Own or Rent

A while ago I blogged about renting vs owning. I concluded by saying I realized why owning is better than renting but I'd wait to post those thoughts. Well, here they are.

Why renting can be better:
When you rent, you pay rent, maybe utils, cable, Internet, etc. When you own, you also pay property taxes, condo fees (maybe) and a lot of maintenance. Generally, your rental costs are lower than your ownership costs.

While the costs of ownership can rise without warning or limit, rent control exists (in some areas) to prevent that. Last year my rent increased by 0.7%. Shortly after I moved in, I found I needed a new oven. I had one the next day, and it didn't cost me a cent. Taxes can rise. Heating and electricity costs can rise. Condo fees can go up at any time, and the condo association can come and ask for money for things not covered in the fees, and they want it now. With a house, you can put off non-urgent repairs until you have the money. Interest rates on your mortgage can rise, possibly forcing you out of your house.

Now, if you rent, figure out how much you would be spending on ownership and invest it in some investments. After 25 years, you're rent is going to be pretty darned low, and the returns on the investments (as long as they weren't too high risk) should be pretty good.

Renting is also for better short-term mobility. If you're working contract to contract and you figure you may be moving to another city at any time, renting is better. If you have to move, you just give your two-months notice, and move out. If you own, you have to sell, which is a lot more work, and more expensive. This is especially important in times of high unemployment.

But, here's why owning can be better: Long Term mobility. Let's say you move into an apartment where you're assured the walls are thick concrete, only to find out they're not. It's just drywall and insulation. You can hear everything going on in your neighbour's apartment. (This is my current situation). If your neighbour likes to make a lot of noise at all hours, then you may want to move. Now, if your desire to move happens in the first couple of years after moving in, no problem. Move. What if it's 10 years after moving in? You get a new neighbour, and suddenly your life is miserable. Rent control has kept your rent relatively low. If you move anywhere else, you'll be renting at market values. Your rent will increase. If you happen to be on a fixed income, like after you retire, then this is especially bad.

Now, if you had bought, then you will have built up equity. If you decide to move, after ten years, your property's value has likely gone up. Of course, if you're moving within the city, then chances are properties all over the city have risen at similar rates, but for a similar dwelling, you shouldn't notice too much of a price difference. You'll be able to make a larger down payment due to the equity you've built up in your current place.

Another reason is for moving to a different market. Different cities have different markets. Toronto and Vancouver have insanely high housing prices. Sault Ste. Marie is very affordable. Ottawa is in between. Let's say you live in Ottawa in a house.  You and your next door neighbour both moved in at the same time, into identical houses, paid the same amount for the house, got the same mortgage, etc. Now, you and your neighbour have the same equity in your respective houses - let's say, $150 000.  Then one day you, and your next door neighbour have to move to different cities for some reason.

Now, let's say you each have a friend who are each neighbours in an apartment building. One of the friends has to move to Sault Ste. Marie, while the other has to move to Toronto.  Let's also say that you get a job in Toronto, and your neighbour gets a job in Sault Ste. Marie.   So you and your renting friend are moving to Toronto.  You're next-door neighbour and his renting friend are moving to Sault Ste. Marie.

You're next house will be way more expensive than his (and his will be bigger!). But you're both better off than the two next door neighbour's who rented. Each of you will be able to have a house in the next city. You'll use the equity to put a down payment on a house in Toronto, while he'll use his equity to buy a house outright in Sault Ste. Marie.

As for your renting friends? The one moving to Toronto will have to rent. Period. Owning will of the question (without some other finances, like a winning lottery ticket). The one moving to SSM _may_ be able to buy, but if he does, he'll likely only put 5% down on his house.

Another reason to own is when you need to upgrade your lifestyle. Renting a one bedroom apartment isn't too expensive. Two bedrooms are a little more expensive. But what if you have a growing family. You'll want more space. You'll want a house. At this point, you'll wish you had built equity up in a condo or bungalo or something smaller.

So, unless you see yourself moving to another city within 5 years, it's probably better to own.

As for me, I work in IT for the Canadian Government. Normally, that's about the most steady employment you can think of...other than maybe Tim Horton's franchise owner. But right now, it's less stable.  And if I lose this job, I don't see me sticking around Ottawa for too long. If I lose my job, then so will lots of other IT professionals in government. Many of them will have more roots in Ottawa than I'll have. The job market will be saturated. At which point, the housing market in Ottawa will really cool off. I'm at a disadvantage; I don't speak French. So, if I can hold onto my job, then I should buy something, but if I can't, then I'll probably be screwed.

*Sigh* I'm getting really tired of listening to my neighbour's stereo.

I'm An Aanchchoviest

I don't think anchovies really exist.

Think about it.  Have you ever had an anchovy?  You know about them as pizza toppings that you pray are never on your pizza. They're a topping that only other people have on their pizzas - people with bad taste.

If you were with some people who were ordering a pizza they would ask you what you wanted on your pizza. You would likely say something like "Oh, just about anything is fine with me. Get whatever you want." If they said "Okay. How about anchovies?" You would make a disgusted face and say "Ewww! No. That's gross!" But you've never actually had anchovies.

If you ask your friends if they like anchovies, they'll make a face like they just bit into a lemon sprinkled with mace and say "No way!" But if you ask if they've had any, they'll say they haven't.

Once upon a time, I found the idea of raw fish was really repulsive. Now I love sushi. Once upon a time I found wine intolerable. Now, not so much. Tastes change. It occurred to me that I was judging anchovies without giving them a fair shot. So I started to try to order them with my pizza. But they never seemed to be on any menu! One time I did see it on a menu and I asked about it. They told me something like "Oh, we don't have those. If you want them you have to order a few days in advance." Who orders a pizza a few days in advance?

Then I forgot all about it. Until now. I found a recipe for Cesar Salad dressing. It calls for "1 can of minced anchovies (optional)". I decided to go for it. But, try as I might, I can not find any evidence at any grocery store that anchovies actually exist!  So I make the dressing without anchovies.  It's not too bad, but I'll never how bad it could be.

Rent or Own?

