Showing up to vote is critically important.

Quite right.

I never understand how people can think that abstaining from voting is showing some kind of protest and exhibits power. Maybe if those elected were paid based on how many people showed up to the polls it might influence them somewhat, but it doesn't matter how many people go to the polls as long as they're elected. So when 64% of those who can vote don't it tells candidates that, at best, those people are indifferent or, at worst, that they support all candidates equally. Either way it makes the candidate's job easier because they only need to focus on the undecided amongst those who will vote and those don't give a rat's patoot about that 64%.

I believe that voting third party, ideally in large groups, is the best way to change our process, but even writing in for Darth Vader or Bart Simpson is better than not voting at all. And, to the inevitable responses of "If you vote third party you waste your vote", I say this: If you vote "first" party you already waste your vote, because the Democrats and Republicans both want to screw over Joe Sixpack and maintain their power, they'll just do so in different ways. Democrats will try to strip the Second Amendment and have you pay tremendous fines or prison time for sharing a movie online. Republicans will try to strip the First Amendment and let energy companies dump toxic chemicals into your water. Both will do whatever they can to stamp out the remaining amendments, extend their power, and keep themselves in control.

Voting first party is asking for trouble.

Another long-term study found a link between empty wallets and Steam sales.

But ok, so they can see a video feed of my sleeping baby? So what?

It's amazing what you can gleam from little details. I would have thought that reading Sherlock Holmes would have taught many a geek that, even if we never learned how to do it ourselves. For a more recent piece of entertainment, see the now-ended series Monk or Psych.

Is there a window in the picture? Even if the shades or curtains are kept down, it could be used for information. For instance, if you have a tree outside that casts a shadow and it's windy a viewer can look up reported wind speeds in the Atlanta area and see if any particular area is stronger than others. If it's not windy they can watch the direction of shadows change over the day to find out what direction the window is facing. If it's night and they can see the typical flashing lights of emergency vehicles, they can check the various police blotters for the Atlanta area and see if any reported times match up with when they saw the lights.

If the curtains are pulled back maybe they can see a distinguishing landmark through them, even something as simple as a school or government building gives them a radius to work in. And if it's on the ground floor, facing the street, they can see other details about the area. Does it seem middle-class? Upper-class? Lower-class? Does your neighbor across the way have some super-gaudy lawn ornament? People have probably taken photos of it; take a screen-shot and do a reverse image lookup. Even if none of these say the exact address, they probably have an area name and maybe even a lat/long.

Does the monitor have sound? They could see if there's a nearby bell/siren that goes off at the same time every day. If you go in to pick up the baby while on the phone, they could overhear you reading your SSN or CC to someone over the phone (or, hey hey, your address.) Is there an ice cream truck sound? Probably a lot of kids and you're close to an elementary school.

Now, any one of these things alone are unlikely to identify you (except for you reading your address to someone on the phone), but together they can set up enough of a picture that someone in the area can drive around canvasing to nail it down. The camera itself can be used as confirmation; shine a non-obvious light or laser pointer (just don't hit an airplane) on a window you suspect to be the baby's room and have someone watch for it to appear on the webcam. The response to that, of course, is "Okay, so? Some guy knows where I live, so what?"

While the chances are extremely rare--more so than the fear-mongering media would like people to believe--there is a non-0 chance that someone will target you for whatever reason. Maybe they'll just send you creepy letters, or maybe you'll look at a recording of your baby's cam and see a face looking into the window at night. This doesn't mean you should board up your doors and windows, turn off the electricity, and never leave your house full of water and spam (questionably edible, not mail.) But why not take the time to activate security features offered on the camera already? Sure, that could be hacked, but security is about lowering risk, not removing it completely. Or, if it has no security features, unplug it when you're not home.

And, of course, we have the whole NSA thing going on, so why make it easier for them to collect stuff like this?

tl;dr: If you have the ability to enable extra security/privacy, likely trivially, why not?

After the success of the crab fishing show (which names annoyingly escapes me right now)

Deadliest Catch.

Which, while being part of the whole reality-TV craze, I did enjoy when I caught it now and then. It was at least a bit educational, in how they do their job and handle problems, but mainly because it was narrated by Mike Rowe and I really enjoy his voice. (Speaking of Mike Rowe, Deadliest Catch started after his Dirty Jobs show, which was psuedo-reality-TV.)

Honestly, whatever channel turns into 24 hours of Mike Row and Morgan Freeman reading to each other is the one that I will sign up for.

