Sublime Text 2 is a text editor for OS X, Linux and Windows, currently in beta.
NEW YORK — A whistle-blower will be paid $63.9 million for providing tips that led to JPMorgan Chase & Co's agreement to pay $614 million and tighten oversight to resolve charges that it defrauded the government into insuring flawed home loans.
The payment to the whistle-blower, Keith Edwards, was disclosed on Friday in a filing with the U.S. district court in Manhattan that formally ended the case.
In the Feb. 4 settlement, JPMorgan admitted that for more than a decade it submitted thousands of mortgages for insurance by the Federal Housing Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs that did not qualify for government guarantees.
JPMorgan said it had failed to tell the agencies that its own internal reviews had turned up problems.
The government said it ultimately had to cover millions of dollars of losses when some of the bank's loans went sour, resulting in evictions and foreclosures nationwide.
“There were a lot of bad loans made during the financial boom, and the United States taxpayer was left holding the bag through the VA and FHA loan programs,” said Edwards' lawyer, David Wasinger. “Hopefully the settlement sends a message to Wall Street that this conduct is not allowed, and that in the future it will be held accountable.”
Edwards could not immediately be reached for comment.
About $56.5 million of Edwards' award concerns the FHA portion of the case, and $7.4 million concerns the VA portion. Wasinger declined to discuss his legal fees.
Edwards, a Louisiana resident, had worked for JPMorgan or its predecessors from 2003 to 2008, and had been an assistant vice president supervising a government insuring unit.
He originally sued in January 2013 under the federal False Claims Act, which lets individuals sue government contractors and suppliers for allegedly defrauding taxpayers. The Department of Justice later joined as a plaintiff.
Whistle-blowers can recover portions of False Claims Act settlements, which often grow if the government gets involved.
The purpose of the CCSD is to:
Establish and maintain a common standard of procedure codes and narratives that reflect current medical practice within the independent healthcare sector by publishing the CCSD Schedule
Establish and maintain industry standard codes for diagnostic tests (ISCs) which were launched in September 2013 to drive further standardisation of coding
Make this standard available to all those working in the sector at a minimal, equitable charge that does not limit adoption or usage
Update the standard in-line with new technologies and changes in medical practice
Two workstreams are responsible for CCSD work:
The CCSD Board acts as a steering committee, providing overall direction and strategy and ensures that the CCSD delivers against its strategic objectives
The CCSD Working Group is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the CCSD Schedule. The Working Group discusses and decides the outcomes of any new procedure amendment requests and other changes to the Schedule
Considering there really no big "killer" features in ST3, I'd like to propose one, which might me a big extension to ST.
Virtual File Systems API should implement file I/O based on plugins. The end developer API could be taken from existing projects, e.g. FUSE.
VFS would allow deep integration with different off-site (not local) file editing without sacrificing any time for I/O waits. While there are lots of file system wrappers (e.g. FUSE), the implementation inside ST would benefit from higher integration with text edition and navigation tasks.
There is also a number of companies which use ST in corporate environments with high security requirements (e.g. no source code should be saved to local storage). VFS capability would allow to use ST in such environments.
End users would benefit from plugins for FTP, SFTP integration with file browser.
Virtual representations would also be possible. Consider a VFS based on class hierarchy with method definitions as leaves.
All this requires minor modifications to UI, but deep modifications to I/O core.
I would love to be able to rename the folder name in the sidebar without renaming the original folder name
In Dropbox my project folders, things are organized like that :
And and my files for each clients are in these HTML folders so I add several projects I have many HTML folders, not really easy to manage isn't it ? :)
I think it would be awesome to have in addition of the actual rename function the possibilty to rename the folder but only for Sublime Text
I en tidligere kolonne anbefalt jeg "aksjer for det lange løp" av Jeremy Siegel (McGraw-Hill) for investorer som ønsket å investere felles aksjer. Siegel er professor i økonomi ved Wharton School ved University of Pennsylvania. Han har revidert og oppdatert boken nå i sin femte utgave. Jeg har gjennomgått den nyeste utgaven, og jeg tror den inneholder verdifull informasjon for investorer som forventer å fortsette å investere i aksjemarkedet.
