Not anymore, as the gov't has decided the All Writs Act means they can force you to help them by entering your passcode and/or decryption password. He's been in jail 7 months and counting...
I presume the next logical step for this misuse of the law would be to present an All Writs warrant to a suspect demanding that he/she help the gov't solve a crime by writing a detailed confession describing how they committed the crime.
now you are getting away from the whole concept of 'universal income'. the whole point of it is to minimize administration costs, which is eating up current 'benefits' like food stamps and welfare.
Yes, which is my whole point. If everybody has at least Y dollars, up from the previously known X dollars, and everybody knows this, then the minimum price for a basic necessity for people [housing] is going to go up pretty much by the difference between X and Y.
The minimum can go down while the median can go up.
And, huge surprise but during/after the S&L crisis, rents went up even though property prices went down because....suddenly a boatload of people couldn't afford their mortgages and defaulted, and couldn't get another mortgage, even for a cheaper property, so they were forced to rent. And all those houses that people were kicked out of, they weren't all immediately rented out. So there was a significant rise in people renting, without nearly as significant a rise in available rental units. So, again, huge surprise, rents went up.
If a property is so undesirable: -the property owner doesn't want to live there -the property owner may or may not even bother to try to rent it out, and if they do, they can't for -homeless people won't even squat there
For all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist for the housing market. It has no effect on rents because it exists in a market where there is no buyer and probably no seller.
So, you are comparing "minimum" with "median" values, and I'm ignorant?
There are all kinds of reasons why buildings go vacant/dilapidated, and don't house welfare recipients, from the developer wanting to redevelop the land once they can get enough funds, to the building not being setup for housing people to it not being financially worthwhile to do so.
And see how long [at least in North America] you can still get welfare while being homeless. You don't get to use all that 'rent' money on other stuff like food or clothes or alcohol. You just don't get that money anymore. And they'll probably deduct any 'overpayment' [for the months you got the extra money without spending it on rent] from future welfare payments. And you don't get welfare if you are in jail.
First, there has to be that 'alternative flat' to move to. It depends on where you are, but lots of cities don't have a very high vacancy rate. And unless the new flat is state-owned or the rent is regulated, why would the rent not affected by this? The landlord KNOWS, for sure, you have at least X dollars. They will raise the rent to at least the same fraction of that amount, or more.
Second, in north america, welfare is a fixed amount per month, and set pretty low [compared to wages], so you have to move to the cheapest housing you can find. You can't afford rent locations where people are gainfully employed, because the rent is higher.
But are you currently charging the same amount for rent as the cheapest fleabag motel? Is it in an location with a significant number of people on welfare? Currently someone on welfare is living there?
Probably not. Because people living on the very minimum amount of money are significantly more likely to not respect your stuff.
But you are very unlikely to be paying the very minimum of rent, which is what those on welfare are doing. They set the minimum price for rent because they pretty much only get to rent the very crappiest places, and the landlords know exactly how much money they get every month. So they get to extract most of it for themselves.
When that amount of money goes up, either through a welfare rate increase or, say, this universal income, the rate goes up to match the increase.
And since this is for the worst, crappiest places, everyone else will wind up charging more fairly quickly, because they can, because....people have more money.
This ALREADY happens today, with welfare.
Why does anyone here expect it to magically work differently just because it's called something else?
Because they can. It becomes the new minimum rent level.
If everybody has at least X dollars income every month, housing being one of the basic things people need, and everybody knows that everybody has X dollars, who in their right mind would not demand most of X dollars as rent at the very minimum. If you don't want the riff-raff, you charge just over that [or more] and you automatically rule them out.
This ALREADY is the case with welfare. Rent at the crappiest dumps which only houses welfare recipients closely follows the welfare rate. Everybody else charges more.
Same thing happened with college/university tuition. Loans became easier to get, like magic, tuition fee's rose to match. Oh, you can get a bigger loan, fee's just went up.
well, if someone is working, then they are earning some money, so then they can afford to pay more in rent. This just sets the floor price. No reason to go lower because everybody's got it.
Right now, the welfare rate sets minimum rent. Same month the welfare rate increased, the rent for all the fleabag hotels/motels went up the same amount [the ones whose only tenants are welfare recipients]. Everybody else charges more.
And yes, it depends on your local laws, but most places, the renter gets to say who gets to live there, how much the rent is, and whether you can sublet the place or part of it]. So yes, most places they can enforce it You rent a two bedroom apartment to one person, they let someone else move in with them, you can evict them [at least in Alberta and BC].
