What if one of the renters kids is in the building when it gets torched and there's no fire detector or extinguisher, and "everyone knows" the side door sticks so use the front or back, blah blah.
There is no need for third party liability coverage. Likely the landlord would not be liable either, though it is hard to say given than in America nearly all lawsuits are allowed to prosper.
Oh please.This is BS. Replacement value for a rental property is around $500K max. Last I checked that is much smaller than infinity. Also, this is no different than regular household insurance, just at a much higher rate. So not only it would work, it would likely be a profit center too.
To continue growing long term Airbnb needs to become an insurance carrier making renters whole if something like this happens. EBay growth stalled when fraud became rampant. If Ebay had agreed to become a centralized third party with insurance and clearing services, i.e. a true clearing house they would be right now the size of WalMart.
The insurance plan is all about the details. Start by charging a credit card security deposit of $1000. Then charge a one time joining fee of $100 as well as an insurance fee of $15 per day for the first 50 days, going down to $5 for the next 100 and finally $1 thereafter. Then have a high deductible for renters, around $1000, since the landlord assumes responsibility for minor damages. If all the renters did is break a dish, tough luck, it happens, but something like the case above would definitely be covered.
The UN Population Division predictions are usually overly pessimistic. This allows them to meet regularly in posh places to issue a (downward) revision. They have been doing this for nearly twenty years.
It doesn't matter whose fault it is. If Groupon sales model consists of screwing the customer, then they won't last long. Simple as that. Most other merchants report similar horror stories.
The UN estimates of world population now indicate an increase until around 2075 (9.2 billion), and then a decrease after that.
Plus, the UN usually is too pessimistic about its population projections. Likely we will reach max population sometime between 2040 and 2050, with population falling quite rapidly thereafter to about 1 billion in 2200.
Mainframes had better security than anything currently mainstream.
There, fixed it for you.
Linux/Windows/Mac OSX still have quite a fways to go to even approach the levels of security available in old style mainframe OSes. Let's not forget that each and everyone of these "modern" OSes were originally developed for single-user scenarios in which security was far from a pressing need.
Even Unix which was developed as multiuser from the get go, initially assumed a trust model rather than a secure model (wall anyone?). Security was an afterthought.
. If you have the opportunity to donate, why not donate to a school that will use the money to dramatically increase the number of students it educates, or to a charity that sees the money directed into existing research initiatives that need it.
All schools get donations but MIT has done a lot better than the rest. This suggests that MIT is better at allocating money than other mediocre schools. So from a perfectly rational perspective giving money to the most effective organization makes a lot of sense.
It measures a very weird type of fast thinking and deep concentration as far as I'm concerned. My score is something like 152 yet over the years I've certainly have met people with lower scores and much smarter than me.
I mean the equivalent of 18 top notch physics departments.They would be presumably be attached to existing laboratories with the mandate of designing better experiments that can be tested more cheaply.
You are confused. I never questioned the fact that the money was allocated to science. The questions is to what specific program in science. I think the choice was a bad one.
I know how much it cost to build: $9 billion. At an average cost of $140K per physicist (including benefits) this is enough to hire 1,800 physics PhDs.
It's a huge waste of money: too much capital for too little in return. This kind of money would have been enough to give a job to every unemployed PhD in physics out there for life.I bet way more results would have come out of that group (including a cheaper way to detect the so far elusive Higgs Boson) than we will ever learn from the LHC, boson or no boson.
If you call from abroad into the USA and you use one of several chosen words your conversation gets recorded. In the 90s those words used to be communism, union, human rights and democracy (this is for real). Nowadays they are usually jihad, taliban, and other such.
Most ecologists and many geographers argue that there are already too many people on Earth and that it is the steady growth in human numbers that threatens to bring our food/population treadmill experience to a bad ending.
"Growth in human numbers" has been falling for the last fifty years. Maximum populations numbers will be reached in 2050 according to UN projections, and ten years earlier, according to several others.
Only to a point. Once taxes exceed a certain point, they actually start to inhibit economic productivity, at which point you actually start to see a decrease in income from taxes.
The so called Laffer curve, which indicates there is an optimal level of taxation between 0% at which income is obviously zero, and 100% at which all economic activity is sent underground and income is also zero.