I denne utgaven, Siegel analyserer økonomien i Kina og India, og inneholder informasjon som vil gi veiledning for å investere i disse økonomiene. Han brukte mye oppmerksomhet til globale markeder, diskutere arten og omfanget av disse markedene og dele sin langsiktige framskrivninger. Han vektlegger viktigheten av inkludert investeringene i porteføljen.
Den viktigste kapittelet for de fleste investorer- tar opp temaet strukturering en portefølje for langsiktig vekst. Siegel angir retningslinjer for vellykket investering, som krever langsiktige fokus og en disiplinert investeringsstrategi. Her er noen av prinsippene han anbefaler, med kommentaren min.
-Hold dine forventninger i tråd med historie: de siste to århundrene, aksjer har returnert mellom 6 og 7 prosent etter inflasjon, inkludert re-investert utbytte. Videre har aksjer solgt på en gjennomsnittlig pris/inntjening (p/e)-forholdet mellom 15. I fremtiden, han påpeker, det kan være grunner at aksjemarkedet kan stige til en høyere inntjening enn 15, som lavere transaksjonskostnader og lavere bond returnerer. En god regel å huske når du er fremtiden er "regelen på 72." Hvis du deler 72 ved den forventede totalen avkastningen, er resultatet antall år for investeringen å doble i verdi. Dermed vil en 8 prosent avkastning double din investering i ni år.
--Lager avkastning er mye mer stabile i det lange løp enn på kort kjører: investeringer i aksjer vil hjelpe deg å kompensere for fremtidig inflasjon; obligasjoner vil ikke. Det vil være år der det generelle aksjemarkedet vil bli negativ. Det bør ikke hindre du opprettholde en betydelig del av aksjer i porteføljen etter et fall i aksjekurser. Investorer som bailed ut av aksjer helt etter aksjemarkedet falle i 2008 fant det svært vanskelig å komme tilbake i aksjemarkedet, og som et resultat de savnet utmerket avkastning i de siste årene.
-Investere den største prosentandelen av aksjeporteføljen i rimelig lager indeksen midler. Dette kan være en av de beste anbefalingene, særlig for investorer som ikke har en stor portefølje. På denne måten, selv om du har en liten portefølje, har du den samme diversifiseringen som en stor investor i samme fondet. Et godt eksempel på dette prinsippet i aksjon er for en bred fond som Vanguard totale aksjemarkedet indeksen fondet Investor aksjer (som jeg har investert i mange år) som returneres ca 30 prosent i 2013.
-Investere minst en
tredjedel av porteføljen din egenkapital i internasjonale aksjer, spesielt de
som ikke er basert i USA. Siegel advarsler investorer ikke å overweigh din
portefølje i høy vekst land som inntjening overskrider 20.
-Vippe din portefølje mot verdiaksjer ved å kjøpe passiv indekserte porteføljer av verdiaksjer. Siegel påpeker at verdiaksjer, som har en lavere p/e ratio og høyere utbytte gir har hatt bedre resultater og lavere risiko enn vekst aksjer. Jeg enig helt. Jeg har konsekvent investert i en indeks fondet, og resultatene er veldig bra.
– Etablere faste regler for å holde din portefølje på sporet. Siegel vier et kapittel til å diskutere de vanlige psykologiske fallgruvene at dårlig salgsresultater. Det er altfor fristende å kjøpe når alle er bullish og selge når alle er bearish.
Bekymret at aksjemarkedet er grunn for en korreksjon? Siegel tilbyr følgende veiledning for 2014: "denne oksen markedet er ikke over, selv om gevinster ikke vil være så stor som 2013. Lager returnerer sannsynlig til gjennomsnittlig 6 prosent til 7 prosent de neste tre til fem år."
Politicians thinking aloud achieve nothing. In a complex market dominated by the 'Big 6', we need a co-operative approach.
