Last time I said that GMail is unreliable and thus you should not use it for crucial communications I was downvoted by at least a 12 people. I wonder if those people believe it when CNN tells you it's repeatedly broken.
Unless of course many HN readers work at Google ;-)
It's not that they want to throw it away, but that they might be wrong. People have been wrong with a lot more than $100m at stake. $100m of other people's money at that.
The problem with sites like LinkedIn is that they own your name and can sell it back to you. When you use them they own your contacts as well and will stop you from contacting your peers when you don't pay (LinkedIn competitor Xing already did that to some users).
Before we reach the age of data portability or proper ownership of data you have to limit the power of third parties over your name. You have to use those services or someone else might do for you unofficially but you have to keep your name and contacts to yourself.
So basically you need a good SEO and CRM strategy where you own your name and contacts yourself independently of services like LinkedIn or Facebook.
Sorry, I don't want to explain the financial crisis to you but in short it was something like this: The financial system broke down, banks either went bankrupt or had to be rescued by tax payer money.
As a result of the financial crisis many people lost their homes. Maybe that was too complex for you to understand the connection and you still trust your bank. That's OK for you, it's your choice. Still many people don't trust banks anymore with good reason.
How idiotic can you be? "As a result of the financial crisis many people lost their homes." People lost their homes because they couldn't pay the mortgage. They couldn't pay the mortgage because they didn't have the money to pay the mortgage. The banks went bankrupt because they gave mortgages to too many people that couldn't pay them.
While it's correct that a mortage note holder (bank, pension fund, etc) going bankrupt doesn't cause the folks on the other end of said note to lose their homes, renters can be forced out when the home owner defaults.
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3.""
Please read this for some basic understanding my dear non-"idiotic" friend:
"The root cause for the current crisis seems to be the excessive use of leverage.
To take an example, a company with a net worth of US$ 25 billion borrowed 26 times its net worth and creates leveraged funds of US$ 650 billion to invest or lend them. When a small portion of the company's investments turns bad, as is the norm for the industry, the company's capital is under threat. To put things in perspective a 3.8 percent misjudgment in their books was enough to wipe out their shareholders' capital of $ US 25 billion."
Your attempt to look knowledgeable would be much more effective if your conversation had any sort of coherence to it. Does that link address how a bank going out of business forces you to lose your home if you have a mortgage with that bank? (Presumably not, since it's not true.) You may have forgotten the beginning here, but it looks like the rest of us haven't.
You don't lose your home if the bank goes out of business. Mortgage holdings are sold off as assets as part of the bankruptcy settlement. The ownership of the underlying mortgage changes, not the ownership of the home.
Will p2p lending work for mortgages? Do they have p2p loans configured towards mortgages? It would have to be pretty different to the normal unsecured loans
No, he didn't. "Brandon Frazier, 32, a public relations consultant, was aware of that when he borrowed $18,000 to cover expenses from buying a house in Southeast near RFK Stadium last year." The photo caption is misleading.
So what did he do with the 18k? Buy ice cream? You probably mean that he didn't finance the whole house with this money but this does not mean that you can't do it.
I did not indicate in my comment that the article says so, I wrote that I SAID SO before. This is obviously the first step on the way to blocking it. Please try to read first and understand before complaining.
Comments are not for repeating what the articles say but to add your own opinion.
Also you're not my father to tell me how I should behave.
Here is the link where I said it in case you still don't get the context:
Just because many people agree with you doesn't mean you are right. It's often opportunism. M$ will surely try block it, either technically or by law. For the uninitiated M$ is the short version for Microsoft.
I may be childish, but it has been the unofficial acronym for at least a decade so obviously whole generations of children use it.
Last but not least: Voting everything down you don't agree with is childish. I argue with people and don't vote them down like some bury brigade just because I disagree.
That term simply doesn't come across well in a discussion held - ostensibly - by adults. It has the same effect as someone writing 'MAD LULZ G00G PWNED MS' and ultimately conveys nothing aside from prejudice.
How will they block google? There's already two newer versions of IE and users haven't updated to them, what makes you think the users will install an IE6 update to block chrome if they won't install an update to IE7 or 8?
