The problem with your reply is that it is almost entirely non dispositive. The banks received far more in subsidies that than they were fined, no important players went to jail. Billion sounds like a great deal of money, but compared to the scale of both the profits and the damages, the fines were trivial. The correct way is to look at the scale of penalties to the damages caused. If Banks were held to the same standard as someone who shares a file, they would owe quadrillions of dollars, that is many times the damages caused, and there would be incarceration for thousands of years if each individual action becomes a separate count.
And in New York, where there are the strictest paper trail laws in the nation http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/house_of_cards_hNdx5fNGt6oOl1U9mTW0HN#ixzz1V7KSkSWR 92% of foreclosures lack documentation. For the person being foreclosed upon, they must prove, at their own expense, that this is the case. The cost of litigation becomes to high. So practically, you are simply dead wrong.
At least learn to use google and do some simple multiplication before making declarations.
No, this is the system. We have, as a matter of law, declared that "it goes down like the big corporation thought it would go down." So, no proof of mortgage, merely a letter of intent to convey? Foreclose the fuckers, its close enough. No witness to transaction? Robosign. The law is not overly broad by accident, it is overly broad by design.
It is very clear that your company is a typical feature and marketing driven morass. What happens is you flog yourselfs until something goes horribly wrong, a bunch of people are fired. Then there is a new director of technology, who gets a ground up rewrite approved to enter some new space, and the cycle of accretion and feature creep starts all over again.
So advice? Polish your resume or make good friends with who ever will run the purge when it happens.
War results in a great deal more soot than would be expected from either its expenditures, or its fuel use. In 2005, I pointed out the the data from World War II, and from Iraq, both pointed to a soot factor. Since large particulate matter falls out of the atmosphere more quickly than CO2, this effect would show a short term increase in warming, which would then tail off rapidly. Large particulate combustion products have a low CO2 equivalence over the long term, but in the short term produce the same amount of greenhouse forcing. This is also true of slash and burn agriculture, and other incomplete combustion processes. The linked to study is important because it confirms what was theoretically predicted.
You need to do more research, there are far more cases, including 9 of the 10 on this list (http://listverse.com/2007/10/07/top-10-scientists-who-committed-suicide/) as well as many more. The plural of anecdotes is not data, and the plural of revisionism is not fact.
The world rewarded Aaron for his talent, and punished him for his genius. He would not have committed suicide but for, in a very legal sense, the persecution that came from doing the right thing. Journals pay nothing for their content, nothing for peer reviewers, and get paid for preventing people from gaining knowledge that other people, who were paid for by public money, accumulated for the public good.
Rents kill, and Aaron was one of the victims. All of us are the losers, except for the people with the corrupt rent stream.
Search ranking is one tool yes, another is the matching algorithm. Individuals that have a high number of negative interactions get pushed down, or not selected for "one on one" matches.
If you are in a high success quadrant, you find out relatively quickly. The people who are harder are those who have a group of people that they match well with, but it isn't large in the general population. For a large set of given persons, there are a small set of people who are excellent matches, but getting that match often takes time. This works against people who are lonely and want to find a match in a hurry. This is related to the statistics of the "law of very large numbers." Let's say that only.1% of the population matches a given individual. That means that, on average, one person who is a good match joins every day on a large dating site. But finding that needle in the haystack is often difficult.
This is why dating sites are moving to setting up real world interactions, events, and linking in to other forms of interaction, because the best predictor of a relationship is... drum roll... in person meeting.
I did some consulting in this area a while back, and since I am under NDA, will not mention specific sites. But the people running these sites know a good deal about what is going on, and have their own interests in the dating marketplace. What is fairly common knowledge in the industry is this:
1. Individuals who are in the high attractiveness quandrant, the company I worked with referred to the as "date bacon," have high rates of being replied to, high rates of physical meetings, and moderate levels of dating success. If you are, or present as, a young, never married, childless, photogenic, of median for the site intelligence, and slightly above median earning and intelligence, male, the e-dating world looks like the one in the article: it is easy find partners, though it was fairly obvious who was real (the disappeared after 1-3 physical dates) and who was not (serial daters with complaints coming in after ward). There were some echo quadrants: people who were post a short "starter marriage," which could also have been a non-married domestic LTR, had date bacon like rates of reply etc. There was a distant echo quandrant among post-child individuals. Date bacon was the product: getting these people on was a high intensity activity, because everyone else on the site messaged and joined to message date bacon. This was irrespective of genders and orientations: women had a very narrow range of men the wanted (near their age, but slightly older, attractive, financial success signalling men of above median educational attainment), as did men (who were actually less visually correlated than the women). Date bacon did not stay on the site long, and date bacon indexes were good predictors of matching. Bacon goes with bacon.