For the last year the McQueens have stayed in Embrun, and I with them, unsure how much longer we'll be staying there. During that time I've assumed I'd be renting when I moved out. But, thanks to a nice tax return, some fiscal restraint, some on-call and higher-level acting pay, I had some unexpected growth last quarter. Suddenly, the idea of home-ownership was something that could happen for me in the not-to-distant future.

While the question is still academic, one day I will have to answer it; should I rent or own my dwelling place?

If you just answered "You should own. If you rent, you're just throwing your money away" then you've just disqualified yourself from being informed enough to give me advice on this subject.  I'll try to explain why.

First, let's define "throwing your money away." I assume what people mean when they say that in relation to renting as opposed to owing is that you're giving your money away without building equity.   In accounting terms, you're moving money from an asset (cash) to an expense (rent).  It causes your total equity to decrease.    When you own your house or condo, as you pay your mortgage you're actually buying something. When you move out, you will get that money back.  In accounting terms, you're moving money from an asset (cash) to another asset (property).  Assuming a 0% mortgage, your total equity doesn't change.  Then, as the value of your home goes up, your equity increases without you having to actually do anything.

It's true that when you rent, you're throwing your money away. But, it is also true of owning. In fact, you're throwing a lot more money away on ownership. In both cases you have to throw money away on heat, water, utilities, cable, phone, etc. Some of that might be included in the rent, but you are paying for something that you can't get back.

Furthermore, with owning, you're paying interest. In fact, with a 25 year amortization period and a 10% down-payment, you're going to pay for the house about 2 and a half times over; once for the value of the house, and the rest is interest. Paying interest is definitely throwing your money away.

Now, if you're lucky, when you go to sell your house, you can get all that back. Don't forget, with ownership comes maintenance. With rent, somebody else is responsible for upkeep. There's also property taxes. With a condo, there's condo fees, and extra expenses that aren't included in the fees.

In order to compare price sheets, I wrote a little mortguage calculator program. You can fill in all the figures for owning and renting and compare the two. Generally speaking, at the end of the amortization period you'll pay way more for ownership, and you're rent - due to rent control - will be pretty low.

How do you get ahead by renting? This is the hard part. When you own a house, every time you're paying your mortgage you're taking part in a forced-savings plan. If you don't invest in anything else, at least you have a house! With renting, you must invest elsewhere! You need to invest in good mutual funds, money markets, etc. With good investing you can come out ahead.

"But what if the economy tanks, like it did in 2008? Then your investments aren't worth much." True, but neither is your house. When the markets fall your risky investments are worth less. (You shouldn't have many risky investments close to retirement.) In time the markets will rise. You will get your money back. Now, if the local economy tanks, people lose their jobs, and many have to move. Moving requires selling of housing. With people leaving in droves (because the local plant closed, as often happens in a bad economy) then there's lots of people selling their houses, but not many are buying. The law of supply and demand requires the value of the house to fall.

Remember, the value of anything is the most someone is willing to sacrifice for it. If the city estimates the value of your house at $300 000, but no one is willing to buy it for more than $150 000, then your house is really only worth $150 000. After all, that's all you can get out of it. Therefore, that's it's value. Maybe another time someone will to pay more, but not now. And now is when you need it.

Most people also say it's the best investment you'll ever make. I've read a number of books written by several financial advisers and most say the same thing; "If your house is your best investment, you could be in trouble." In fact, here is a good article explaining why it's a bad investment. And here is a good response.  They usually say something like "Owning isn't for everyone.  You should buy a house because that's how you want to live."

So, my point is that the debate between renting and owning isn't as clear cut as you may initially think.

I have recently come to the conclusion that owning is better than renting for reasons I'll explain later.

Sleepers vs. Non-Sleepers

A couple of weeks after moving into my new apartment, there was a power-outage that lasted from 10:30 at night to about 4:30 in the morning. It was July. I live on the top floor. My room got very warm very quickly.

During the power outage, my apartment was very quiet. Sort of. There are two types of noise: white noise, and non-white noise. I normally sleep with the air conditioner and a fan on. The building's ventilation system makes a certain amount of white noise. That was all silenced. Now, I could hear all the non-white noise, such as people talking in adjacent units, cars driving by on the streets, dogs barking in the distance, etc.

I didn't get to sleep that night until about 4:30 AM. When I told this story to the McQueens Robin laughed and said I was the only person she knew who wouldn't be able to sleep at night during a power-outage. I tried to explain the difference between white noise and non-white noise, and how I can sleep with white noise, but not non-white noise. She didn't buy it. Jack suggested that there seem to be two types of people in the world: sleepers and non-sleepers, and sleepers will never understand non-sleepers.

Sleepers are people that go to bed and sleep. They sleep because they want to sleep. Or because they're comfortable and tired. I was a sleeper when I was a teenager.  Actually, most teenagers are.

A non-sleeper can't just go to sleep. They need certain conditions to be in place. During the day, I am a sleeper. At night, I'm a non-sleeper. In the day, I can sleep while sitting upright on a noisy, hot, crowded bus with my head against the bouncing window. But at night, I need everything to be just so.

So I started contemplating the difference between sleepers and non-sleepers, trying to develop a theory as to what makes one one and not the other. Then I stumbled across Today's Articles. It turns out that science already has answers.

When you're awake, your brain produces high frequency brain waves. As you fall deeper into sleep, your brainwaves lower in frequency.  Every now and again, while sleeping, a spurt of higher frequency waves are produced. Those spurts are called "spindles". The scientists found that people who produce more spindles don't get woken up as easily as those who produce fewer spindles.

Unfortunately, the question of "how do I make my brain create more spindles?" remains unanswered.

The Whole Couch Situation

I hate red-tag sales. I hate one-day-only sales. I hate pressure sales. When I make purchases under duress, I end up with Buyer's Remorse. The latest instalment in that story is my couch.

One week ago I decided to go couch shopping. I meant to go out and look. Sit. Lie down. Take measurements. Compare prices. My furniture budget had been depleted down to about $360. I didn't intend to buy - at least not that day.

I went with the McQueens. They have an eye for things like colour and design, etc. I don't. They're artists. Actuall artists. I draw on coffee cups. I'm an engineer at heart, and a computer programmer by profession. I value things like function and efficiency. To me function comes way before form. When my brother and I were both learning to program, he'd create beautiful user interfaces. I'd have black and white command line programs.