Absolutely include those extra benefits in the posting(s), and make sure they're prominent (likely near the salary listing). A lot of people look for higher numbers, sure, but increasingly it seems people are okay with a smaller amount so long as they have more free time/flexibility and can pay the bills.

I consider voting Republican.

Please reconsider. The Republicans will not listen to you anymore than the Democrats will. The Democrats did nothing against the NSA when they were voted in in 2006 and had heavy control after people were disappointed with the Republicans. Expect just as much action on the new Republican Congress; hell, they'll probably expand it.

Both parties will continue to go back and forth because they are two sides of the same coin; while an individual might lose his or her seat, both parties will maintain their power and keep flipping who is controlling the Federal Government. If a Democrat wins the President in 2016 I will be incredibly surprised.

The only way to send a strong message to them--both parties--is by creating a strong third party base. Ideally behind one third party, but even if it's split amongst multiple third parties as long as it eats enough votes from both halves of the Establishment Party then it will be enough. There's no guarantee that third parties will listen to us, either, but a serious threat to either party (ideally both, but one may be enough) of losing complete control will make them get in line with what actually matters for America.

Of course, what matters for America is not necessarily what their constituents actually care about. Things like abortion, gay marriage, and religion are often extremely decisive but have very little impact on the nation as a whole. The deficit, military-industrial complex, tax loopholes, education, etc. are far more important to our health as a nation, but people will happily vote for someone who will sell Rhode Island to Exxon-Mobile for use as a Murderdome as long as they proclaim to be Christian (and the Murderdome doesn't kill fetuses) or support gay marriage. This is something that needs to be addressed, as well, but I think the third party thing is easier to accomplish in the short term.

Come on, that completely crossed party line.

Irrelevant. Just because A did something wrong does not automatically give B a pass on doing the same. In fact, I would say that the onus is more on B because by the time B can act, B should know it's wrong and make an effort to stop it.

I voted for President Obama in 2008 because I naively bought into his message of Hope and Change: I thought he would be the anti-Bush, undoing large swathes of what Pres. H.W. Bush put in place. While he did make some attempts that were stymied by the GOP (and some Democrats), they were for the smaller acts. He's done more to expand many bad systems than he has to fight some of them.

I do appreciate that he was elected President, though: not because he is (half-)African American, not because of Obamacare, but because he is a Democrat. When it turned out that he wasn't that much different from a Republican President, it really opened my eyes to the failure of our major two parties, which are really just two halves of the Establishment Party. And, for that, I thank him.

What about regular loans (home, auto)? Credit cards? I understand those are quite hard for someone to get those at 18, and if they do it's usually for a smaller amount with a higher APR. But when I was 18 I could get a student loan for $20K with my mom co-signing (I understood loans, just not the realities of the future.) The difference? Student Loans are far harder to discharge in regular bankruptcy proceedings. Therefore, institutions making those loans take on far less risk themselves, especially if the government can garnish your pay checks or social security to pay them.

I think it's okay to trust 18-year-olds with loans, but it should be limited (or make them take a financial class to be sure they fully understand what they're getting into). Remove the protection for student loans and you'll probably see both tuition and average student debt turn way down after a decade.

Hello! You seem to be providing an anecdote, for which mods have given you points. Please allow me a moment to cancel your anecdote out with my own.

I am single with no kids, and prior to the ACA I was paying roughly $320/mo for insurance through my workplace with Aetna (work reimburses $90 for health insurance). The lowest cost plan was $282/mo. As a young and relatively healthy adult, I was not going to hit that $3000/mo out-of-pocket limit, even though I was paying out hundreds to the places I did visit, even when in-network and with referral.

After the ACA I signed up for a "Catastrophic" plan with Kaiser Permanente for $163/mo through the Colorado Healthcare Exchange, $6000 out-of-pocket. Since I switched, I've seen a doctor for a regular checkup, gotten blood work done, and have started regular sessions with a therapist and once with a psychologist (psychiatrist? I can never remember) for a medication evaluation. I've gotten two prescriptions which I did pay about $40/ea for so far, but I have yet to see a bill for any of those visits. I have even gotten statements billing for some of those things where KP adjusted the amount and so I owed $0. (I am worried about the other shoe dropping and getting hit with a huge bill, but it's been three months.)

So, thank you, Affordable Care Act. I have saved hundreds of dollars in the past year, and as someone who lives paycheck-to-paycheck that is significant for me.

(Full disclosure: I did recently receive notice that I will have be reviewed because I turn 30 next year and other changes, so it's possible that in a few months time I'll have a more expensive plan than I would have gotten through work; but work's plans haven't changed, so if that happens I might switch back.)

