Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Goldman Sachs All Throughout the Obama Admin (Score 5, Informative) 193

by smooth wombat (#48005325) Attached to: The Secret Goldman Sachs Tapes

Timothy Geithner never worked for Goldman Sachs and off the top of my head I can also see Warren Buffet never worked for Goldman Sachs or the Obama administration, Robert Rubin never worked for Obama, Rogert Altman has neither worked at Goldman Sachs or the Obama administration.

Might want to check that list again to see what other missteps are there.

Comment: Re:huh? (Score 1) 266

by smooth wombat (#48003007) Attached to: 2015 Corvette Valet Mode Recorder Illegal In Some States
This wouldn't be any different from putting hidden cameras in your house when the babysitter is over. You're not in a public place, so you should have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Nope, wrong. It's your house. You can put all the cameras you want inside of it. There are no restrictions.

There have been several cases where people hid cameras in their house to catch babysitters or others doing things and there is no issue with them doing it.

Comment: Re:Someone's going to complain (Score 1) 208

by smooth wombat (#47996493) Attached to: Drones Reveal Widespread Tax Evasion In Argentina

The general answer to all your questions is no. You can't build a house on any plot of land you feel like. I'm sure someone with more knowledge will correct me, but the basic route to building a house on a piece of land, as opposed to buying an already existing house, is:

1) Buy the land. This generally involves you and a broker but it could also be done through private parties (i.e. from you to me). In either case there is a record of who owns what, the amount they paid and, most importantly, a record with the local government of who now owns the land

This last step is crucial as it prevents an agent from selling the same piece of property to different people or someone building on someone else's land.

2) Find a home builder. Once you own the land you have to find someone to build your house unless you're going to do it yourself. Regardless, this involves filings with your local government to make sure the building meets the local requirements for water and sewer (whether on the land or through the public service), certain structural designs and so on. Since every municipality is different, some are more lenient than others but you still have to notify them you're going to build your house so they can determine how much tax you will pay on it (again, depending on the municipality. Some places don't charge tax on property, others do).

The 4th Amendment does not enter into this in any way. The 4th Amendment only comes into play once you have your property. The police can't walk in just to see if you're doing anything wrong.

To sum up, if you're building a house anywhere in the U.S. you have to file enough paperwork that everyone will know about it. If by chance you were able to build a house without anyone realizing it and were then found out, you'd have a lot of legal issues to take care of.

Comment: Re:Oh good (Score 1) 903

by smooth wombat (#47995495) Attached to: Miss a Payment? Your Car Stops Running
neo-liberal notion that more liquidity in an economy always benefits all actors

Neo-liberal? It under Bush who signed off the government using taxpayer money to add more money into the system, first by giving the money to the very people who created the financial crisis, then secondly by dropping the interest rate to near zero.

But let me guess, you subscribe to the voodoo of trickle down economics where those at the top graciously give those at the bottom whatever scraps fall from the table.

Comment: Re:Too be fair... (Score 5, Insightful) 275

by smooth wombat (#47977337) Attached to: CDC: Ebola Cases Could Reach 1.4 Million In 4 Months

Well then, I guess the decision to be uneducated and ignorant will serve them well when their carcasses are being zipped up in a double-lined black bag and tossed into a common grave.

Yes, many, many injustices have been perpetrated against the African continent and its peoples, but when your people are dying and people are coming in, risking their own lives to try and help you, and your response is to attack and kill them, trying to use the injustices of the past to justify the mass deaths of the present won't win you any friends, will it?

Comment: Ebola doctors attacked and killed (Score 5, Insightful) 275

by smooth wombat (#47977049) Attached to: CDC: Ebola Cases Could Reach 1.4 Million In 4 Months
Considering there was the recent killings of doctors who were trying to educate the unwashed masses on how to prevent or mitigate the spread of Ebola, along with the other attacks and general mistrust of health workers, letting the disease spread might not be a bad option.

Those who don't want to listen to experts die off, those who are too panicked to touch the dead bodies live, and things work themselves out.

Cruel? Maybe. But when you're already putting your life on the line trying to help people and those people attack and kill you, sometimes you have to make the tough decision to let nature take its course.

Comment: Re:Funny how this works ... (Score 1) 184

by smooth wombat (#47976083) Attached to: Netflix Rejects Canadian Regulator Jurisdiction Over Online Video
our so-called representatives voted to bail out the supposed `too big to fail` organizations.

Which was the direct result of the financial industry whining that the proposed regulations would make them less competitive in the markets.

I have an article at home which outlines how the proposed regulations would have either mitigated to a significant degree, or even prevented, the bailout such by requiring higher capital requirements, more diligent use of mark-to-market, risk analysis and so on.

One can blame Congress and the President for agreeing to the bailouts, but there is a direct line between the bailouts and the lack of regulations.

Comment: Re:Funny how this works ... (Score 1, Insightful) 184

by smooth wombat (#47974775) Attached to: Netflix Rejects Canadian Regulator Jurisdiction Over Online Video

Exactly. Look at how great limited regulation fared in 2006-2008 when the financial industry whined and complained about the "burdensome" regulations that were proposed regarding their use of derivatives, capitalization and related matters.

Not having regulations worked out really well, didn't it? It only cost us taxpayers a few billion dollars to clean up the mess.

Comment: Re:The article isn't any better. (Score 2) 794

by smooth wombat (#47965585) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

While the lack of knowledge of science might seem to an inhibitor, in this case it was unknowingly a brilliant stroke of luck. By over engineering the house the builder assured its survival under all but the most extreme weather conditions.

Since, at that time, trying to rebuild a house was a long and tedious process (compared to today), the over engineering served to protect the investment. Spend a little extra now instead of a lot more later.

Comment: Re:Credit cards? (Score 1, Insightful) 80

by smooth wombat (#47944649) Attached to: Home Depot Says Breach Affected 56 Million Cards
We can't have nice things (chip & pin) because American industry is too cheap to upgrade infrastructure.

No. We can't have nice things because some people think it's acceptable to steal other people's information or works. If people wouldn't steal there would be no need for chip and pin, or even pin.

Further, since we coddle such people when we catch them, this will be an ongoing issue. If you get rid of them you send a clear message that even if it doesn't deter someone, this will be the penalty you will pay if you do the same thing.

He's dead, Jim.

Working...