| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2005/12/11-14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:40959 Activity:nil |
12/11 Welcome to 12/11 (fuel depot explosions)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1538156/posts
\_ BBC, which as you may recall is a real news site, so far
mentions that it's an accident. -John
\_ news.bbc.co.uk says "Police believe it was an accident", but
earlier I was reading other news.bbc.co.uk links that said
they weren't talking about it. I'm not sure what to make of
that. They were scared it might be terrorist related, and now
they've found evidence that suggests it was an accident?
The BP oil refinery accident of Mar 23 2005 in Texas City, TX,
occurred when workers were starting a machine used to increase
gasoline octane ... at 1:23pm on a Wednesday.
This fuel depot accident occurred 6:03am local time on a Sunday
morning ... could have been an automatic process I guess.
\_ Anytime something major goes kaboom in a non-neutral Western
country the initial reaction is always to consider
terrorism as a likely possibility. -John
\_ These bastards don't seem to hold back for neutral
countries.
\_ Yeah, I will give that the longer an incident like this
goes without a credible (video evidence) claim of
responsibility or a repeat incident, it becomes more
reasonable to say it was an accident ...
\_ fyi, for posterity, I compared the BBC diagram of the accident
area (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4517962.stm and found
the location on <DEAD>maps.google.com<DEAD> (http://csua.org/u/e99 |
| 2005/12/11-14 [Computer/HW/Laptop, Computer/HW/Memory, Computer/HW/IO] UID:40960 Activity:nil |
12/11 NEC: products of the future
http://www.nec-design.co.jp/showcase |
| 2005/12/11-14 [Reference/RealEstate, Consumer/TV] UID:40961 Activity:nil |
12/11 When life imitates TV:
http://csua.org/u/e9b
\_ What a crappy article. Despite what the headline says, the
cop died, not either of the suspects.
\_ Misleading intentionally? |
| 2005/12/11-14 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:40962 Activity:moderate |
12/11 Housing Bubble pops in Northern Virginia:
http://csua.org/u/e9a
\_ Watch foreclosure rates over the next few years as all those ARMs
are pushed up by the fed's prime rate increases...
\_ Ah, finally, someone posts something that makes sense re:
real estate bubbles. Certainly, whatever is going on in another
state has little if anything to do with pricing here. Location,
location, location!
\_ Yes, I think Chicago's housing market will hold up much better
than Bay Area's.
\_ Interest rates will affect everywhere and will affect the
places where people borrow a lot of money relative to
income the most.
\_ Of course as interest rates rise, there will be fewer
buyers, price rises will slow, housing will take longer
to sell, etc. No one disputes that. That is a natural
part of the housing cycle. However, rates slowly rising
is not going to magically burst the bubble and bring
prices down to where a 24 y/o new college grad can afford
one on their first job like a few people here are praying
to happen. Those people are just screwed if they want a
house before 30 without getting lucky or having two good
incomes.
\_ I worry that the exotic financing schemes (interest
only, reverse amort., and even simple ARMs) being
peddled to people who can't financially handle the
repercussions of rising rates and stagnant prices,
especially combined with stricter bankruptcy laws,
are ingredients of a dangerous economic storm. Can
you set my mind at ease? Also, as the feasability of
ownership is pushed further and further into retirement
years (buying at 35, mortgage done at 65), what will
that do to the overall economic state of "frothy" areas?
Not to mention the burden of financing retirement when
you've worked so hard to build that equity, but had
little or nothing left to save.
\_ This is very similar to what's going on in Livermore, CA.
\_ And in Boston:
http://csua.org/u/e9c
\_ Ooh, the median price dropped 5%.
\_ Their super hot market sold houses in 20 days? Houses here now
sell in a week instead of a weekend. My God! At this rate, we'll
be at their 20 day super hot mark in 6 months! The sky is
falling!
