| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2002/6/15 [Computer/SW/Virus, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:25102 Activity:high |
6/15 Microsoft accidently sends virus in korean languager version of .net
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-935994.html?tag=fd_top
\_ old news. "Microsoft ships virus!" Yeah whatever. That happened
when Outlook first escaped into the wild. It's like having a news
report headlined, "Microsoft ships software with bug!" |
| 2002/6/15-16 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:25103 Activity:very high |
6/14 They say that condos do not have a good resell value compared to
single family house. Is this really true? -potential buyer
\_ For crebbs: you're making a few mistakes in your SFH vs condo
analysis. 1) SF is not a normal market situation. Any place where
there's too many people and not enough housing of any sort combined
with draconian rental laws like SF has which limit rental stock is
going to drive up all housing prices. 2) time counts. no one cares
that you can buy a condo today and make $5k selling a month later.
What you can't do is make a profit on your condo over the long haul.
At the end of a 30 year mortgage, the mortgage rate is next to
nothing compared to ever increasing income levels. At the end of a
30 year stay in a condo, the condo is going to have ever increasing
dues, maintenance that the condo board has put off for years
resulting in *huge* emergency bills sent to everyone that you're
legally required to pay no matter high the bill. And a "condo
neighborhood" never improves over time. It's a glorified apartment
complex. A SFH community grows over time, has a real community,
and becomes the kind of place people really like to live in. Thus,
I can buy a house today and sell it in 30, 50, or 90 years and it'll
make me a fortune but the condo is a break-even buy at best. Go
look at real world prices outside articifially constricted areas
like SF, compare prices, then come back to the motd with your
theories. In the mean time the smart folks on the motd are all out
buying the nicest, biggest, best house they can afford in the nicest
places they can afford. This isn't a fluke. This isn't because
motd folks are stupid (intentionally obnoxious maybe but that's
another story). Anyway, go get some real data and prove the
conventional wisdom wrong. Later. I gotta go mow the lawn....
\_ Here is Condo vs. Home appreciation for Chicago. Anyplace
where land is scarce is going to show similar data, not
just SF:
http://www.illinoisrealtor.org/iar/marketstats/news_release.html
The difference is even more marked over the last ten years.
\_ admittedly, thus guy got *really* lucky, but i know a guy
who bought a condo on forclosure for something in the 30-40k
range. just as he was moving in, someone offered to buy it for about
60k. he sold it on the spot and bought a real house, using the
profit as down. basically, the buyer wanted a block of
condos, and already owned the adjacent one. like i said, though
he was really damn lucky. not all luck, though, since he somehow
got the real house in forclosure for a great price also.
i think part of the secret is not to trust those fucking
realtor snakes. when they say they're working for you,
they are *lying*.
\_ Generally, yes.
\_ Hogwash. Real estate agents often say this. However, real
estate agents usually have the intelligence of a poorly
trained poodle. Just think about it. If it were true and
had been for the last 20 years, you should be able to get
one hell of a deal on a condo, but guess what, you can't.
(unless condos used to sell at one hell of a premium) -crebbs
\_ Dear Condo Owner, I don't care what REA's say. I don't talk
to them or know any. The ones I did meet while shopping for
\_ Home Owner, you are wrong in too many ways to count, most
importantly, in the notion that homes always appreciate
more than condos:
http://www.realtor.org/rmomag.NSF/pages/indwatch200203041?OpenDocument
property were either evil or stupid. I say this based on
real world data. Go back and compare housing prices over the
years vs. condo prices. A house is a *much* better buy in a
'normal' real estate market. In a place like San Francisco
where local housing laws have artificially reduced the supply
of housing, *everything* will go up no matter how utterly
shitty, slummy, and unlivable for a normal human being. SF
and other shitholes are the exception to the "Generally"
statement above. Over time housing prices will *always*
rise *anywhere* in the country. The same is not at all true
for condos. -Home Owner
\_ Home Owner, you are wrong in too many ways to count, most
importantly, in the notion that homes always appreciate
more than condos:
http://www.realtor.org/rmomag.NSF/pages/indwatch200203041?OpenDocument
\_ Your link is crap. It only goes back to 96 and only
talks in depth about the last TWO years. Try again.
\_ No, you don't know what you are talking about.
