decisions with their money. More like supply, demand, fear, greed, speculation, etc. Rational thinking is far too subjective for 1′s and 0′s.

But what can we do? Any good enigneer knows that any system that is to operate is designed must work within constraints. They also realize that these systems will be different in real life than in design. Tolerances, deformation due to stresses, vibrations, thermal expansions, etc. etc. etc. A lot can be accounted for, but at some point assumptions will still need to be made. And this is with a far more exacting science than that of economics. But the idea still remains.

I am still a firm believer in a free market system, but to operate closer to its model, it should be constrained. This is not to be confused with regulated. Constrained. While all of the variables to be constrained and hwo to set those constraints are outside the scope of this post (and well outside the amount of time I am willing to put into this for FREE!), some are fairly easy to see.

• Oil futures
  • At one time these prices were regulated. We enjoyed fairly consistent gas prices, and quite often benefitted from local price wars amongst gas stations. I still remember getting gas in the 60-70 cent range, and this was the late 90′s, early 2000′s. Nowadays, this market is unregulated, and extremely volatile. Although it should be considered that consumption is much higher than it was then (with the emerging Chinese middle class and their 60 mile traffic jammed highways), that can’t explain everything. Once again, supply, demand, fear, greed, speculation, etc. A better solution than strict regulation would be a constraint, possibly similar to the current constraint on the yuan (it can only move so much a day against the dollar, and only to a threshold). Allow it to be constrained to within a certain percentage, tied to some measure (or measures) of the economy.
• Food commodities
  • A similar constraint as with gas prices. Part of the cost of food commodities is transportation cost. Properly constraining could also potentially include a government subsidy, driven off of the constraint.
• Interest rates
  • Need I say more

A properly constrained free market economy can - even with pieces being imperfect - allow it to operate more as an expensive swiss watch than a can of blocks. The secret is in using the constraints to allow the pieces of the economy to fit each other in an orderly fashion when looked at from a macroeconomic viewpoint.

Maybe I might spend some more time developing this idea. I might not be a schizophrenic genius, but you don’t always have to be

TSA Employee viewing the image from a full body scanner.

Full body scanners or intensive pat-downs, that is the question. The answer by an overwhelming number of Americans is neither. And for good reason.

America was founded as an ideal nation, a land of the free. Our forefathers had the insight from experience that a government that abuses its people in the name of authority was an evil enterprise. Even the noblest of intentions lead to inproprietaries against the people. Eventually, those good intentions paved the paths of hell that many Europeans faced at the time.

Freedom. Liberty. Ownership. Privacy. These were values so ingrained in their minds that they are the cornerstones of the foundation of this country. Our Constitution did not just set forth laws in the land, but also the rights than every single American were to enjoy. Since then, the government has made its path to define and limit those rights, bringing idealism into reality.

Welcome to 21^st century America. Once again, those rights are under assault by the same government, formed over 200 years ago, that wrote them in stone. Ever since 9/11, our freedoms, our liberty, our ownership rights, and our privacy, have continually been assaulted and diminished, under a new “cornerstone” they have tried to implement: security.

Last time I read the Constitution, I didn’t read anything about the right to security. Well, not that provided by the government at least.

The problem with Security as a cornerstone is that it is not a fundamental right. We were not born with security. And those who rely on others to provide the bulwark of their security, without being willing to fight for it themselves, forfeit their rights. Benjamin Franklin once said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Safety. Security. There are natural methods to these, such as the police and military. Yet neither proactively protect safety. A man breaks into your house and robs you. The police show up. Yet if you live in an area with overly restrictive weapons law, this is your only fate. The government has made a promise to your safety and security it cannot make, at the expense of a fundamental right (gun ownership, 2^nd Amendment of our Constitution). Changes to that system are being made, under McDonald vs. the City of Chicago, but that is an entirely different story in and of itself.

The point being, the government far too often believes it can ultimately provide for the safety and security of the people. In doing so it over-reaches, and in the end, makes us less secure. Our founding fathers gave credit to the people of this country, knowing that the people are a genuine part of the safety and security measures. The Revolution wasn’t won by large, well-trained armies, but by everyday Joe’s who came together in arms and fought for what was their’s.

Yet our government today gives us a vote of no-confidence. Not only are we restricted on protecting ourselves, our property, and our country, but we are continually being denied our fundamental rights. Freedom. Liberty. Ownership. Privacy. The terrorists won their battle, not by driving fear in the hearts of every American, but driving fear into the hearts of politicians, who give into demands that strip us our rights, and even deeper, our self-respect.

There is no sound reasoning that can justify full body scanning and intrusive pat-downs for every law abiding citizen that walks through the gates at the airport. Even if it provides a temporary level of safety, for giving in we give up our own liberty and safety. We were protected from unreasonable searches, yet we give men and women the ability to look upon our fully clothed naked bodies, or allow others to fondle in inappropriate areas, as if we were criminals.

Even worse, they are subjecting our children to this same level of disservice. “Susie, no one is allowed to touch you in those areas, unless they work for the government.” I am a parent, and I refuse to allow my child to fly. My child will not be subjected to radiation, and if anyone, even a TSA worker, would to touch my child in an inappropriate fashion, that person would not get that hand back.

Our government needs to wake up and get the message. Treating millions of Americans as common criminals does nothing to improve the safety of this country, especially when doing so, we are required to forfeit our fundamental rights. Doing so only creates tension and anger, which can be a bigger threat than from the terrorists. Or else we might as well pack our troops up and bring them home, because we have already lost the war.