\_ I did notice this. Houses took 20 days to sell? That's about
the norm for California (well, maybe 30 days) in an average
market. Houses here were selling in, like you said, a
weekend. However, I have noticed a lot of houses on the
market in my area and they are selling much more slowly.
It's probably because the prices are so damn high. The woman
across the street is selling for $100K more than she paid
for the same house last year. Also, someone is trying to
sell a house for $1M in VA an hour from DC and they wonder why
it won't sell very fast? Heck, prices aren't that high in CA
once you get 50-60 miles from the urban centers. I think the
frenzy in places like CA has people in other areas losing
their minds. After all, real estate doesn't appreciate like
that in other parts of the country very often, if ever. A
house in Northern Virginia could be bought for $160K just 10
years ago, when houses in CA were already $300K+. I don't
think houses in many of the hottest markets (e.g. Miami and
Las Vegas) will hold their value when this runup stops -
certainly not as well as CA will. CA is a bit of a unique
situation. However, it certainly is not immune and I think
prices will fall here, too. They will just rebound faster.
In some other places the market may never rebound.
\_ Prices may pull back a bit and some speculators are going to
get burned but the sky is not going to fall. Normal single
income people still won't be able to get into a first house
without a miracle, a lot of saving, or getting a second good
income into the equation.
\_ How about Modesto and Gilroy?
\_ What about them?
\_ yea, sun and cisco stayed hot for a little bit longer than the
rest too during the internet bubble pop.
\_ You give two divergent examples which undermine your point.
Sun is a company which fundamentally lost its way, not to
mention lost a lot of money; its stock would have tanked no
matter what happened with the rest of the market. Cisco is
a fundamentally sound company that still has profits. CSCO
is still as high as it was at the end of 1998, and double
what it was at the beginning of 1998. If you bought in
February 2000, and had a < 5 year time horizon, you got
screwed, but even then you probably still will be OK in
the long run. -tom
\_ yes, cisco is in a much better position than sun, but
growth and margins have both fallen, and I am not sure
if these will improve anytime soon. what do you think?
are you still holding your ge stocks?
\_ I still own CSCO and have no intention of selling.
In fact, at current levels I am probably going to
add to my holdings. I haven't owned GE in 10+ years.
-tom
\_ what does the stock market have to do with anything?
everyone needs a place to live. few people need a router
and even fewer need a solaris box.
\_ what do you mean? how many of the products you use
daily were made by companies in the stock market?
\_ dotcoms? almost none. sun? nothing not easily
replaced if they vanished. cisco? same story.
my house? brrrr sure is cold outside!
\_ yea, I am sure your land line, cell phone
service, internet connection just magically
works.
\_ I had a land line before the dotcoms. I also
had net.
\_ Yes because if you lost your house you would
live on the street. There are no available
domiciles left. And the ones we have were made
by the high men of old; their art has been lost.
\_ yea, everyone needs toilet paper, that's why they
should sell for $10 a roll.
\_ You mean I could live with you? Gosh, thanks!
\_ yea, but the japanese are weird, that's why their housing
price slipped for 14 straight years and is now 40% below
the peak in 1991.
\_ I think that housing prices will fall, but what
people seem to miss is that if they fall 40% over
the next 14 years most of us are still ahead. The
same is true of the stock market. If you always buy
at the tops then you are very unlucky indeed.
\_ If they fall 40% I'm going to buy 4 or 5 of them.
I don't care what the paper value of my house is.
It isn't important since I'm not selling. Too bad
for me I didn't buy a few houses 5-6 years ago.
\_ If they fall 40% they probably won't be any
more affordable than they are now unless you
are planning to buy them cash. Rising rates
will make the mortgage payments about the same
for most people. I don't understand the
advantage to buying a house for 50% off if
you have to pay 50% more interest for it.
Yes, eventually you can refinance. Why not
just buy now then? You are either going to
wait out a fall in rates or wait out a rise
in prices. Funny how the two are linked like
that. I think it's better to get the low
rate, because prices will take care of
themselves over the long term.
