Only for stationary cameras. Filming/photographing with a non-stationary camera is allowed as long as it is not in a sensitive situation (in their home, in the toilet/changing room/etc).
I bought a Kobo Aura in 2013 or 2014. It handles epubs/mobis perfectly while PDFs are a terrible experience, but what impresses me is that the device works just as well as it did 8 years ago. The battery life is weeks or a month, the (modest) performance feels as good as when I bought it and no updates has screwed it up. I guess it is because it specializes in one specific task and tries to be nothing else than just that.
I feel a bit confused about what you mean with that it is not about wealth. If two people wants to live in a place as much and they both are ready to give 30% of their net income, the richer one would get the apartment in a system with no rent control, right? Your point only makes sense if everyone had the same net income.
Secondly, why is the merit of high income more valuable than waiting in the line for longest time? None of them is a lottery in my opinion.
> I think rent control and where poor people live has nothing in common.
So you really think there is no connection between housing politics and segregation?
> All you're doing with rent control is to give incentiment for people to hold on to their contracts no matter what, cheat the system or buy/sell contracts illegally
Holding on to a contract is not necessarily a bad thing, if you enjoy living in your apartment and it is priced according to its size (giving incitament to switch to a smaller one if you don't need a big one anymore). Of course people try to cheat the system, but it is illegal ... and tenants paying illegally high rents can take the contract owner to court and get all excess rent back.
> Even worse is the situation if you buy apartments, you cannot rent it out to whomever you want or for how long you want since you don't really own it.
This has nothing to do with rent control and depends on which BRF you live in. Considering the lack of interest for äganderätter I'm not sure if so many people are with you on this opinion.
I think there is an ideological difference. I saw in another of your comments that you only want to live in the city center of Stockholm, and that you could pay a high rent for that. This could lead to a city where all the rich live in the city center and all the poor live far out in the suburbs (probably past the subway line), and travel into the city center to work. This is in my opinion not a good society (even for the rich, considering that segregation is expensive for a welfare society). My ideological conviction is that a less segregated city is better, and that both rich and poor should live in the city center. Having both rentals (at different rent levels) and owned apartments mixed is a good way to make this happen. What is your idea of how housing should look like in Stockholm?
Number of apartments being built has increased by a multiple of five during the last 10 years (25 000 apartments per year now [1]). During this time, no rent control was removed. Newly built apartments already have (for most young swedes) a high rent (around 10k SEK / 1.15K USD for 50-60m2). If you can accept an apartment 45 min from Stockholms inner city it will be cheaper and easier to get, [2] is the housing queue filtered for newly built apartments.
I fail to see why removing rent control would lead to anything else than higher rents. If the housing companies can take a higher rent they will do it, and sure, perhaps build more apartments for a while. But from their perspective, wouldn't it be stupid to build cheap apartments for young swedes outside of the city center when that 1. would lead to less housing shortage (less demand in relation to supply) and 2. give less profit than fancy apartments closer the the city center.
In my opinion, the best way to solve the housing shortage is to build apartments, and if the apartments built by the private sector are too expensive for young people, the state has to either subsidize or build their own apartments.
No, the report says nothing like that. It says that immigrants have a 4.5 times higher possibility of being suspscted of rape. This does not mean that 85% of all rape cases are committed by non-western immigrants. This is of course troubling though.
Some families send the strongest/healthiest male in the family since the trip to Europe is so dangerous, but the families often come afterwards. It's easier for them to come legally if they already have a family member in the country.
During the first half of 2015, 2000 women and 4500 men came as refugees to Sweden from Syria, but 3100 women and 2000 men came afterwards as asylum searching family members. In total ~5300 women and ~6800 men (including working visas) came to Sweden from Syria.
I wonder, do you think people from non-western countries has a bigger potential of commiting rape? How different do you think the values of these people are compared to "us"?