Subject: Adjusted rate of 2.99%

From: Obama Refi Program Rate-Lookup <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 11:57:52 -0700

Dear Krb-wg-archive,

Highlights:
===========
- Homeowners can Refi up to 125 percent of their homes value
- Second home and Investment properties may be eligible
- As of 05/22 UPDATE: 2.99% Fixed rate is available to you - 

We are contacting you today so you can take advantage of a new lower home rate.
2014 U.S. Rate Update - Housing Systems is allowing for lower monthly rates.

View Your Savings Below
-> http://www.whydug.com/new/mortgage/rate/available.index

It literally take 5 minutes or less to confirm your new monthly.
(Ref-ID--34792)

| Mortgage Refinance | Refi W/O  | Home Improvement | Debt Consolidation | Equity Loan | 
View  Estimator -> http://www.whydug.com/new/mortgage/rate/available.index

to modify message settings- Alert System Notifications
1107/Valeria Dr/Marion/Texas/seven eight one two four - http://www.whydug.com/k9kg/dnbgo4.dgnmrk

m dumber after reading Zed Shaw's rant... Seriously. That is not a good piece of writing. May i suggest reducing his platform and removing the link from your question?   Paul Sasik Jan 11 '10 at 4:30
9	  	
his oversized ego is, care to say, compensated by the fact that (I believe) he is fundamentally right (apart for the killing thing, that's ridiculous). Statistics as we all know is a complex discipline. I realized it even more when I worked in bioinformatics. Every time a non-statistician does statistics, it is almost guaranteed he will do it wrong. Proper sampling, data handling, and presentations, all contain huge pitfalls that can lead to misinterpretation. Unfortunately, good statisticians are few, and even among them there's disagreement. That makes things even worse.   Stefano Borini Jan 11 '10 at 4:32
5	  	
"Unfortunately, good statisticians are few, and even among them there's disagreement. That makes things even worse." That's easy, just work out the statistical consensus.   Breton Jan 11 '10 at 5:27
4	  	
Should this be a community wiki? It's open ended, and a little ... contentious.   wisty Jan 11 '10 at 5:43
2	 If you're growing your source-tree/analysis "organically," don't you find this hard to do/cumbersome? If you notice a mistake in your code (common while exploring a new problem space), you have to (i) fix source; (ii) reinstall package; (iii) reload it into your workspace? Is there a way to call library(...) in order to reload a package that's already loaded (step iii above)? Don't you have to kill your workspace, restart R then reload your library/package in order to see if it's right? ng you're interested in statistics applied to performance. Forgive me, but I have a bias, from decades of programming. If you're going to publish papers on the subject and be highly rated, you're going to have to wave around a lot of statistics. Here's an example. If on the other hand you want to do something actually useful for solving problems, it takes a whole different outlook. Here's what I mean.   Mike Dunlavey Two areas of interest to me woat uses implicits as type classes. Anyway, I'm still
  seeing things like Bit
That's an adequate solution, but I don't think the best: it starts from the perspective that the return type should be implicitly determined. It's obviously too big a change to work into Scala as it is today, but I'm of the firm opinion that requiring explicit specification of the return type would allow simpler (and more powerful) syntax, and without a great increase in verbosity (since, e.g. explicitly calling toString would no longer be required).   dhardy Feb 28 '13 at 19:55Does this mean that scala map on a set will always return a set? What if the map doesn't return unique values (e. g. map i => i % 2)? As far as what the user would expect, I would think one expectation of a map function is that the result should have the same number of elements as the input.   ChaseMedallion Jan 18 at 11:57@ChaseMedallion i don't. i expect that of lists. sets are different, and mapping sets is different. the whole point of a "map" is that you get the same collection you had, but with different
  elements.   sam boosalis Apr 2 at 3:06@MartinOdersky - I finally got it There was a video talk by one of your PhD students (Heather Miller) that made the aha moment for m
"This works, because the first parameter of length_global, can be re-used as the self parameter in length_new. This would not be possible without an explicit self." - it would work just the same. it would be re-used for the implicit self... the second example is a circular reasoning - you have to explicitly place self there, because python needs the explicit self.   Karoly Horvath Mar 15 at 16:16
1	  	
@KarolyHorvath: Sure, it would also be possible to have a language with a model where internally defined methods do not need an explicit self but externally defined methods do. But Id say there is some consistency in requiring the explicit self in both cases, which makes it a legitimate reason to do it this way. Other languages may choose different approach