\_ A lower price and higher rate means that I
have some upside if the prices rise so I can
sell and take some profit or buy more. A lower
rate at a higher price means I'm a landlord for
life.
\_ I guess it depends on if you plan to
keep the property or sell it. Most
people I know who made millions in real
estate kept it a decently long amount of
time (i.e. were landlords) and only sold
if they saw a better (income-generating)
opportunity or found themselves needing
cash for another reason (e.g. medical).
\_ Of course. I didn't say I was flipping.
Over time, real estate and everything
else goes up (mostly). Since the idea
is to grow a real estate empire and
destroy Trump, buying low and selling
high is better than buying high and
renting the same properties forever. I
see no reason for buying high at any
realistic interest rate.
\_ The people I know who own millions
in real estate are still buying
quality. It's the same as with
stocks. Low or high, the key is
to buy quality and keep buying.
The cycles of the market become
irrelevant over time. A woman I
know casually lost more in a quarter
of investing than I make in 2
years. She keeps buying, though.
Why? She's been buying for the
last 40 years is why. Same with
her real estate. Sure, some times
are more ideal than others, but
in general you play the game or
you don't. It doesn't pay to sit
out (time the market). You might
lose some battles, but you will
win the war. Your ideal situation
(falling prices) may never
materialize. What if prices fall
10%? Is that the bottom? 50%?
What if you buy at 50% off and
they fall to 75%? You're still
hurt. --dim
\_ In stocks, the woman is doing
dollar cost averaging (investing at fixed
intervals). In buying a house, most people
only have one or two houses, so the point
of entry is important.
\_ If you only have one house you aren't an
investor, so don't worry about it. The
person above is talking about starting a
real estate empire. Real estate investors
buy low and buy high. The typical homeowner
shouldn't care. He's buying a place to live.
\_ If he is talking about big investors,
his generalization to stocks is even
less true. Warren Buffet buys low and
hold and hold. He doesn't buy high.
Dollar cost averaging applies to small
investors who aren't confident in what
they are doing. As for real estate,
I know people who own millions worth,
and I also know they will laugh at you
if you think buying high is good.
\_ The motd is the only place you'll get
financial "advice" telling you that
buying high is good.
\_ Buying high is good as long as you
can sell higher.
\_ Buffett is buying all the time. He
didn't stop when the market got high. He
just had to work harder to find value. In
any market there is something worth
buying. That's why I say 'buy
quality'. Buying low is better than
high. No one is disputing that.
Investors don't time the market. They
look for the right stocks/properties
to buy. Many would've told you the
real estate market was at a top a few
years ago and yet it wasn't. When you
buy a quality stock/property you come
out ahead no matter the prevailing
market at the time you bought it. If
your friend the investor is out of
the market now then when will he
reenter? It's easy to miss entry/exit
points. It's better to just keep
buying - high or low. Your implication
that DCA is for people who don't know any
better is ridiculous. People DCA
because the alternative it to put
your money in a CD. It's better to
buy equities with it whatever the
market conditions.
\_ CD is the alternative? huh?
There are so many things you can
do like long term bonds, short
term bonds, municipal bonds,
foreign bonds, REIT, option
hedges, shorting, utilities,
TIPS, commodities, infrastructure,
foreign stocks, emerging market
stocks, etc. No, it is not
"better to buy equities whatever
the market conditions".
\_ foreign stocks are equities,
you know.
\_ Lots of research (and experience)
proves you wrong. You might
shuffle your mix, but if you
stop buying equities altogether
at some point then you are an
idiot. |
| 2005/12/11-14 [Consumer/Audio] UID:40963 Activity:nil |
12/11 CSUA Survey: What percentage of music do you listen to on MP3,
CD(wav or lossless), SACD, vinyl, other formats?
\_ 100% mp3. I buy CD's, but I just rip them all to mp3 and play them
that way. Most of the music I listen to was recorded on shitty
equipment anyway probably.
