georgerussia

TSA should introduce a "no nipple rings, no bra no panties in plane" law. Gonna be fun! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It's very hard to define "mispresentation". Are you talking about oral promises or written commitment the lender didn't follow? They didn't. You said it yourself - at closing all the fees were there, on the paper. Why do you think so? "Market value" is basically the price people are paying for the property on the market. And yes, the property facing a freeway could be honestly appraised to 800K in 2005, since someone has paid 800K for it. "Fair market value" is slightly different, but it still follows the market trend. So you were smart, and you got a good deal. Someone wasn't smart, and they got a worse deal. Happens everywhere anytime. I see no problems here. My understanding is that you got a crappy deal, but the general terms were good. Well, it's a life, and there are rules. People need to start reading what they are signing, and ask questions if something doesn't look good. The mortgage transaction is probably the largest transaction most people do in their life, and they still spend less time learning about it than they'd spend choosing a camera. So? I'm getting emails every week telling me that I've won $1M in some lottery I never heard about, or asking me to play in some online casinos promising $5K bonus. Unfortunately emails cannot be used for heating :( * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Probably it was different in other states, but I have not seen or known anyone who was forced to buy a property or get a loan. Obviously it looked good - every bubble always looked good, otherwise it woundn't be there - but the decision to jump into the bubble is still made personally by everyone. And it's not the lender's obligation to check whether the borrower is making a good decision, or not. I was a first time buyer (and still is), and I heard all the same stories - mostly from real estate agents. I've seen what happens, and based my decision NOT to buy exactly on what I saw. Found it strange that the people got just hit by .com bubble burst, but still jump into another bubble, which was housing. The desire to become rich by doing nothing seem to be too strong. So basically you KNEW there were problems with them, but still decided to "go ahead" using a lender who gives out less reliable loans, and charges more for them. Was it the lender problem? No. You could get to the mob, and they'd lend you money without even looking on your credit score. You already answered it. There are good lenders who scrutinize every potential borrower, and give only to approved - which helps them to keep the costs low. There are, however, other lenders, who do not check anything, and lend to everyone. It should be common sense to understand that the second lender will cost you more. Sometime much more. So what's the problem? You decided to deal with crappy lender because one of subs had credit problems. So you've got a crappy deal, and it was expected. Don't deal with crappy lenders. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Yes. And most, if not all of them, KNEW they would not be qualified for a reasonable loan anyway, since they check everything. I knew several people who'd faked their income - including paystubs - to get a loan in attempt to get a home for $700K, sell it in three years for $1.2M and retire (that's kind of crap some RE agents told their eager clients). Well, then the burble is bursted, usually everyone has a problem. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I don't see any connection between dressing and behavior. Most, if not all teens, dress in some strange way, but only few actually break the law and end up on nightly news. It is hard to define "respectful". A honourable Saudi Arabi guy would probably say that since your face is not covered, you're in no way dressing respectfully. From other side, comparing to most European cities, many Americans (especially women) are dressed WAY too conservatively. And I wouldn't care about the people whose respect of anyone is based on what they dress in. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The whole "predatory lending" issue is a joke. It should be called "speculant borrowing" issue. People lied in their loan applications about their income. Now they are whining and crying how they were "deceived" by "predatory lenders". Another side of entitlement generation. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is expectable. First, according to my agent, Feb sales are usually higher than Jan sales regardless of market conditions. Second, there is a lot of bank-owned properties on market now, and banks seem to sell cheap - usually significantly below market value. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I guess in this case (if it's proven) it would probably be a criminal prosecution, not just a civil lawsuit. The problem, however, is slightly different here. If a software company could prohibit a legal owner of the software to conduct an independend research whether the software bought could actually perform its job claiming it would "infringe their intellectual property rights", I think the whole intellectual property concept should be revised. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

With stated income, and no money at all (even closing costs were included). So basically anyone could qualify for a mortgage. No paystubs, no tax returns. You are on welfare, work for cash and already deep in credit card debt ? No problem, you'll get a loan! And now the same people cannot get ANY financing at all. Stated income loans seems to be thing in the past, the rate is up, the downpayment requirements are up (and even 90% means you've got to come with 25K on your checking account). However, which is probably more important, nobody knows when/if the situation changes, and prices go up. This combined with recession talks keeps a lot of people on the fence, waiting for a market change. I'd say it in a different way. People were buying and buying, often paying more than the property worth, when the market was going up. And they are not buying when it is going down. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, we're buying. But I understand why only few people are buying: 1. It is VERY hard to qualify for a mortgage loan now. We're buying a good property in a Silicon Valley heard, and buying it cheap (bank reposessed), having a good credit - and we still have to put 15% down, and the mortgage terms are ... hmm .. they suck. We got preapproved in October, and now we're getting a lower mortgage with higher down comparing to what we got preapproved, but our monthly payment is higher. 