Avoid ATM Skimming

ATM skimming, the art of stealing ATM card info, and PIN capturing are becoming more and more prevalent. Thieves apply electronic capturing devices and miniature cameras to steal  your card information, shortly thereafter, your precious green.

ATM Skimmer: An electronic card reader (to steal data from your card) placed in front of the real card reader.

The thieves use a two-fold attack:

1. Data is captured from the magnetic strip on the back of the card through an electronic “skimming” device attached to the front of the card reader. This device looks exactly like a normal card reader.

2. Your PIN is stolen through the use of small spy cameras facing the keypad or even by a fake keypad placed over the real one.

What to do?

Obviously, be very careful to not do anything to get yourself arrested (modern ATMs have security cameras), but you may want to wiggle the card reader a bit to see if a skimming device is attached. Also, keep an eye out for the little spy cameras, but your best bet is to simply verify the keypad doesn’t have a fake one placed over it and then cover the keypad as you enter  your PIN, effectively shielding any peeping cameras.

I highly recommend you check out this little guide which shows you exactly what the skimming devices, cameras, and fake keypads look like. If the guide isn’t working, post a comment below and I’ll provide instructions to enable you to view PDF documents. [That last sentence was for my technically challenged readers. You know who you are.]

Gun Myths, Gun Facts

Eric, from handgunpodcast.com, pointed me to a great resource for gun facts: gunfacts.info. They provide a document called “Gun Facts” which debunks common gun myths with solid fact. Here’s an example, with relevance to yesterday’s post:

Myth: Private ownership of guns is not effective in preventing crime

Fact: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they “almost certainly” saved their lives by doing so.

Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

Fact: In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.

Fact: Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.

Fact: Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed.

Fact: For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use.

Fact: When using guns in self-defense :
•  83% of robbery victims were not injured.
•  88% of assault victims were not hurt.
•  76% of all self-defense use of guns never involve firing a single shot.

Fact: After the implementation of Canada’s 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun possession for protection, the “breaking and entering” crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the American rate.

Each of these facts have cited sources in the full document.

The Right to Bear Arms

COPYRIGHT © 2007-2009 Connected Ventures, LLC

We have the right to surgically implant bear arms whenever, wherever and however we want.

On a serious note, let’s talk about gun rights. Firstly, I’m not suggesting that there is or that there is not movement in Washington toward making individual gun ownership illegal in the United States. I simply want to state the importance of the right to bear arms and shed light on the difference between a responsible gun owner and a murderous individual who uses firearms to accomplish his means.

The Brady Campaign, which seeks to ban certain types of guns, claims “About 30,000 people a year in this country die from gun violence, about 80 a day, 32 by homicide.” First of all, if 32 of 80 deaths caused by gun violence are by homicide, what are the other 48 “deaths from gun violence” caused by? I find that hilarious. Secondly, when comparing their stated 30,000 deaths caused by gun violence to the FBI’s number of total murders per year (2007) of 16,929, something doesn’t really add up (source 1, 2).  Let’s take a look at at few more stats: handgunpodcast.com podcast 042 states that 1,500,000 crimes are prevented each year by gun wielding citizens. Also, this article, from learnaboutguns.com says, ” Americans use guns in self defense 2,500,000 times per year” -their source here. If you ask me, a lot more lives are saved by law abiding, gun totting citizens than would be if guns were banned.

Let’s compare a responsible gun owner versus a murderous individual with a gun:

A responsible gun owner:

• Must pass an FBI background check when purchasing a gun.
• Uses his gun for the prevention of crime, not for the causing of it.
• Has a desire to protect oneself and his/her family.
• Uses his gun as a tool for good.

A murderous individual with a gun:

• Does NOT need to pass a background check because he obtains guns illegally. Banning guns will not change this; he will still obtain guns illegally.
• Uses his gun for the causing of crime.
• Has a desire to inflict harm or death on others.
• Uses his gun as a tool for evil.

In both cases, the gun is a tool. It is not the cause of protection in the former, and it is not the cause of murder in the latter. The individual is the cause in both cases.

