Alexa. Please Don’t Answer Police Questions Without a Warrant

EchoAmazonThe police in Bentonville, Arkansas have asked Amazon to give them access to any voice recordings that its Echo digital assistant may have made at the time that an alleged murder was committed, reports The Information. According to court documents James Andrew Bates is charged with killing Victor Collins on November 22, 2015 after Collins was found dead in Bates’ hot tub.

Echo operates by always listening for “hot words” that signal it to send a request to the cloud services offered by Amazon and various third parties. For example, owners might ask Echo through Amazon’s voice recognition program Alexa for a weather report or to play Mozart. The device fewer than 60 seconds of recorded sound in its storage buffer.

Amazon records all requests with the idea that Alexa will learn better over time how to respond to specfic customers’ queries and orders. However, Echo does not record every word that people say in their homes. In other words, always listening is not the same as always recording. So in this specific case, unless someone asked Alexa how to clean up blood stains or the best techniques for garroting someone, the voice recordings from this device are unlikely to be of much help to the police. On the other hand, a smart water meter does apparently show that 140 gallons were used between 1 and 3 am on the night of the alleged murder; perhaps to wash away blood?

On the other hand, Echo might be able to place specific people in the house by noting who requested say a playlist and at what time requests were made. This is not unlike cell phone location information which police regularly request from mobile phone companies. So far, two federal courts have ruled that the police do not have to have warrants to obtain your cell phone location information. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and other digital privacy groups are contesting these rulings on Fourth Amendment grounds in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Amazon is resisting the Bentonville police request. In a statement to Engadget the company said: “Amazon will not release customer information without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us. Amazon objects to overbroad or otherwise inappropriate demands as a matter of course.”

Since The Information reports that the Bentonville police have secured a warrant seeking the voice recordings from Bates’ device for November 21 and 22, 2015, it is not clear on what grounds Amazon is refusing to turn over the requested recordings. Go here to learn how to delete Echo voice recordings.

We are now all surrounded by microphones and video cameras in our laptops, tablets, smart televisions, and cell phones, all of which can be potentially hacked by criminals, government spies, and the police. As the Internet of Things expands, the possibilties for how our devices might be used against us greatly expand. Encryption can help, but keeping closer watch on the watchers will be vital.

from Hit & Run

Chicago Police to Speed Up Body Camera Adoption, Assuming Officers Don’t Sabotage Them

Chicago PoliceToday the City of Chicago is set to announce that it’s speeding up the adoption of body cameras on every patrolling police officer. Originally they had planned to get everybody cameras by the end of 2018. Now they’re planning to roll it all out by the end of next year.

Currently officers in a third of Chicago’s 22 police districts have body cameras. Given Chicago’s reputation as having the most corrupt, abusive law enforcement system in any major city, the idea of them implementing body cameras more quickly seems like good news on the surface.

But as we’re learning with police and body cameras, the devil is in the details, and what happens after the body cameras actually come into play matters. As a reminder consider everything surrounding the case of Chicago Police Officer Jason Van Dyke fatally shooting Laquan McDonald back in 2014. The shooting was captured on a police dash camera, but the city sat on the video and wouldn’t publicly release it for a year until ordered to do so by a judge, coincidentally around the time Van Dyke was finally charged with murder.

Even then, there was a lot of footage of the incident missing. The dash cameras of several police cars on the scene were not working and the video footage that was released lacked any audio. And according to internal reviews of the police department this was likely a result of “intentional damage” caused by the officers themselves. After administration cracked down on officers to make sure they were following procedures properly, Chicago Police saw a 70 percent increase in the amount of camera footage uploaded each shift.

That’s all a reminder that all the video equipment in the world won’t matter when police are not held accountable for ignoring policies (the crackdown here happened only after they discovered all the problems with footage in the McDonald case) and when the city itself deliberately avoids transparency in situations of controversy about police behavior.

Note that the National Fraternal Order of Police is encouraging President-Elect Donald Trump to “de-prioritize” implementation of many of the recommendations listed by President Barack Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Increased implementation of body cameras by law enforcement agencies across the country is one of the items on the list.

