vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
If they give an animal antibiotics and label it as USDA organic, they're breaking the law.  http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&amp;sid=464cbcd2c010c427c9369a688a92e5fe&amp;rgn=div8&amp;view=text&amp;node=7:3.1.1.9.32.3.354.12&amp;idno=7  &gt;(c) The producer of an organic livestock operation must not:  &gt;(1) Sell, label, or represent as organic any animal or edible product derived from any animal treated with antibiotics, any substance that contains a synthetic substance not allowed under §205.603, or any substance that contains a nonsynthetic substance prohibited in §205.604.  &gt;...  &gt;(7) Withhold medical treatment from a sick animal in an effort to preserve its organic status. All appropriate medications must be used to restore an animal to health when methods acceptable to organic production fail. Livestock treated with a prohibited substance must be clearly identified and shall not be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced.
"I'm assuming you directed that question to me. I don't disagree with your question regarding a game.  But potentially causing financial ruin is not a game.  If everyone abused these laws our economy would come to a stand still due to a total crisis of confidence.  Using Trump as an example:  [The Baja Condo fiasco](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Ocean_Resort_Baja_Mexico).  Trump gets paid $500k up front to license his name (nothing wrong with that)  He also gets a percentage of future revenue (nothing wrong with that)  He tells buyers he ""is involved at every capacity"".  This is a lie.  People feel confidant and put down deposits of $200k-$300k.  [$22 MILLION in deposits are lost](http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/03/business/la-fi-trump-lawsuit-settlement-20121004) and the project fades away.  All the investors/people get nothing.  Trump made his $500k (possibly a LOT more)claims no responsibility and moves on.  If everyone did this - our markets would freeze up."
Because it's a declining company and used as an institutional sized pump and dump with a new toxic financing every week. Look up Kalani Investments - they're behind it all.
Honestly this sounds like a bug. In the early days of HFT, quote stuffing looked like this, but everyone created anti manipulation algos that do Fourier transforms to catch that kind of behavior. Modern manipulation is much cleverer than this. Source: I have designed anti manipulation algos for a HFT firm.
Trading error at Citi
Even better, where does the money come from to pay the penalty? Increased prices for LCD screens. Fining a company just increases its cost of doing business, usually slightly. Send a few executives to jail, rescind the incorporation for even one major company, and this kind of stuff would stop. Fine them, and everyone will just keep doing it.
IANAL; perhaps some form of fraud.  They are making appointments under false pretense costing Lyft time and money.  However, I believe you are limited to recouping the lost value.  So how much does a false appointment cost, probably not enough to justify pursuing.
"I know of at least one case where a person was convicted of ""structuring"".  The person was depositing his own money into his own bank account and was found guilty of ""structuring"" since he made several deposits under $10K.  The man did nothing illegal.  He just felt it was safer to make several small deposits instead of one large deposit. From the article: Prosecutors did not offer evidence of any other motive for Gaskins' behavior. They said at trial that Gaskins should have known better. ""The point of the law is to make sure we don't have people who try to fool the bank,"" federal prosecutor Randall Galyon told jurors last week. ""The fact that he was trying is against the law."" The law states the bank has to report any transactions over $10K so the government can investigate any suspicous monetary activity.  Of course, if you make several deposits under $10K you'll also be investigated and you could actually be breaking ""intent"" of the law for depositing your own money into your own bank account."
I think it is just how blatantly they broke these rules and the over the top nature of the questions.  Not only do you have to be Christian but you have to be born again and show up early for Bible study.
Actually regulation was really helpful here: some investors tried to invest into facebook privately, having very limited information. IPO just made things visible.  Perhaps a shitty analogy would help you to understand:  &gt; When John was beating his wife privately that was OK because nobody saw her face. I'm sure she was asking for it. But now due to stupid federal regulations there is an open investigation and everybody knows she was beaten. This sucks. Start at the root: fight with those stupid federal regulations which break into private homes.  This makes as much sense as your comment.
