That's the whole point about it being stored in the courthouse, in the same county as the property, for the lifetime of the loan.
If it is required by law to be a physical document, and that all transactions must be witnessed by an officer of the court, it is pretty damn hard to counterfeit a transaction without the illicit cooperation of an officer of the court.
It is already a matter of public record the ownership history of a property. All I am asking is that it become a matter of public record the history of any past or present loans against the property as well.
If you did that it would make very hard for anybody, home owner and lenders alike, to lie.
If a mortgage holder cannot produce the note to a court, the mortgage claim is null and void, and a judgement entered by the court setting it in stone
If that company cannot provide the note, then their claim should be dismissed with prejudice. Not just that, but the court should allow injunctions from the start preventing eviction, and allow for damages. That's what I meant. After the fact, there should be no mistake that they were wrong.
Deeds of trust are problematic too because of the law in most states that allows for the plaintiff to evict defendant without having to prove a damn thing. I've seen it countless times where the judge will allow the eviction and inform the defendant that they need to file a separate lawsuit. In the meanwhile... your ass is on the street. That makes it very hard for a normal person to have the resources to defend themselves and deal with the logistics of said defense.
As for note, I don't object to it being sold at all. What should be happening, at all times, is that the note is recorded in the same county as the property, and that each transaction from one owner of the note to another needs to be witnessed by an officer of the court.
If you had that it would preclude any disputes. Their would be a readily available history of the ownership of the note and it would be a mere triviality for the lender to provide it. It would become a non-issue.
I strongly object to the current state of affairs where a lender can claim the belief they own the note, but not really provide any evidence or be held up to such reasonable standards.
You're arguing that borrowers should be able to get out of their obligations
ABSOLUTELY NOT
I'm arguing that lenders should be required to prove they are the correct and lawful party to be making payments to, and the correct and lawful parties when attempting to sue someone.
The way it stands right now with securitization and loans being sold to multiple parties in some cases, you have no way of knowing if the lender claiming you owe money is really owed money in the first place.
Part of that problem was the recording of one lender selling the loan to another lender. They sped things up and got very, very, very sloppy. It should have never been possible to sell the same note twice (worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in many cases).
Just as importantly, every single mortgage note should be hand transferred, recorded, and witnessed. If a mortgage holder cannot produce the note to a court, the mortgage is null and void, and a judgement entered by the court setting it in stone.
That should go a long way to preventing some of the fraud and outright theft that Wall Street has performed.
How many people have had their homes stolen, we may never know.
Because I am shooting down all the incorrect and ridiculous comparisons of small EU countries against the entire US when it comes to the logistics of broadband deployment?
Sure. Derp. Derp. They're all the same. If Finland can do it, the US can do it. Derp Derp Derp.
I thought we were comparing tablets, or netbooks/ultrabooks with a touch screen interface.
While interesting, what you linked to does not seem to have a touchscreen interface listed in the specs. HP only seems to offer a single touchscreen product for almost 3 times as much when you search their site.
I'm particularly interested in the touchscreen for some mobile employee use cases that we have. The Latitude XT tablet is the cheapest that I can find starting at $750. Without the dock, this new Transformer Prime is $499, considerably less than $750. That's an Android OS, but I have been looking into HTML5 to capture touch screen input.
They say this will start at $499 and the dock puts this at about $650. What really low-end ultrabook that havs more performance and software, which I guess is a full OS like Windows 7?
I know there are 10.1 inch tablets out there like the Latitude XT, but I am curious what you think is close to $650 and better, because the Latitude XT is nowhere close to that with a dock.
People in Las Vegas need to absorb the high costs of peering and transit through the deserts though.
I would think that would explain why even a place with high population density like the cities you mention still have a high cost. It's paying for those long distance connections once you get out the cities.
Between Las Vegas and California, just what exactly is paying for that huge pipe?
The total peering and transit costs for Finland are going to be orders less than the US. That was my point. Finland is not trying to absorb the costs of other countries uplinks to each other.
How much bandwidth does Finland really have going to other countries?
The pipes crisscrossing the US need more bandwidth than just the populations they traverse need. Even with CDNs, there is a considerable amount of bandwidth that we require, and not all of that originates in the US either.
Finland is 338,424 km2. That makes it bigger than all but the four largest US states: Alaska, Texas, California and Montana. Providing great internet over an area that size is a decent accomplishment, one that the other 46 states apparently can't match despite being smaller than Finland.
Trying to compare Finland against a single US state, and then claiming that all other smaller states are deficient, solely based on size, is ignorant. Meaning, that it is an observation lacking in sophistication.
The population density of Finland is 16/km2. Trying to compare that against the entire US is not correct. If you are going to compare states, the closest is Maine, or Oregon.
If you look at it as pools of people (areas of high density populations), connecting up each pool requires expensive, high capacity, fiber runs between each pool.
Also keep in mind, existing investments in infrastructure and a whole host of other costs associated with deployment. Deploying a high capacity network in Finland is orders easier and cheaper than deploying a high capacity network across the entire United States.
How much bandwidth does Finland really require to other countries (networks)? 1 Gb/s is impressive in the last mile, but unless you are telling me that each Finnish citizen is communicating with 1080p video phones to each other, I don't see the use. Meaning, we don't really know what the data usage is on their networks.
So what are the peering and transit costs for Finnish ISPs to other networks in the EU?
Here in the US, we need to connect all the states together. So unlike Finland, whose costs of peering and transit are going to be orders less, we need large amounts of high capacity fiber runs going in between the states to "make the whole thing work". Our costs of peering and transit are considerable.
It's a ridiculous and unfair comparison that I was responding to, because Finland does not have to absorb those same costs.
You simply cannot compare the US against EU countries that simplistically.
If you want to make a fair comparison then you need to break down the entire costs. That is going to include all of the last mile, high density connections in the cities, the backbones inside the cities, the entire length of the fiber runs between cities and other countries, and all of peering and transit costs (bandwidth to other countries). After all of that, then you can compare against average population density and see how much more expensive it really is.
How long are those links? How many? How much capacity do they have?
The US is big and has pockets of high population density. It's not as simple as getting to the border.
All that space you need to interconnect, and in many cases, each state can have populations comparable to EU countries. That means a lot of high capacity fiber runs need to connect up each population center.
Additionally, even with CDNs making it more efficient, you still have some very high traffic segments traversing the US that need to be quite large to support all the p/t traffic going across it.
It's not an apples to apples comparison. The US needs more fiber, and more capacity to achieve what Finland has. Ultimately that means the cost of bandwidth is going to be higher, and there may be less of it.
That does not excuse any of the bullshit US carrier pull of course, but it still will not be a fair comparison price wise even in the most ideal conditions.
Your observation would only hold water if a high population density area was only sharing information with itself.
The challenge with the US are the huge distances you need to traverse to connect high population density areas. Costs of running new fiber with this technology through the deserts in California, through Las Vegas, etc. are not cheap.
Bottom line is that the US needs to deploy orders more meters of fiber to achieve the same level of service that Finland, or some other small EU country can provide.
GP mentioned how often they crashed back then, and it did bring up memories of early Windows machines.
I don't remember exactly when the buttons migrated from the back to the front. The red push button at the back though is a very clear memory for me. On that particular computer it could crash quite often if you hit multiple keys on the keyboard at the same time.
Now, I had almost forget about the keys. Normally they are only on rackmount servers these days to lock up the front. Back then though I remember the keys actually interrupting the power supply.
It does not make anybody "nuts". The information was corrected, and you can change your position after the fact.
I'm anti-GM, and this is apparently just hybridization gone wrong. If anything, this shows how careful we have to be and not proceed with such a cavalier attitude towards research and implementation. This was 20 years. Keeping this in mind, the short term gains demanded by capitalism gone wrong make it seem pretty damn unreasonable and dangerous to not test the crap out of something like this for an extended period of time.
For the record, my biggest gripe with GM is what I see as dangerously performed research (practically no containment of any kind), dangerous precedents in patent law (owning genetic sequences), using it as an excuse to saturate farms with pesticides (bad for environment, bad for food, and allows for rapid evolution of countermeasures in affected species), and its affect (by use) on seed diversity.
Not to mention the logistical nightmare of recouping research and working out ownership of something that, by its very nature, can move and "infect" other crops. Monsanto deserves to burn in hell for all the grief they have given farmers simply because of the fucking wind acting as a ninja-like salesman.
Ick. I'm not sure I'd consider it sexist, but I do consider it bad.
Ohhh, it's sexist.
Using good looking models? Not so sexist. Using very well dressed good looking models? Well women scientists are still women. They can dress nice.
Showing lab equipment, chemical equations, and elements interspersed with cosmetics in a flagrant advertising-douchy way as if that is the only way to keep the attention of women watching it, or to participate in science?
The most credible alternative costs $0. It's difficult to argue that $99 is not overpriced.
Citations about my personal feelings, or that it is over priced? That's difficult to provide a citation for either way. I am not aware of any authorities on the over pricing of products that I can reference their publications or studies.
My point is you can't compare against free if you are talking about over priced. When we say over priced, we are not referring to some economics term, but the feeling that Microsoft is over charging us for something simply because they can, and that the product is not nearly worth that price.
If you are going to continue comparing against free, than 1c is over priced compared to 0c. There is no meaningful difference between 99c, $5, and $1000 in that context.
Let's say there were a couple of competitors with Microsoft with offerings for $10-$15 and they were all roughly equivalent in performance and features. It might then be argued that Office is over priced at $99.
That does not exist though. In fact, the only other commercial offering of standalone software that I am aware of is Corel WordPerfect that starts at $249!
I'm sorry, it just seems silly to me to say that all software is over priced if it asks for even a pittance more than a free offering. You really should not be comparing free against paid that way.
I have been installing Open Office and Libre Office for quite some time now, but it is not because I tell people that Microsoft is over priced.
I love open source, and hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but $99 is not over priced. $300,$500, and more is over priced.
Considering the features, complexity, and maturity of the product it's very hard to say it is not worth $100 if you want something nice. LibreOffice is okay, and quite usable, but there are still some things I like Office for.
The IDEs and software tools that I have are more than $99.
If you want to see something way over priced try looking at Adobe.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the whole point about it being stored in the courthouse, in the same county as the property, for the lifetime of the loan.
If it is required by law to be a physical document, and that all transactions must be witnessed by an officer of the court, it is pretty damn hard to counterfeit a transaction without the illicit cooperation of an officer of the court.
It is already a matter of public record the ownership history of a property. All I am asking is that it become a matter of public record the history of any past or present loans against the property as well.
If you did that it would make very hard for anybody, home owner and lenders alike, to lie.
I actually missed a word in there.
If a mortgage holder cannot produce the note to a court, the mortgage claim is null and void, and a judgement entered by the court setting it in stone
If that company cannot provide the note, then their claim should be dismissed with prejudice. Not just that, but the court should allow injunctions from the start preventing eviction, and allow for damages. That's what I meant. After the fact, there should be no mistake that they were wrong.
Deeds of trust are problematic too because of the law in most states that allows for the plaintiff to evict defendant without having to prove a damn thing. I've seen it countless times where the judge will allow the eviction and inform the defendant that they need to file a separate lawsuit. In the meanwhile... your ass is on the street. That makes it very hard for a normal person to have the resources to defend themselves and deal with the logistics of said defense.
As for note, I don't object to it being sold at all. What should be happening, at all times, is that the note is recorded in the same county as the property, and that each transaction from one owner of the note to another needs to be witnessed by an officer of the court.
If you had that it would preclude any disputes. Their would be a readily available history of the ownership of the note and it would be a mere triviality for the lender to provide it. It would become a non-issue.
I strongly object to the current state of affairs where a lender can claim the belief they own the note, but not really provide any evidence or be held up to such reasonable standards.
You're arguing that borrowers should be able to get out of their obligations
ABSOLUTELY NOT
I'm arguing that lenders should be required to prove they are the correct and lawful party to be making payments to, and the correct and lawful parties when attempting to sue someone.
The way it stands right now with securitization and loans being sold to multiple parties in some cases, you have no way of knowing if the lender claiming you owe money is really owed money in the first place.
Part of that problem was the recording of one lender selling the loan to another lender. They sped things up and got very, very, very sloppy. It should have never been possible to sell the same note twice (worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in many cases).
Just as importantly, every single mortgage note should be hand transferred, recorded, and witnessed. If a mortgage holder cannot produce the note to a court, the mortgage is null and void, and a judgement entered by the court setting it in stone.
That should go a long way to preventing some of the fraud and outright theft that Wall Street has performed.
How many people have had their homes stolen, we may never know.
I am not supporting the corporations, or parroting their "talking points".
It is simply logistics. In order to deploy the same network, with the same capacity, the US will require far far more fiber per person than Finland.
It is just not a fair comparison and you would be simplistic to make it.
Does the US have problems? Sure. That does not take away from the fact the logistics of providing that much fiber is more expensive.
Go away?
Why?
Because I am shooting down all the incorrect and ridiculous comparisons of small EU countries against the entire US when it comes to the logistics of broadband deployment?
Sure. Derp. Derp. They're all the same. If Finland can do it, the US can do it. Derp Derp Derp.
"...died on Sunday of unknown causes..." Old As Fuck. That's why. Fucker's 700 years old in dog years.
Old? For an apricot, yes. For a head of lettuce, even more so. For a mountain, I have not even begun. For a turtle, I was just right.
I thought we were comparing tablets, or netbooks/ultrabooks with a touch screen interface.
While interesting, what you linked to does not seem to have a touchscreen interface listed in the specs. HP only seems to offer a single touchscreen product for almost 3 times as much when you search their site.
I'm particularly interested in the touchscreen for some mobile employee use cases that we have. The Latitude XT tablet is the cheapest that I can find starting at $750. Without the dock, this new Transformer Prime is $499, considerably less than $750. That's an Android OS, but I have been looking into HTML5 to capture touch screen input.
Where?
They say this will start at $499 and the dock puts this at about $650. What really low-end ultrabook that havs more performance and software, which I guess is a full OS like Windows 7?
I know there are 10.1 inch tablets out there like the Latitude XT, but I am curious what you think is close to $650 and better, because the Latitude XT is nowhere close to that with a dock.
Guess what happens when you kick a hard drive.
Yes, but let's be honest. When you kick a hard drive do you really give a shit if it is going to continue pissing you off?
People in Las Vegas need to absorb the high costs of peering and transit through the deserts though.
I would think that would explain why even a place with high population density like the cities you mention still have a high cost. It's paying for those long distance connections once you get out the cities.
Between Las Vegas and California, just what exactly is paying for that huge pipe?
The total peering and transit costs for Finland are going to be orders less than the US. That was my point. Finland is not trying to absorb the costs of other countries uplinks to each other.
How much bandwidth does Finland really have going to other countries?
The pipes crisscrossing the US need more bandwidth than just the populations they traverse need. Even with CDNs, there is a considerable amount of bandwidth that we require, and not all of that originates in the US either.
It's just not a fair comparison.
You are officially too dumb for slashdot.
Right back at you.
Finland is 338,424 km2. That makes it bigger than all but the four largest US states: Alaska, Texas, California and Montana. Providing great internet over an area that size is a decent accomplishment, one that the other 46 states apparently can't match despite being smaller than Finland.
Trying to compare Finland against a single US state, and then claiming that all other smaller states are deficient, solely based on size, is ignorant. Meaning, that it is an observation lacking in sophistication.
The population density of Finland is 16/km2. Trying to compare that against the entire US is not correct. If you are going to compare states, the closest is Maine, or Oregon.
If you look at it as pools of people (areas of high density populations), connecting up each pool requires expensive, high capacity, fiber runs between each pool.
Also keep in mind, existing investments in infrastructure and a whole host of other costs associated with deployment. Deploying a high capacity network in Finland is orders easier and cheaper than deploying a high capacity network across the entire United States.
How much bandwidth does Finland really require to other countries (networks)? 1 Gb/s is impressive in the last mile, but unless you are telling me that each Finnish citizen is communicating with 1080p video phones to each other, I don't see the use. Meaning, we don't really know what the data usage is on their networks.
So what are the peering and transit costs for Finnish ISPs to other networks in the EU?
Here in the US, we need to connect all the states together. So unlike Finland, whose costs of peering and transit are going to be orders less, we need large amounts of high capacity fiber runs going in between the states to "make the whole thing work". Our costs of peering and transit are considerable.
It's a ridiculous and unfair comparison that I was responding to, because Finland does not have to absorb those same costs.
You simply cannot compare the US against EU countries that simplistically.
If you want to make a fair comparison then you need to break down the entire costs. That is going to include all of the last mile, high density connections in the cities, the backbones inside the cities, the entire length of the fiber runs between cities and other countries, and all of peering and transit costs (bandwidth to other countries). After all of that, then you can compare against average population density and see how much more expensive it really is.
How long are those links? How many? How much capacity do they have?
The US is big and has pockets of high population density. It's not as simple as getting to the border.
All that space you need to interconnect, and in many cases, each state can have populations comparable to EU countries. That means a lot of high capacity fiber runs need to connect up each population center.
Additionally, even with CDNs making it more efficient, you still have some very high traffic segments traversing the US that need to be quite large to support all the p/t traffic going across it.
It's not an apples to apples comparison. The US needs more fiber, and more capacity to achieve what Finland has. Ultimately that means the cost of bandwidth is going to be higher, and there may be less of it.
That does not excuse any of the bullshit US carrier pull of course, but it still will not be a fair comparison price wise even in the most ideal conditions.