What most people forget is that all data indicates that the US is in the part of the curve of too low a level of taxation well below the point in which an increase in taxation reduces income from taxes.
For example, Clinton's tax increase lead to a balanced budget, Bush Jr's tax cuts lead to a record deficit.
More taxation does not cure budget shortfalls. Controlling spending cures budget shortfalls.
Actually either one of the above two work. It is just a matter of what is your level of preference when it comes to government services.
that money is money that those people would have spent on something else, so taxes on the poor and middle class really take money almost directly out of the economy.
This is BS. The government doesn't burn your tax dollars, it spends them, so tax dollars stay in the economy. Really, you need to rethink that one.
More taxation does not cure budget shortfalls. Controlling spending cures budget shortfalls.
Actually either one of the above two work. It is just a matter of what is your level of preference when it comes to government services.
that money is money that those people would have spent on something else, so taxes on the poor and middle class really take money almost directly out of the economy.
This is BS. Government doesn't burn your tax dollars, it spends thems, so tax dollars stay in the economy. Really, you need to rethink that one.
So people will never agree to making programs streamlined. Even when they are 10 times better than private firms, they are still assailed on a regular basis.
They do in Europe and Canada. For example, a couple of years back the Canadian prime minister lowered the sales tax against universal protestations. He was likely motivated by political considerations, yet he picked up no support whatsoever in public polls from that move.
I am sure you are aware that New Zealand is a leader in the low tax movement.
And New Zealand has socialized medicine and such
That is part of the consequences of "our taxes are too high" meme. If we all agreed taxes are just right we could concentrate on more effective delivery of tax funded programs. But with the current climate politicians do not benefit from doing this. They just get accused of being pro big-government. So we end up with a low tax rate and dismal provision of services.
Slashdot Mirror
What if one of the renters kids is in the building when it gets torched and there's no fire detector or extinguisher, and "everyone knows" the side door sticks so use the front or back, blah blah.
There is no need for third party liability coverage. Likely the landlord would not be liable either, though it is hard to say given than in America nearly all lawsuits are allowed to prosper.
Won't work, rental liability is infinite,
Oh please.This is BS. Replacement value for a rental property is around $500K max. Last I checked that is much smaller than infinity. Also, this is no different than regular household insurance, just at a much higher rate. So not only it would work, it would likely be a profit center too.
To continue growing long term Airbnb needs to become an insurance carrier making renters whole if something like this happens. EBay growth stalled when fraud became rampant. If Ebay had agreed to become a centralized third party with insurance and clearing services, i.e. a true clearing house they would be right now the size of WalMart.
The insurance plan is all about the details. Start by charging a credit card security deposit of $1000. Then charge a one time joining fee of $100 as well as an insurance fee of $15 per day for the first 50 days, going down to $5 for the next 100 and finally $1 thereafter. Then have a high deductible for renters, around $1000, since the landlord assumes responsibility for minor damages. If all the renters did is break a dish, tough luck, it happens, but something like the case above would definitely be covered.
The UN Population Division predictions are usually overly pessimistic. This allows them to meet regularly in posh places to issue a (downward) revision. They have been doing this for nearly twenty years.
Disclaimer, I am a progressive libertarian..
Not to worry, one day you'll grow out of it, it happens to all.
It doesn't matter whose fault it is. If Groupon sales model consists of screwing the customer, then they won't last long. Simple as that. Most other merchants report similar horror stories.
The UN estimates of world population now indicate an increase until around 2075 (9.2 billion), and then a decrease after that.
Plus, the UN usually is too pessimistic about its population projections. Likely we will reach max population sometime between 2040 and 2050, with population falling quite rapidly thereafter to about 1 billion in 2200.
Mainframes had better security than anything currently mainstream.
There, fixed it for you.
Linux/Windows/Mac OSX still have quite a fways to go to even approach the levels of security available in old style mainframe OSes. Let's not forget that each and everyone of these "modern" OSes were originally developed for single-user scenarios in which security was far from a pressing need.
Even Unix which was developed as multiuser from the get go, initially assumed a trust model rather than a secure model (wall anyone?). Security was an afterthought.