It's called the Stark Law.   Most of us would eat and run, sleep a little bit during the dry lecture.   Had no effect on practice whatsoever, since you're following guidelines anyway.   Mostly was for antibiotics and cholesterol meds, insulin, stuff like that. Can't ever remember getting one about opiates - although based on the amount of new brand name opiates on the market, I'm sure someone is getting these lunches.
Yeah, this was a big deal with hotels jamming cell signals to force people to buy their wi-fi. Many fines have been handed out, with bipartisan agreement. I doubt Amazon would be so audacious, and they'd eventually get reemed. Beyond that, politicians still seem to dispise Amazon for allegedly dodging taxes.
"Call me crazy, but doesn't this take us from the realm of *civil* damages, into seeing execs frog-marched into police cars?  Obama may not have gotten his 30-day requirement into law, but [most states follow](http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/security-breach-notification-laws.aspx) California's data breach standard; sorry, residents of Alabama and South Dakota, you'll have to take comfort from the shadows when the latest NY AG moves to make a name for himself.  / Hmm, ""Eric Schneiderman""... Nope, I don't see any penis jokes there, he's safe."
And now it has come out about another breach in March.  They hired an outside firm to come in and do damage control.  Are we really to believe that the CFO had no knowledge of this before he sold his shares?  Seriously spending that kind of money (at least six figures per month) on an outside security consulting firm wouldn't require sign-off from the CFO?
Yes I would be pissed, NO someone should not go to jail just because I am pissed and they made a horrible negligent decision with money that people trusted to them.  Someone *should* go to jail if they broke a law. From your description, it sounds like they did. I'm still not convinced though until you can tell me where these strict regulations are and what they say.
"They weren't supposed to buy gift cards, and the coupon had a limit on it.  These people bought gift cards and photocopied the coupon to get as much as $5,000 in free Target gift cards.  That can't happen if you play by the rules.  But I don't care, I wasn't being 100% dictionary-definition literal with my use of the word ""cheating."""
Yes, because he told Morgan Stanley and a few others that quarterly earnings were going to be down - but no one else - and because  he is perceived as being an untrustworthy weasel.  I'm not saying Zuckerberg isn't a slimy weasel, but it was the underwriter's, in this case Morgan Stanley, job to let this be known, or not known, but certainly not known to only a few of their top investors and insider people.  When filing a lawsuit, you go where the money is.  In this case, Zuckerberg and his billions.
https://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=EFX  Go to the bottom of the page.    The same 3 people that sold the stock in early August have been selling their stock options consistently all year, sometimes in packs.  The last time they packed up to sell shares, they sold them from feb 21st to feb 28th, and then EFX proceeded to jump up 5% and stay there.  https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/EFX#eyJjdXN0b21SYW5nZUVuZCI6MTQ5MTAxOTE5OSwiY3VzdG9tUmFuZ2VTdGFydCI6MTQ4NzY1MzIwMCwibXVsdGlDb2xvckxpbmUiOmZhbHNlLCJib2xsaW5nZXJVcHBlckNvbG9yIjoiI2UyMDA4MSIsImJvbGxpbmdlckxvd2VyQ29sb3IiOiIjOTU1MmZmIiwibWZpTGluZUNvbG9yIjoiIzQ1ZTNmZiIsIm1hY2REaXZlcmdlbmNlQ29sb3IiOiIjZmY3YjEyIiwibWFjZE1hY2RDb2xvciI6IiM3ODdkODIiLCJtYWNkU2lnbmFsQ29sb3IiOiIjMDAwMDAwIiwicnNpTGluZUNvbG9yIjoiI2ZmYjcwMCIsInN0b2NoS0xpbmVDb2xvciI6IiNmZmI3MDAiLCJzdG9jaERMaW5lQ29sb3IiOiIjNDVlM2ZmIiwicmFuZ2UiOiIxeSJ9  This doesn't prove their innocence but don't just randomly accuse people of breaking the law.  It's a terrible use of time.
LOL   1) chart is # of approved rules, not $  2) we're roughly 100 days into his administration in 2017 and so you're reporting a figure for a fraction of a year.   3) Which rules are which? Which are regulations? The Muslim ban counted here?   This is pure drivel.
