Search trending is nothing new, but I bet there are a few things you've never considered. For example, there was an article posted on election day showing a staggering number of Google searches for "who's running for president"! Not only does the Google chart show the number of hits, it also indicates the location from which the searches originated.

Chart: "who is running for president 2012"

Map: "who is running for
president 2012"

Go here to see results live on Google Trends.

We are in really deep trouble if this data is in anyway representative of the U.S. electorate. Sadly I think it might be, here's why...

Chart: "Moving to Costa Rica March 2010"

So, what happened in March of 2010? Obamacare was passed!

Chart: "Moving to Costa Rica November 2012"

Go here to see results live on Google Trends.

So people were worried about Obamacare, and are worried that what will happen now that Obama has been reelected. The effect is that people are actually looking to leave the country. Of course this isn't reflective of a majority of the U.S. population, but it's enough people to make Google Trends reflect it. I don't think that it's a coincidence do you?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

The gun lobby was 100% correct in their fears of Obama. Literally hours after Obama was elected the U.S. is now agreeing to debate a draft version of a U.N. conventional arms ban.

But the U.N. General Assembly's disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama's win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.

U.N. diplomats said the vote had been expected before Tuesday's U.S. presidential election but was delayed due to Superstorm Sandy, which caused a three-day closure of the United Nations last week.

An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.

"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said.

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.

U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.

A few things here are strange to me. Why, if the treaty does not effect U.S. domestic gun sales, do U.S. officials have to acknowledge that information "privately"? Also the name "U.N. General Assembly disarmament committee" does not sound like a committee devoted to maintaining gun rights. The fact of the matter is this; the U.N. is trying to mandate global gun laws. Once the framework is in place the U.N. will begin to encroach on U.S. gun owners individual rights. There could be no other reason to agree to something like this. As I have said before, "find me any newly created legislation that limits the power of those who passed it".

The measure now goes to the 193-nation General Assembly for a formal vote. It is expected to pass.

The resolution said countries are "determined to build on the progress made to date towards the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty."

Jeff Abramson, director of Control Arms, a coalition of advocacy groups, urged states to agree on stringent provisions.

"In Syria, we have seen the death toll rise well over 30,000, with weapons and ammunition pouring in the country for months now," he said. "We need a treaty that will set tough rules to control the arms trade, that will save lives and truly make the world a better place."

Brian Wood of Amnesty International said: "After today's resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we're only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights."

The treaty would require states to make respecting human rights a criterion for allowing arms exports.

The entire premise of this treaty is absurd. Does anyone really believe that those who violate human rights can't manufacture their own weapons? Iran is on the verge of manufacturing a nuclear weapon with the ability to kill hundreds of thousands of people, but we need to focus on hand-held weapons?

Anyone who thinks that this will not effect the U.S. and private gun ownership is far removed from reality.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

First of all I would like to say that it has been nice growing up in this country. Knowing what it was like; what it used to be like before slightly more than half of the population became willfully ignorant. But for those of us who know better it's time to fix things. Our government is indeed broken, but not from the inside --from the outside. The government is achieving its goals by reducing freedom and increasing dependency. The only thing broken in this country is the electorate. A government "...of the people, by the people, for the people..." which suppresses freedom is an abomination. This can only happen when economic ignorance is rampant.

The Obama administration has promised the impossible. For a Democrat politician that is not unusual. What is unusual is that for the first time, at least in my lifetime, more than half of the general public is too ignorant to know that these promises will not and can not be kept. Do people really believe that things are going to get better when profits are frowned upon and achievement punished? As I have said before who wants to move up to the hated class?

It's been said before in many different ways by many different people. Obama is not our worst problem; an electorate that would put him in power is our worst problem. Obama is but one man; however, if a majority of the population keeps voting to power people who will limit our freedom; Obama will be the least of our worries.

We, who know better, will have to double down in our efforts and expend more of our life energy to ensure that future generations don't pay for the mistakes of previous generations.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Wi-Fi Logo

I don't know about you, but I always find the names of home Wi-Fi spots interesting. It doesn't matter if you're in a neighborhood or live in an apartment it's always interesting. The BBC recently had an article about this.

Wireless internet users are typically asked to assign names to their networks when installing new routers. These names can be seen by anybody within range who searches for networks.

Many stick to mundane options like "Home" or "Wireless01". The more adventurous may even use their surname or address.

But this is an era of bite-sized self-expression. It's possible to see names like "Drop it like it's hotspot", "Terror network", and "Virus Detected Shutting Down". Or witticisms like "Pretty fly for a Wi-Fi" and "Wi Believe I Can Fi".

I was looking for an open Wi-Fi connection in one apartment I lived at (I needed to test a VPN implementation). One of the Wi-Fi names I saw was "Get off my 'effing' Connection" "effing" having been spelled the normal way. Needless to say, I connected to it because it was unsecured.

I've seen any number of crazy names, some even list the owner's apartment number. The one I have used before is "Join Other Network". Of course I have come up with more like "Your Mama", "Join At Your Own Risk", "Packet Sniffing Here", "Your Personal Info For Sale", "Random Name", "Guess Who", "I Knew You Would Come", "We Are Waiting" and so on...

As the article points out Wi-Fi names are used as a means of semi-anonymous communication.

What are some of the names you've seen?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Biden and Ryan

Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan will debate on Thursday, October 11, 2012.

Topic: Foreign and domestic policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: Centre College in Danville, Kentucky
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan
Moderator: Martha Raddatz (ABC News Chief Foreign Correspondent)

The debate will cover both foreign and domestic topics and be divided into nine time segments of approximately 10 minutes each. The moderator will ask an opening question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the question.

Joe Biden is beyond goofy --to the point that Biden is seen by our enemies as a weakness. I don't know about you but that's a pretty embarrassing position to be in. Here is a list of some Biden gaffes.

Before his death, Osama bin Laden boldly commanded his network to organize special cells in Afghanistan and Pakistan to attack the aircraft of President Obama and Gen. David H. Petraeus.

“The reason for concentrating on them,” the al-Qaeda leader explained to his top lieutenant, “is that Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make [Vice President] Biden take over the presidency. . . . Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis. As for Petraeus, he is the man of the hour . . . and killing him would alter the war’s path” in Afghanistan.

Expectations for Joe Biden are extremely low. Biden needs to make it through the debate without using profanity, accidentally trashing the president and remember that he's at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky. If he can keep it together for 90 minutes, the media will report that Biden looked very "statesman-like" --presidential even.

You will also notice that there will be little attention paid to substance when referring to Biden during the debate. Most of the focus will be placed on Biden's "experience" not what is said during the debate.

After the debate; be prepared to hear the most insane reasons for why Biden lost the debate. At least, that's my guess on how it's going to go down.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!