Slashdot Mirror

Turns out a lot of pre-GPS maps are not that accurate.

If they hadn't lent so much money to people who they KNEW wouldn't be able to pay when their ARM reset, then they wouldn't be in this mess. Again, no sympathy for multi-billion dollar multinationals who should know better (or who have the money to be able to pay someone to figure it out.)

I agree but you missed where you also end up paying when your neighbor defaults.

Good. Overpriced houses are overpriced.

The neighbor's house also declines in value, that's your house if you're the neighbor. And it doesn't later if you bought it 20 years ago when prices were low. Fact is is foreclosed houses in a neighborhood devalues all the houses there.

And more than likely, the lender will laugh them off the phone. Why would they voluntarily take a smaller payment? They'll roll the dice that the borrower will figure it out, because it's cheaper to let them sink than to help them swim. If they DO default and end up getting repossessed, then the lender can write off the bad debt and recover whatever they can at auction.

They lose when they can't sell the house for more than whats owned on the house. Actually the only way some of these mortgage lenders were able to make loans was because they were able to package the loans in with a bunch of other loans into derivatives. Normally these derivatives lower risk but too many loans that were risky were made. Because of defaults on loans getting credit is harder even for those who can afford it.

And more than likely, the lender will laugh them off the phone. Why would they voluntarily take a smaller payment?

Yes, lenders do it all the tyme. Lenders work with borrowers when they have problems paying off mortgages. "For most people who fall behind on their mortgage, their first instinct is to avoid all contact with the lender. But that's a mistake, consumer counselors and others say, because it's likely those financial problems will only get worse, making it harder to work out the best repayment terms." While I'm no expert on it myself there are experts in my family. My sister's a Certified Public Accountant, CPA, who runs her own accounting business and my brother-in-law's a Certified Financial Planner.

"how many without a cell phone will be tagged because they have On Star."

More importantly, what's GM going to do about this? There's big money in OnStar, costs $200-$300/yr if you pay yearly. GM's just going to roll-over and take this?

What about all the bluetooth headset providers? Most people bought the headsets specifically for driving.

What about the National Association of Realtors? I can't imagine they're taking this sitting down and believe it or not they do have a pretty powerful lobbying group. Realtors live off their cellphone, business would be nearly impossible without being able to answer their phones 24/7.

when you consider just how many people are living in that relatively small space, it's per-person impact is so much less.

I keep reading that, but it looks to me like density is more expensive. Yeah, the commute, a small part of the equation, is more efficient, just because the traffic's so bad transit is no worse than car. But the taller an apartment building is, the more expensive / ft^2 it is, and houses are alot less expensive to build than apartment buildings. Lots of resources gone there.

And people in dense places tend to spend more on other things, too (both high supply and demand). The commute savings might be overcome by the import costs of Belgian beer alone.... You tend to spend on a bigger safety net than smaller cities (IMHO good, but it has a cost).

And I never seem to see a link supporting it (not attacking you, personally, it's a dime a dozen).

Having moved from a relatively cheap area (Central Orlando) to northern California, I can say with experience how bad the difference is. A home that would cost 250k$ in Florida would cost 800k$ here. I was nearly reluctant to move out here having been offered 45k "straight out of college" in Florida I could afford a mortgage on a small 100-150k home, something I would have liked to have done. Now, in California even being paid in the upper 100k's, it's very difficult to afford a mortage. My point is this: "People in their 20s are more inclined to buy real estate now than they were 20 years ago, according to annual statistics from the U.S. Census bureau. In 2005, almost 26% of household heads under 25 years old owned their home, up from 17% in 1985. Homeownership rates for 25 to 29 year olds also increased over the past two decades, though not as sharply." (src: http://www.realestatejournal.com/buysell/tactics/2 0060802-meehan.html) A lot of really smart and educated people straight out of college, or at any age really, are looking to own property and do things with their income than pay for the silly cost of living in CA. A website (i.e., sf.net) can be run from almost literally anywhere so why run it from the most expensive place in the country? I think a lot more people with talent have the option to persue these things and therefore refuse to move to the valley.

A similar system was installed at one of my company's buildings 4 years ago. "Similar" because it requires all riders to enter their floor number, then groups them together as efficiently as possible. The system does lack the predictive functionality of this new "smart elevator".

Reactions to the elevators have been a lot different than the Marriott Marquis Times Square; people love the elevators and everyone is convinced that they are much faster.

Ceri

Second source here:

http://www.jsonline.com/recruitment/basics.asp

It is going to take a bit more than 600k to implement.

Have a look here: fabric tubes, cables, etc. Jumping is too dangerous: updrafts, wind, etc.