spinlock

It will eventually. You just have to stay strong and not let the terrorists win.

The 9-11 hijackers used razor blades. So, its been done. Of course, no American passenger is going to believe that everything will be fine if they comply these days so I don't think its possible to pull off 9-11 again.

This is why I can't support high speed rail enough. You get from downtown nyc to Washington dc without having your human rights violated. And its faster too.

If they got this pissed about it, my guess would be that the client called Pillar and complained. Pillar must have felt that the author not going into the office made them look bad.

The other thing that the article doesn't address is how much weight you gain in muscle when you exercise. When I go from out-of-shape to back-in-shape, I know that I've increased my muscle mass as well as loosing fat. That doesn't show on the scale but it definitely is what I'm going for.

Also, increasing your muscle is going to increase your resting metabolic rate. So, as you exercise and get stronger, you'll burn more calories while resting. (this probably only holds for men who build muscle when they work out. if you're a marathon runner who's rail thin, I don't think you'll burn much fat at all while resting.)

Your body is not a bomb calorimeter. If you're looking to thermodynamics to explain weight loss or gain you'll be disappointed.

I think you make a lot of good points but I would contend that the title of the article is click-bait. It's all well and good that the article itself is well reasoned but people read the title and hold on to that.

Microsoft is a great company to work at ... if you're an MBA.

We're not talking about fraud. You fire those people and move on. You shouldn't hamstring your recruiting process for the rest of time because of it.

BTW, why didn't you check references?

I smell a startup. Uber for Spagettios.

Oooo, oooo, do Jurasic Park next.

If you want to talk about bullshit, how about ignoring evidence and resorting to ad-hominum attacks?

I was not ignoring your argument but rather pointing out that there is data showing a correlation between doctors advocating low fat/high carb and obesity in America.

Now, what is a straw-man is to put forth a theoretical/never seen in reality diet and claim that no one has ever gotten fat eating it. Sorry, but an extrapolation from a population of zero to 350 million is a bit much for me.

I think the one point we do agree on is that this is a complex issue. So, you can blame fat people for not listening to their doctors, doctors for not checking the research or food companies for bastardizing what doctors actually recommended to sell low fat/high sugar food and label it "healthy." But it's quite obvious that the advice doctors have been giving for the past few decades has not had the intended effect.

It's not a straw-man. Look at the adoption of the low fat/high carb diet by medical professionals in america. Now compare that to the prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

> Exception is some cause or other flushing stuff down the tract prematurely prior to absorption, perhaps something dangerous that stomach acid didn't neutralize, enzyme problems, overstuffing or what not..

I've read some advice about not drinking water with meals for this reason. The idea is that it will dilute your stomach acid making it more basic and less effective.

I know when I started eating paleo, I had really painful gas (to me and everyone else) for a few months. Then, after a while, I could eat all the broccoli I could stand and it was fine.

I don't think you need a fourth branch; the judiciary should collect the data and determine when it can be searched.

I think Goldman would pay more to hire an sec investigator with balls. They'd be the ones causing problems and worth buying.

Unless theyre a German bank that bet on the housing bubble.

There weren't any loans being bundled in this deal. It was a synthetic.

My point is tjs Goldman is the house and made money from the deal not the outcome.

I read it differently. My take away was that the SEC didn't have the _evidence_ to go after anyone but Fabricci.

However, I really don't understand how Goldman would have profited from aiding Paulson & co. Goldman set up a security that let people bet for or against the housing market. It's similar to Vegas letting people bet on a sports match. Why would Vegas fix the game that other people were betting on? It's not like Goldman made more money because Abacus paid out to Paulson vs. the Germans.

VCs have a fiduciary duty to _their_ investors.

I can't believe he made a public statement either. If you want a baseless lawsuit to go away quickly, you do not give the opposition ammunition (which is what this public statement is). The lawsuit sounds like bullshit to me but I can see this statement costing Cruise a lot of money.

You don't think any individuals committed fraud when they applies for NINJA loans?

The products were designed to be safe even if a large percentage of the underlying assets went into default. They did not represent the pools as free from assets that would default. They represented the pools as diverse.

They sampled rather than investigate every note. We all take those "short cuts."

Fantastic. Thanks for the response.

Our use case is talking to an API, doing a little bit of processing then writing to a database. It's all IO with barely any processing (just a few string substitutions to "normalize" the API responses).

My problem with this is that we trying to fix finance by expecting Goldman Sachs to act as good citizens. Guess what will never happen.

Goldman is not a good citizen. It is a market maker. It provides the function of creating financial products that people want to buy. Goldman also wrote the first swaps against the mortgages in these securities. Guess what, they didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. They did it for the fees.

Goldman is one of the few actors in this mess that performed their jobs well. Rating securities was not their job. Determining if mortgages were sound was not their job. Their job was to package loans that were underwritten by other banks and sell them to _qualified investors_ who wanted to buy them. Goldman did it's job very well.

Ratings agencies had the job of determining the quality of these securities. They did their job poorly.

Investment managers had the _incredibly high paying_ job of selecting sound investments. They did their job poorly.

Goldman is the only one who even comes close to being competent in this entire mess.

I'm not blaming the victims. The victims are people who are relying on the pension funds for their retirements.

I'm pointing out that the managers who were entrusted to invest the assets of those funds deserve a huge helping of blame. These managers were supposed to be experts and were literally paid millions of dollars a year to manage the assets. They failed even the most basic test of competency and they should be held accountable for it. Why aren't we talking about clawing back their fees?

Yup. Unfortunately, the only reason S&P, Moodies and Fitch matter is because ... wait for it ... they were named in the Securities and Exchange act of 1934 as the only agencies that banks were allowed to use. It's one of those huge unintended consequences that the scheme to make sure that commercial banks were invested in high quality securities is at the heart of a financial meltdown 74 years later.

Goldman did _not_ rate the CDOs they sold.