2. There is basically nothing worth looking on the market. There seems to be three types of houses on market in Silicon Valley at this moment: 15%: expensive, but decent properties in good places. They are in good condition, and worth the asking price, but very few people could buy them. The interest rate is high, and 20% down for a 2M property is 400K plus closing costs - the result is that the property now is much more expensive than it would be a year ago, where in fact the prices were higher. When the price of all the properties around are dropping, it doesn't make any sense to get this type of property, because you could always expect to find a good deal from the rest 95%. 15%: a diamond in the rough. In 2005 someone bought a property near freeway 101. Paid 600K for it, and put 100K into remodeling. Upgraded bathrooms, kitchen, pipes, wires, replaced the roof and built the pool. And now trying to sell it for 700K, which probably wouldn't even cover his expenses. It worked in 2005 and 2006 (even early 2007), when the people were buying everything in hope to sell it for gain after two years, and retired at the age of 40 (that's kind of crap my previous real estate agent told me). But it doesn't work anymore, and I hope, like .com boom, it will never work again. Why do you need a hammock (and even a backyard) if you have to wear earplugs to rest there? 68%: a short sale, or will-be short sale. A poor family got a 100% financing, rate fixed for 2 years (they're now blaming the mortgage industry for that), and bought a home in hopes to sell it for gain after those two years. They might have built some equity since they bought it, but they took it away with equity loans. Since they were not going to live there for a while, they did not fix or remodel anything which would increase the property value. Now they cannot make their mortgage payments, and cannot refinance since they have no equity. Some are still trying to sell it. They are in no-win situation: they cannot sell it cheaper than their debt without going through the short-sale, and nobody gonna now pay the price they paid for it in 2005. Some already entered short sale, but since the property is usually in _awful_ condition, they're not sold quickly, if at all, until bank reposesses it. 2% reposessed properties. Usually when a bank gets their hands on the property, they are selling it cheap (50-150K below current market price seems to be typical). There it looks like 2005 - we have multiple buyers with multiple offers. However the final price is usually still below market value (for example, the property we just bought appraised 150K more than we paid for it - almost to the price the original owner paid for it in 2005). That's my impression after a three-month shopping on Bay Area real estate market. - About 90% of properties we've seen are labeled as "overpriced crap" in our workbook. A typical scenario is the owner * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1265 Dear Professors Felten and Appel: As you have likely read in the news media, certain New Jersey election officials have stated that they plan to send to you one or more Sequoia Advantage voting machines for analysis. I want to make you aware that if the County does so, it violates their established Sequoia licensing Agreement for use of the voting system. Sequoia has also retained counsel to stop any infringement of our intellectual properties, including any non-compliant analysis. We will also take appropriate steps to protect against any publication of Sequoia software, its behavior, reports regarding same or any other infringement of our intellectual property. Is there any valid reason for the company to forbid analysis of voting machines software developed by them? If so, why did the states signed such biased license agreement which prohibits independed software audit? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Raises too many questions: how'd you know? How will you classify people with several citizenships (I personally have two, and might get third in couple of years, and I know a person who've got five - all legal, of course)? And how could origin depend on citizenship? If I move to NZ at the age 65, and become a citizen, will my origin change to New Zealandian? I'm afraid you're mixing up discrimination and illegal discrimination. Discrimination itself, as a "the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually" is not necessary illegal. The law states which kind of discrimination is allowed, and which is not. For example, New Zealand law discriminates by citizenship who gets free healthcare and who doesn't. So: - Discrimination is widespread and common in our life. For example, if you're poor, you cannot avoid a home or rent in a good neighborhood. Is it discrimination? Obviously. Is it illegal? Not. - The law excpicitly sets which kind of discrimination is illegal. For example, in USA generally you are not allowed discriminate by race, origin or immigration status when you're renting your house. However you are allowed to discriminate by income by setting a very high rent, or (in some states) by sexual orientation. If you're looking to hire an employee, you cannot discriminate by age or martial status, but can discriminate by experience, special skills and availability (like "need to work 3 nights a month"). - New Zealand actually discriminates a lot. Just look on the immigration requirements. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Depends on how good the weed was :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Maybe they did have spouse's consent, you'll never know. It's not something found in county records :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Not every married couple considers infidelity something that requires divorce, or even important enough. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So you (and the government in New Zealand) consider discrimination by skin color "bad" (or illegal), but discrimination by origin (i.e. where they are from) is fine? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Did you see I mentioned Hispanics in my reply? Did you see I mentioned Native Americans? Middle Easterns? Do you think they all are not ethnic groups? And why do you think blacks cannot be considered an ethnic group? You draw the line where you (and general public) consider it useful. Classification by religion is even more ignorant. So could you tell us what ethnic group a black couple belongs to in New Zealand? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Imagine a flight student telling you that he will probably never be a good pilot, because after three hours of flying he still cannot do 360 keeping altitude at +/-100ft and speed at +/-10knots. You'd probably tell him to: - take your time. Those skills are completely new for you, and you have to learn them. Sometime the plane reaction to the control input might not even seem reasonable to you - it's the same for everyone. - not worry about it. Nobody was ever able to do it after three hours anyway, and you're not expected to. What you do it practicing, so practice it. Your FAA exam is far ahead, and even when you pass it, you'll still suck in gusty winds crosswind landings for a while. It's all the same for skydiving. And everyone I know had to repeat the AFF level at least once (me included). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

