 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-08-02 14:34, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>
> Heh. I can still remember when I was a teenager people telling me that
> "in America, you can buy a CD for just £5!" (That's 3x cheaper than the
> UK.) I always wondered whether there was actually a shred of truth to
> such an outlandish claim...
In the bargain bin next to the cashier, yeah. CDs are usually around
15$ USD.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> > (*) Well not "rent" per se. I think the closest term I can find with
> > google is "condominium payment" or "condo fee". But this same housing
> > cooperative has rental housing with the same deal.
> It'd be what is referred to here as an 'association fee' (as in a
> homeowner's association).
I don't rent this apartment, but neither am I a homehowner per se (iow.
I don't *own* this apartment either). It's a form in-between those two.
The montly fee is cheaper than rent for a typical apartment of the same
size in the same area, and I have more rights to the apartment than I would
if it was a rental (eg. I could make modifications and renovations that
would not be allowed in a rented apartment), but it's not ownership per se.
I'm not sure what the English term for this is.
(If I actually owned this apartment, but had to share the building's common
services with all the other tenants, and thus pay a fee for the maintenance,
I think the term is "condominium". This is almost like that, except that
I don't really fully own the apartment. However, it's not the same as rental
either.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:32:22 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > (*) Well not "rent" per se. I think the closest term I can find with
>> > google is "condominium payment" or "condo fee". But this same housing
>> > cooperative has rental housing with the same deal.
>
>> It'd be what is referred to here as an 'association fee' (as in a
>> homeowner's association).
>
> I don't rent this apartment, but neither am I a homehowner per se (iow.
> I don't *own* this apartment either). It's a form in-between those two.
> The montly fee is cheaper than rent for a typical apartment of the same
> size in the same area, and I have more rights to the apartment than I
> would if it was a rental (eg. I could make modifications and renovations
> that would not be allowed in a rented apartment), but it's not ownership
> per se.
>
> I'm not sure what the English term for this is.
OIC, I'm not sure either. Could you basically walk away from it if you
wanted to?
> (If I actually owned this apartment, but had to share the building's
> common services with all the other tenants, and thus pay a fee for the
> maintenance,
> I think the term is "condominium". This is almost like that, except that
> I don't really fully own the apartment. However, it's not the same as
> rental either.)
A condominium is a type of dwelling, not a use arrangement. Condos tend
to have the "association fees" I mentioned before to cover things like
care for common areas on the property and whatnot, but the condo itself
has a separate payment made either to a landlord (as a rental) or a
mortgage company (as a purchase).
What's the word in Finnish that describes it?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> (*) Well not "rent" per se. I think the closest term I can find with
>>> google is "condominium payment" or "condo fee". But this same housing
>>> cooperative has rental housing with the same deal.
>
>> It'd be what is referred to here as an 'association fee' (as in a
>> homeowner's association).
>
> I don't rent this apartment, but neither am I a homehowner per se (iow.
> I don't *own* this apartment either). It's a form in-between those two.
> The montly fee is cheaper than rent for a typical apartment of the same
> size in the same area, and I have more rights to the apartment than I would
> if it was a rental (eg. I could make modifications and renovations that
> would not be allowed in a rented apartment), but it's not ownership per se.
>
> I'm not sure what the English term for this is.
>
In my area, they call it a co-op.
> (If I actually owned this apartment, but had to share the building's common
> services with all the other tenants, and thus pay a fee for the maintenance,
> I think the term is "condominium". This is almost like that, except that
> I don't really fully own the apartment. However, it's not the same as rental
> either.)
>
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:58:06 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:
> In my area, they call it a co-op.
Ah, that's probably the right term for it. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The technology to access the Internet at gigabits per second already
>> exists. The problem is that it will cost a fortune to dig up the entire
>> country to lay hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber. Which is why
>> nobody is doing this. (Or at least, not very fast.)
>
> Nobody except everyone. There were guys from the telephone company in my
> backyard a few weeks ago installing fibre optic cables on the telephost
> posts. The tv cable has been fibre optics from the get go, when the
> neighborhood was built 6 years ago.
Like I said, "not very fast".
> A few yearsa go, the carriers only installe dit when some cities would
> require "fibre to the home" for any new development, but now customers
> are asking for it, so they have no choice, or irsk losing those
> customers to the competition.
Maybe in your country. Over here, most people don't even realise that
it's /possible/ to have fiber to your house. (Or that this would be
beneficial somehow.) Like I said, BT is currently heavily pushing it's
"Infinity" product, which is basically fiber to the kerb, giving a 10x
speed boost. Not 200x, just 10x. And it's not cheap. And it's not
available in 80% of the country. And it won't be available for years...