Subway just got in trouble for this I thought.  And I've seen plenty of chicken nugget boxes that advertise 100% white meat chicken on the front and the ingredients include hydrolyzed soy protein and cellulose.  And then there's all the fish mislabeling.
&gt; I do this for a living  I think that's become painfully obvious. Take this as a learning experience, pink slime is NOT acceptable, misleading labeling is NOT acceptable.  &gt; They're designed to not be misleading.  They are marketing and are designed to lie and deceive the consumer. Those involved should be jailed for what they do (sounds like you) as an example of both fraudulent trading (since that is what it is), and corruption (since the only reason the law allows you, is because you bribed someone).  Take a long hard look at yourself.
#####&amp;#009; ######&amp;#009; ####&amp;#009; [**Private Express Statutes**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private%20Express%20Statutes): [](#sfw) --- &gt; &gt;The __Private Express Statutes__ (__PES__) are a group of [United States federal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_law) [civil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(common_law\)) and [criminal laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law) placing various restrictions on the carriage and delivery of [letters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_(message\)) by all organizations other than the [United States Postal Service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service).
Then Explain the tens of thousands of AirBNB rentals a day in Japan while it was illegal?  Japan's laws seemed super effective /s  NYC is different, AirBNB can't operate there, and they're site prohibits. Not even Apples to Apples.  Guarantee, if they allowed it, there would be plenty of illegal listings and roll the dice.
To clarify something: FB did not inflate their share price, Morgan Stanley did.  Every company on the IPO wants a billion dollars a share, but thats not possible so they take what the market will give them, FB played their cards right. MS didn't disclose that their analysts (not auditors) changed their minds.  For fun stuff: read up on ETF arbitrage with HFT, this kinda stuff happens everyday on a micro scale.
Not that I'm a huge expert, but from what I can tell the only ways an attorney can even get a strongly worded letter from the bar are:  - Fuck with a client's money - Embarrass or piss off the judge  Just about everything else seems to be par for the course.
"Ha! They'll be hit with a fine and settle some civil suits and that'll be it.  - Wells Fargo committed 2 million counts of fraud.  They also went to FINRA and burned thousands of their employees who refused to play along.  They were fined about $250m.  Curiously, they were fined a lot more for selling mortgages too complicated for Joe Schmo to comprehend.  - BNP Paribas traded with Iranians despite sanctions.  ""Light treason."" Big fine, but not enough to put them out of business.  - HSBC laundered a bunch of money for the Mexican cartels.  - CSFB, et al. helped thousands of wealthy Americans hide money from the IRS.    - In the 70s, Ford [knowingly](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9e4X1Tnjnp4J:https://philosophia.uncg.edu/phi361-metivier/module-2-why-does-business-need-ethics/case-the-ford-pinto/+&amp;cd=2&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us) sold cards that would sometimes explode if they were rear ended at 20mph. People died. The guy who led that project became the most celebrated American CEO of the 80s.   - GM knowingly sold cars with defective ignition switches. People died.  - VW installed a device to cheat on emissions tests, in effect lieing to the government every time their cars were smogged.    - BP cut corners, built a shitty rig that burned down, killed a bunch of people, and pissed crude all over the Gulf of Mexico, under an environmentally friendly Democratic president, and they're still around.  It wasn't even their only big spill that year in American waters."
"&gt; that it violates the price floors on various products  Valve Software and their Steam service has also been accused of this by the big name game vendors, specifically regarding their Xmas and Summer sales.  ""oh noes, you're devaluing the price floor of games! Now our customers will expect reasonable prices for old games, and might not buy our brand new $80 games!""  http://www.reddit.com/r/GameDeals/comments/nmuej/steam_christmas_sale_day_4/"
The special rights for corporations come automatically when US companies become a multinational. And that binds the US, just like it did, for example, Slovakia, [blocking their right to have affordable health care](http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw3206.pdf), because an insurance company had silently, invisibly finagled a SUPERIOR right to massive compensation, basically free money.
