The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
2017-11-16 15:03 by Karl Denninger
in Small Business , 56 references
[Comments enabled]  

HomeDaemon-MCP has now had added to it's bag of tricks an interface to Amcrest IP cameras.

It can now "sense" motion or other events (as defined on the camera) and trigger events on HomeDaemon.  Among other things Amcrest is nice enough to expose a simple HTTP-based API that allows you to move the camera to a given preset and take pictures.

This makes trivial interfacing and extending HomeDaemon's existing capabilities in providing an "alarm" service to include taking of pictures, using the camera's motion sense capabilities as a "trip" and, of course, securely copying them to your private file storage on or off your local network.

This functionality should work with all Amcrest camera devices on the market of reasonably-recent vintage and firmware. I have verified that it is fully functional with both the 1080p (one revision back) and 2k (current) models.

There is no longer a need to trust anyone else with said images other than yourself, ever.  It is trivial to, for example, have the system take images on a timed basis and upload them somewhere, whether that "basis" is predicated on an event (e.g. motion detected somewhere, not necessarily in the immediate area of the camera), to take a picture once a day of your pool water level and email it to you (nice if you are worried about evaporation being a problem so you can ask the neighbor to come turn the hose on for a couple of hours, etc) and more.

See here for more information.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2017-11-15 13:25 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 4682 references
[Comments enabled]  

Jesus, it's that obvious and CNN ran this crap?

People need to go to ****ing prison for this.  NOW.

Yes, including Gloria Allred.  The yearbook is an obvious forgery and she peddled it on national television; that needs to be good for disbarment and prosecution.

The original tweet from CNN can still be looked at.  We'll see how long it is before they try to take it down.  (Update: It appears one of Getty's photographers shot the original photo; it's been linked in the comments, and I checked it.  It's pretty-clearly the image CNN used and it was also clearly shot in color as it includes portions of the people holding it in the picture....)

I took the image on the right side of their tweet, brought it into Photoshop and increased the size.

I will swear under oath that I did nothing to tamper with the color or tone and in fact did nothing other than increasing its zoom level to 400% because it would be impossible to tamper with the image at said greatly enhanced zoom level without causing visible artifacts in the background and periphery of the letters.  There is also a gradient in the paper caused by a B&W photo being in part of the area where the signature is, which again will cause visible artifacts if I were to try to tamper with it.  In other words I did this to add irrefutable proof that I did not in any way tamper with the image itself.  I also saved the extract from the tweet as a "PNG" which is lossless from my desktop to yours; no compression so there are no artifacts added in my process either; whatever CNN put forward, that's what I (and you) have.

Those are clearly different inks for everything after the first name.

Was the original signature Roy or was it Ray?

Whatever it was, someone added "Moore DA", the date and "Olde Hickory House" in a different ink color.

By the way, the claimant says that Moore knew she had a boyfriend "and offered to give her a ride home" when he assaulted her.  Was the boyfriend's name RAY?

This must be criminally investigated right ****ing now as attempted federal election tampering.  Jeff Sessions, you claim to be "for the rule of law", let's see a search warrant for that yearbook to perform forensic testing of the ink, and if the latter part of the "signature" is not 40 years old indictments must issue right now for everyone involved in this crap or you are a lying, sniveling sack of ****.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Right here folks.....

Cool video and cute pussy.... smiley

(You dirty-minded jackass... I said CAT.)

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2017-11-14 13:54 by Karl Denninger
in Personal Health , 442 references
[Comments enabled]  

Here we go again...

Americans with blood pressure of 130/80 or higher should be treated, down from the previous trigger of 140/90, according to new guidelines announced on Monday by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology.

Note that this is an or.

This of course means that the doctor cabal gets to brand medical charts (yes, exactly like a car title) on a whim.

Let me explain.

There are myriad things that influence blood pressure.  It typically varies by anywhere from 10 to 20 points in most people over relatively short periods of time.  A cup of coffee will frequently raise it by 10pts -- for a couple hours.

This is not dangerous, but it is sufficient to put you over the "80" threshold and get your chart branded!

140/90 was sufficiently clear of this that transient causes were unlikely to result in you being tagged if you weren't really in trouble.  130/80 where it's an "or", not an and, is not and will result in millions of people being prescribed drugs that are dangerous -- without cause.

Potentially deadly high blood pressure can be brought under control with a wide array of medications, many sold as relatively inexpensive generics. The drug classes include angiotensin receptor blockers, such as Novartis AG’s Diovan, calcium channel blockers, like Pfizer Incs’s Norvasc, ACE inhibitors, including Pfizer’s Altace, and diuretics, such as Merck & Co Inc’s Hyzaar.

All drugs have side effects.  There are quite serious side effects associated with most of these.  That's not to say they don't have a use and proper purpose in the medicine cabinet -- they do.

But prescribing them to people who have quite-possibly transient elevations in blood pressure that are not dangerous in any meaningful way is an outrage.  As noted most of these are available cheaply, but even the "cheap" generics have a cost and the side effects are real.

What are some of those problems?  Fainting (gee, that would be a nice way to whack your head, right?) and kidney issues.  Kidney problems are especially nasty in that they can lead to renal failure which means you get to live on dialysis at ruinous cost -- and then almost-inevitably die miserably.

I also question this claim:

Adults with blood pressure of 130/80 “already have double the risk of heart attack compared to someone in the normal range,” said Dr. Paul Whelton, professor at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine and School of Medicine in New Orleans and lead author of the new guidelines. 

