When Did Detroit Start Building Cars Like Japanese dSLRs????
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: 7D full review at dpreview
Next: Photos about Botany
From: Neil Harrington on 12 Nov 2009 16:47 "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:rP6dnVTiDe6ZBGbXnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message > news:qsydnQ67t4093GbXnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:6b6dnQhWaqiOimbXnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message >>> news:65udnU_MUZedlmbXnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, he is. Most of the drooling dingbats who so eagerly jumped on the >>>> Obama Kool-Aid wagon are really out of sorts these days. And will >>>> become increasingly so as time goes by. Tsk tsk. >>> >>> >>> Unfortunately, financially, we will all be, "out of sorts" by the time >>> Obama is ushered out of office. The dollar will be out of sorts...... >> >> You can say that again. I think gold is up again today, which is really >> just another way of saying the dollar is down some more today. >> > Yes. At $1100 an ounce, gold is still a good buy right now.....It has to > double in the next 5 or 6 years......Do you hear that rumble coming from > the East coast late at night? That's the sound of Obama's printing presses > printing $20 bills......And every one he prints makes my savings shrink a > little in buying power. (and yours too) The lousy 7-1/2 per cent the stock > market yields can't even begin to keep up. Well, the stock market has done very well since hitting the bottom March 9, and I made back about half of what I lost the previous year or so (in dollars, at least). My equity funds are up 72% to 110% since 3/9, and 38% to 54% on the year (as of yesterday's close) -- and that ain't bad. But Obama seems determined to destroy the market one way or another, and if the Congress lets him I'm sure he will. Our only hope is that his agenda will be delayed long enough for us to get a better Congress in there.
From: Neil Harrington on 12 Nov 2009 17:02 "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4d4nf59cf4ccom1duvdklblnvrl137l6to(a)4ax.com... > "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>"J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:rbmmf5pai8fmukirgppni8rhk6h8k36rvq(a)4ax.com... >>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>>>Easier: 5 x 5280 / 12. Why go through all that other bullshit? >>> >>> Because 5280 is such a nice number in the hexadezimal system that >>> everyone will know it. NOT. >>> >>>>> According to your statement above this is actually the only way >>>>> because >>>>> according to you you would never need to know how many feet there are >>>>> in >>>>> a mile. Besides, how on earth can possibly remember those odd numbers >>>>> anyway? >>>> >>>>I don't think I know anyone who doesn't know there are 5280 feet in a >>>>mile, >>> >>> Well, you do now. >> >>Okay, I should have said "any American." It's pretty basic in this >>country. >> >>>>unless you're talking about nautical miles. Speaking of which, don't you >>>>use >>>>knots as a measure of airspeed? They aren't metric. >>> >>> You seem to be somewhat confused. Nautical miles and thus knots are part >>> of the ISO system (aka 'metric') although obviously they are not decimal >>> based. >> >>Neither nautical miles nor knots have anything to do with the metric >>system >>as far as I can see. > > They are admitted in the metric system as historical and still widely > used units. > >>The nautical mile is based on some angular distance, I >>think one minute, at the earth's surface. Nothing to do with the kilometer >>or any other multiple of the meter, and I think the nautical mile existed >>before the metric system came along anway. > > Of course. But they have been incorporated into the "Syst�me > International d'Unit�s". That still doesn't make them metric. It only means that some existing units of measurement are recognized and co-exist with metric -- which is what I've been saying. > >>>>Neither is time. If you really think metric is so great, why not do >>>>something about those pesky 60-second minutes, 60-minute hours and >>>>24-hour >>>>days? Wouldn't you rather have *everything* go by orders of ten? Wow, >>>>what >>>>a >>>>wonderful metricized world that would be! >>> >>> Again you are confused. The common time is part of ISO (aka 'metric') >>> although obviously not decimal (or hexadecimal for that matter). >> >>Right. Not decimal and therefore not part of the metric system of >>measurement. > > Then please explain _YOUR_ definition of 'metric'. Based on the meter, exactly as the term indicates. Units of length and volume are metric (or not) on that basis. Units of mass are metric when based on the mass of some metric volume of water under standard conditions. > > In normal use 'metric' refers to the 'Syst�me International d'Unit�s', > as defined in ISO 31 and its derivatives. The nautical mile (and thus > the knot) is recognized and admitted as a traditional unit in this > system. As is of course the second/minute/hour/day time measurement. > > Therefore I can only repeat: you are confused about the relation between > the metric system and the decimal system. Both are what they are. The fact that an international body "recognizes" and "admits" non-metric units of measurement because it would be irrational not to admit or recognize them, does not make those units metric by any reasonable definition. The nautical mile is not based on the meter and therefore is non-metric. Seconds, minutes, hours, etc. are obviously not metric and cannot possibly be metric. > >>The business of dividing time and other things, such as >>circles, by 6s and 60s goes back to the Babylonians and/or Sumerians, >>which >>is to say, several millennia before the metric system existed. > > Sure, no argument. But what does that have to do with the metric system? Absolutely nothing, which is the point. Our system of measuring time and angles has nothing whatever to do with the metric system. Again: the fact that an international body "recognizes" and "admits" non-metric units for purposes of working with metric calculations does not make the non-metric units metric.