Summary:  MHRA of UK said Xu was bringing fake drugs into Europe. They had ICE from US help meet Xu in Thailand. Found out Xu's wife loved materlistic things like diamonds.  They used Xu's wife's love of diamonds to lure him to the US by offering whole sale price for diamonds. Xu went. They arrested him. Charged in US.  Xu had a European dealer, Gillespie, who was the one ferrying the goods to UK, and through a few things, found link and charged him. Gillespie claims it was all conspiracy to blame someone in Europe, he happen to be fall guy.
&gt; So... This while circle jerk of a conversation never really answered if this type of setup is legally possible. Whether its a ponzi scheme or not  You're ignoring the fundamental difference between equityholders and creditors and the pertaining laws that govern each role.
How is this not criminal? How is it possible that all the chief executive faces is a lost bonus?   You see poor people going to jail for stealing a trivial sum of money, yet these guys have done something hugely fraudulent on an international scale and are able to keep their jobs and their freedom.  How can this ever be fair or just?
I do understand what a creditor and equity holder is. I'm just saying my teacher NEVER brought up ponzi schemes and tied it to anything related to our accounting. He didn't think it was worth his time to go into details how ponzi schemes break accounting principles.  I also posted the question in finance as my finance courses dealt with financing money... And banks...
While you're right overall, in this particular case they were issuing the C&amp;D for the use of Mcgregor's trademarks to sell merchandise. The website admitted to using his photos/likeness and his name. So at the very least they should have claim to all sales up to that point, and can try to get a piece of future sales claiming that the initial violations set it all in motion (would probably lose that).    Disclaimer: Im not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet.
"By issuing additional equity. In this case, the pie isn't ""fixed,"" it's getting bigger. Now, to avoid lawsuits and other potential issues (some of which may be unavoidable), the owner will likely need to subscribe for additional equity himself.  Example:  100 shares outstanding. 51 to owner, 49 to 2 others.  That 49 will have to equal 20%, as none of their shares are being sold (likely). This means total shares will need to be increased to 245.  Subtract 49 from that number: 196  Marcus gets half of that at a determined price. 98  Owner must increase his stake from 51 to 98 shares. To do so, he'll need to contribute additional cash for the same price Marcus gets in on. That could be expensive."
The picture talks is about assets on the Fed's balance sheet, which is very different than US government debt. Nor is there anything in the picture about corporate bottom lines, just US equities.   The implication of the picture is that the Fed's QE program is propping up US equity prices, and it is not a comment on the US debt or corporate earnings. You're reading things that simply aren't there.
I wonder in this case if it might be easier to look for an emerging markets fund that excludes china, and just shift into that.  In years past I know there were a variety of 'Asian tiger' funds that excluded Japan for much the same reason, so these days it would not surprise me if there were similar emerging markets funds that excluded China.  I can find some inverse ETF's that basically short the emerging markets as a whole, but not one that does just china.  (then again I only spent a little time looking)
Work for a bank (ultra high net worth individuals). We will do advised lines of credit (we have to approve every draw) secured by a portfolio of art. Slightly better pricing than if it were unsecured, but we will do higher loan amounts. I haven't done wine-secured, but have seen guys with $1mm+ wine collections on their balance sheets.
In theory, an FCM may accept various types of collateral, including assets such as cash, treasuries, certain stocks, sovereign debt, letters of credit, and (as of 2009, I think,) gold. In practice, most will want you to post cash or cash. Some will take treasuries, but I think you'll generally have a hard time posting securities or other riskier asset classes at most shops, as dealing with the margining around them is more complex (and less profitible).
Charles Schwab and HSBC offer security tokens.
Yes, indeed.  For example, Ford Motor Company's website has a bit about them. Is there any advantage to having an actual physical note instead of a website? You can safeguard them yourself.  Which may or may not be a good thing.  It certainly brings up a bit of hassle and extra costs if you want to sell them.  Though you can have lost certificates replaced, so there is more to it than just having physical possession of the certificates.