Most places in America suffer from a land
shortage and have been experiencing Urban infill
for the last decade or so, causing condos to
to outpace home appreciation. You can bet against
this trend if you want, but your notion that land
is always cheap and people will always be willing
to travel long distances to afford a single family
home is increasingly outdated.
\_ 1st.) i don't own a condo and never have, so you are
wrong twice.
2nd) I am not going to spend the time explaining how
incredibly lame your "Over time" argument is.
3rd) I didn't say anything about "better buy." as that
can be interpreted many ways. (you have a knack for
making meaningless statements). I am referring to the
original poster's point about resell values. And
No one here has explained how it is that condo's could,
for the history of their existence, been getting smaller
percentage gains in price over time and YET, if you go
looking for a condo, pretty much anywhere, it costs
about what you would expect a condo of that size to cost
relative to a house. Certainly very similar to the
differential 10 years ago.
finally.) I could be wrong if e.g., increase in
homeowners dues had a tendency to outpace other
increases. It also may be true for SOME condominiums in
deteriorating complexes but there are also SFR areas
that deteriorate, you just have to pick a good complex
\- i had a coversation about this kind of "rational expectations"
analysis of stuff like "condos=bad", pricing differentials
of good schol district [investment component + consumption
component], etc with a real estate person sitting next to
me on a plane. she convinced me there were certain "sticky"
and dynamic issues that made the simplistic analysis
flawed. for example if you factor in the market's ability
to change the quantity of condos onthe mkt either by new
building or apt conversation, it becomes plausible that there
is some "pressure" against them. ok tnx. --psb
\_ this assumes a purely segmented market. This is not
the case. It seems like a good argument that it is easier
to make condo's than houses in an appreciating market,
so there would be less inflationary pressure on them. But
at the margins (which is where it matters) there are
plenty of home-seekers that would buy a condo if the
price was right. (admittedly there are many who wouldn't)
In appreciating markets, condo's become more attractive
as houses move out of reach of some buyers. As is always
the case with this sort of thing, it is almost impossible
to state what the final effect is going to be. You can,
though, say, as i have thrice now: "look if condos
always gained less than houses, they would be REALLY
cheap RIGHT NOW (they having been around for some time)
and they are not." -crebbs
\_ idiot.
\_ and that argument also falls apart for places like SF
where it is hard to just build condos, and equally hard
to do apt->condo conversions.
\_ You miss the part above where someone talks very
specifically about SF and other artificial markets?
\_ No, SFH generally have better appreciation and hold
their value better (based on past history of the market).
\_ Also keep in mind that if a certain ratio of condo's become
rented in a complex, that potential buyers will not be able
to get financing.
\_ Please explain and(/or) point me to a url. I haven't
heard this.
\_ I dont know a specific url, but this was mentioned in
the chronical financial advice section about 2 weeks ago.
The gist was that in a condo/homeowners complex, where
there are too many absentee owners (landlords renting
out places) they wind up controlling the homeowners
association (as the HOA runs on one vote per PROPERTY,
not per occupant/owner), screwing up resale values in the
community and making financial institutions reluctant to
finance properties in the community. -ERic
\_ also, renter's tend not to take care of the condo's
as well as owner's, e.g. they can become run down. |
| 2002/6/15 [Computer/HW, Computer/HW/Drives] UID:25104 Activity:nil |
6/14 Anyone know of any free/publicly available shoutcast/icecast servers.
(I'd run one myself but i don't have the bandwidth).
\_ yes. http://www.shoutcast.com has a list of servers
\_ I believe you are incorrect. (though i'd love for you to
prove me wrong...) |
| 2002/6/15 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:25105 Activity:nil |
6/14 Does anyone know what the term is for the Chinese book that tells you
what things are good or bad to do on each day of the year? It's called
"Tung Shing" in Cantonese. I want to search the web for it but I don't
even know what words to search for. Thanks.
\_ sounds like aan almanac of some kind?
http://www.chinesefortunecalendar.com/Almanac.htm
\_ It's called "Huang2 Li4". |
| 2002/6/15 [Politics/Domestic] UID:25106 Activity:high |
6/14 i have a question for all you conservative freeper types out there.
are you all creationists who hate the evil liberal consipiracy
to teach evolution in the schools, or do you not buy into that
part of it? i just want to know how many science degreee recipients
from my alma mater are part of this creationism thing.