Edit 11/16/2010:

This post originally had a picture that included a woman that had been scanned, then the scan inverted to show clear details of unmentionable body parts. Unfortunately, this picture has been determined to be a hoax. You can read up more on that at Just Get There.us.

20 year old Chief Marisol Valles Garcia stands outside her new office in Praxeids, Mexico. Alcazar/Getty

Welcome to the new face of law enforcement in Praxeids, Mexico, a border town that is part of the epicenter of the drug wars that have been going on now since 2006. New name is Marisol Valles Garcia, and she is a 20 year old (yes you read that right) criminology student at a university in Cuidad Jarez.

Apparently, the town mayor – Jose Luis Guerrero – asked for suggestions to improve the safety of his city. He liked her proposals so much, that he offered her a position, according to Al Jazeera. She will be unarmed, but will have body guards.

Valles Garcia inherits a decimated police force. Most of the force had quit for concerns of their own safety two years ago. She has brought on additional 10, bring the total to 13 officers. Their task? To go door to door, currently looking for the criminal element, according to NY Daily Times.

Honestly, I hope she’s not in over her head. She has signed herself up for possibly one of the most dangerous jobs, with enemies that have absolutely no regard for human life. I am worried they will go after her harder, being a female, and a single mother. This isn’t to put her down, I’m inclined to believe in her strength. Hopefully her community and newly minted police force will too. If not, it’s going to be a short tenure.,

A gas chromatograph. Samples from C. Anthony's trunk were analyzed using a similar device

For the first time ever, air analysis may be used as evidence in a trial. Not just a trial. Her trial.

No, this isn’t out of Fringe or CSI. This is a newer methodology, something that has never before been used in the courtrooms. Scientists from Oak Ridge National Laboratory took samples of carpeting from the trunk of Ms. Anthony’s Sunfire, and they ran a series of analysis on it. They also included samples from two other Sunfires, a pizza box, and a blanket that had been wrapped around a dead child who had decomposed in it for months.

First off they found chloroform. But after concentrating the sample, they were able to detect 51 chemicals, 7 of which are linked to human body decay.

This isn’t junk science. The methodologies behind this had been proposed earlier to discovered unmarked grave sites. Unfortunately, it isn’t mainstream yet, so it may or may not be allowed in the courtroom. It also isn’t a proof positive, since in the report from the analysis, they admit that the data is not 100% conclusive. However, it does lend credence to the state’s argument. Or maybe I should say the more likely side of the truth.

The idea itself is pretty cool. To those who say it is baseless science, remember that dogs do the same thing, without expensive laboratory equipment. They follow their noses, which are far more equipped than ours for picking up scents. However, it is a new science, and one thing given in science is that measurement comes with uncertainty. In my engineering program, we’re required to take courses on measurement, and courses on engineering statistics. As scientists, you have to be able to qualify your data, and provide confidence levels. “Oh, it’s pretty close,” doesn’t cut it. ’99.5% chance that this is exact,” that’s what we’re talking about.

Should the judge allow it as evidence? Personally, yea. It is evidence that is workable from both sides. Also, they still allow fingerprinting and ballastics work as evidence. You would be amazed to learn that these two types of evidence, central to so many cases, are not yet fully backed by science. More work has to be done to determine odds of a match. It’s more police work than science, which is dangerous. “Yes, it is a perfect match, this is the only person/gun it could match to,” is an opinion, sad to say. Not a fact. So if they are going to accept that, then “air science,” might as well to.

All Caylee wanted was love. All Casey wanted was to sex and party.

Either way, we’ll see what happens. This is turning more and more into an all-star event, from high-dollar attorneys to cutting edge, national laboratory science. Unfortunately it still circles around poor Caylee. Hopefully her soul will soon be at rest, with justice served to her murderer.

Only need a thousand more of these!

According to CSO Online, yet another Facebook spammer has been nail to the wall with outlandish fines for spamming. This time, Adam Guerbuez, of Montreal, was order to pay $1 billion CDN to Facebook for his spamming campaign.

Mr. Guerbuez set up a phishing site, stealing login information, then using a botnet to send out over 4 million spam messages. Man would I like to get my hands on that punk.

Obviously, he’s not on Forbes billion list, so don’t expect him to pony up. In fact, he’s refusing to pay a penny, and has declared bankruptcy. He’s trying to get a book deal out of the whole thing. Hah! If he did, he’d never see a penny of it. Oh well.

As I said, he isn’t the first that has been nailed. Last year another company prevailed against spammer Sanford Wallace, awarding more than $700 million US. Holy smokes.

Will all of this help us, the average joe, bombarded by spam daily? Maybe. According to Facebook’s CSO, Joe Sullivan, he has “seen discussions in underground forums where spammers say things like, ‘I don’t want a $100 million judgment hanging over me.’”

Honestly, I don’t know about you, but I would rather see these scum bags go to jail. I don’t see the humor in being one of the (insert cruel words here) who ensure that our daily inboxes are clutter with useless junk every day. It’s like the internet version of the shady street guy selling watches out of his jacket. Look at the fake or stolen inventory, and never realize you’ve already been pick-pocketed.

Maybe one day we will find a way to rid the word of spam. Until then, hopefully these billion dollar awards will help to keep some of these guys in check.