Before this ouch-shopping day, I had been to Ikea countless times sitting on their couches, trying to decide what I might like. I like Ikea furniture.  I realized the other day why Ikea doesn't have salespeople.  The furniture sells itself.  So far, I have bought a chair, ottoman, stool, a dinning table, 4 dinning chairs, and DVD/CD shelves from Ikea, and I don't regret a single purchase. But, I haven't found an Ikea couch I really like that's comfortable - at least in the Ottawa Ikea. Perhaps cushions become softer with use?

I decided on a few things I wanted, and didn't want in a couch:

Not leather

Leather looks nice, but if it's hot or cold, the couch becomes very uncomfortable.

None of those little buttons in the upright cushions

I always manage to cause them to pop out. If I'm going to spend at least a grand on my couch, I don't want to have to worry about damaging it so easily. It would be one thing if I did it, but if someone else did it, that's frustrating in a different way.

Flat arms

When I was in university I had the ugliest couch and chair set. but the arms were about 5" wide, solid wood, and flat. I would often use it as a TV tray, and would leave my glass, pop can, and/or plate on the arm.

Long enough for me to sleep on

I figure a couch is like a substitute bed. It's going to get slept on. You want that to be a comfortable sleep. My couch in university was like that. I took a lot of naps on that couch. It was the perfect size, even if it was ugly.

Right price

If it was too cheap...well, I believe that you get what you pay for. If it's too expensive, I'd break the bank. I don't want that. I don't want to think about how much flying I could have done with that couch money. I had about $360 in my couch fund, but, given a few more pay-cheques, that could increase. I was planning on spending about a grand on a couch.

The first store the McQueens and I walked into was Dufresne (pronounced Dufrane, rhyiming with Moo-Frame, with the epmhasis on "Frame".). We were greeted by a loud salesman informing us it was their VIP red-tag day. One day only! We were shown a bunch of couches. Most where "meh". Then we sat on one. Oh my goodness! So comfortable! So soft! I just sank in! I wanted it! There was a couch and love seat. There was also a single chair, end tables, and coffee tables too that could come as a package. I wanted the couch. The loveseat was negotiable.

But, I wanted to look around first. After Dufresne, we went to Sears, Lay-Z-Boy, and United Furniture Warehouse. I sat in nothing that compared to that couch at Dufresne. So I went back to Dufresne, got a good deal on the couch and loveseat. I saved $700 from the list price. I set up the delivery for the following Saturday.

On Saturday it showed up. After much struggling to get it into the aprtment, I played with a few different arrangements. I sat in them for a while. I looked at my bank accounts, and finance spreadsheets. Buyer's Remorse started sinking in. Now I'm thinking of returning, either just the loveseat, or both. The return policy is that they'll refund 90% of the money (10% is a re-stocking fee), and I'll have to pay for a pick-up. And, I only have 48 hours to decide. 48 hours, presumably, from delivery, not purchase. That's not a very long period, especially when you're spending, potentially thousands of dollars.  I kinda feel like punishing the company for such poor customer service policies.

I have the following issues with the couch and love seat:

1. It's big. It takes up a lot of space in my small apartment.
2. It's heavy. This is a problem if I want to move it around.
3. It's big and heavy. It had to be disassembled to get into the apartment. You should have seen the delivery guys grunting and sweating trying to get it in. If I have to move without the convenience of professional movers, that's gonna be me - except that I'm not a big, strong, professional furniture delivery man.  I'm a computer programmer.
4. It's expensive. Even though I got a wicked deal on it, I'm still gonna have rob, not only Peter, but Frank, Chester, Sebastien, and Mary, just to pay Paul. This is actually the least of my concerns. I have the money to pay for it. I just have to pray that I have no unexpected expenses for the next few months while I recoup the losses.
5. It's expensive. I don't like having expensive things. You always worry if it's gonna break down or get stolen or something. I've seen someone puncture a car seat simply by leaving a pencil in their pants pocket. I don't want to worry about things like that.
6. It doesn't have removable cushions. Removable cushions are nice if you need to turn them over if someone spills something, or if you need to lay them out on the floor as a make-shift bed.
7. It's not _quite_ long enough for me to completely lie down on. I know this conflicts with problems 1 and 3, but if it's gonna be too big to get in my apartment without disassembling it, I want a good bed substitute.
8. It's not _me_. You know how some furniture just has _you_ written all over it? I bought these chairs from Ikea. Solid pine. Light. Assembly was ridiculously easy. $25 a piece. And they go with my table, which is also me because of the way it extends. My problem is that I don't know if a couch exists that is Me.
   

I should also list some of the positives of the couches (and my answers to them):

The two of them together makes sitting possible for 5 people. That's good for entertaining lots of guests.

I rarely entertain. I don't like entertaining. Having super-comfortable seating is just an invitation for people to want to come over.

It's super-comfortable.

At least at first. After sitting in it for a while, I'm not sure it feels all that good. I bought an office chair from Staples once. Felt great there. When I got it home and sat in it for a couple of hours, as computer programmers are wont to do, my back was killing me! I had to sit in my old, uncomfortable chair for a while before I could sleep at night. It turns out the comfortable chair was actually uncomfortable, and the uncomfortable chair was actually comfortable. This is important, as I will no longer be regularly seeing a chiropractor at the end of this month.

The green couch goes well with my burgundy carpet.

I don't care. I am such a form-before-function guy. I only know that it goes well because the McQueens told me it would. I would have still bought the couch if they said "No.  It will totally clash with your carpet."  I bought it because it was comfortable.  In fact, my decorating mission statement was "I want the apartment to look like a grown non-student lives there. I don't want your used stuff. I want new stuff. But I wanted to leave room for a "woman's touch".  Furthermore, if I move in a year or two - which is entirely possible - it is unlikely I'll be moving into a place with burgundy carpets. I suppose I could get a burgundy rug. Or just spill some red wine on the floor, and not clean it up.

 

If I return it, they keep 10% of the price as a re-stocking fee. I also have to pay for, and arrange (including reserving the service elevator in my building) a pick-up. Plus, I'd have to do all this shopping all over again. This could turn out to be a $200+ oops.