\_ Didn't take much to bring them kooks out, did it?
\_ When you ignorantly slam a huge segment of the population, you're
going to get corrected. This is obvious to anyone who still
retains half the brains they were born with.
\_ Sir Issac Newton, creationist, Bible scholar fluent in Greek,
Hebrew, and Latin, wrote extensively on the prophecies of Daniel.
He also happened to do a few things in math, physics, and optics.
\_ I thought he invented apples. -geordan
\_ yeah, but he was selling blue boxes first.
\_ I though that he invented "the fall" because of the apple
\_ No. Mark E. Smith invented "The Fall" in Manchester in
1977.
\_ You can seriously refer to yourself as possessing a "science" degree
and doubt the existence of something more than primordial
soup? You sound to me like a mass media/culture
puppet who has never considered the history of
of civilization and your current existence.
\_ Is anyone else having a hard time parsing this.
\_ I think it is perfect as it stands. It is a classic
semi-coherent tendentious rant. Leave it be.
\_ Shrug. It parsed in English to me. It wasn't much of a rant
either. It was a single question and a single statement.
Where's the rant? I suppose it's easier for some people who
have trouble parsing anything longer than Jack'n'Jill to just
proclaim the whole thing is a rant and write it off.
\_ 1) Not all conservatives are freepers. I only read freeper stuff
when it gets posted to the motd and mostly not even then. 2) Not
all conservatives are creationists or even christians. 3) Not all
\_
And not all Christians are
conservatives.
conservatives think there's an evil liberal conspiracy. Some of us
understand you're just confused and brainwashed. Time has been
known to heal this affliction in many cases. Rarely has a mature
adult ever become infected with the liberalism disease later in
life after they're learned to think and respect others.
\_ amen!
\_ Not only that, not all people who have problems with the theory
of evolution are 'creationists' in the usual sense. -- ilyas
\_ mature? or have gotten old?
\_ Mature. "Adult" implies having reached a certain age *and* a
certain level of maturity. "Mature" in this context is using
the primary meaning of the word. I wanted to emphasise both
age and opposite-of-childish but with extra weight placed on
opposite-of-childish.
\_ Most Freepers are dropouts or trolls (one of the latter).
\_ I do not understand this sentence. Please clarify.
\_ Which word did you have trouble with, dropout or troll?
\_ Freepers
\_ In the end today's liberal polity reduces to one distinguishing
trait - victimhood. That is what the left is selling.
\_ stop oppressing me!
\_ After I'm done taxing you to death (and then tax you for dying)
I'll stop oppressing you. -modern liberal |
| 2002/6/15-17 [Computer/SW/OS/OsX] UID:25107 Activity:nil |
6/15 What, if any, free and/or open source PERSONAL information organizer
do people use and prefer? (On *nix, Mac, and/or PC) I don't care
for collaboration but good searching, synchronization and multi-
platform support are important. It's ok even if it is text/terminal
based.
\_ I Haven't found one yet that can sync nicely with my Clie (palm.)
The Xwindows Pilot toys I've found work okay if you don't mind
a bit of knob-dicking around at first, but I gave up on synching
the thing to my laptop (FreeBSD) because all the file conduits
to other applications are lacking under *nix. Even if you don't
have a PDA, some of the Unix Pilot software works decently
as an organizer. TBH I've never bothered with address books
in any of my mail readers (mozilla, mutt.) -John |
| 2002/6/15-16 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Kinney] UID:25108 Activity:high |
6/15 villains come, villains go. dickylee, kinney, etc etc. Who's our
favourite now?
\_ not sure kinney is an actual villian. Like it or not, he's trying
to post (well what well may be in hist mind) arguments and is
validly looking for feedback data. I mean, the motd still is a
public forum for soda-rfcs. Dickylee et al were just munging the
motd. Kinney goes tothe trouble to getting URLs, data, etc.
\_ Paolo, the reason it's called 'kinneydrivel' is because that's
precisely what it is -- drivel. It's poorly formed, often
ungrammatical, badly formatted verbose spewage of the lowest
grade, without a single shred of data or supporting material.
\_ The above post was too close to factual and insufficiently
opinionated to be Paolo's.
\_ incongruous behavior. I don't think Paolo reads the motd. |