\_ Seconded. I generally buy CDs and rip to 192kbps mp3s. I have
a few aacs d/l'ed for free from the itms.
\_ 70% lossless, 30% compressed. Can't stand compressed after listening
to lossless.
\_ What is an example of a lossless format other than CDs or WAV?
\_ FLAC
\_ Is .au lossless?
\_ iTunes rips lossless, I think to aac. 50% compression over WAV
\_ you wouldn't get along with Bob Cringely:
"I don't generally get along well with the kind of people who
can hear the difference [between 192kpbs and higher]"
http://tinyurl.com/c3be5 [pbs.org]
\_ I would never use a service like that. If their
security is broken, people will be able to get my
files! I, as with the other 100% compressed
listeners, rip all my CDs, but not to MP3. I use -q6
ogg and keep the files in three different encrypted
drives. One is at work, one is for backup, and one
is for serving it within my intranet. Playing is
done by moving-part-less (as in silent) music
computer -> ASIO interface -> external DAC -> preamp
-> crossovers -> amps -> speakers -> ears.
\_ My high school physics teacher used to give a little speech
about how the ability to hear very high frequencies was tied
to intelligence, then tell people he was playing a high
frequency tone and keep calling out frequencies until some
arrogant prick started to claim they heard the noise, then
he'd mention that he never had the speaker on.
\_ The Emperor's New Clothes.
\_ sounds like a dick. funny though
\_ 30% streaming, 60% AAC (ripped through iTunes), 10% mp3
\_ 40% high bitrate mp3, 50% mid quality mp3, 10% CD.
\_ 90% CD, 10% MP3 of various bitrates. Have a few [hybrid] SACDs but
not a SACD player (yet).
\_ 50% CD, 50% live radio |
| 2005/12/11-14 [Computer/SW/Editors/Emacs, Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:40964 Activity:kinda low |
12/11 Since the SSH change, I've been getting the following error
message in Outlook Express: "The certificate's CN name does not
match the passed value". How can I get rid of this message? I'm
guessing it has to do with the certificate I'm using. I got it from:
<DEAD>soda.csua.berkeley.edu:995<DEAD> It's called "localhost". Do I
need to use a new POP server? Right now I'm using
http://soda.csua.berkeley.edu port 995. Or get a certificate from elsewhere?
\_ ever since the new soda, emacs has been acting up on me.
Anyone have a good default .emacs that allows me to do standard
text editing, like editing motd? Tab doesn't even work anymore;
it's checking for programming(lisp?) statements, I think, and
overriding all standard editing.
\- i find the new emacs a little strange too. the issue isnt so
much as a "good emacs" but solving specific problems.
\_ Looks like an issue with the name of the temp file assigned
by /csua/bin/me: my $motdcurrent = "/tmp/motd.public.c.$>.$$";
\_ That's strange. Ever since the new soda, my emacs works better
than before even though it's the same emacs version. Now the
prompt in my shell buffer is displayed in color, and my commands
in bold. When I do Ctrl-S to search, all the nearby matches are
highlighted. global-font-lock-mode now does color highlighting.
BTW my .emacs file hasn't changed for 12 years. If anyone can
shed light on what's behind these improvements, that'll be great.
--- yuen
\_ New soda is now running emacs 21, that's why.
\_ I thought it was also 21 before the upgrade. No?
\_ A fixed termcap maybe?
\_ The self-signed SSL certs are now fixed. Thanks. You might want
to look into using Mozilla Thunderbird instead of Outlook Express.
\_ Thanks, the error is gone! -op
\- i have noticed some interoperability issues between
older SSL programs and recent SSL applications.
doing a little digging, it looks like there are
some different padding strategies.
\_ I've fixed the self-signed SSL certs, but that might not fix the
message in Outlook Express. Try Mozilla Thunderbird. -brett
\_ The self-signed SSL certs have been fixed. Try Mozilla Thunderbird.
\_ telnetd is broken, can we get telnet turned back on? thanks! |