Oops.

So I have to decide by tomorrow what I'm going to do.

For reference, here's a picture of my couch from my university days:

And here's the couch I just bought:

Mind Your Manners...and English

I find it interesting that some people are anal about English grammar and spelling.   See, English, unlike other languages like French or Korean, doesn't have a governing body defining what is right and what is wrong. Correct English is defined as being whatever is in popular usage. If you want to change an English spelling or rule, just get the masses to do it your way instead of the "right" way.

Some people say Dictionaries define what is correct. This isn't true. Dictionaries are in a constant game of catch-up.

I once blogged about how the meanings of words change.

A few case-in-points:

1. The Merriam-Webster Word of the Year for 2007 was "w00t". (That's right. Those are zeros in there.)
2. Americans spell it "honor", "labor", "favorite". Canadians spell it "honour", "labour", and "favourite". Who's to say what's right? Awww heck, Americans call it "Zee" and Canadians call it "Zed". Again, who says what's right? The only way to say they're both right is to admit that there can be more than one right way to spell something. If that's the case, why kan't I invent mai own ways to spel things? I'm just creating my own version of proper Inglish.
3. How to you spell it? Shakespear? Shakespere? Shakespeer? Other? In fact, in his day, people took pride in spelling their names in as many different ways as possible.
4. @#$@&! is considered a swear word today by some (but not all). If you get a really old dictionary, it's in there as an actual word. Who decided it was a swear word? What authority do they have? And who gave that authority to them?

Consider this paradox. If someone uses English that's considered to be improper today, they would be considered to have improper English. They would be wrong. But, if their "mistake" catches on, then they will retroactively become right.  They will be seen as a pioneer.  Shakespere invented many words, and prolly broke some rules too.

This does raise some interesting questions, like:

1. A lot of people use the word "literally" when they mean "figuratively." For example: "We were so late for our connecting flight, we literally flew through the airport terminal." They would have had to be superman. They mean "...we figuratively flew through the airport terminal" or "...we literally ran as fast as we could....". Nearly everyone makes this mistake. The question is "How long do words have to be confused with each other before they 'officially' take on the meaning of other word?"  In other words, when will "figuratively" literally mean "literally"?
2. A lot of people don't know when to use "me" and "I" "properly". Here's the "rule": "I" is subjective, and "me" is objective. I think the way most people think of it is that "I" comes at the beginning of the sentence, or the end of a list of people. Otherwise, use "me." The question is: When will using "I" in the objective be considered "proper"?  Consider the phrase "It is I!"  It's considered proper, but how?

There is one other similar arena: manners. The primary reason behind manners is making people around you not feel uncomfortable. Passing smelly gas makes me feel less comfortable. Whether you stick your pinky finger out whilst drinking tea or not does nothing for my comfort level.

I had a landlord that taught me all sorts of manners, like tilting a bowl of soup away from you when you're getting towards the last bit of soup. He wanted to impress on me how my table manners would be the sole factor in how people thought of me. No matter how many orphanages I built and ran, no matter how many homeless people I fed, or illiterates I taught to read, if I picked up my peas with the top side of my fork, I'd always be seen as a little kid in an adult's body.

Like English rules, I find something odd about my attitude towards manners: If I see someone breaking a rule I know about, I think "What an oaf! Don't they know?!" But when I hear a rule that's new to me, I think "What?! You've got to be kidding! That's a rule?! Who came up with that, and on whose authority?  That's so....so....so arbitrary!"

My favourite case-in-point is proper spaghetti-eating procedure. Do you use use a spoon or not? Here are some resources that say you don't use a spoon:

• Reuters
• Anna Maria Volpi - A Passion For Cooking
• eHow
• Dr. Dave and Dr. Dee

And here are some that say you do:

• Yahoo Answers
• My dad.
• That old Italian man I saw eating spaghetti in an Italian restaurant in Sault Ste. Marie.

And this Life in Italy forum has references to both.

So, who's right? Or, like the English language, is "right" a moving target?  Who cares?  Mostly the people who know the rules.  I think that most people who don't know the rules, or even that the rules exist, tend not to care very much....until they know the rules.  Then some care.

If you feel compelled to leave a comment to set me straight on something in this post, feel free, but please state on who's or what authority you speak, and where they got their authority.

I Need To Cool Off

You know what grinds my gears? Apartments in this city (Ottawa) advertise "All inclusive". Then they say "$x/month for Air Conditioning". Well, then it's not "all inclusive" is it?

Charging extra for Air Conditioning is such a sham. What's next? Charging for using the stove?

I understand that air conditioners use a lot of power, but they're assuming that you're going to be using it a lot. How do they know how much you're going to use? They charge a flat rate.

This summer has been unseasonably cold. If the first half of this month continues, it will be the coldest July on record. Last week I heard, the average temperature was between 17 and 18 degrees. So the people who have air conditioning units probably aren't using them very much at all this summer. Yet, they're paying for them the same as though it was going up to 35 degrees everyday.

Consider this scenario: I live in an apartment with "all-inclusive" rent and being charged extra for my air conditioner. My next door neighbour moved in at the same time as me, so he pays the same rent. He also has an air conditioner, and he pays the same flat rate for it.

I don't have a television set. I have a laptop computer. I'm a vegetarian so I don't do a lot of cooking. I spend most of my day at work, and leave all my lights off at home. I spend the weekends out with friends. I enjoy the heat of summer, and set my air conditioner to keep the apartment at 25 degrees.

My neighbour has a plasma TV, which uses a lot of power. He has several computers he uses for gaming - a high power consuming activity, relatively speaking. He works from home, so he runs his lights, computer, etc. all the time. He loves foods of all kinds and cooks almost everyday. He enjoys his cool air, and he sets his air conditioner at 18 degrees. His social life exists in cyberspace, so he doesn't go out much. He's at home a lot.

Who uses more power? My neighbour. By a long shot. But we both pay the same amount.

Let's consider a second scenario. This scenario is almost exactly like the first, except my neighbour enjoys the heat and I don't. He doesn't even have an air conditioner. I do. I keep mine at 25 degrees. I run mine only at night.