... and drive cars. ... and most would consider the closing worn by women in US - conservative :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It's also very typical for Russia, which has socialized/free healthcare. Every time you go see a doctor, you'll see 3 people there, and 2 of them have no real medical problem. Worse, people abusing specialists as well - it's common to go directly to otolaringologist if you have a running nose or sore throat. And a mom whose son got a splinter, goes directly to the surgeon. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Could you please comment it, since you find it? Looks pretty meaningless to me. And could you please tell us how many Nobel laureates are there who studied in New Zealand? You also conviniently ignored Asians, Native Americans, Middle Easterns - why? Doesn't it fit into your "skin color" statement, or there was another reason? By the way, "hispanic" is not a skin color. Blacks, white-not hispanics, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans - aren't those ethnic groups? Could you also tell me how religion fits into statistics on the subject? So you're telling us it's fine for a New Zealand government to classify people based on religion and ethnic group ("black muslim", "orthodox jews", "slavic christians"), and this is not racism? But mentioning a person race/ethnic group alone is? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So if a girl goes to the bar at time of her periods (knowing that a reasonable person might not have consented), finds a nice guy, and leaves with him without telling him the truth - it looks like he could file a rape charges (or rape attempt charges), because he was intentionally deceived. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No. It is because when you learn a new language, and got a new word, you'll ger it spelled first. Then you'll be told how it's pronounced, and then - what it means. Then there is no way for you to write "buy" instead of "bye". But when you learn the language natively, you learn the words by their pronounce, and at this time you have no idea how they're spelled. You learn spelling later, and if you're not using it often, you'll forget it as any other unused skill. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Test the food for poisonsing. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Your health insurance rate in California (don't know about the rest of US) does not depend on whether you're skydiver or not. There are no such questions even in the individual application. For my family, our two pretty good health insurances, each covering the whole family - which means we usually pay nothing for everything except drugs and some lab tests - would cost us less than 4% of our income if we paid for them (we do, but it is mostly reimbursed). If we compare what we actually pay, it is 0.027% of our income. Well, now you see the difference. Our income last year was much, much higher, and our total income tax was still around 24% Same, but includes (subjective) better education, better healthcare _for me_, probably better infrastructure and obviously better military. Honestly I didn't even know NZ has serious military, or at least anything like DARPA. This is very broad definition of "those in need". I'm sure Buffett and Gates are in need - and, really, their needs are much more difficult to satisfy than, for example, mine. If, however, you're talking about basic needs (like basic food, education, shelter and healthcare), the things will be different. 1. Food. I personally didn't hear about poor people who're starving in U.S. Honestly I more hear about obesity. In California food stamps are given to anyone who qualifies in terms of income, and has legal status. I assume it isn't worse than in NZ. 2. Education. Public schools are free for everyone, including even those who do not have legal status (again, in California - might be different in other states). It might be not the best, but I assume it isn't worse than in NZ either. 3. Shelter. Tough issue. The problem is not that there are no enough room to live, but that too many people wants to live in one place when there is not enough room for all of them (like Manhattan or San Francisco). There is a program (so-called "section 9"), which pays part of rent, but it doesn't work well in those cases, because it is just not enough room for everyone. This problem exists in most countries, and of course New Zealand has it as well. Wellington city even made their Homeless stratery available on their web site, so I assume this problem is known enough for the general public to be discussed and plans published by the city council. So it's probably the same. 4. Healthcare - if a poor person has a job, they most likely have healthcare through their employer. If they do not have a job and no money, they go to emergency room, and get a free healthcare there. Again, in California families could qualify for Medical, which is state-sponsored health insurance program, and there are also several free clinics which provide free healthcare to those who have no insurance. But we're not paying 6% of our income for it. We do. But there will be always someone who will say you could do more. After all, if you have any money to put on your savings account at the end of month - someone could say could have helped poor better. Instead of buying a new container you could help starving children in Africa. You could share a room in your apartment with homeless people. Like Bill and Melinda Gates give out $50M - hey, they could have given $100M, after all Bill Gates has $60B! There is always something you _could_ do, and there will be always someone claiming you _should_ do it. Who should set the limit? I think, everyone should set limits for themselves. You think, the government should set limits for everyone. Both ways work, but neither is perfect. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *