it is certainly fair comment to say that Obama, by appointing industry lawyers, has given tacit endorsement to the industry stance of harsh penalties.
No, it isn't.
If I know that X laws need reform, I'll hire lawyers who are very familiar with X laws to review possible changes, their effects, and how they would use those laws, to try to avoid making a bad situation worse.
On the flip side, if I want X laws strengthened, I'd still hire lawyers who are familiar with X laws, to figure out how to make them stronger, and plug the holes.
As such, I'd contend that Obama's hiring of lawyers who specialized in IP tells us only that his administration is interested in gaining expertise in the application of IP law.
That said, I tend to be a lot less outraged about politics than other HN'ers.
if it was disruptive, if it was the best thing since sliced bread, you wouldn't have to do this.
The man who invented sliced bread didn't make it popular. It was initially viewed as a bad idea. Acceptance required the selling efforts of Wonder Bread, and even then it took a number of years before most consumers decided that it was a good idea.
History is rife with examples of products and services that became incredibly popular, but had slow uptake. Lack of initial acceptance proves almost nothing about the usefulness, quality, or long-term viability of the product.
1) I schedule my time rigorously. There's dedicated time allowances for every single thing I want to do. If my time budget doesn't allow something that's important to me, I cancel or reschedule something else.
(S)He's doomed; (s)he used apostrophes instead of the proper double quotes. Now (s)he's both going to default and uses bad grammar, definitely bad for your rating.
If the statistical models show the diamonds in the rough who are responsible people in the midst of irresponsible people don't tend to default then no, not necessarily.
The article merely says the information is being looked at. What each credit rating agency will find to be significant predictors is an entirely separate decision.
1) I'd set aside enough money to live for a year in something that's boring, low-return and dead safe. And I wouldn't touch it. This will give you enormous flexibility when deciding what to do with your life and career.
2) I'd talk to financial professionals to figure out how to structure things for maximum gain (e.g. what can you legally write off? can you create retirement programs for yourself? etc.)
3) I'd take classes in my areas of weakness, so I'm better prepared for the Next Big Thing.
If any of those location-based services was as big as twitter, I'd fully expect some crime.