Who uses more power overall? I'm not 100% certain, but I still think my neighbour does. Who's paying more? Me. How is that fair?! How is that right?!

Most places seem to charge a monthly fee of $10 for the air conditioner. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that that's what it costs to run one on average: $10 per month.

When I lived in an all-inclusive apartment in Sault Ste. Marie, I got a notice saying that the management would only be paying $40 per month for electricity. Any electricity beyond that would have to be covered by the tenant.

I asked my landlord how close I was to the $40. He said "pffft! You're nowhere near that! You're at, like, $12 per month."

So, assuming a $10 per month cost of running an air conditioner, if I had installed one, my power usage would have have been $22 per month. About half of my monthly allotment. If they had that air conditioner fee, then I would have been paying an extra $10, with an unused portion of my electricity bill of $28 per month. What a rip!

Of course, my whole rant depends on my assumption that apartment buildings are charging for air conditioning what it actually costs, and not just charging an extra fee that barely covers the cost of air conditioning.

Can anybody here tell me how much it actually costs to cool a one bedroom apartment in the Ottawa area?

Move It On Over

I hate apartment hunting. Amazingly, I've rarely had to do it, even though I've lived in a bunch of different places.

When I moved from Halifax to Sault Ste. Marie, I got a list of places that rented rooms to students. I called through the list until I found a guy who had worked in the same hospital as my mother several years ago. He knew, and remembered her. I decided to live with him. In retrospect it wasn't a good place to live, but at the time it seemed like the obvious choice.

The following year I moved to Toronto where my aunt and Uncle lived. They offered to give me room and board for roughly the cost of having me there. I lived with them for a year. It was an obvious choice.

When it came time to move back the Sault Ste. Marie the following year I met a friend there who rented a room from someone. My friend was moving out. His landlord needed to find a new tenant. I needed a room. It was perfect. It was the obvious choice.

After three years there, the landlord needed my room back, so he told me I had a couple of months to find a new place. That night I met with a friend at a local Wendy's. When she asked how things were going, I told her I was going to be moving soon. I'd start looking for a place next week. She mentioned she and her husband had a couple of spare rooms in their house they were thinking of renting out. She talked to her husband, and they made me an offer I couldn't refuse. It was an obvious choice.

After about a year living there I decided it was time to move on. I was about to get a job with the provincial government, and I wanted to live alone. I mentioned this to some friends. One told me that she and her roommate were going away for the summer and they wanted someone to sublet their place. It was in the building I have always wanted to live in. It had a good location, nice apartments, solid walls for quiet living. I couldn't afford to live there alone, but they only asked for a little more than half the rent. It was an obvious choice.

(Incidentally, that was the building Craig and I would eventually move into. Craig and I lived in the unit one floor above the apartment I was subletting.)

At the end of the summer I needed a new place. I did the traditional apartment search and ended up in a bad building. It was next door to the apartment in which I was subletting. At least it had a good location. I had a job with the provincial government, so I could afford a one bedroom apartment. The choice wasn't obvious, and it turned out to be not good.

After a couple of years there, my contract with the government ended, and I couldn't afford to keep the apartment myself for too much longer. At the same time Craig's current roommates were moving out, so he needed a new place to stay. So we moved back into the building I was in before. I didn't even have to shop around. I just knew I wanted to live there. It was an obvious choice.

Then when Craig and I moved to Ottawa, I came down with three weeks to find a room for him, and one for me. I spent the first week just getting to know the city. When it came time to actually look for a place I got a list from Carleton University of places that rented rooms to students. I called a few places. I hate apartment hunting. As I was walking to the first place to look at, my phone rang. It was Pastor Jack. He wanted to offer Craig and I to live at his place. He gave us an offer we couldn't refuse. It was an obvious choice.

I've lived with the McQueens off and on for 5 years this fall. As regular, long time blog readers know, there were frustrations. But there were a lot of good times. I spent a lot of time looking forward to moving out on my own. Now that that time is being thrust upon me, I'm not looking forward to it. I've started apartment hunting. I hate apartment hunting.

If you've paid close attention to this post, you will have noticed that the apartments I get through regular apartment hunting have been the worst. The best situations come from happenstance - usually a chance meeting, or a phone call. Serendipity. A God event. I've looked at a few places. I've liked two of them. They're just a wee bit expensive for my taste. (But, it may be worth it.)

Then, the other day Pastor Jack says "I don't want to sell, and there's a small chance we might not have to. So, if you don't mind living with uncertainty, you're welcome to stay."

I don't really like uncertainty. I have been looking forward to having my own place. But something about this doesn't feel right. I'm wondering Where's my chance meeting? Where's my phone call? Where's my serendipity? Where's my God event? Is it really time to move out?

Dance Monkey! Dance!

Christmas is the time we wrack our brains pretending we all have the love-language of Gifts.

I have become rather non-materialistic over the last few years. I don't want more stuff. I have enough stuff. I have too much stuff! If there is anything I want I can probably afford to buy it myself. If I can't afford it, then neither can anyone in my family.

I suggested to my parents that maybe this year we could do something different. "Let's have a gift-free Christmas." They talked with my brother and sister. They agreed it was a good idea.

Then they decided we should do something different this year instead of gifts. We're going to share our gifts (or talents) with each other. My brother is going to do something with the guitar. I'm not sure what my sister will do, but my parents do have some suggestions for her.

My talents tend to be of a different kind. I'm a good programmer, but I wouldn't be able to come up with a cool program in a month's time.

Some people tell me they enjoy my (blog) writing. That's fine, but I don't see me writing a blog entry for my family. (I don't think any of them even read this blog.)

I play drums, but drums are more of a back-up instrument, and my drums are (staying) in Ottawa. There are no drums for me in Halifax.

I play guitar. Brother Jack is playing guitar for his talent. If I do that too, there's always going to be that comparison thing. He's a better guitarist than I am. Furthermore, I play acoustic guitar, and mine is staying in Ottawa. Jack has 2 electric guitars.

I'm good at getting people to switch over to Apple computers. But I've already demonstrated that to the family. They all have Macs now.

I'm the fastest ATM user I know. It's hard to demonstrate that in a talent show.