There are laws and punishment for those who use their guns irresponsibly. When a person takes upon him a firearm, he takes upon him the chance of heavy punishment if he cannot control his firearm as the law permits. As long as the law is congruent with moral rightness (this is the determining factor in our society’s prosperity), it will say, “Our citizens have the right to bear arms. However, if an individual uses the armament to harm innocent people, heavy punishment will be inflicted upon the individual”. This moral law is what keeps most people from using their guns over parking space feuds. If a person chooses to transgress the law, he will have to pay the consequence, or spend his life running in fear, shame and guilt.

This article is already longer than I wanted it to be, but I just want to state a few more things. There needs to be a clear distinction between crime and the tools used in crime. This reasoning is simple enough for a child to understand, yet is completely disregarded by the anti-gun crowd. While I do understand their desire to see a decrease in murder, they are simply trying to stop it in a way that will only hurt law abiding citizens. Here is the ever so obvious distinction:

• Arson is illegal, the use of fire is not.
• Rape is illegal, reproduction is not.
• Speeding in a school zone resulting in the death of a child is illegal, vehicular transportation is not.
• Murder is illegal, the tools (gun, knife, teddy bear, etc.) used in murder are not.

Firearms are just one of many possible tools used for murder. Take them away and the murderous individual will find a way to murder by other means. There is a murderer, and there is a tool. I say, fix or imprison the murderer, don’t take away the tools -which by the majority of people are used for good. Making guns illegal will not prevent people from committing crimes with them. Cocaine is illegal, but still the transgressors of the law find and use cocaine. The evil and/or psychotic person who uses a gun to unrighteously kill will still use guns to unrighteously kill if gun ownership becomes illegal. The only difference now, is that there are no longer millions of responsible gun owners to prevent this unrighteous abuse; they’ve obeyed and adapted to the new law, surrendering their guns in compliance. Those 1,500,000 (annual avg.) lives saved by gun owners are no longer saved. Those  16,929 (annual avg.) wrongfully killed by murderous psychopaths are now joined by millions.

The Arizona Rifleman says it better than I can:

More bans or restrictions won’t prevent people bent on a murderous rampage from committing such heinous crimes — they already need to violate numerous laws and societal norms to do so. The mere presence of such laws, however, cannot prevent one from doing something illegal — it simply provides a means of punishment afterward. With sufficient motivation, one can acquire weapons (or drugs, or other restricted items) regardless of laws prohibiting them from doing so. Clearly, the murderer had little qualms about acquiring weapons and then going on to commit mass murder.

To take away the right to bear arms from the individual is to nationally socialize gun rights.

Understand that the term “Nazi” comes from Nationalsozialistische, that is, “National Socialist”.

-examiner.com

For more, check out the following:
If you read only one of these -read this one-

From concealedcampus.org:
Common arguments against responsible individuals carrying guns publicly. The arguments are centered around campus gun carrying, but could be applied universally.
My favorite argument
Argument: The answer to bullets flying is not more bullets flying.
Answer: Actually,  the answer to bullets flying is almost always more bullets flying.  That’s why the police bring so many guns with  them when they respond to a report of shots fired.

This Washington Times article would convert any good-hearted person.

Criminals know which states disallow citizens to carry loaded handguns (this information is public). Illinois is one of those states. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear of criminals relocating to Illinois for this very reason.

Interested in self defense? Learn more here

Site Update

Hey everyone, I’ve just updated a few things about the site:

• Posted an update to the About Marshall page.
• Added a few links
• Added a tag cloud
• Added an RSS feed. Click the orange symbol to subscribe (updates to the site will be sent to you)

Why are you still paying for avoidable fees?