Uhhhh, yeah. Unlike Finland though, we have to connect up all the states together. That's how the Internet workie workie.
Some of those interconnects between states involve very long, and very expensive, fiber runs.
Where do the packets come from? Magic?
Your observation would only hold water if a high population density area was only sharing information with itself.
The challenge with the US are the huge distances you need to traverse to connect high population density areas. Costs of running new fiber with this technology through the deserts in California, through Las Vegas, etc. are not cheap.
Bottom line is that the US needs to deploy orders more meters of fiber to achieve the same level of service that Finland, or some other small EU country can provide.
I wasn't lying, just being facetious.
GP mentioned how often they crashed back then, and it did bring up memories of early Windows machines.
I don't remember exactly when the buttons migrated from the back to the front. The red push button at the back though is a very clear memory for me. On that particular computer it could crash quite often if you hit multiple keys on the keyboard at the same time.
Now, I had almost forget about the keys. Normally they are only on rackmount servers these days to lock up the front. Back then though I remember the keys actually interrupting the power supply.
Ahhhh.. yes Windows 3.x. The reason the reset button was moved to the front of the machine.
No seriously. It used to be a big red momentary switch on the back.
Not mentioned was the first test run of the flux capacitor.
Unfortunately, it was strapped to a DeLorean so it did not have a lot of credibility at the time.
It does not make anybody "nuts". The information was corrected, and you can change your position after the fact.
I'm anti-GM, and this is apparently just hybridization gone wrong. If anything, this shows how careful we have to be and not proceed with such a cavalier attitude towards research and implementation. This was 20 years. Keeping this in mind, the short term gains demanded by capitalism gone wrong make it seem pretty damn unreasonable and dangerous to not test the crap out of something like this for an extended period of time.
For the record, my biggest gripe with GM is what I see as dangerously performed research (practically no containment of any kind), dangerous precedents in patent law (owning genetic sequences), using it as an excuse to saturate farms with pesticides (bad for environment, bad for food, and allows for rapid evolution of countermeasures in affected species), and its affect (by use) on seed diversity.
Not to mention the logistical nightmare of recouping research and working out ownership of something that, by its very nature, can move and "infect" other crops. Monsanto deserves to burn in hell for all the grief they have given farmers simply because of the fucking wind acting as a ninja-like salesman.
Ick. I'm not sure I'd consider it sexist, but I do consider it bad.
Ohhh, it's sexist.
Using good looking models? Not so sexist. Using very well dressed good looking models? Well women scientists are still women. They can dress nice.
Showing lab equipment, chemical equations, and elements interspersed with cosmetics in a flagrant advertising-douchy way as if that is the only way to keep the attention of women watching it, or to participate in science?
Sexist. Most definitely.
[citation needed]
The most credible alternative costs $0. It's difficult to argue that $99 is not overpriced.
Citations about my personal feelings, or that it is over priced? That's difficult to provide a citation for either way. I am not aware of any authorities on the over pricing of products that I can reference their publications or studies.
My point is you can't compare against free if you are talking about over priced. When we say over priced, we are not referring to some economics term, but the feeling that Microsoft is over charging us for something simply because they can, and that the product is not nearly worth that price.
If you are going to continue comparing against free, than 1c is over priced compared to 0c. There is no meaningful difference between 99c, $5, and $1000 in that context.
Let's say there were a couple of competitors with Microsoft with offerings for $10-$15 and they were all roughly equivalent in performance and features. It might then be argued that Office is over priced at $99.
That does not exist though. In fact, the only other commercial offering of standalone software that I am aware of is Corel WordPerfect that starts at $249!
I'm sorry, it just seems silly to me to say that all software is over priced if it asks for even a pittance more than a free offering. You really should not be comparing free against paid that way.
I have been installing Open Office and Libre Office for quite some time now, but it is not because I tell people that Microsoft is over priced.
Come on guys...
I love open source, and hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but $99 is not over priced. $300,$500, and more is over priced.
Considering the features, complexity, and maturity of the product it's very hard to say it is not worth $100 if you want something nice. LibreOffice is okay, and quite usable, but there are still some things I like Office for.
The IDEs and software tools that I have are more than $99.
If you want to see something way over priced try looking at Adobe.
In front of me, I have a box. Contained within the box is a portal leading to the mazes of your ass. I'm going to slurp everything inside your ass!
Is that Pinhead from Hell Raiser trying to talk dirty on the Internets?
Isn't China supposed to be cheap?
$940 million dollars worth of paper mache should be whole cities.....