My mother suggested I do a sketch and frame it. But, really, I just doodle on styrofoam and call it "art". I do find it funny that my mom suggested that. Growing up, my brother was the good artist. Not me. When I first showed them my coffee cup art, they said "What? We thought Jack was the artist in the family!"

What do you suggest?

The Dangers of Bisphenol-A (Part 2)

A while ago I wrote an article on BPA in dental sealants and composite fillings. Just a few days ago I saw a relevant article and decided to feature it on today's article.

Apparently, most tests on BPA have been done on rats, or something, but not on people. The EFSA has found that "adults and infants rapidly metabolize BPA and eliminate the substance."

When I wrote part 1 of this series I had one unanswered question. I found the question to be very hard to research. I saw my dentist yesterday, and finally got my answer.

My question was "Can dental sealants be removed?" The answer was "yes, but you might do more damage that way." She said in order to remove them she'd probably have to drill them out. The drill would likely drill away at the underlying enamel. That would make the tooth more susceptible to cavities.

My next question was "Since acid was required to etch the enamel to allow the sealant to bond to the tooth, when the sealant eventually comes out, won't my tooth have these etchings which will make it more susceptible to cavities?"

She said "Oh no, it's such a little bit of acid. When your saliva hits the etching, the minerals are replenished and the etchings disappear. Your tooth will be smooth again."

In conclusion, according to one study, BPA might not be as bad as we thought, and dental sealants can be taken out, but there's a risk of damaging enamel. If you don't want them, unless you have a real immediate need to have them removed, it is probably best to wait until they fall out on their own. This can take 5 to 10 years, or even longer. My dentist told me that they might be there for life.

---

UPDATE: According to these articles BPA may be harmful to human health. People with the highest levels of BPA in their urine were more likely to have heart disease or type 2 diabetes than those with the lowest levels.

Computer Network, No Strings Attached (Part 1)

Last week I arrived home to find out the McQueens were thinking of switching internet service providers. Before they did, they wanted to check with me for technical consultation.

Right now, we're renting a wireless router from our current ISP. In order to save $5/month with the new ISP we're not getting a wireless router from them. Instead we'll get their basic modem, and we'll buy our own wireless router. After about a year, the wireless router will have paid for itself.

I have never bought a wireless router before. I know the one the McKays have at home stinks. It crashes whenever you try to watch a YouTube video. I emailed my friends who might have recommendations.

This is a summary of what I was told:

1. Don't get the Apple Airport Extreme.
2. Get the Apple Airport Extreme.
3. The Linksys WRTG45 (what Criag and I had in the Sault) is good. I liked this one. It did everything I wanted it to without a fuss. I find it hard to find right now.
   
4. The Linksys WRTG54 sucks.
5. The Linksys WRTG54 is good.
6. The Linksys WRTG54 is a "bug" in it that won't work with Macs.
   
7. The hardware in the Linksys WRTG54 has been changed so much that the model name doesn't tell you anything.
8. D-Link sucks.
9. D-Link sucks.
10. Stay away from D-Link.
11. The D-Link DIR-625 works fine.
12. No matter what kind you look at you will see positive and negative reviews.
13. Oh, they're all good.
14. Netgear is the only good kind.
15. Netgear is good, but hard to find in stores.

I also ended up at Staples, Business Depot, and the computer guy there told me these falsehoods:

• "802.11n routers will only work with 802.11n network cards, so if you have 802.11g network cards, they won't work." - Everything I've seen suggests the 802.11n is backwards compatible meaning 802.11g wifi cards will still work.
  
• "If you get the Airport Extreme, it will only work with Macs." - It says right on the box of the Airport Extreme "Mac + PC."
• "Any external hard drive will do," when asked if he had any routers with USB ports for sharing hard drives as well as printers. - The only one I've seen that can actually do this is the Airport Extreme.

So, I won't be buying from Staples.

If you have any recommendations, please, leave a comment, or email me.

Good Job

Today I have a question for all of this blog's readers, or anyone who happens to stumble across this post.

What would you say makes a job a good job, or a bad job? I'm not talking about performance, like "Good job out there, son!" I'm talking about jobs as in career-type things.

What was your best job? Why?

What was your worst job? Why?

Leave a comment (anonymous or otherwise), email me, or talk to me in person. I'm just interested in how people see a job as being a good job or a bad job.

Who Reads This Drivle?

For about a year now I've been tracking this blog's hits with a hit counter. It tells me all sorts of things, like the IP addresses of each hit, their domain names, their browser, operating system, how they got to the site, etc. Using the IP address the system can guesstimate where in the world the visitor is from. (Relax. If I know you read my blog, it's because you've told me, or left a comment. If you read my blog with a reader, or on Facebook then I have no idea you read it, unless you tell me.)

I have a few readers that I know about who read this blog occasionally, or regularely. But every now and again I get a whole bunch of random hits from all over the world. It seems that the random hit number is inversly proportional to the usefullness of the most recent post.

If I wrote that I found the cure for cancer, and wrote in detail what that cure is, I'd be lucky if my usual readers would read it. But if I wrote a post with the following exact content: "lalalalalalalalala" my hits would go through the roof.

What's the deal with that?

The New Rules Are The Bomb!

You can now use words like "bomb" at the airport. You'll get a warning instead of being arrested.

But I think it has to be in certain context. "That concert last night was the bomb!" or "That movie really bombed." will get you a warning. "I have a bomb and I'm gonna blow everyone to kingdom-come!" will get you arrested. In the old days, all three would have gotten you arrested.

(To my international readers, this applies to Canada. It's probably not the same elsewhere.)

These rules still beg the question "How many acts of terrorism have been prevented by these laws?" I figure if someone is intent on getting a bomb on a plane, they're probably not going to mention it, regardless of the rules. You wouldn't want anyone to know your intentions.

On the other hand, if you were the unwilling participant you might want to be arrested. But, even without the law, you could mention it, get arrested (for having the bomb, not mentioning it).

But, on the plus side, I'm no longer afraid of seeing my friend, Jack, on a plane and yelling "Hi!" to him.

Is It Getting Warm In Here, Or Is It Just The Climatologists?

One thing that bothers me is when experts in a field disagree on something. It seems there's no real way for a layman like me to know the truth. Take global warming, for example. The experts can't seem to agree on it.

