| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2008/10/15-17 [Science/Space] UID:51532 Activity:nil |
10/14 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081015/ap_on_sc/impure_bottled_water |
| 2008/10/15-17 [Reference/BayArea, Recreation/Dating] UID:51533 Activity:moderate |
10/14 Has anyone raised chickens in an urban environment? My friend's HOA
in SF is vague enough to allow chickens in his backyard (2 units),
and we've been doing some reading and talking to people who have done
this in suburban areas, but was wondering if anyone had any specific
advice.
\_ Each city has it's own ordinance. For example, Oakland doesn't
allow cocks anywhere...but hens are fine. Also I beleive your hen
house is suppose to be 50 ft away from your house and your neighbor's\
fence...which is a bit difficult to do. Check out chicken tractors
or moveable pens. Also, chickens don't make good housepets, no
matter what people tell you.
house is suppose to be 50 ft away from your house and your
neighbor's fence...which is a bit difficult to do. Check out
chicken tractors or moveable pens. Also, chickens don't make good
housepets, no matter what people tell you.
\_ Oakland doesn't allow cocks anywhere? How do all those horny
H07 4ZN CH1X in Oakland survive the loneliness?
H07 4ZN CH1X in Oakland survive the emptiness?
\_ I heard that chicken tractors are pretty good for weed control.
Just move the chickens around and they eat the small weeds.
\_ In SF? Where the fuck do you have a place with a backyard
big enough to waste on a chicken tractor?
\_ SF? Sorry, I got off on a tangent and was back in suburbia.
\_ They are ornery little fuckers and your neighbors will hate you.
Then again fresh eggs are pretty damn amazing.
\_ Not only will your neighbors hate you, but YOU will hate you
after being henpecked for the 20th time. That said, the eggs
are out of this world. Watch out that you don't end up with
two roosters, as they can get quite violent with each other.
\_ I would recommend never getting roosters. Our neighbor
had a rooster for a little while. Stupid thing would wake
up our daughter at 3am every day. 3AM!
\_ Yeah, if you raise a rooster in an urban or suburban
area you totally deserve to be beaten.
\_ My neighbor has a rooster and I enjoy hearing it crow.
Injects some normalcy into the urban jungle. It
doesn't crow loudly enough for me to hear it unless
the windows are open. I know some neighbors are
pissed, but I also know others enjoy it, too. Depends
on how far the stick is up your ass.
\_ Yeah, seriously. What's his problem with waking his
kids up at 3AM anyway? Get that stick outta your ass!
\_ Unless people are paying to watch!
\_ I was looking at http://www.mypetchicken.com
I plan on getting hens only. I need to read more about different
varietals. I wasn't clear in my original post, but the intent is
to have 2 (maybe 3) chickens and get about a dozen eggs a week.
\_ If you've never had chickens before, they really do suck as pets.
\_ You know, if it's a shared backyard for a 2 unit HOA you really
should have the blessing of your condo-mate.
\_ Not shared backyard and the upstairs unit is rented out to
3 guys, but yes, before going forward, I need to talk to my
HOA (the other guy).
\_ Highly recommended that you do your research before getting your
chickens. Some varieties thrive in a small environment; others
will kill each other if not given plenty of space to roam around
in. |
| 2008/10/15-17 [Finance/Investment] UID:51534 Activity:nil |
10/14 Stocks down further. Are you avoiding a falling knife, or
or going in because it may have bottomed out already? Discuss.
\_ You worry about those fighters! I'll worry about the tower! <groan>
\_ Millenium Falcon == bond traders/market
\_ Traders are expecting Thu, Fri, or both to be significant "up"
days as Fri is an OpEx day. Sticksave announcements or significant
LIBOR contraction therefore need to happen from now through Monday
morning for us to keep this propped up. (what we do not need is
another bank/country going critical). Economic numbers were
horrible this morning.
\_ What does OpEx mean? Options Expiry? |
| 2008/10/15-20 [Finance/Investment] UID:51535 Activity:moderate |
10/14 DJIA and S&P500 suffer worst 1-day percentage declines since 1987 Black
Monday crash.
\_ It's all ACORN's fault.
\_ You laugh, but the market is clearly terrified that there is
going to be Obama Socialism in America.
\_ Clearly! Why just the other day the market and I were
having dinner and after it had a few too many glasses of
wine it sheepishly admitted that while things may have been
rough lately, what with the housing market and all, what
really was worrying it, deep down inside, was the prospect
of Obama Socialism in America.
really kept it up at night was the prospect of Obama
Socialism in America. It took real willpower not to pat it
on the hand and say "It's ok, we've all known this about you
for a while now. There's nothing to be ashamed of."
\_ Yeah, that damn socialist might bail out the largest
insurance company in the world, or *nationalize the banks*!
Oh wait...