>> They're talking about 200x more speed. That's epic, right there.
>
> Yeah, moving from cat 3 copper wies to fibre optics will do that!
Well, you say that... My employer has a dedicated fiber connection, and
it has a maximum speed of 10 mbit/sec. (We actually pay for 5mbit/sec.
Costs about £30,000/year, IIRC. Then again, that's because we get
business-grade reliability guarantees...)
>> Internet access is a little different. All Hotmail had to do was
>> /literally/ press a button and everybody got a 500x storage limit
>> increase. You can't do that with bandwidth.
>
> Sure they can. They've been offering HDTV signals over wire for the past
> 5 years, this means the infrastructure is there to support that bandwith.
I don't know about you, but we receive out HDTV signals over the
airwaves, not over copper.
> The same thing happened 20 years ago when cable providers decided to
> become internet providers since they already had enough bandwidth to
> send 60 to 80 tv channels to every home... using one for data signals
> was not a problem at all.
>
> This forced the phone companies to massively upgrade their networks to
> support faster and faster aDSL services.
I don't even know what "cable" is.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/08/2012 10:14 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2012-08-02 14:34, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>
>> Heh. I can still remember when I was a teenager people telling me that
>> "in America, you can buy a CD for just £5!" (That's 3x cheaper than the
>> UK.) I always wondered whether there was actually a shred of truth to
>> such an outlandish claim...
>
> In the bargain bin next to the cashier, yeah. CDs are usually around 15$
> USD.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> On current exchange rates, that looks like considerably more money than
>> I will ever earn.
>
> Well, you keep self-selecting out of positions that might get you a
> decent salary by not applying for them. We've had that discussion before.
Not any more. [More on this later...]
>> Heh. I can still remember when I was a teenager people telling me that
>> "in America, you can buy a CD for just £5!" (That's 3x cheaper than the
>> UK.) I always wondered whether there was actually a shred of truth to
>> such an outlandish claim...
>
> You *could* look at amazon.com and see that it is in fact true. In fact,
> some are even cheaper than that. Then you wouldn't have to wonder if it
> was true. You'd know.
>
> Of course at that price, you're generally not talking about the
> soundtrack to a recently-released film.
Well, today you can buy CDs in the UK for less than £10 - IF you buy
them online.
That still doesn't tell me whether it was possible to buy CDs 3x cheaper
in the US highstreets when I heard this claim 10 years ago. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (Hell, I have a 100 mbit *LAN* and VNC is still laggy as hell...)
>
> VNC is an insult to any network. X11 had some clue, but VNC really lost
> everything. Worst than VNC, I guess, would be running VM via VNC...
Funny. Everybody tells me that X11 has a really horrid wire protocol...
> Also, default client for VNC do not have compression (tsclient nor
> vinagre).
Actually I'm using TightVNC, which is supposedly one of the best.
> First speedup: on remote, change background for a plain colour (no fancy
> pictures). Next reduce to 256 colours on the client. Or Thousands.
Why bother? The client has an option to not send the wallpaper. (Not
that any of these machines /have/ one in the first place...) It also
seems to turn off effects like the colour gradients on window titlebars.
And yet, it's still laggy as hell, and sometimes parts of the display
intermittently fail to update unless you manually "refresh".
I hate to say it, but RDP seems to be more reliable. Although no less
laggy...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> OIC, I'm not sure either. Could you basically walk away from it if you
> wanted to?
Yes. With a term of notice of one month.
It's a mode of ownership where you kind of "half-buy" the apartment. This
means you pay something like 15% (IIRC) of its full price, and when you
move out, you get that money back (inflation-adjusted).
It's different from a rental in that with a rental you don't pay anything
but the rent, and you have less rights to the apartment.
> A condominium is a type of dwelling, not a use arrangement. Condos tend
> to have the "association fees" I mentioned before to cover things like
> care for common areas on the property and whatnot, but the condo itself
> has a separate payment made either to a landlord (as a rental) or a
> mortgage company (as a purchase).
> What's the word in Finnish that describes it?
I think the Finnish term that most accurately corresponds to this is
"asunto-osake", which literally means "apartment share" (as in a stock
market share). I think that you literally buy a share (in the exact same
way as you would buy shares of any compnay) and you own the apartment as
property. The apartment is usually located in a building and you have to
pay a (relatively small) monthly fee for the maintenance (which would be
exactly a "condo fee", AFAIK).
This form of living is a bit like that, except you don't actually own the
apartment as property, although you have much more rights to it than with
a rented apartment.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