From: Neil Harrington on 12 Nov 2009 17:05 "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:JJidnZWujtGqAWbXnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message > news:baednajj7tOd9mbXnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:rbmmf5pai8fmukirgppni8rhk6h8k36rvq(a)4ax.com... >>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>>>Easier: 5 x 5280 / 12. Why go through all that other bullshit? >>> >>> Because 5280 is such a nice number in the hexadezimal system that >>> everyone will know it. NOT. >>> >>>>> According to your statement above this is actually the only way >>>>> because >>>>> according to you you would never need to know how many feet there are >>>>> in >>>>> a mile. Besides, how on earth can possibly remember those odd numbers >>>>> anyway? >>>> >>>>I don't think I know anyone who doesn't know there are 5280 feet in a >>>>mile, >>> >>> Well, you do now. >> >> Okay, I should have said "any American." It's pretty basic in this >> country. >> >>> >>>>unless you're talking about nautical miles. Speaking of which, don't you >>>>use >>>>knots as a measure of airspeed? They aren't metric. >>> >>> You seem to be somewhat confused. Nautical miles and thus knots are part >>> of the ISO system (aka 'metric') although obviously they are not decimal >>> based. >> >> Neither nautical miles nor knots have anything to do with the metric >> system as far as I can see. The nautical mile is based on some angular >> distance, I think one minute, at the earth's surface. Nothing to do with >> the kilometer or any other multiple of the meter, and I think the >> nautical mile existed before the metric system came along anway. >> >>> >>>>Neither is time. If you really think metric is so great, why not do >>>>something about those pesky 60-second minutes, 60-minute hours and >>>>24-hour >>>>days? Wouldn't you rather have *everything* go by orders of ten? Wow, >>>>what a >>>>wonderful metricized world that would be! >>> >>> Again you are confused. The common time is part of ISO (aka 'metric') >>> although obviously not decimal (or hexadecimal for that matter). >> >> Right. Not decimal and therefore not part of the metric system of >> measurement. The business of dividing time and other things, such as >> circles, by 6s and 60s goes back to the Babylonians and/or Sumerians, >> which is to say, several millennia before the metric system existed. >> >>> >>>>> And can you tell me how many drops there are in a quart? >>>> >>>>Why would anyone care? >>> >>> Mabye because they want to know how long their bottle of eyedrops (size >>> 10 tablespoons just to pick a number) will last? >> >> The answer to that is "until the bottle is empty." I have never heard >> anyone raise that question about eye drops. The drop is a unit of liquid >> measure that I believe is universal even though it's not a definite >> volume, which I'm sure must vary slightly according to the surface >> tension, specific gravity and viscosity of the liequid being dispensed. >> >>> >>>>The point is, drops are still used as a unit of >>>>liquid measure and they are not metric. >>> >>> Well, and when I order a cup of coffee in a restaurant I do not expect >>> to be served exactly 1/4 quart of coffee. So cup is still used as unit >>> of liquid measure although the amount measured is not imperial, either. >> >> As a unit of liquid measure, the cup is what it is and does not have any >> particular relationship to the amount of coffee you're served in a cup. >> >> > I believe the whole metric system started with some fraction of the > Earth's circumference.....That is, the meter was defined as some distance > on the earth's surface....After that, the subdivision of the meter, and > its expansion, were based on factors of ten and ergo the metric system was > born. But the original meter was some arbitrary measurement based on the > Earth's surface...... Right. I don't remember exactly how they arrived at it, but the meter (on which everything metric is based) was itself based on some dimension of the earth.