Would it be okay to ask her to play a black woman, wearing makeup (and clothes)?

While the reaction described by radtea does smack of bigotry, I don't think it's bigotry in general to turn down a role you don't feel comfortable playing or don't believe you could play properly. While I'm no actor, if someone asked me to play an outgoing playboy (of any orientation) I would refuse the part because it's so counter to my own personality that I wouldn't be able to do a good job.

That takes money, takes risk and takes some intelligence to try to suss out the good from the bad.

Media companies, like any large corporation these days, care far more about profit over product. If they could make money by putting up an image of mayonnaise for a half hour, they would. Revenue? Who cares about revenue? Their revenue could increase 100% but if, in doing so, their profits drop 5%, then they've done A Very Bad Thing.

That's why reality TV is huge. The media companies realized that they could get average people, group them for some nebulous reason, and pay them a paltry amount while getting millions of viewers and dollars. While this has been going on for some time[1], the Writer's Strike ('07-08) is when it became readily apparent how lucrative reality TV was (the Wiki article includes quotes about reality TV exploding during that time.) Now and then you might have quality and profit line up (Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, but these are more "independent" (not "Indie") channels instead of enormous conglomerations), but that's the exception and not the rule.

Law and Order and CSI and then making n versions of those shows in different cities

Quick point: Every Law & Order series has taken place in New York City except Law & Order: LA, which lasted only one season.

[1] While not the first reality show in the US, I think that Survivor was the point when "Reality TV" really took hold in America.

This is why it's risky to attach your name to the company's name. Sure, it could secure you a legacy in history, but it can also lead to situations where others will take the company name and try to use as a tentpole of credibility for their schemes. "Surely Captain Kirk Enterprises, LLC wouldn't lead me astray!"

I'd like them to experiment with different payment options. Possible options:
1) Flat fee, no ads ever
2) Tiered fees, going from no ads to ads for some things but not others, or only X ads/day
3) Micro fees, where you load up your account and can choose to pay Y cents to not view ads for this view, Z cents to not view for a day, etc.

Regarding micro fees, I've always wanted to see suppliers that do both one-time payments and recurring payments have a system that will automatically put you in the recurring payment option if you spend enough to reach it for that month. As an example, say that Youtube offers both micro- (say, 25c/video) and monthly- ($5/mo) fees. You only watch four or five videos a month but would like no ads when you do, so you opt for the micro- option and choose when to not see ads. In a particular month you watch 20 videos for whatever reason, and because you hit that $5 line the system automatically upgrades you to the Monthly type for that month; it's not recurring, and you no longer have to make a payment for a video for that month. I think this would encourage more micro transaction use from light users, as there's the minor incentive that if they wind up spending a lot in micro payments they'll get the monthly service (for the remainder of the month) anyway.

I'm not aware of any service that offers a setup like this, but I've never gone looking.

she is going to need much better proof than she has or nothing will come of this

President Obama could personally admit that everything she claims is true, live, during the Superbowl half-time show, after ripping off part of some singer's costume and revealing a nipple pasty, while the Secret Service passes out copies of damning and irrefutable evidence to every person in attendance, and not a damn thing would happen.

Congress has shown it is unwilling to take even symbolic action against any political individual who breaks the law in any manner. Sure, you hear a lot of Republicans talk about actions, and there's even that lawsuit against the President, but none of it is actually intended to change anything--they're just ways of grandstanding to their own party. (The conspiracy theorist in me says that the Democrats support these efforts, because they can use the same actions with a different spin to secure their own constituents.) They will not take action against any abuse of power, real or imagined, because they all hope to one day be sitting in that Oval Office and want to have at least that much power at their disposal.

And tomorrow, Nov 4th, 90% of those running for re-election will retain their seat. The people don't understand this and will vote on relatively small issues like abortion, gay marriage, and whether someone will or will not repeal Obamacare.

An automated car would be smarter than a person and refuse to drive in such a storm. If it is already driving when such a storm hits, it will find the nearest safe pull-off location and do so.

If it's an emergency, then:
1) you should try contacting emergency personnel who would have better-equipped vehicles to come to you; but, if they can't come, then
2) fully-automated cars would probably have some override mechanism you could activate[1], allowing you to
3) drive into the snow storm and maim/kill yourself/others, causing more emergencies. GOTO 1

[1] These would probably come with explicit warnings about shifting all liability onto you if you choose to use it.