I think most scientists agree that the climate is warming. The question is one of cause. Are humans to blame, or is the warming due to natural changes and our contribution is merely a drop in the bucket?

A recent report came out that was put together by many scientists saying that we are indeed the cause. But there's still scientists saying we're not. This report was, apparently, pretty convincing. But then they found that global warming isn't localized to Earth. Apparently Mars is getting warmer. This implies it might not be our fault.

So, whom do I believe?

It seems to me that a lot of people, who are not climatologists, are pretty convinced one way or the other. I'm sure if I asked them who I should believe, they would tell me to believe the scientists who tell them what they already believe. If I ask someone who thinks we're causing the global warming, they'll tell me to listen to the scientists who say that it's our fault. If I ask someone who thinks we're not the main cause, then they'll tell me to listen to the scientists who say we're not.

And none of these people will be climatologists. Now, I know who most of my blog readers are, and I don't know of any climatologists reading my blog. If you're a climatologist, if you reply to me telling me what side I should believe, then you'll also have to tell me why I should believe you instead of the climatologists saying the opposite.

Since I claim ignorance, the confirmation bias can't really be applied to me here. One suggestion would be that I read the studies and decide for myself. But that seems like a waste of time. I'm not a climatologist, nor do I wish to go to school for the length of time it would take to become one. So I'll end up wasting my time reading stuff that I don't understand. And they could be pulling the wool over my eyes and I'd have no idea. Same thing if they were practicing bad science, I probably wouldn't be able to tell. In the end I'd still believe what I wanted to believe, or being just as confused as I am now.

(The confirmation bias is when you find evidence to support a belief of yours, and ignore evidence contrary to your belief.)

So, whom do I believe? Since I can't make an educated decision it seems my choice of whom to believe would be arbitrary, doesn't it?

Andrew The Evangelist

You know what's odd? I have had less success in getting people to switch browsers than switching computer systems.

I have convinced a number of people to get a Mac as their next computer. In the summer of 2004 the McKay family was a PC - Linux family. Today we're a Mac family. My brother and sister each have a Mac laptop. I'm on my second Mac laptop. My dad just got a 24" iMac for Christmas.

When I arrived in Ottawa the McQueens were PC people too. Then my brother, Jack, and I convinced Jane to get a Mac laptop for when she went to university. She fell in love with it. As did her brother, Bruce, and the rest of the family. When it's time for their next family computer, or when Bruce goes off to school they'll be joining the Mac club.

One time I was in CompuSmart and started selling a Mac to a poor innocent customer that happened to walk in and look at the Mac display while I was standing there with too much time on my hands. I don't know if she ever did get a Mac.

A couple at work read some of the Vista license restrictions and have decided their next computer will be a Mac.

A previous co-op student at work said she'd like her next computer to be a Mac.

And, yes, I'm forever bringing my laptop to people and demonstrating the neat things it can do.

Granted, I haven't been the sole reason any of these people switched. But I have certainly been part.

But to my knowledge I have only gotten the McQueens, and one other person to switch browsers.

Something seems off-kilter about that. Switching browsers is really really really easy. And free. If you decide "Nah, I'd rather risk getting spyware that will download childporn to my computer, then distribute it without me knowing, having a lesser web experience with a zero percent chance of awesomeness and use Internet Explorer than use FireFox or Opera" then you can always switch back. And all it cost you was a few minutes of your time.

But when you switch systems, from PC to Mac, it's gonna cost you. Depending on the Mac you get, anywhere between $700 to $3000. And if you decide you'd prefer a PC you can switch back, but now you have an expensive paper-weight, and you're out a ton of money. Not to mention the learning curve to learn a new system. (Yes, Mac is infamously easier, but a change is a change, and there is a learning curve.)

Yet I've managed to be instrumental in having people take the bigger risk in switching systems than switching browsers.

And as for credentials? If I tell you "you should trade in your Ford for a Saturn" that's just my personal opinion. I'm not a car person. I just have my personal experience to draw on.

When I say "You should get a Mac instead of PC for your next computer." I have more credence. After all, I do have two Computer Engineering diplomas and a B.Sc. in Computer Science. So this is in my field. So I have the weight of lots of education, work experience, and my own personal experience.

When I say "You should use FireFox or Opera instead of Internet Explorer." I have everything I have for computer switching....to the power of ten. While I am a computer professional I am specifically a web programmer. I deal with browsers all the time at work, and at home. (I am a web programmer in my "spare time" too.) When someone in my position recommends you switch browsers that should carry lots of weight. It isn't just my personal opinion. It is my professional opinion and recommendation.

Yet, for the most part, it seems to fall on deaf ears.

Well, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to call Steve Jobs and see if he'll put me on payroll.

Gee....Ya Think?

And here I was worried that I'd be running out of "Today's Article" articles then I saw this article in Psychology Today.

Executive Summary:
Women send mixed messages to men.

Of course, I think the whole thing about reading women has a few problems. For one thing, when it comes to signals it is 100% unimportant what signals are sent (from either sex). The only important thing about signals is what is being received, which may not be (and in many cases is not at all) what is being sent.

For example, I have heard of the following signal as a way to tell if a girl likes you from two completely separate and distinct sources (except that they're both women):
You walk into a room, and if a girl likes you she'll start whispering with her girlfriend(s), occasionally looking at you, and the only thing you may hear is giggling.

Signal being sent from girl to guy: "I like you, that's why I'm talking about you, and giggling, with my girlfriends. This should get your attention."

What a guy (remember ladies, guys are usually pretty logical) thinks when he sees this: "I walk in and she starts whispering, followed by laughter. They keep looking at me. It must be about me. They're whispering, therefor I must not be supposed to hear what they're saying. If they're trying to prevent me from hearing what they're saying then it's probably not good. If it's probably not good then it's probably bad. Oh great, and now they're giggling. This must mean they're making fun of me."

If the guy has any insecurities about anything, he assumes they're probably making fun of that. So in the effort to send out "notice me" signals, the girls have probably made the man feel pretty small, annoyed, and the opposite of what the intended effect is.

