Off the top of my head, I remember the engineers' initial idea was to reduce the weight of a load in a truck. Then, they realized the technology could be used to build a time machine.
in the chooseTab function you have the following line:
html += "<img src='/static/level3/cloud" + num + ".jpg' />";
the src opens with a single quote and looks for the 'num' var. So instead of num in the URL, you close the single quote and then close the image tag, and then run your script.
You don't need a mortgage in this scenario, that's the beauty.
You leverage the value of the house itself to purchase the house, all made possible by the size of the down payment.
This way, you just deposit all your available funds and income into the line of credit. It's also more flexible than a mortgage in that your can both pay off as much as you want, with the ability to borrow back against it again with no penalties. This allows you to put all liquid assets against the loan with the ability to get them back out again in an emergency. I was also able to negotiate prime on mine, so the interest was very low. I did this twice, and was able to pay off the debt within 3 years each time, single income, making less than $60k/year.
By starting with a modest house, you can leapfrog up to a high-value property in a short timeframe and a minimum of interest payments
Just to provide some counter-points and discussion:
(a) Not everyone in the US is religious; and of those that are, not all religious people think of sharing in the same way. I think it would be difficult to say religion in the US is what causes people to split more equitably. Also we do not know the beliefs of the foreign populations in the article.
(b) In both cases it was a meaningful amount of money. The article stated it was worth a few days pay in one of the countries, $100 is about 2 days pay at minimum wage in the US.
(c)I think your point here speaks to the psyche of American's that the author writes about. It would be interesting to perform the game within "only poor" sample groups and "only wealthy" sample groups inside the US.
Unfortunately you don't buy an always open 15 Mbps pipe, you buy "15 Mbps peak speeds", or at least that's how it is worded for me. Which means at peak usage times you expect to get lower than 15 Mbps.
It's hard for customers to buy that when the YouTube and Netflix videos they're watching only need a few hundred Kbps, but they can't get one good stream going on an otherwise unutilized connection. It's not a capacity crunch near the edges of Comcast's network, where lines are still shared in neighborhoods and upgrades cost the most; it's just greed, fattening already healthy profit margins by refusing to increase peering capacity and demanding peers pay more for bits customers are already paying for.
It is worse than that. "15 Mbps peak speeds" is actually "15 Mbps bursts."
I am fine with getting less than my maximum speed; I understand that the connection is shared and that my neighbors' service can interfere with mine. TCP can deal with congestion. What grinds my gears is that ISPs are not content to sell me a maximum speed; they want to oversubscribe, then claim that they are selling burst service, then call it "unlimited super-awesome Internet!! 15Mbps!!" then penalize customers who fail to limit their use of the supposedly unlimited service.
Which means deciding what an acceptable QoS is for those peak times - many of us think they decided too low - I personally think you should be able to get between 1/3 and 2/3rds (ideally around half) of 'peak' speeds on a sustained level at any time for any amount of time.
It's just like the telephone network of yore, no single trunk was ever capacitied to mothers day call traffic - there were reroutes, and more than one path to any large point, so you'd get a lower quality of service, but the traffic would still get thru.
