Thunt1949

Two months ago, I ran a giveaway for two plane tickets anywhere in the US.

Robyn won! She’s planning to fly to her coin-collecting grandfather to Philadelphia to see how coins are made.

Last month, I gave away $1,001 on Amazon.

Meghan won! She’s using her prize to buy the “most luxurious, highest quality bedding she can find.”

THIS IS DOPE. I think you guys are okay, but not that cool. But this is awesome.

Today I’m kicking off another giveaway…and I tweaked the rules to give away even more.

Win dinner out for two — for a YEAR
As you know, I love Taco Bell, and when I was a kid, my mom used to take us there sometimes. But we could NEVER order a Mexican Pizza — it was too expensive ($3.29, I still remember the price).

The funny thing is, I could buy all the Mexican Pizzas I want today, but I’ve still never bought ONE. What is wrong with me??

But I love love love the feeling of being able to go to a restaurant and order what I want…WITHOUT WORRYING about the price. Appetizers? Sure. Not sure I want X or Y? I can do both. Is this heaven?

This is one of the most overlooked parts of living a Rich Life. You can eat out with your friends, pick awesome restaurants, and instead of worrying about the price, you can create awesome memories.

And now, I’m giving that away to you — for a year.

Today, I’m giving one lucky person “Dinner for Two” with guest of your choice, once a month for an entire year.

That’s 12 meals…wherever you want. (Don’t be an ass, please. I’m limiting the price to $125/meal.)

All I ask is that you send me pictures of where you eat so I can share them with the list.

To win, it only takes 5 seconds to enter:
http://www.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/rich-life/

-Ramit

P.S. I added a new way for you to win. If you refer the person who ends up winning via Facebook/Twitter/blog/etc, you BOTH win. BOOM.

Win “Dinner for Two” for a year is a post from: I Will Teach You To Be Rich.

Interesting law journal article: "Privacy Protests: Surveillance Evasion and Fourth Amendment Suspicion," by Elizabeth E. Joh.

Abstract: The police tend to think that those who evade surveillance are criminals. Yet the evasion may only be a protest against the surveillance itself. Faced with the growing surveillance capacities of the government, some people object. They buy "burners" (prepaid phones) or "freedom phones" from Asia that have had all tracking devices removed, or they hide their smartphones in ad hoc Faraday cages that block their signals. They use to surf the internet. They identify tracking devices with GPS detectors. They avoid credit cards and choose cash, prepaid debit cards, or bitcoins. They burn their garbage. At the extreme end, some "live off the grid" and cut off all contact with the modern world.

These are all examples of what I call privacy protests: actions individuals take to block or to thwart government surveillance for reasons that are unrelated to criminal wrongdoing. Those engaged in privacy protests do so primarily because they object to the presence of perceived or potential government surveillance in their lives. How do we tell the difference between privacy protests and criminal evasions, and why does it matter? Surprisingly scant attention has been given to these questions, in part because Fourth Amendment law makes little distinction between ordinary criminal evasions and privacy protests. This article discusses the importance of these ordinary acts of resistance, their place in constitutional criminal procedure, and their potential social value in the struggle over the meaning of privacy.

Read this while thinking about the lack of any legal notion of civil disobedience in cyberspace.

Marco Arment:

And we lucked out with Reader — imagine how much worse it would be if website owners weren’t publishing open RSS feeds for anyone to fetch and process, but were instead posting each item to a proprietary Google API. We’d have almost no chance of building a successful alternative.

That’s Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. (Does the shutdown make more sense now?)