\_ sorry about my earlier post where I had written something like "get
rid of 50% more on some multi-week rally". I had originally meant to
write "get rid of 50% on some rally which may last from 1 day to
a few months". I'm sticking to my original thesis: this fucker can
collapse at ANY moment, and, you may see REAL panic selling, and
panic or not, the strong likelihood is it's going down. -op
\_ I bought today. If tomorrow is a bad day I will buy more. I'm
making money with these fluctuations by trading, but I still
have the majority of my $$$ "buy and hold". I'm down on the
year because of that, but I'm not 64 so I don't sweat it.
\_ an excellent way to approach this. as long as you have a
model. i'm all in favor of keeping 80% in "safety", and 20%
doing whatever the hell you want. although I would have
liquidated that 80% a few weeks ago when I mentioned it and
had it ready to buy now at lower prices.
\_ "Had it ready" is not the same as buying. Or is it?
\_ let's put it this way: if you had sold when I said, you
would currently be very right.
\_ I don't believe you (or anyone else) can time
the markets. However, you can do an analysis and
realize that a global recession isn't the end of
corporate earnings for many, many businesses and
that the markets are reacting to fear and uncertainty
instead of acting rationally. That's the time to
make smart purchases. Many companies might see
growth slow or sales decline, but that doesn't
necessarily dictate a 50% drop in stock value. I
wouldn't touch most banks with a 10 foot pole
right now, but people are still going to drink
beer, get laid, buy aspirin, etc. KO (which I do
not own) fell 34% this year because why? No good
reason. Even if sales slowed a little (which they
didn't) you've got to be kidding me... You wait
for the rally to buy. I'll buy before the rally
and lock in some really nice dividend yields
while I'm at it. I figure in another 10-15 years
my dividends will be yielding double figures based
on what I bought some stocks for. Some are
already close. Sure, the dividends might be cut
some near-term, but I don't sweat that.
\_ see my post "clearly what I am saying". I agree
with you on many points, actually. the biggest
place where we differ is what "timing the market"
means, but we can agree to disagree.
\_ What do Soros and Buffett do except time the
market?
\_ I don't know about Soros, but Buffett
looks at long-term potential and doesn't
worry about what the markets overall will do
tomorrow or 3 months from now.
\_ He holds onto his cash and waits to buy
when he sees good values. I don't know how
you can call that anything but "timing."
\_ I'm on the same boat as you are, and I can hold for a very
long time, though if the market goes down 15% more,
I'd be a little bit worried because I'd have to keep
buying until... I run out, and god knows how low it's
gonna get. My gutsy feeling is that we're already hitting
the bottom, though, if it goes down say, 30-50% more,
I'd be very very anxious. But like you said, I'm not 64
so I got a few decades to wait, so that is good news.
\_ This is called "testing the bottom."
\_ clearly what I am saying is that there is a strong likelihood
that bottom will fail from 1 day to x months from now. that's
a thesis that may be totally wrong, but i do believe it.
I also believe there is great merit to the "buy well-
diversified value stocks in businesses you understand" model
of investment--there's nothing wrong with that. Index and
targeted retirement funds though ...
of investment--there's nothing wrong with that. to put it
most clearly, the conclusion one could have reached not too
long ago was: "My investments are excellent and diversified.
The stock will outperform. However, the market is
overleveraged, and as funds and other financial entities
delever out of the market to raise cash in a multi-year,
global credit deleveraging (with all its associated nastiness)
I will move out into cash and replace it into the same stocks
at a lower entry point, maximizing my long-term compounded
gains. When is that entry point? Well, let's start with
the idea that it's a multi-year slow down ..."
btw, I'm also the guy who posted about traders expecting a
bounce tomorrow, Fri, or both, as Fri is OpEx day. Yes, I'm
playing with my 20% money.
bounce tomorrow, Fri, or both, as Fri is OpEx day.
today, funds shat out of overlevered energy and commodity
based equity investments at a "high price", because they
believe in the multi-year thesis too.
I wonder how long it will take to purge all the levered
emerging market bets.
\_ What makes you believe that there are levered EM bets?
To me, China looks like it has the healthiest balance sheet
of any economy period right now.
\_ EM in general will continue to get super-smacked by
credit deleveraging. as far as fund investment, "hot"
areas, like energy, commods and EM, were all levered up.
what i said was that, of these 3, EM has furthest to go
\_ Why do you think that EM is levered? You still have
not answered this question, just restated that you
are convinced that it is true. Stocks generally
are hard to leverage, unlike those other asset
classes.
\_ okay you got me there. all i've got is that
general feeling based on the forums I troll. |
| 2008/10/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51536 Activity:nil |
10/14 Palin continues to be at war with unambigious truths.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015198.php |
| 2008/10/15-17 [Uncategorized] UID:51537 Activity:nil |
10/14 Science - If you ain't pissing people off, you ain't doing it right:
http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/a_wise_man_once_said.PNG
\_ A wise man once said, internet comics are stupid |
| 2008/10/15-20 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51538 Activity:low |
10/14 Does it make sense to buy nice lenses (2.8L) to be used on your
non-full-frame DSLR?
\_ Why not? A nice lens is a nice lens. Also, 2.8L doesn't say much.