At a basic level, it won't work the way he thinks.
Whatever the 'basic income' level is set at, rent at the cheapest, crappiest, bug-infested dump will go to 90-95% of this number. And you won't be able to save by splitting the rent, as they will write it into your rental agreement that every recipient of the basic income living there will have to pay the full amount.
They'll leave you almost enough to eat really crappy food all the time.
The only benefit will be that you won't have to worry about dieting.
Why is it only "sorry, try again", when it was abundantly clear what they did was against the law and greatly exceeded the authority they had been granted?
The penalty is what, being paid to waste their time trying to get these convictions? Some bad PR for the agency?
The problem is, minimum rent automatically rises to about 90% of whatever this amount will be, regardless of how crappy the place is, because the owner knows the person will receive X dollars every month.
The same thing happens now with welfare. Welfare amount gets raised, rent magically gets raised that month as well, by the same amount.
And you won't be able to 'save' money by sharing a place. Two people, that will be 90% of two peoples income.
The OP is saying the management of Mitsubishi should spend several days listen to Harry Carry expound on the virtues of the 10 commandments and how they apply to corporations.
as well as make fixing it slightly more difficult.
fortunately, they are working hard to make sure you either cannot repair the vehicle or, if the manufacturer is forced to permit you to repair something, you must buy the part from the manufacturer [either in the name of "safety" or "copyright protection"].
Slashdot Mirror
Not anymore, as the gov't has decided the All Writs Act means they can force you to help them by entering your passcode and/or decryption password. He's been in jail 7 months and counting...
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/child-porn-suspect-jailed-for-7-months-for-refusing-to-decrypt-hard-drives/
I presume the next logical step for this misuse of the law would be to present an All Writs warrant to a suspect demanding that he/she help the gov't solve a crime by writing a detailed confession describing how they committed the crime.
or how about using the other fingers either disables fingerprint authentication or just forces the device to reboot.
no data has been lost [even if you accidentally do this yourself], but then they would have to hack into it to gain access to the data.
Of course, you'll be spending your time in jail for failing to enter the passcode from the 'All Writs' warrant they handed you after this happens...
But Intel was SO CLOSE to making a chip that was going to take over the mobile device market, tablets and phones, and even watches.
These chips were scheduled to be released early next year.
Unfortunately, these chips were scheduled "to be released early next year" every year since the iPhone shipped.
Yeah, you're gun clearly has a faulty primary safety, namely the wack job holding it.
enhanced interrogation techniques...if it's good enough for al-qaeda, it's good enough for suspected child pornographers...
Yes, they just get an "All Writs" thingamabob, and you are required to assist them in searching your home...
now you are getting away from the whole concept of 'universal income'. the whole point of it is to minimize administration costs, which is eating up current 'benefits' like food stamps and welfare.
Yes, which is my whole point. If everybody has at least Y dollars, up from the previously known X dollars, and everybody knows this, then the minimum price for a basic necessity for people [housing] is going to go up pretty much by the difference between X and Y.
The minimum can go down while the median can go up.
And, huge surprise but during/after the S&L crisis, rents went up even though property prices went down because....suddenly a boatload of people couldn't afford their mortgages and defaulted, and couldn't get another mortgage, even for a cheaper property, so they were forced to rent. And all those houses that people were kicked out of, they weren't all immediately rented out. So there was a significant rise in people renting, without nearly as significant a rise in available rental units. So, again, huge surprise, rents went up.
If a property is so undesirable:
-the property owner doesn't want to live there
-the property owner may or may not even bother to try to rent it out, and if they do, they can't for
-homeless people won't even squat there
For all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist for the housing market. It has no effect on rents because it exists in a market where there is no buyer and probably no seller.
So, you are comparing "minimum" with "median" values, and I'm ignorant?
There are all kinds of reasons why buildings go vacant/dilapidated, and don't house welfare recipients, from the developer wanting to redevelop the land once they can get enough funds, to the building not being setup for housing people to it not being financially worthwhile to do so.
And see how long [at least in North America] you can still get welfare while being homeless. You don't get to use all that 'rent' money on other stuff like food or clothes or alcohol. You just don't get that money anymore. And they'll probably deduct any 'overpayment' [for the months you got the extra money without spending it on rent] from future welfare payments. And you don't get welfare if you are in jail.