'There is nothing we can do with today’s UK energy market to stop consumers from being hit by even more unfair price increases.' Photograph: Andrew Milligan/Empics
Britain's energy market is broken. The most recent hike in prices is just the latest sign. There are more to come, and the unedifying thinking aloud from the political establishment is not going to fix it. We need full-scale energy market reform.
There is nothing we can do with today's UK energy market to stop consumers from being hit by even more unfair price increases. Just as worryingly, it is impossible to guarantee that the UK's current market and our energy policies will make it possible to meet the demand for affordable energy, which is mushrooming as our economy grows, our population rises. It does not work like that.
The market is complicated. Prices for gas and electricity are affected by myriad subsidies and levies. Because the market for energy is global, our government is not responsible for them all; they are also levied by other countries involved in supplying our energy. Wholesale prices are also pushed up when anything happens to squeeze global supply. There is very little to stop oil- and gas-supplying countries "turning the tap off" if they are tempted to use energy resources as a weapon of diplomacy, for example. But the latest price hikes have not been driven by any of these factors. Wholesale gas prices have hardly risen in the last few years, while consumer prices have kept going up.
Ed Miliband is right to highlight that our energy market is not working in the interests of consumers. Rightly, people are increasingly angry about it. The political responses we have seen simply don't cut it. Miliband's price-fixing policy scam would simply induce a price rise before the next general election and discourage much-needed investment in our ageing, carbon-dependent energy infrastructure. A windfall tax would simply be passed on to consumers, thereby guaranteeing further price hikes. We must – as the prime minister has proposed – look at green levies, but they account for less than 10% of our energy bills, so this alone is not going to address the challenge.
In fact, it is not clear that a true market in energy exists. Fears about an energy oligopoly – a market dominated by a few huge companies – are being replaced by ones of a monopoly as price rises are announced almost simultaneously by the "Big 6" companies. The annual audit of competition the prime minister has proposed is a start, but nowhere near enough. Our hard-pressed consumers, both at home and in business, need a proper, authoritative and independent investigation by the Competition Commission to restore confidence in the energy market.
Looking further ahead, the government's response needs proper thought. We need to act not react. An effective strategy needs to be delivered over years, not months, and nothing must be off the table. Three areas need attention.
Britain needs to take a much longer-term view of how it uses energy. Over the last four decades California's economy has grown eight times without its energy usage increasing. We can do the same here. Our focus needs to be on energy efficiency, not on subsidising intermittent, renewable energy generation. In our increasingly populated and energy-demanding world, wholesale energy prices will not go down any time soon. We must be honest about that and introduce policies which will mitigate the impact of that reality on our lifestyles and our children's future.
In this context, we need to revisit the decarbonisation targets set under the previous government. Not because I believe we should abrogate our climate change responsibilities, but because they are destroying important parts of our economy. If this continues unchecked, there will be one less powerful, democratic nation around to effect beneficial change to the environment. A low-carbon Britain with no jobs and no money will not help save the planet. Real progress on decarbonisation must not undermine our global economic position.
Finally, we need to tackle the current structure of the energy market. The inefficient monolith that was the Central Electricity Generating Board was rightly broken up and privatised in the 1980s, but what replaced it is far from perfect. Six large, foreign (often) state-owned companies took its place, each of which has an uncannily similar structure: a generation company, a trading company (not located in the UK) and a retail company which are all "vertically integrated". This means that they control the whole supply chain and has made it impossible to have real competition. The majority of profits are made out of energy generation and trading (another reason a windfall tax on profits will not work).
We need to consider alternatives. In New York state, for example, a not-for-profit co-operative successfully delivers clean energy to consumers. Energy is a necessity for life, and gas and electricity can only be delivered along existing pipes and wires. Creating competition in a market for just two commodities in a fixed delivery network won't bring prices down much further, even if it succeeds in making the energy generation sector work better. Quite simply, a new, co-operative approach to energy delivery makes common sense.
Customer support service by UserEcho