Prove it.  I've looked for the alleged evidence and thus far haven't found it.

If you've got it, let's see it.

Let me be more-specific on what I expect you can prove.

High blood pressure tends to be associated with obesity, inactivity, smoking and excessive alcohol use (for starters.)  All four of those are known causes of heart attacks and strokes.  To make the argument that 10 points in systolic blood pressure (e.g. 130/80 .vs. 120/80) results in a doubling of heart attack risk you must show that the blood pressure difference, and only the blood pressure difference, results in the increase in risk.

In other words you need as your "control" group people who are exactly as fat (or not), exactly as inactive (or not), who do the same amount of smoking (or not) and who consume the same amount of alcohol (or not.)

Otherwise what you're seeing is the symptom of the cause rather than the cause itself, and thus if someone presents with a 130/80 blood pressure, is not obese, does not smoke, is not inactive and does not drink to excess you're going to both brand their chart and prescribe a dangerous drug to them that results in no meaningful change in their heart attack risk and thus increases their morbidity and mortality rather than decreasing it.

Let us not forget that doctors and their lobbies have done this before.  For more than 40 years they peddled the lie that saturated (animal) fat was the cause of heart attacks, strokes and obesity.  They did so despite the fact that the ramp in the first two began 20 years after the rate of smoking went up by more than a factor of ten on a per-capita basis along with intentionally ignoring evidence contrary to their claims (such as those eating a Mediterranean diet, the Inuit and other populations.)  In addition it was a known fact since animal husbandry has existed that one feeds animals high carbohydrate diets to intentionally fatten them; both cattle and pork are "finished" on same prior to being slaughtered.

The result of telling us to eat large amounts of carbohydrate and unsaturated machine-processed vegetable fats was more obesity and Type II diabetes, from which the medical system as a whole has profited mightily -- instead of their claim that we would experience less disease.  Not one person has been prosecuted or otherwise held to account for this intentional lie and the harm, both in human misery and death, directly caused by same.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2017-11-14 08:53 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 394 references
[Comments enabled]  

The worm turns....

Beverly Young Nelson, appearing with Gloria Allred, said that when she was 16 Moore groped her in a car, locked the doors, grabbed her neck in an attempt to force sexual contact and left her with bruises after she escaped. Her story will be subjected to scrutiny, but as a self-described Trump voter, Nelson has no apparent motivation to lie. She is the first accuser to say that Moore accosted her, and in fact says she feared he would******her.

Well, are we sure of that?  Gloria Allred has a long and well-documented axe to grind with anyone who isn't a Democrat.  Her very association with the story taints it.

I'm not convinced, but I don't get to vote in the special election.  I will say this, however -- there's a claim Moore signed this Beverly's High School Yearbook.  Does the yearbook still exist and has that been seen in public?  In other words, did he really do so?

That would make my eyebrows go up.  Oh, there are probably reasons for a 30ish year old adult man to sign a teen girl's high-school yearbook (including, may I remind you, her asking him as someone she thought was 'cute' or maybe even more) but that signed yearbook certainly would go to credibility, and it would be the first piece of documentary evidence to back up the story.

Or would it?

Let's assume she's got the yearbook (it has shown up) and Moore really is a creep and committed sexual assault behind her place of employment.  So she's got in her possession a yearbook that would make her cry every time she pulls it out for the last 40 years?  Hmmmm...

I'm not the brightest guy out here in newsland but I understand people and psychology fairly well.  Damn few people keep around and refer to things that cause them severe psychological pain to go back through unless they have to for some reason.

So tell me in the comments -- did the yearbook show up on the TeeVee with his signature?  Can we corroborate that Moore actually signed it and it hasn't been tampered with?  If so then someone ought to consider that one of two things has to be true:

1. Beverly had it signed after she was allegedly assaulted by the man who assaulted her.  In this case my bull**** detector goes off instantly and Beverly's credibility is immediately and permanently destroyed: The manifest weight of the evidence is that no assault occurred because nobody in their right mind would allow someone who tried to force oral sex upon them and left bruises on their body during the attempt to sign their yearbook.


2. Beverly kept a memento from a man who first signed the book and then, in reasonably close proximity time-wise, sexually assaulted her.  Yet throughout the intervening 40 years she never pulled out that yearbook in front of anyone for she would have been left teary-eyed and, of course, asked for an explanation. Oh, and she never defaced his signature either (like by writing "creep!" over the top of it)?

If I had been sexually assaulted and the person who did it had previously signed my yearbook I'd add an annotation or three to that page, and I might be inclined to do it at the gun range -- if I kept the book at all.  This, of course, assumes that I was assaulted after it was signed.  If that same someone assaulted me and then asked to sign my yearbook they would have wound up eating it -- because I would have rammed it up their ass far enough that they could taste it.

Of course there's always the possibility that the yearbook has been tampered with.  That's easily proved if so; a bit of forensics will get to the bottom of that immediately since it's easy to know whether the oxidation rate of the ink on the page is consistent through the signature -- and is 40 years old.  If not then the entire story collapses instantly since we then have proof of intentionally-false "evidence" and everyone involved in this must be prosecuted and sued, being asset-stripped to their underwear (such tampering would be legally-admissible proof of "bad faith".)

My jury is out, but IMHO it's not looking good for the Allred persecution, er, "prosecution" here....

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Our Nation DESERVES To Fail

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.