Trump shouldn’t have any authority one way or another over whether municipal police implement body cameras (neither does Obama). But the Department of Justice began offering grants to help police pay for them in 2015. A Trump administration could eliminate such grants. (Note: We shouldn’t necessarily support federal funding for body cameras, which encourage companies to jack up the prices to get more of the money. But it is a consequence that will probably slow implementation in some places.)

from Hit & Run

Live Cattle, Feeder Cattle, Lean Hogs, Class III Milk (Video)

By EconMatters

We delve into the agriculture space, specifically the Cattle Industry looking at how the technicals are shaping up for the sector in this video. There are still some Meat eaters left in this world.

© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle   

via EconMatters

The Real Reason Janet Yellen Hates Cash

Janet Yellen thinks the US Dollar is a ““cash is not a convenient store of value.”

Long-term she is correct. After all, thanks to the Fed, the $USD has lost 95% of its purchasing power over the last 100 odd years. Anyone who has kept their money in cash has generally lost money virtually non-stop.

However, in today’s world in which some $9 TRILLION in bonds are posting negative yields, cash isn’t looking so bad. Yes, you’ll still lose purchasing power over time… but the same is true if you buy bonds in Europe or Japan… just with more volatility.

Yellen’s disdain for cash isn’t that cash is a poor store of value… it’s that cash, particularly physical cash is one of the few “loopholes” in the current financial system that permits you to escape the insanity of Negative Interest Rates from Central Banks.

After all, there are two basic benefits to storing your money in a bank:

1)   Security

2)   Interest

With NIRP in place, #2 is no longer a benefit. If anything storing your money in a bank with NIRP means losing money.

This leaves #1: security.

But you can likely achieve the same security by buying a home safe and sitting on physical cash there. Indeed, this is precisely what consumers in Europe and Japan have done since Central Banks in those two regions employed NIRP.

This is why Yellen and her ilk hate cash. Central Banks want to force consumers to spend money or invest in risk assets by punishing deposits with NIRP. But physical cash avoids NIRP entirely.

Will this stop Central Banks? No way.

Indeed, we've uncovered a secret document outlining how the Fed plans to incinerate savings in the coming months.

We detail this paper and outline three investment strategies you can implement

right now to protect your capital from the Fed's sinister plan in our Special Report

Survive the Fed's War on Cash.

We are making 1,000 copies available for FREE the general public.

To pick up yours, swing by….

Best Regards

Graham Summers

Chief Market Strategist

Phoenix Capital Research





via Phoenix Capital Research

John Kerry To Discuss Mid-East “Peace”: Explain Aleppo Loss, Israel Shun – Live Feed

Outgoing US secretary of state John Kerry is to remark on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict this morning following Trump's tweet-spanking and Israel’s security minister slamming Obama's decision to abstain at The UN as "pathetic" accusing Kerry of "trying to make chaos" that will last past his tenure.

Delivered less than a month before President Barack Obama steps down, RT notes that the speech is expected to be the last work from his administration on the decades-old conflict.

After Kerry replaced Hillary Clinton as secretary of state in 2003, he made Israeli-Palestinian peace a priority and pushed for direct negotiations. However, they didn’t last the nine months they were expected to, collapsing in April 2014 without any tangible result. In June of that year, Israel launched a 50-day military campaign in Gaza.

Commenting on the upcoming speech, Israeli Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan said it was “pathetic to present a [peace] plan at the last minute when [Kerry] hasn't managed in changing anything for his entire time in office.”


“It's unfortunate that the Obama Administration, that erred for years in the Middle East, is trying to make sure that the chaos will last far past its tenure,” Erdan said late on Tuesday night, as cited by the Jerusalem Post.


“Kerry's speech on parameters right before the end of his tenure will make sure that the Palestinians won't agree to any sort of negotiations [with Israel] in the coming years and will [put] off chances of advancing peace.”

As Trump tweeted earlier, "Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!"

Live Feed: (Kerry is due to speak at 11amET)…

via Tyler Durden

Equity Selling Spills Over Into Bitcoin

It appears the US equity market’s failure to break Dow 20k once again has sparked a selling avalanche in Bitcoin (which just tumbled from $970 to 950 in minutes). Most notably is the huge volume of sellers in BTCChina – relatively odd given its midnight there

Source: BitcoinWisdom

Or is this The PBOC intervening as capital outflows accelerate?