So many of us shell out hundreds of dollars a year on avoidable fees; anything from $3.50 a month for paper billing to “fitness center” fees at hotels. But you say, “If these fees are avoidable, why are the masses still paying for them? If no one was paying for them, they’d effectively become worthless to the companies that have them and they’d effentually be gone.” Well my friend, the masses are lazy and uneducated about where they’re getting taken. Yes, the fees are easily avoidable, but doing so requires a little research and reading of the fine print. The average person simply won’t do it. Luckily, bellinghamherald.com has outlined a list of 20 avoidable fees. Here are a few that stuck out to me:

HOUSEHOLD BILLS

From small home security firms and heating oil delivery services to major telecom providers, a growing number of companies are charging “manual billing” fees for sending paper bills and statements, sometimes up to $3.50 a month. Sign up for e-mail billing or check your statements online instead, and save up to $42 a year.

PHONE BILLS

Cell phone companies will charge up to $200 in “termination fees” if you cancel a contract early. Some prorate the fee to reflect the time left on the contract, but check your end date before switching services…

TRAVEL

Mid-range and discount hotels often offer free Internet service, but higher-end locations tend to charge, sometimes as much as $19.95 per day. If your hotel won’t waive the fee, check out WiFiFreeSpot.com or JiWire.com to find free service nearby.

BANKING & INVESTING

The fees for using another bank’s ATM have crept higher, and it’s not uncommon to see $3 to $4 charges. Using another bank’s machine may also trigger a fee from your bank. Search for your own bank when you need cash, or try getting cash back when making debit-card purchases. Even if your bank also charges a fee for debit-card purchases, that may be a less costly option than using an ATM.

CREDIT CARDS

Pay your bill late and expect to get socked with a fee of $30 or even $45. If you’re prone to forgetting the due date, set up an automatic payment through your bank account.

Rather than decline a purchase, credit card issuers now are just as likely to allow you to go over your limit and charge you a fee, typically about $35, says Adam Levin, chairman and founder of Credit.com. You’ll get charged even if you’re just a few cents over your limit, and even if it’s something like a late payment fee that puts you there.

I highly recommend reading the full list of 20 avoidable fees.

The killer of this whole thing is, not only are you getting hammered for hundreds a year, in the end it’s costing you much more because the money you could be saving would be used to either pay off debt and/or invest in mutual funds. With the latter, those hundreds could become thousands.

Gallery

I’ve added an auto-scrolling photo gallery to the menu. It has about 30 or so pics of me and the family. Check it out.

Unhappiness

I’m starting a new “Quotations” category. Here’s the first:

Unhappiness equals idealized images minus reality.

- Dennis Prager

Unfortunately, I don’t have a link to the exact source. I heard Dennis speaking on the subject on his national radio show. If you don’t believe me, here’s another guy that quotes him, charlesnorth.blogspot.com. He seems a decent fellow.

Anyway, back to the quote. I find it quite interesting. To phrase it in other words: gazing upon an ideal status of being, while knowing the truth of our actual status, is the source of unhappiness. This “status of being” could  be the owning of tangible objects, but more profoundly, it could be the makeup of character. Wishing we were something that we are not could indeed cause unhappiness or depression. However, for the optimistic it could also be a great motivator to attaining a more ideal status.

The quotation isn’t perfect. I think it should read, “One of the sources of unhappiness…” The comparison between want and have isn’t the only source of unhappiness. Maybe it’s the most frequent reason for unhappiness -in the minds of those who feel sorry for themselves, but I think the source of the most exquisite unhappiness would have to be the spiritual separation of man and God, when it is brought upon ourselves from our own agency. The notion I’m referring to is called “spiritual death,” and is caused by sin, or in other words, the deliberate disobedience of God’s will.

With that said, I think the quote could very well read:

The greatest unhappiness equals the knowledge that the choices we made were opposed to the ones achieving our fullest potential, which potential was to become the idealistic image of God.

Love is Conditional

There is no such thing as unconditional love among adults. Dogs love you unconditionally just as much as they would if they had another owner. They love everyone, without condition; they don’t love you for who you are or the things you do. Humans love others for who they are. This is easily proven by observing dating life: single people will maintain their appearance and try to look nice because those are the conditions of their date to at least like them. Why should this change after marriage? Spouses love their spouse (who they are and what they do) not because they will inherently love unconditionally. People who believe they are unconditionally loved do not maintain or improve themselves because they know their spouse won’t leave someone they unconditionally love! This belief is selfish and harbors degradation of self and relationship.