2. For everyone else, things were a great deal worse, however for, what was euphemistically terms "alternatively monogamous," read people in sexless marriages who were searching for relationships on the side, had high rates of use, and would score partners out of sheer persistence. The site had an equivocal relationship with cheaters, because these people were the income, but too many and it drove down site stats. I did some work to figure out the optimal level of cheaters. Yes there is one.
3. The least satisfied quadrant was non-date bacon individuals searching for monogamy. The difference here is a factor of about 10 from date bacon. People in this quadrant see a totally different dating world: low rates of reply, few physical dates, low chance of a relationship, though, as you might guess, if people did make it over these hurdles, they tended to leave the site. Males in this population did not stay paid members, were as many females in this population did.
4. There were two other populations, one "the non-daters," mostly women who got replies and were either hostile or non-responsive. Part of the project was to weed these people out, because they were "payment killers." One interaction was enough to get a member to cancel. The other were what the programmers called "subprime," people with significant geographic, personal, or physical barriers, or women with children. This was a fairly large base of people, who were culled periodically because too many again dropped membership rates. Essentially, people who had few other alternatives.
5. Very specific people were also consistent long term users, and were shunted to more specific sub-sites, this is because outside of their subset, they are non-daters, but inside they look more like date bacon. Hence sub-sectioning and bucketing run rampant.
6. The upshot of this is that there is about 10% of the population that e-dating works well, or very well for, and another 20% which has no good alternative. These individuals were satisfied, or at least repeat, users. For another 30% the experience was highly negative, indeed, even soul crushing.
7. YMMV - because personal relationships are heavily based on factors which do not capture from dating sites, many relationships happen even in low probability areas,
They are plenty happy so long as it is them getting the information, and issuing the restrictions, one for example, who can get married, who can get contraception, who can vote, and so on.
We've tried the theory that gun ownership will make us safe from tyranny, it hasn't worked.
evolved on what we know about mars, since it is largely found on meat. What would be looking for is something that could have evolved on a warm wet mars.
Slashdot Mirror
And in New York, where there are the strictest paper trail laws in the nation http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/house_of_cards_hNdx5fNGt6oOl1U9mTW0HN#ixzz1V7KSkSWR 92% of foreclosures lack documentation. For the person being foreclosed upon, they must prove, at their own expense, that this is the case. The cost of litigation becomes to high. So practically, you are simply dead wrong.
At least learn to use google and do some simple multiplication before making declarations.
No, this is the system. We have, as a matter of law, declared that "it goes down like the big corporation thought it would go down." So, no proof of mortgage, merely a letter of intent to convey? Foreclose the fuckers, its close enough. No witness to transaction? Robosign. The law is not overly broad by accident, it is overly broad by design.
Even little things count can, though of course if you want to do something more high profile, that's up to you.
It is very clear that your company is a typical feature and marketing driven morass. What happens is you flog yourselfs until something goes horribly wrong, a bunch of people are fired. Then there is a new director of technology, who gets a ground up rewrite approved to enter some new space, and the cycle of accretion and feature creep starts all over again. So advice? Polish your resume or make good friends with who ever will run the purge when it happens.
Climate science wins again.
Orwell was a manual, and Brazil a training film.
You need to do more research, there are far more cases, including 9 of the 10 on this list (http://listverse.com/2007/10/07/top-10-scientists-who-committed-suicide/) as well as many more. The plural of anecdotes is not data, and the plural of revisionism is not fact.
This is the evil that we can fight today. There are other evils, and other days.
A project to put a toll booth in front of the sum and total of human knowledge.
http://youtu.be/CGIP2WAIupY When words do not say enough.
Rents kill, and Aaron was one of the victims. All of us are the losers, except for the people with the corrupt rent stream.
He struggled with depression, many of the best do, it caught up with him, and it is a loss that will be widely felt. He will be missed, sorely.
Ships are fleeing a sinking rat in this case.
Search ranking is one tool yes, another is the matching algorithm. Individuals that have a high number of negative interactions get pushed down, or not selected for "one on one" matches.
This is why dating sites are moving to setting up real world interactions, events, and linking in to other forms of interaction, because the best predictor of a relationship is... drum roll... in person meeting.
1. Individuals who are in the high attractiveness quandrant, the company I worked with referred to the as "date bacon," have high rates of being replied to, high rates of physical meetings, and moderate levels of dating success. If you are, or present as, a young, never married, childless, photogenic, of median for the site intelligence, and slightly above median earning and intelligence, male, the e-dating world looks like the one in the article: it is easy find partners, though it was fairly obvious who was real (the disappeared after 1-3 physical dates) and who was not (serial daters with complaints coming in after ward). There were some echo quadrants: people who were post a short "starter marriage," which could also have been a non-married domestic LTR, had date bacon like rates of reply etc. There was a distant echo quandrant among post-child individuals. Date bacon was the product: getting these people on was a high intensity activity, because everyone else on the site messaged and joined to message date bacon. This was irrespective of genders and orientations: women had a very narrow range of men the wanted (near their age, but slightly older, attractive, financial success signalling men of above median educational attainment), as did men (who were actually less visually correlated than the women). Date bacon did not stay on the site long, and date bacon indexes were good predictors of matching. Bacon goes with bacon.
2. For everyone else, things were a great deal worse, however for, what was euphemistically terms "alternatively monogamous," read people in sexless marriages who were searching for relationships on the side, had high rates of use, and would score partners out of sheer persistence. The site had an equivocal relationship with cheaters, because these people were the income, but too many and it drove down site stats. I did some work to figure out the optimal level of cheaters. Yes there is one.
3. The least satisfied quadrant was non-date bacon individuals searching for monogamy. The difference here is a factor of about 10 from date bacon. People in this quadrant see a totally different dating world: low rates of reply, few physical dates, low chance of a relationship, though, as you might guess, if people did make it over these hurdles, they tended to leave the site. Males in this population did not stay paid members, were as many females in this population did.
4. There were two other populations, one "the non-daters," mostly women who got replies and were either hostile or non-responsive. Part of the project was to weed these people out, because they were "payment killers." One interaction was enough to get a member to cancel. The other were what the programmers called "subprime," people with significant geographic, personal, or physical barriers, or women with children. This was a fairly large base of people, who were culled periodically because too many again dropped membership rates. Essentially, people who had few other alternatives.
5. Very specific people were also consistent long term users, and were shunted to more specific sub-sites, this is because outside of their subset, they are non-daters, but inside they look more like date bacon. Hence sub-sectioning and bucketing run rampant.
6. The upshot of this is that there is about 10% of the population that e-dating works well, or very well for, and another 20% which has no good alternative. These individuals were satisfied, or at least repeat, users. For another 30% the experience was highly negative, indeed, even soul crushing.
7. YMMV - because personal relationships are heavily based on factors which do not capture from dating sites, many relationships happen even in low probability areas,
Programming compiler code is like being abducted by aliens. Programming application code is a great deal like going to prison.
It should have been written in C
I would say that virtually every sub discipline has one.
Obviously it doesn't apply here.
They are plenty happy so long as it is them getting the information, and issuing the restrictions, one for example, who can get married, who can get contraception, who can vote, and so on.
We've tried the theory that gun ownership will make us safe from tyranny, it hasn't worked.
Not everyone who works needs that much power draw.
If there is ever a Pirate Party revolution, it will be one of the first things outlawed, and one of the very few with the death penalty.
What someone says about it, says more about the commenter that the situation.
evolved on what we know about mars, since it is largely found on meat. What would be looking for is something that could have evolved on a warm wet mars.