Notably, this happened earlier…



via Tyler Durden

University of Oregon Suspended a Professor Who Had No Idea Her Halloween Costume Was Offensive

OregonFree speech is gravely threatened at the University of Oregon.

That’s the inescapable conclusion of a report outlining the university’s rationale for suspending a female law professor who dressed up as a black man during a Halloween party she hosted.

The professor, Nancy Shurtz, committed an act of race-based discriminatory harassment, according to the university’s investigation—even though she had no intention of offending anyone and had never heard of blackface before.

This is one of the most disturbing outcomes pertaining to faculty free speech rights in recent memory: Shurtz joins Laura Kipnis, Teresa Buchanan, and Andrea Quenette among the ranks of female academics who were censored for expressing an unpopular opinion on the subject of race or sex. Shurtz’s situation is most similar to Quenette’s in that she had no intention of making her students uncomfortable.

According to Oregon’s report—which was compiled by a private law firm—Shurtz hosted a private Halloween party at her own home. Students were invited to attend, and several did so. Shurtz’s costume was “black man in a white coat,” a reference to a book by Dr. Damon Tweedy about his experience as a doctor of color. Shurtz later told investigators she intended to pay homage to the book, which she had enjoyed, and start a dialogue about racial diversity:

We determined that she was inspired by this book and by the author, that she greatly admires Damon Tweedy and wanted to honor him, and that she dressed as the book because she finds it reprehensible that there is a shortage of racial diversity, and particularly of black men, in higher education. Shurtz was further inspired to this costume by virtue of the fact that her daughter attends medical school and her incoming class also had very few people of color; her daughter inquired with school administration about the class demographics and this apparently led to the medical school assigning reading assignments from Damon Tweedy’s book. Shurtz’s email to her class list the day after the event explained that she had intended “to teach with this costume as well (or at least tell an interesting story)” and Shurtz’s public apology following the event conveyed that she had intended to provoke a discussion on racism in society, educational institutions and professions.

(Well, we can’t have a university professor provoking a discussion on racism in society. Burn the witch!)

Shurtz’s costume involved the use of black makeup on her face and hands, which constitutes an offensive use of blackface in the eyes of many people. Blackface is always impolite, this thinking goes, because of its racist and discriminatory history—even if the person wearing it is portraying a specific black person, rather than black people generally, and even if the portrayal isn’t intended to be mocking.

I’m not sure whether this logic makes any sense, but even if it does—even if blackface is patently and objectively offensive to a number of people—what right does a public university have to discipline a law professor for dressing provocatively?

Well, according to the report, Shurtz’s costume constitutes discriminatory harassment because:

Discriminatory Harassment is defined by University policy as conduct that either in form or operation, unreasonably discriminates among individuals on the basis of race or color; which is sufficiently severe or pervasive that it interferes with work or participation in any University program or activity; which creates an intimidating, hostile, or degrading working or university environment for the individual who is the subject of such conduct; and where the conduct would have such an effect on a reasonable person who is similarly situated. …

Almost every student reported feeling shocked, offended, angered, disappointed, surprised, anxious or uncomfortable being at the event. The discomfort was not limited to the students of color. …

Discriminatory Harassment under the University’s policies is directly comparable to racial or sexual harassment under Title VI or Title VII. “[T]he existence of a racially hostile environment that is created, encouraged, accepted, tolerated or left uncorrected by a recipient also constitutes different treatment on the basis of race in violation of title VI.” Racial Incidents and Harassment Against Students at Educational Institutions; Investigative Guidance, 59 Fed. Reg. 11448 (Mar. 10, 1994). The victim does not have to be the person harassed, but can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.

The report notes that Shurtz enjoys certain free speech protections as a tenured law professor, but in this case, the university’s interest in preventing racial discrimination outweighs Shurtz’s claim to academic freedom.

It’s impossible to overstate how radical and dangerous (and wrong) this finding is. As The Washington Post’s Eugene Volokh points out, Oregon’s policy forbids discrimination that arises not just from racial considerations, but a host of other status as well: age, veteran status, sexual orientation, perceived gender, and religion. If a problematic Halloween costume—donned with innocent or even positive intentions—is enough to constitute racial harassment, how easy would it be for the university to make a determination of religious harassment? Volokh writes:

Let’s take religion. Say a professor posts something on his blog containing the Mohammad cartoons (as I have done myself); or say that he displays them at a debate or panel that he is participating on; and say that he has invited students in the past to read the blog or to attend the panel. Then some Muslim students, both ones who are at the event and those who just hear about it, get upset. His colleagues and the administration decide to discuss the matter in detail, which fans the flames — something that could happen with the cartoons as easily as it can with Shurtz’s makeup. Under the logic of the Oregon report, such a post would equally be punishable “harassment.”

And, of course, this would be even clearer as to deliberate negative commentary on a particular group:

  • Sharp criticism of Islam.
  • Claims that homosexuality is immoral.
  • Claims that there are biological differences in aptitude and temperament, on average, between men and women.
  • Rejection of the view that gender identity can be defined by self-perception, as opposed to biology.
  • Harsh condemnation of soldiering (that would be harassment based on “service in the uniformed services” or “veteran status”).
  • Condemnation of people who have children out of wedlock (that would be harassment based on “marital … status” and “family status”).

All of these could be punishable harassment under the university report’s analysis, if they generate enough controversy. And this is so even if they are just general political statements, without any targeted insults of particular individuals. The expression of certain views, however linked they may be to important public debates, is forbidden to University of Oregon professors, at least once the views create enough controversy.

I would add that “perceived gender identity” is a particularly problematic category, given Oregon’s massive rejection of the primacy of academic freedom. A student or professor who persisted in the belief that all people are male or female and should be referred to as “he” or “she” could easily be found guilty of gender-identity-based harassment under this standard. Of course, “perceived gender” is as radically subjective as religious belief: could a professor be disciplined for mocking the tenets of Pastafarianism, or refusing to honor a student’s wish to be referred to as “Your Majesty”?

The report does not specify what Shurtz’s punishment will be—she has already been suspended for weeks. That’s disturbing enough, but the greater concern is the overall climate at Oregon. Unintentional, one-off slip-ups constitute discriminatory harassment, in the university’s view—as long as enough students are offended. It doesn’t matter if they are wrong to feel slighted. It doesn’t matter if the expression in question is a matter of legitimate public interest. It doesn’t matter if the faculty believe that education should, in some cases, provoke discomfort. It doesn’t matter if it happens outside the classroom, and only indirectly concerns the university.

If Shurz had dressed up as a Catholic priest, with the deliberate intention of mocking Catholicism and making her Catholic students uncomfortable, would we not defend her right to challenge religious dogma? I think I know Oregon’s answer: no way. If accidental exercises in controversial expression are prohibited, then the university simply put, does not recognize free speech rights—full stop.

from Hit & Run

Hawaii Restaurant Bans Trump Voters: “You Cannot Eat Here! No Nazis.”

Honolulu’s Cafe 8 1/2 would like for you to know that if you voted for Trump then, (1) you’re not welcome in their establishment and (2) you’re likely a Nazi.  The tiny “eclectic mom-and-pop restaurant” is drawing a lot of attention after posting the following bright yellow sign in their window:

“If you voted for Trump you cannot eat here! No Nazis.”



The sign obviously rattled some Trump supporters who told Fox News the message is discriminatory, and harkens back to the ‘racist and hate-filled’ days before statehood.”

“It’s childish and very unprofessional,” she said in an email. “… The restaurant owner doesn’t have to worry … I will not be stepping foot in that establishment.”


Willes Lee, former chairman of the Hawaii Republican Party and now president of National Federation of Republican Assemblies, told the sign is discriminatory, and harkens back to “racist and hate-filled” days before statehood.


“Remember when Filipinos couldn’t go in certain places, or Japanese wouldn’t be allowed [in] many homes? And, it didn’t matter who they voted for,” said Lee, who is of Japanese descent.


“People should be able to get food without hearing a political message,” one apparent former customer wrote on Yelp. “I will never go back.”

Apparently, so many people lashed out at the sign on Yelp that the administrators had to post the following “Active Cleanup Alert” to notify everyone that they would be joining other Silicon Valley companies in censoring unsavory comments from Trump supporters.