I mean, 135mm f/2.0L is a nice lens, regardless of if the body it's
attached to has a crop sensor or a full-frame sensor. There's no
other way to get f/2.0 at that focal length, so there's nothing
more to think about.
\_ For starter, it's like putting a Z rated 180MPH tire on
a Toyota Prius. It may work, but... WHY???
\_ No, that would decrease the Prius' gas mileage.
\_ LOL, I got it. ok, here is the thing. "L" doesn't necessary mean
"good" lenses. There are plenty of lenses that is not "L" in the
canon lines that has equivalent optical quality. Secondly, nobody
describe lens in your way. You don't say "2.8L" as it is some sort
of engine displacement. you can say f/2.8 or f2.8
Thirdly, optical quality of a lens has NOTHING TO DO with the
maximum aperature. There are plenty of good lenses that is actually
very slow. I've seen good lens that has aperature of f/4, f/5.6
even f/8.
My advices to you are: always go for best optical quality
lens you can afford. If it means sacrafice in features (AF/MF
clutch, Image stablization), zoom range (smaller zoom range or even
fixed-focal length), slower AF, or simply getting an used one
instead a new one, do it. 2nd. Always go for the lens that is
full-frame compatible. Camera is moving towards full-frames, and
\_ uh, no. Nikon is embracing DX, just look at their extensive
DX lens lines (much more than Canon). Nikon is aiming for the
consumer end DSLR market. They even made it possible to
mount DX lenses on FX bodies, whereas it's not possible on
Canon. Nikon is really losing grounds on the professional end
DSLR niche. Canon is not really embracing the consumer end DSLR
and instead is re-focusing on professional full-frame
cameras. There are signs that they're cooling off on the
1.6X EF-S end that the Nikon is dominating right now.
\_ the reason why I said full-frame eventually going to
prevail is simple. While non-full-frame's image sensor
is a lot cheaper than full-frame today, the ultra-wide
angle kit-lens is a lot more to make than the wide angle
kit-lens. While cost of manufacturing image sensor is
coming down at a rapid (eventhough not rapid enough even
for me) rate, cost of making lenses doesn't go down that
quickly. Eventually, it is going to be a lot cheaper to
make a full-frame body and attach with a cheap zoom, than
making a smaller sensor and attach with a more expensive
ultra-wide angle zoom. kngharv
\- i agree with your mkt read over holobs, but i think you
need to provide more guidance than "buy the best optical
quality lenses you can afford". ideally, you would have
some sense of what you budget is a couple of years out
and what kind fo photography is the most meaningful to
you, but usually this is a case of "decision making under
uncertainty" and it's the uncertainty you need to guide
somebody through ... as opposed to picking between Canon Y
and Nikon X or Lens A+B or Lens C. i think some people
would prefer to say able able to shoot 6/10 landscape and
6/10 portraits and 6/10 telephoto and others might prefer
to shoot 8/10 landscape, 8/10 portraits, and 2/10 t'photo.
and again, i think if you are shooting in "difficult
situation" [hiking/climbing or other wise on-the-go,
unsafe [theft or damage] etc] weight and cost really,
really matter. a 3lbs +$1k high quality lens which you
hardly ever use because it is an asspain to haul around
may not serve you as well as a >$500 zoom. if you are just
getting into photography and choosing betwee a $500 lens
and a higher quality $1500 lens, spend the $1000 on a
ticket to somewhere photogenic ... like Nepal or HKG.
\_ except that's like bringing a lot of condoms to
Amsterdam only to find that you don't have enough
money to blow on um... local attractions.
\- the ambiguously asexual psb does not get humor.
your lens is going to last a lot longer *AND* retain a lot more
resell value than your camera body. kngharv
\_ I've been waiting for a full-frame body for less than 1.5K
since 2002. I'm tired of waiting. Advice?
\_ Buy a non-full-frame body?
\_ I have a D80, should I skip the D90 upgrade path?
\_ Seconded. -tom
\_ Third EXCEPT for the D40 since it can't use regular
AF for auto-focus. Many signs point that AF will be
around for only 5-10 years since new lenses today
like the brand new AF-S 50mm f/1.4 that just announced
will replace the AF 50mm lines, for about $100 more.
\_ yup, that is why I own a D50 and go out of my way
to look for a refurbished D50 for my friends who
want go into photography and want to stick with Nikon.
\_ Why not own both Canon + Nikon? It doesn't cost
that much more considering the TOTAL system you'll
spend anyways on a variety of good prime lenses.
PS I hate zoom lenses. Convenient, shitty pics.
\- your brain -> ISO 32 [and i mean "slow" not
"sharp"]
\_ Well sometimes convenience is required to be able
to get the shot at all. You can't always lug
around a bunch of camera crap, and fiddling with
lenses/settings takes time.
\_ also EXCEPT for the D40x and D60. |
| 2008/10/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:51539 Activity:nil |
10/15 What. The. Hell.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93R8IE00&show_article=1 |