See Dennis Prager – Men’s Sexual Nature for more on the subject.

Escape from Reality

It’s important to step back every now and then to take a break from life. With so many pressures and responsibilities facing us, it’s always nice to escape into another world: a book, a movie, a video game. These are normal and healthy activities in a balanced life. For a small moment you get lost in the adventures and struggles of another world, helping you to relax from yours. The first mentioned, literature, not only allows you to escape but also imbues with knowledge. Watching a movie isn’t quite as edifying as reading, but it still lets you take a break from that never ending to do list and helps you realize your issues ain’t got nothin’ on Jason Bourne’s. The last one, playing a video game, can be fun and can also challenge your brain and reflexes. Again, these activities can be beneficial to a persons stress level, as long as they’re used along with other balanced activities. The problem occurs when the video game is played not as a relaxing recreational activity, but as an alternate reality. When responsibility and family is neglected for a false reality in a false world this “escape from reality” makes actuality suckyality.

Here’s an interesting article I found on the subject:

The Dinner Table

Remember the good old days when families had dinner together, with the TV turned off, and discussion time was a group effort from every member. With the inventions of the modern world we as humans have lost something that is very dear to our nature; we have lost human connection. When your dinner conversation is replaced by an internet game itinerary, and factious names that a face cannot be placed with, do you start to question your quality of life? Who are their real friends, what do they have in common besides a computer and a made up world? Maybe they find that working in 40hr work week with a hour commute home is to much of the real world, so they have to escape. They escape away from it all, away from the office, the home, and the people of today’s world. But are they also are escaping from their families, their kids whom go to school for 8 hours and want just a small amount of activity with their parents. Even if they give attention to the children before their bedtime, what about the spouse? Where is that human connection, the discussions of the day, how they are feeling, and what are their plans for tomorrow. “We can talk about it later………I have to logon now.”

-From wivesagainstwarcraft.blogspot.com

“Smart” car?

You know granola chrunchers are just victim to a smart marketing tool: “Save the environment” “Go Green”. For instance, the food industry makes a much larger return on their produce if they sell it as “organic”. You know how expensive organic food is? It’s ridiculous.

DaimlerChrysler built the Smart car to help save mother earth, right? No, it’s been produced to increase DaimlerChrysler’s revenue. They appeal to a new group: the tree huggers. Pretty smart if you ask me. Here’s my view: Johnny can buy a new Dodge Neon for $13,800 or an electric Smart car for $27,250. The Neon gets 30 miles per gallon, the Smart car doesn’t use gas at all (it operates on electric power, which is not free by the way). Let’s do a little math. I have a Neon, and my work is about seven miles away from home. In other words, I could get away with having an electric Smart car, which only goes 40MPH, because I don’t have to use freeways to get to work. Living so close to work, I only use a tank of gas a month (ten gallon gas tank). At four dollars a gallon for gas right now, I spend $40 a month. Now the difference between the price of the electric Smart car vs. the Neon is $13,450. How far would that money go towards gas at $4/gallon * 10gallons/month? It would go 28 years ($480 a year in gas). You’d have to drive that two passenger POS around for 28 years (at only 40MPH) for it to be worth the savings in gas money. No thanks, not for me. But, gas prices might continue to rise. Let’s say they’re going to double, to $8/gallon. And, let’s say I double the amount of monthly driving I do to 20 gallons/month. At those rates, you’d have to drive the electric Smart car for seven years before buying a new car to avoid losing money ($1,920 a year in gas). Is it worth it? Not for me. I’ll keep my 5 passenger seating, ability to go more than 100 miles in a trip and speeds over 40MPH. And as for Johnny, well, he took one in the pocket book because he’s swung at DaimlerChrysler’s sales pitch to the environmentalists. Is he really going to be able to go seven years without buying a bigger, faster car? Props to him if he can.

I just think it’s interesting how environmentalists get screwed by the high prices of the products their lifestyle requires them. Maybe it’s a testament to their faith to actually pay that much to live their beliefs, albeit their beliefs are incongruent to mine.

What do you think?