Yelp Notice


Not terribly surprisingly, the restaurant was founded by a couple formerly hailing from the liberal bastion of San Francisco.  But don’t worry, one owner confirmed to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser that even if you’re wearing a Trump shirt they “don’t put anything different [in] your food”…which we think is Hawaiian for “we spit in your food excessively.”

According to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, the café was founded by Robert Warner, a former hair stylist for Vidal Sassoon in San Francisco and former restaurateur in Seattle, along with his wife Jali.


Reached for comment Tuesday, Jali downplayed the sign’s supposed ban. She told the restaurant is not actually asking customers whether they voted for President-elect Trump, and said even if they see a customer with a Trump shirt, “we don’t put anything different [in] your food.”


“Robert just wants to express how much he doesn’t like Trump,” Jali said. “If people take it personally or it hurts them, we cannot help. That’s why we say they have [a] choice if they want to come or not come. We don’t force them.”

Nothing like punishing 50% of the population which you deem to be intolerant by practicing some intolerance of your own.

via Tyler Durden

Unhappy Holidays: Houston Police Force Homeless People To Throw Away Food

Submitted by Derrick Broze via,

Local activists attempting to hand out food and gifts were shocked on Thursday afternoon when Houston police forced the homeless to throw away the donations.  Around 1 pm on Thursday,  several individuals met in downtown Houston to distribute plates of hot food, blankets, and other supplies to the city’s growing homeless population. Soon after, Houston police arrived on the scene of two different intersections where the homeless advocates were giving out gifts and food.

According to witness testimony posted on Facebook, the police instructed the homeless to throw away everything they had been given. Not only were the police called, but they brought a large waste management truck and are forcing the homeless to throw away their food, pillows and other items,” reads one post.

A video from an ABC13 social media correspondent shows the police and trash vehicle parked under a freeway while a man narrates the situation. Covers, Blankets, different things like that, pillows. They are throwing all of that away,” he says.

Shere Dore, a local activist who works with several organizations, including Food Not Bombs Houston, was involved in the food sharing and says the throwing away of the gifts was uncalled for. I’m highly disturbed because lots of these items were not only given to the homeless by the community, but some of the blankets and jackets were literally purchased by homeless advocates like myself,” Dore told Anti-Media. “HPD and the City of Houston are taking our cash and throwing it in the trash. At what point will our police stand up and say that this is wrong to do to people?

Only moments before throwing away the gifts, the Houston police stopped Dore and a fellow advocate. Dore said her friend was taking photos of the police vehicle when the officer began questioning them, claiming someone had called and complained about people feeding the homeless. In a video posted on Facebook, Dore tells the officer she will feed the homeless whether it is legal or not.

These types of situations are likely to increase in Houston due to a 2012 city ordinance prohibiting the sharing of food with more than five people at a time without fulfilling certain requirements created by city council. The controversial measure, known as the “Anti-Food Sharing” ordinance by critics, was passed in 2012 despite resistance from one of the largest coalitions of political, activist, and religious organizations in Houston. The criticisms of the ordinance range from beliefs that it represents an attack on the homeless population to assertions it is another example of government restricting freedom.

The ordinance requires applicants to fill out a form and seek permission to feed someone while on someone else’s private property. If you would like to feed someone in a public park you must fill out another form. The city argues that feeding the homeless food that has not been cooked in a certified kitchen could spread illness and that feeding them is only enabling homelessness. Although Houston police have yet to issue a citation for violation of the ordinance, it has been an issue of concern among activists since the moment it passed. In late November, ABC13 reported that activists delivered 75,000 signed petitions to City Hall calling for the repeal of the ordinance.

As Houston prepares to host the National Football League’s Super Bowl 51, there is concern that the homeless population will be forced out of the downtown area or subject to increased harassment from the police.  In November AP reported, “fences have gone up and dozens homeless people living under a Houston freeway overpass have been ordered out amid speculation the city is trying to make the area more presentable as it prepares to host the Super Bowl early next year.” The Texas Transportation Department claims the move was not related to the Super Bowl and insists they were responding to safety concerns for drivers and pedestrians.

If the City of Houston is attempting to remove the homeless for their incoming sports event/ economic boom, it would not be the first. In April 2016 the International Business Times reported on the Brazilian government’s attempts to beautify parts of Rio at the expense of the homeless and other at-risk groups.