This is the first thing that will drive a guy away. The second part of this scenario is that it is very difficult for a guy to try to pick up a girl when she's with friends. Especially after the whole lot of them were busy making fun of him a minute ago.

Apparently, this signal is spread across many cultures and many times, as are many signals women send to men. And women all seem to know all these signals. It's like they all got together and drew up a body-language dictionary of signals to send men to show interest. But what I find funny is that nobody has bothered to tell men what these signals are. So guys are left to their own devices when it comes to decoding signals women send. Ladies, this is generally how a man interprets signals: "If I were to do that, what would it mean? Would I mean to be showing romantic interest? Or just friendship? Or general disgust?"

So, this was just one of those studies that shows something that a lot of people already know, like when a study comes out that says "eating vegetables is good for you, and eating lead-based paint is bad for you."

I Think We Need To Talk

Have you ever wondered if the conversations you have with other people are abnormal? I have. I know what a normal conversation with me is like, but I don't know how it compares to "normal" conversations between other people. I often wonder what a "normal" conversation sounds like, and if there is, indeed, a normal conversation.

I understand that there are different levels of conversations. The first level is cliches, things like "It's been really cold, lately, eh?" Mostly about the weather, or some inanimate shared thing in the immediate vicinity. Strangers talk at this level.

The second level is that of facts. This is slightly more deep than cliches. The facts aren't necessarily about anything immediate, or even necessarily shared. But it doesn't get very personal. Business meetings would be at this level of conversation.

The third level involves talking about feelings. This gets personal. This is where friends can talk. They don't always talk at this level, but it wouldn't be odd or awkward if it did. It might seem odd if a stranger started talking about their feelings to you.

The fourth level involves "we" statements. The definition of this level seems to be qualitatively different than the other levels.

I have also noted there are two main types of conversationalists. There are Question-Askers and Story-Tellers. Pastor Jack is a Question-Asker. If you talk with him he'll generally ask you lots of questions. I, on the other hand, am a story teller. Question-Askers always seem more interesting, or at least more enjoyable to be with because they get you talking about your favorite subject: You.

Story-Tellers tell you stories instead. The problem with this is that it tends to be less back-and-forth talk, and less personal, at least less personal for you. You can only get to know someone so well if all they do is tell stories. And if the person is not a good story teller then they are boring, and you tend to not want to talk to them.

Unfortunately for Story-Tellers (and those around them), most people are not great story tellers, so Story-Tellers tend to be somewhat boring.

Now, the aforementioned levels of conversation say nothing about flow or algorithm. I find some conversations follow this algorithm:

1. Person 1: Story.


2. Person 2: Story.


3. Repeat ad infinitum.

Another algorithm is:

1. Person 1: Question.


2. Person 2: Story. Question.


3. Person 1: Story. Question.


4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 ad infinitum.

Anyway, I'd be interested in figuring out a conversation algorithm or algorithms. The hard part of this is listening to enough conversations that don't include me. In some instances this is pretty easy. The hard part for me is when the conversation that I am witnessing doesn't concern me, it usually bores me. Then I very quickly drift into my own world.

I would be very interested in seeing the three most common conversation algorithms, and their ratings as the most interesting to each participant, and what the level of conversation was, and possibly the topic.

Of course, it might not be the topic or algorithm that makes a conversation interesting or boring. I'd be interested in knowing all factors, and their respective weights, in the I.F. (interesting factor) of a conversation. It could be expressed as an equation.

Let A, B, C, and D be I.F.s.
then
I.F. = wA + xB + yC + zC
where w, x, y, and z are importance coefficients such that 0 < {w, x, y, z} <= 1

Of course, it may be more complicated than that. Who knows. Do you know? If you do, then please comment.

Maybe I should have gone into social science instead of computer science. Except for the dealing-with-people part, and the writing of reports part, and applying for grants part....Yeah, I think I went into the right field.

The Best Time To Philosophize

It seems I do my best philosophizing in bed. While in bed I recently figured out how people can still be accountable to God for their sin even if they don't have free will.

I've also come to the realization that the idea of election (in a Christian sense) can be rather scary. Someone recently said to me, towards the end of a conversation “The Elect are elect, period.” to which I replied something like "Yeah, and that in it's self can be rather scary." To which, he replied in his blog "Surely not!"

Unfortunately, I couldn't remember how I came to my conclusion. It seems initially comforting, if you're a believer, that once in Christ, always in Christ. "Phew! I'm in now, and

'No power of hell, no scheme of man, Can ever pluck me from His hand, 'Till He returns or calls me home.'"

A little while later I woke up at about 3:00am and remembered how I came to my scary conclusion, then went back to sleep. By the time I got in front of a computer again I couldn't figure it out.

But, hopefully I'll remember again at a more convenient time, at which time I'll give my response here, on this blog.

Of course, it could be that when I'm lying in bed I'm too tired to think clearly, and I can't see my obvious fallacies that I readily see when I'm awake.

Selective Memory

Sometimes I can have a real head for details; remembering them, that is. I have oft amazed friends with my ability to remember some minute details of something that happened years ago. (Although, this seems to have slowed down the last few years.) This only seems to apply to unimportant facts. Remembering things for school can still be quite a task.

There are a plethora of examples for me to choose from, but you get the point. I remember things, and people have sometimes been amazed at my memory.

---

One time just before I left Sault Ste. Marie for a semester, a pop machine at Algoma University ate my money. It was late Friday afternoon. Everything was closed at the time, and the next time anything would be opened would be Monday. But by Monday I would be in a different city for four months. I was never going to reclaim my money. Oh well. It was only $1.75.

Then, four months later when I returned to the Sault I went to a pop machine at Algoma, put my money in, hit the water button and got two bottles of water. This happened quite often with one of the machines. I would always return one bottle to the cafeteria. But this time I kept it.

I recounted the story to a friend later. I said "I only paid for one and the machine game me two. But just before I left last semester that other machine ate my money. I figure we're even now. Over the last four months I paid for two drinks, and I got two drinks. They owe me this second drink."

My friend made some comment implying I was cheap and/or petty for remembering such a small thing.

What I want to know is when I remember the birthday of some guy I just met once five years ago I have a great memory. But when I remember that a pop machine ate my money four months ago, I'm a cheap-skate?