If you install the T-mobile app which lets you know your monthly usage, it claims I have 100 megabytes of tethering data. I rather quickly uninstalled it since it's a pain, but some limited tethering does seem to work for me -- I've only used it occasionally to SSH/mosh, but after a while it does an http redirect to a "No tethering for you!" screen; I assume after that 100mb cap is reached (though I haven't checked)
In parts of remote northern Canada where food needs to be flown in, a head of lettuce might cost $5. But land is essentially free. It might make a lot of sense in a situation like that, especially if it's owned by a local nonprofit who just want some food for the locals.
Interestingly, the idea that it's your property and you can do what you want with it was often the justification not to rent to people of color, the disabled, and other disadvantaged groups.
The counter argument is, that the governments of regions, (cities, counties, states, etc) have to account for externalities that businesses don't consider or care about.
Governments see benefits in keeping housing affordable. Do you like having restaurants with waiters, stores with clerks, streets that are swept, trash collected, and so on? then those people need places to live too.
"Interestingly, the idea that it's your property and you can do what you want with it was often the justification not to rent to people of color, the disabled, and other disadvantaged groups."
Sell, no, since that would be a restraint on alienation :)
"Governments see benefits in keeping housing affordable. Do you like having restaurants with waiters, stores with clerks, streets that are swept, trash collected, and so on? then those people need places to live too."
Sorry, but I don't see how this problem doesn't solve itself without any intervention.
If none of these people can afford to live in your area, and they aren't getting paid enough to commute, they'll go elsewhere where they can.
In turn, your area will start to suck, so you'll either pay them enough to commute, etc.
Sure, and in a purely capitalist system high food prices in the market are ostensibly "solved" by people dying of starvation or doing poorly because of malnutrition, but maybe there is a better way then pricing people out of a market.
Also that is the best case. Consider older people. I mean there is not really an economic incentive to help old people on fixed income afford homes. Maybe they should be turned out on the street to die, because if it was an issue, the market would have fixed it.
Blind market forces should eventually bring about a reverse, but you will get bubbles and depressions, and there are things which have social, ecological or other utility beyond dollars and cents which won't necessarily be accounted for.
Rent control is in play here I believe to prevent price gouging. Some companies are not very moral/ethical when it comes to tenants. I would argue that the fairer thing (when Rent Control is in place) for owners might be that they can discontinue the contract when it expires but they also forfeit the right to rent that unit for a period of time (like 6 mo or 1 yr). Owners have some right to reclaim the property for own use but then are discouraged from flipping the unit and just reusing it the same way with different people.
When I rented in Boston from operating companies, they always increased rent the maximum allowed every opportunity allowed. This encouraged a lot of churn in the area I lived which I don't think was good for the area. I also had a lot of problems with them never fixing appliances so I moved out. When I started renting directly from personal owners and allowed to go month-to-month then we were both happy and the owners generally never increased rent unless when their costs also increased.
Sure, i understand the moral/ethical part, and i'm generally in favor of preventing price gouging. But the vast majority of complaints i've seen are more "my rent increased from 3000 to 4000", when all the other rents in the area are $4000.
I had a bad experience myself renting in boston, that involved the health inspector fining the operating company about 20k.
Wait, really? You're in favor of artificial pricing constraints to avoid "gouging"? Doesn't virtually every reputable economist believe that those constraints decrease the supply of housing? The moral dimension to rent control seems just as dubious as the legal one!
Just because i've lived somewhere, means i get to live there as long as i want?
So once someone's got theirs, nobody else gets a chance?
As I mentioned in another thread, i'm 100% not a fan of people having some magical right to continue to live somewhere just because they've lived in that place, or their parents have lived in that place, a while.
It's essentially "blood right", and I emphatically believe it's not a great way to decide who gets to live where.
Not that i'm a fan of just kicking people around continuously, mind you, but things that end up doing the above (like endless rent control), are not societal good to me.
What you are calling 'simple' is actually an absolutist position based on neoliberal principles that serve those with power and capital. That's far from the only way to think. By introducing terms like "Blood Right", you are also exaggerating to create a straw man.
Being part of a social fabric is a basic human need. In the past the strong would displace the week from their communities through violence. Now we do that through the law, which seems like a great improvement.
Nevertheless there is no getting around the harm that you do to someone when you displace them from their community and support networks. This is why the law is not as absolute as you and others with your viewpoint would like.
By all means let's consider by what means we can balance this against other important human needs, but I don't think it's reasonable to claim that the freedoms to deploy capital without restriction trumps the need of humans for stable community.
I'd expect you, an expert lawyer , to know better. There are many laws that grant rights to people just for living somewhere long enough. Zoning laws exist. And eminent domain privileges are enshrined in the USA. Usury laws go back centuries. Law is a social contract, there is no inherent natural right of one person obeer another when multiple individuals live together in society.
You're missing the point that if a more empowered party than you wants your property, they're likely to get it.
Terms of mortgages in the past decade or so have been in tremendous flux, fraudulently granted (on the part of both lender and borrower, yes, in cases), and changed unilaterally. They've also been transferred with little or no documentation. Cases in which homes that were not even under any mortgage being seized are fairly easy to find.
It's plenty fair. This is why we have lease contracts. The lease protects both the tenant and the landlord for the lease's duration, and contractually obligates the landlord to prevent habitable premises while the lease is in force, but the landlord is under no obligation to renew if he wishes to do something else with his property. That's how ownership works. You don't lose ownership just because you choose to rent to a tenant.
The mechanical copiers have never been the best way to copy a key.
Each key manufacturer has a fixed set of depths to cut each position on the key at, which you can represent as a single digit. Combined for the whole key and you can talk about the data encoded into the piece of metal as a string of digits.
Telling you my apartment key is a kwikset KW1 with bitting 64265 is enough to cut a new key.
10 gigabit over Cat6A cable is also power hungry and very tricky: It's approaching the limits of what you can do over that sort of cable. Plus the frequencies involved make the adapter design a lot more troublesome. I suppose we'll start seeing cheap 10 gig knockoff nics eventually, but it's not even everywhere in the datacenter, never mind the home.
yep. Fiber is the way to go when you need 10Gbit. I was looking in to doing my place with Cat6 or 6a. Not only is 6a incredibly thick (thus, more difficult to run and probably terminate) but you need special tools and knowledge just to make sure the wiring is correct and there are no RF issues going on. It becomes way more about RF crosstalk and science, and less about simple wire connectivity.
To expand on that: On a switch chip today, like the common Trident 2, you have 10 and 40 gig interfaces. The 40 gig are just four lanes bonded together (10 being one). These 25 gig products runs each lane at 25G instead of 10, so you get a 25G port in the same density you used to have 10, 50G at double the density of 40, and 100gbit/s at the old 40 gig density.
I think this is largely being driven by the server folk, who want to connect at 25G instead of 10.
And to expand on that slightly, it is not just about density, but also latency. Since 40G is clocked the same as 10G (as it is 4x 10G lanes), upgrading from 10G infrastructure to 40G will not improve overall latency Whereas 25G is clocked faster and will have lower overall latency. [Overall meaning the first packet won't arrive relatively sooner, but the second one will.]
There may be latency improvements inherent from design improvements within newer packet processing / switching ASICs themselves, just like Intel's tick/tock. For example, NASDAQ offers a 10G handoff to their 40G infrastructure which is 5-9us faster because of topology and equipment upgrades .
The nice thing about 40G is that it is compatible with 10G so you can selectively upgrade your switches to 40G but keep your 10G NICs, using these neato QSFP+->SFP+ breakout cables .