First, there has to be that 'alternative flat' to move to. It depends on where you are, but lots of cities don't have a very high vacancy rate. And unless the new flat is state-owned or the rent is regulated, why would the rent not affected by this? The landlord KNOWS, for sure, you have at least X dollars. They will raise the rent to at least the same fraction of that amount, or more.
Second, in north america, welfare is a fixed amount per month, and set pretty low [compared to wages], so you have to move to the cheapest housing you can find. You can't afford rent locations where people are gainfully employed, because the rent is higher.
But are you currently charging the same amount for rent as the cheapest fleabag motel? Is it in an location with a significant number of people on welfare? Currently someone on welfare is living there?
Probably not. Because people living on the very minimum amount of money are significantly more likely to not respect your stuff.
But you are very unlikely to be paying the very minimum of rent, which is what those on welfare are doing. They set the minimum price for rent because they pretty much only get to rent the very crappiest places, and the landlords know exactly how much money they get every month. So they get to extract most of it for themselves.
When that amount of money goes up, either through a welfare rate increase or, say, this universal income, the rate goes up to match the increase.
And since this is for the worst, crappiest places, everyone else will wind up charging more fairly quickly, because they can, because....people have more money.
This ALREADY happens today, with welfare.
Why does anyone here expect it to magically work differently just because it's called something else?
Because they can. It becomes the new minimum rent level.
If everybody has at least X dollars income every month, housing being one of the basic things people need, and everybody knows that everybody has X dollars, who in their right mind would not demand most of X dollars as rent at the very minimum. If you don't want the riff-raff, you charge just over that [or more] and you automatically rule them out.
This ALREADY is the case with welfare. Rent at the crappiest dumps which only houses welfare recipients closely follows the welfare rate. Everybody else charges more.
Same thing happened with college/university tuition. Loans became easier to get, like magic, tuition fee's rose to match. Oh, you can get a bigger loan, fee's just went up.
well, if someone is working, then they are earning some money, so then they can afford to pay more in rent. This just sets the floor price. No reason to go lower because everybody's got it.
Right now, the welfare rate sets minimum rent. Same month the welfare rate increased, the rent for all the fleabag hotels/motels went up the same amount [the ones whose only tenants are welfare recipients]. Everybody else charges more.
And yes, it depends on your local laws, but most places, the renter gets to say who gets to live there, how much the rent is, and whether you can sublet the place or part of it]. So yes, most places they can enforce it You rent a two bedroom apartment to one person, they let someone else move in with them, you can evict them [at least in Alberta and BC].
"that despite claiming to be the sole interpreters of Islamic theology, they often had little or no training in the subject."
Same with all the wack-job Christian cults across the US [with Christian instead of Islamic theology].
At a basic level, it won't work the way he thinks.
Whatever the 'basic income' level is set at, rent at the cheapest, crappiest, bug-infested dump will go to 90-95% of this number. And you won't be able to save by splitting the rent, as they will write it into your rental agreement that every recipient of the basic income living there will have to pay the full amount.
They'll leave you almost enough to eat really crappy food all the time.
The only benefit will be that you won't have to worry about dieting.
Why is it only "sorry, try again", when it was abundantly clear what they did was against the law and greatly exceeded the authority they had been granted?
The penalty is what, being paid to waste their time trying to get these convictions? Some bad PR for the agency?
The problem is, minimum rent automatically rises to about 90% of whatever this amount will be, regardless of how crappy the place is, because the owner knows the person will receive X dollars every month.
The same thing happens now with welfare. Welfare amount gets raised, rent magically gets raised that month as well, by the same amount.
And you won't be able to 'save' money by sharing a place. Two people, that will be 90% of two peoples income.
Whoosh!
The OP is saying the management of Mitsubishi should spend several days listen to Harry Carry expound on the virtues of the 10 commandments and how they apply to corporations.
as well as make fixing it slightly more difficult.
fortunately, they are working hard to make sure you either cannot repair the vehicle or, if the manufacturer is forced to permit you to repair something, you must buy the part from the manufacturer [either in the name of "safety" or "copyright protection"].
You maroons are talking two different things...
one group of posters are talking about Ford buying a single Tesla vehicle
second group of posters are talking about Ford buying the Tesla company
I'd like to thank him for doing his part to reduce our national debt. More people should do this.
The RSS SS!
And that is probably why you had to "partake in the darker side of content acquisition"...couldn't afford to buy anything else...