Rationalization meet paranoia, paranoia meet rationalization.
. If you have the opportunity to donate, why not donate to a school that will use the money to dramatically increase the number of students it educates, or to a charity that sees the money directed into existing research initiatives that need it.
All schools get donations but MIT has done a lot better than the rest. This suggests that MIT is better at allocating money than other mediocre schools. So from a perfectly rational perspective giving money to the most effective organization makes a lot of sense.
It measures a very weird type of fast thinking and deep concentration as far as I'm concerned. My score is something like 152 yet over the years I've certainly have met people with lower scores and much smarter than me.
I mean the equivalent of 18 top notch physics departments.They would be presumably be attached to existing laboratories with the mandate of designing better experiments that can be tested more cheaply.
You are confused. I never questioned the fact that the money was allocated to science. The questions is to what specific program in science. I think the choice was a bad one.
I know how much it cost to build: $9 billion. At an average cost of $140K per physicist (including benefits) this is enough to hire 1,800 physics PhDs.
It's a huge waste of money: too much capital for too little in return. This kind of money would have been enough to give a job to every unemployed PhD in physics out there for life.I bet way more results would have come out of that group (including a cheaper way to detect the so far elusive Higgs Boson) than we will ever learn from the LHC, boson or no boson.
If you call from abroad into the USA and you use one of several chosen words your conversation gets recorded. In the 90s those words used to be communism, union, human rights and democracy (this is for real). Nowadays they are usually jihad, taliban, and other such.
This is for real: according to USofA law, Mr. Shatner is an alien, as he was born in Planet Canada.
Another Malthusian the-sky-is-falling article:
Most ecologists and many geographers argue that there are already too many people on Earth and that it is the steady growth in human numbers that threatens to bring our food/population treadmill experience to a bad ending.
"Growth in human numbers" has been falling for the last fifty years. Maximum populations numbers will be reached in 2050 according to UN projections, and ten years earlier, according to several others.
Only to a point. Once taxes exceed a certain point, they actually start to inhibit economic productivity, at which point you actually start to see a decrease in income from taxes.
The so called Laffer curve, which indicates there is an optimal level of taxation between 0% at which income is obviously zero, and 100% at which all economic activity is sent underground and income is also zero.
What most people forget is that all data indicates that the US is in the part of the curve of too low a level of taxation well below the point in which an increase in taxation reduces income from taxes.
For example, Clinton's tax increase lead to a balanced budget, Bush Jr's tax cuts lead to a record deficit.
More taxation does not cure budget shortfalls. Controlling spending cures budget shortfalls.
Actually either one of the above two work. It is just a matter of what is your level of preference when it comes to government services.
that money is money that those people would have spent on something else, so taxes on the poor and middle class really take money almost directly out of the economy.
This is BS. The government doesn't burn your tax dollars, it spends them, so tax dollars stay in the economy. Really, you need to rethink that one.
More taxation does not cure budget shortfalls. Controlling spending cures budget shortfalls.
Actually either one of the above two work. It is just a matter of what is your level of preference when it comes to government services.
that money is money that those people would have spent on something else, so taxes on the poor and middle class really take money almost directly out of the economy.
This is BS. Government doesn't burn your tax dollars, it spends thems, so tax dollars stay in the economy. Really, you need to rethink that one.
The biggest problem is proposition 13. It forces property taxes to be artificially low, without connection to want or need.
Essentially California has a constitutional mandate that its finances be a mess.
Haven't watched his show. Is he on Fox?
So people will never agree to making programs streamlined. Even when they are 10 times better than private firms, they are still assailed on a regular basis.
They do in Europe and Canada. For example, a couple of years back the Canadian prime minister lowered the sales tax against universal protestations. He was likely motivated by political considerations, yet he picked up no support whatsoever in public polls from that move.
I look at places like New Zealand
I am sure you are aware that New Zealand is a leader in the low tax movement.
And New Zealand has socialized medicine and such
That is part of the consequences of "our taxes are too high" meme. If we all agreed taxes are just right we could concentrate on more effective delivery of tax funded programs. But with the current climate politicians do not benefit from doing this. They just get accused of being pro big-government. So we end up with a low tax rate and dismal provision of services.