From: treon3verdery@gmail.com   
      
   At nations with just 10 million people philanthropists could provide   
   photovoltaic Costco huts ($1200), with portable toilets, continuous video and   
   audio at the area, lighting and a portable shower building for their 33,333   
   homeless people (or fewer    
   depending on the country) for about 69 million US $ at $2000 per person. There   
   could be a simultaneously utilitarian method, this could be combined with the   
   vacant commercial land being developable into the riskless, financially   
   neutral, generator of    
   greater numbers of parks method, change to the law. Another simultaneously   
   utilitarian way to do this is credit unions voluntarily setting aside .01% of   
   the accrued interest on typical US 250k-300K dwellings to finance a $2000k   
   Costco mini hut dwelling    
   for the homeless. The credit union could then use the projected value of each   
   $250-300k dwelling loan with factoring to create an immediate amount of money   
   to order the mini-huts. This could have advertising appeal to banks, at 2019,   
   "finance with us and    
   provide a homeless person with shelter until 2062" (42 year durability of   
   Costco mini hut). The combination of 4 out of 100 people financing through   
   banks and all the people financing through credit unions would generate   
   mini-huts from 7-14% of all    
   dwelling financing. At the US with about 79 million 2019 financed dwellings   
   value 21.7 trillion at 7% voluntary participation and .01% interest is 1.5   
   billion $, that is about 2/3 of the amount required to provide minihuts for   
   all the homeless people in    
   the US, at a 9.3% participation rate the full amount is covered. I read people   
   in the US move about every seven years, if so then it is possible every 11   
   years 79 million dwelling refinances occur (some people do not move), which   
   makes the process take    
   that long, and much more rapidly at some areas (credit unions like to reinvest   
   in local communities, banks can remit funds where the opportunity is   
   greatest). Also, it could be a standard part of the credit unions' and banks'   
   package for people opting    
   for the dwelling for homeless program, the financing corporation could provide   
   a "this months interest rate or next months interest rate whichever is lower"   
   standard option, half of all the people financing dwellings would gain lower   
   interest rates a    
   month later making their financing more affordable.. The financial companies   
   could figure out the difference between the two interest rates dollar values,   
   perhaps 1-2% change at the initial interest rate, so perhaps $20-40 to cover   
   the difference for one    
   month, if the banks charged $60 for the lowest interest rate occurring over   
   two months option they would earn 33-300% profit from making the product   
   available at that fee, and more if they rolled it into the dwelling loan.   
   There is however the value to    
   the bank of immediately transferring the financing to another financial   
   company and getting money up front. Of course a "this months interest rate or   
   less" financial product could be created even without the dwellings for the   
   homeless aspect. Another    
   possibility is that people nice enough to opt for the dwellings for the   
   homeless financing package are quantifiably better credit risks and so the   
   .01% is covered with the reduction of risk to the financial institution. That   
   would be functional up to    
   median credit risk, possibly causing as much as 49% participation. I read   
   about a philanthropist that gave $1 billion to a form of government and they   
   could have done something more beneficial.   
      
   Things that fill children's lives with happiness   
      
   Longevity technology   
      
   MWI technology   
      
   Semiconductor technology   
      
   Element and metal extraction from seawater, I read that some microorganisms   
   concentrate metals from seawater and green fluorescent protein could be   
   prompted to be produced more when more metals concentrate at a microorganism.   
   Exposing a flask with a    
   trillion different microorganisms to mutagens, where the culture is of 7-100   
   microrganisms known to concentrate elements like metals, at a nutrient broth   
   that also causes plasmid swapping (calcium ions is a possibility), causes a   
   trillion microorganism    
   screenable amount that with flow cytometry to quantify light emission produces   
   the 99.999999999th percentile highest performing element concentrating   
   microorganisms. The microorganisms can be optimized around a single element or   
   metal, or several. Flow    
   cytometry characterizes and transports the most effective organisms to   
   separate containers for further culture or repeat mutation cycles. One   
   application is nanotechnology utilizing algae or bacteria to gather elements   
   and metals that humans are not    
   using that is without much effect, or possibly utilizing software guidance to   
   cause metal harvesting with no effect on marine life is also possible   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)