“‘Cleaning the streets,’ as the project is euphemistically known, is not an effort to haul garbage but to sweep away homeless people and drug dealers — including the often drug-addicted children who live on the sidewalks of some of Rio’s wealthiest neighborhoods.

Advocates for homeless youth say children are being detained arbitrarily by police — or in some cases simply vanishing. They warn that the “cleanup” is likely to make life worse than ever for the thousands of children who have already been forced out of their homes by abuse or desperate poverty.”

Rio and Houston are not alone in their mistreatment of homeless individuals. In October 2014,   the National Coalition for the Homeless released a report that found 21 U.S. cities have passed measures restricting feeding of the homeless since January 2013.

As we enter the “holiday season,” take a few moments to reflect on whatever abundance you have in your life and think of those who have less. If the police, city officials, and sports-obsessed public have their way, those without a home (by choice or circumstance) will be harassed, pushed out, and eventually rounded up. Let’s each do what we can to prevent this nightmare from becoming reality.

via Tyler Durden

Pending Home Sales Tumble As Surging Mortgage Rates Paralyze Housing Market

One month ago, even before the recent surge in mortgage rates to the highest level since April 2014…


… we noted that pending home sales had stalled, rising a barely positive 0.2%,, and well below expected, a number which we predicted was set for much more pain in the months ago.

Moments ago this prediction was confirmed when the NAR reported that November pending home sales plunged to their lowest level in nearly a year, sliding 2.5% in the month well below the 0.5% consensus forecast (and below the lowest -1.5% estimate), “as the brisk upswing in mortgage rates and not enough inventory dispirited some would-be buyers.”

On a year over year basis, the annual drop was the worst since August 2014.

Only the Northeast saw monthly and annual pending sales gains last month.

The details:

The Pending Home Sales Index,* a forward-looking indicator based on contract signings, declined 2.5 percent to 107.3 in November from 110.0 in October. After last month’s decrease in activity, the index is now 0.4 percent below last November (107.7) and is at its lowest reading since January (105.4).

According to the NAR’s perpetually cheerful chief economist, Lawrence Yun, the ongoing supply shortages and the surge in mortgage rates took a small bite out of pending sales in November. “The budget of many prospective buyers last month was dealt an abrupt hit by the quick ascension of rates immediately after the election,” he said. “Already faced with climbing home prices and minimal listings in the affordable price range, fewer home shoppers in most of the country were successfully able to sign a contract.”

It gets worse: with 2017 at the doorstep, Yun says higher borrowing costs somewhat cloud the outlook for the housing market. This was evident in NAR’s most recent HOME survey, which found that confidence amongst renters about now being a good time to buy has diminished since the beginning of the year1. The good news, according to Yun, is that the impact of higher rates will be partly neutralized by stronger wage growth as a result of the 2 million net new job additions expected next year.

“Healthy local job markets amidst tight supply means many areas will remain competitive with prices on the rise. Those rushing to lock in a rate before they advance even higher will probably have few listings to choose from,” said Yun. “Some buyers will have to expand the area of their home search or be forced to delay in order to save a little more money for their down payment.”

Existing sales are still expected to close out 2016 at a pace of around 5.42 million, which will eclipse 2015 (5.25 million) as the highest since 2006 (6.48 million). In 2017, sales are forecast to grow roughly 2 percent to around 5.52 million. The national median existing-home price is expected to increase to around 5 percent this year and 4 percent in 2017.

“Much more robust new home construction is needed to relieve inventory shortages and lessen the affordability pressures present throughout the country,” added Yun.

The geographic breakdown showed pervasive weakness by region:

  • The PHSI in the Northeast nudged forward 0.6 percent to 97.5 in November, and is now 5.7 percent above a year ago.
  • In the Midwest the index declined 2.5 percent to 103.5 in November, and is now 2.4 percent lower than November 2015.
  • South decreased 1.2 percent to an index of 118.7 in November and are now 1.3 percent lower than last November.
  • The index in the West fell 6.7 percent in November to 101.0, and is now 1.0 percent below a year ago.

Expect much more pain for housing, which as Mark Hanson noted recently is the least affordable it has ever been for buyers who need a mortgage, in the coming months which will promptly spill over into all other areas of the economy.

via Tyler Durden