"&gt;&gt;If you bothered to do any sort of research you'd realize that for the scope of its mission  If *you* bothered, you'd know that the SEC lets the big guys off with a slap on the wrist while destroying the little guys.   &gt;I have no idea what you are going on about. Try to stay on topic.  Why don't *you* try to pay attention?   &gt;please re-examine your exremely demented Libertarian ideals  Please re-examine your violence based statist dementia.   &gt;If you like roads, water, street lights, and not getting butt-raped b/c the police rescued you, then you like State Sales tax; you just don't know it yet.  What a bullshit canard. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Because government *makes* water, right? Because nobody could build a road without the government? Because the government invented lights? Because security forces only exist if they are funded by taxation?   &gt;And of course it's their right. WTF.  *Persons* have rights. States do not.   &gt;please explain how you relate a person dying to an Exchange being stable &amp; trustworthy?  Business failure is a market equivalent to an organism's death. Imagine if we ensured that persons never died, and continued to be employed by their historical activities. How would society grow and evolve?   &gt;Stability by Change. OK, now I'm pretty sure you are drunk. Geez, it's the middle of the day. ""Stability by change""? Stability requires stability, not change. I'm embarrassed to even be responding to this right now.  ""Duh, I can't be bothered to understand something, so I'll ridicule the person who wrote it and slander them."""
"Things very similar to the idea of a ""future"" that routinely apply to single stocks are ""warrants"" and ""options""."
"Well, one could almost instead think of it as a swap, with no set maturity date. While it might not make sense for most investors, it could be useful to, say, a restaurant or someone who simply *really* likes wines.   But yes, from the ""mechanics"" of it, it doesn't make sense. It'd be close to a royalty in that way; taking physical inventory instead, thus costs are there, revenue isn't.   I'll flesh it out a bit more mentally, but meh. Just an off-the-wall thought."
With a big enough haircut (and insurance) everything can be collateral. Does a Warhol get be be counted as 100 million of collateral? No. But it's definitely worth something.   To be honest, a painting is probably more dependable as collat because it probably just stays in one place and doesn't get handled a lot. When was the last time you heard of a painting getting hijacked or sinking off the coast of Spain?
Look into commodities futures & options. Unfortunately, they are not trivial instruments.
caveat: remember that complex derivatives can be very bad for your wealth (even if you FULLY understand them).
No of course not, they are privately held, have no relationship with publicly held financial institutions, do not mine and sell your information to publicly held corporations, do not play revolving door of board members, the board members own no stocks, fired and retired board members will never get on another board, they never lobby congress on behalf of extracting more money from the public, and never engage in insider trading for sure.  Nothing at all to do with Wall Street.
Lol GM and Chrysler unsecured bonds had terrible recoveries when they defaulted in 08. They sure as fuck weren't backed by the Treasury. The government just won't let the big automakers liquidate.  Perhaps a simple Google search before you pontificate next time?
Then you're guaranteed the returns unless the issuer goes bankrupt. (Sure, you lose all your principal, but you're dead, so hey, maybe you don't care.) The insurance company essentially sells risk-tolerance. Other annuities aren't structured like this, and may be marketed towards non-retirees. They're usually not such a good deal. If they appear to be such a good deal, it may be an illusion. (Variable annuities in particular are hard to reason about without a good deal of knowledge about how the stock market behaves on a year-to-year basis: many of them have a maximum return as well as a minimum, and the stock market may pile up a lot of its returns into one year, so after a ""crash and recovery"" cycle you might end up behind the market instead of ahead.) Annuities are a form of safety. Safety can be very expensive. If you're investing your own money, consider whether you need that safety. You probably needn't worry quite so much about the issuer being crazy-fraudulent or Ponzi-esque: you should worry mostly about whether it looks better on paper than it is."
This is why Singapore's economy makes the most sense, the government has a huge sovereign wealth fund where the government actually owns a sizeable portion of the economy/businesses, i believe this is called 'socialism', but done through their stock exchange (and foreign exchanges too), and the returns go back towards people's social security accounts and also funds government programs.  Norway also does something similar.
"Fantastic find. The only thing is that gold and other precious metals would ""make sense"" as a potential way to deliver dividends (highly liquid, seen as borderline synonymous with cash, etc.).   I wonder if anything more illiquid, such as my example, has been done or would make sense."
I'v actually heard of this before, the idea is that you gamble across the spread. Most of these have a place in a risky asset class in portfolios. Think of it as the little bit of crack you do on the side of your vanilla life.