From: Neil Harrington on 12 Nov 2009 17:07 "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:_dWdnfh2iujsCGbXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:to5mf5he88r5n6j2opdj9vpcjv9j9loek0(a)4ax.com... >> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>>"J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:2tlkf5dv03jmudhdl6jij705tkfoom6hj2(a)4ax.com... >>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>>>>And go metric, you mean? There'd be no point to it. Metric is silly for >>>>>most >>>>>ordinary purposes, >>>> >>>> Yeah, right. That's probably the reason why 200+ countries are using it >>>> where there are only 3 that don't. >>> >>>One of the three that doesn't is the world's only remaining superpower. >>>Who >>>cares what they're using in Lower Slobovia or West Bongo-Bongo? >> >> Careful, that is an argument that is backfiring on a big scale. 'The >> rest' is caring less and less about what that 'remaining superpower' is >> doing or not doing in its arrogance and are just moving forward, leaving >> that 'remaining superpower' to its own devices. > > Nonsense! The young people in the rest of the world will always be > mesmerized by the pop culture of the superpowers.....For some inexplicable > reason, they are attracted to our miserable teenage singers and guitar > players......Nothing we can come up with is too tasteless for the worlds > teenagers to moon over...... So it seems, yes.
From: Bill Graham on 12 Nov 2009 21:51
"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message news:gMudneX3UeLFH2HXnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:rP6dnVTiDe6ZBGbXnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message >> news:qsydnQ67t4093GbXnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>> news:6b6dnQhWaqiOimbXnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>> >>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message >>>> news:65udnU_MUZedlmbXnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> Yes, he is. Most of the drooling dingbats who so eagerly jumped on the >>>>> Obama Kool-Aid wagon are really out of sorts these days. And will >>>>> become increasingly so as time goes by. Tsk tsk. >>>> >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, financially, we will all be, "out of sorts" by the time >>>> Obama is ushered out of office. The dollar will be out of sorts...... >>> >>> You can say that again. I think gold is up again today, which is really >>> just another way of saying the dollar is down some more today. >>> >> Yes. At $1100 an ounce, gold is still a good buy right now.....It has to >> double in the next 5 or 6 years......Do you hear that rumble coming from >> the East coast late at night? That's the sound of Obama's printing >> presses printing $20 bills......And every one he prints makes my savings >> shrink a little in buying power. (and yours too) The lousy 7-1/2 per cent >> the stock market yields can't even begin to keep up. > > Well, the stock market has done very well since hitting the bottom March > 9, and I made back about half of what I lost the previous year or so (in > dollars, at least). My equity funds are up 72% to 110% since 3/9, and 38% > to 54% on the year (as of yesterday's close) -- and that ain't bad. But > Obama seems determined to destroy the market one way or another, and if > the Congress lets him I'm sure he will. Our only hope is that his agenda > will be delayed long enough for us to get a better Congress in there. > This is the short term view. (to me) I was worth .93 million in 1998, and was drawing 1/2 of 1 % out of the market every month, or about 6% a year......I assumed that my principal would not change, and I would leave over 1/2 million to my kids when I died. Today, I am only worth around 1/2 million, and I am drawing over 1 % per month out of my IRA, so I am looking at being broke in 5 to 8 years. With any luck, I will be dead by then, but I sure won't be leaving anything to my kids......I would have been better off trading all my stocks for gold back in 1998. I may still be better off doing the same thing today. |