When Did Detroit Start Building Cars Like Japanese dSLRs????
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: 7D full review at dpreview
Next: Photos about Botany
From: J. Clarke on 13 Nov 2009 09:18 Walter Banks wrote: > Bill Graham wrote: > >>> The month was originally based upon the lunar cycle which is >>> about 29.5 days. >> >> Ah! - That explains it.....12 X 29.5 is 354 which is fairly close to >> a year....But, since nobody really cares about the moon anymore, > > Except close to half the world that still uses calendars based > on the lunar cycle. The whole middle east moslem and jews. Not to mention every sailor on the planet. Time and tide wait for no man.
From: R. Mark Clayton on 13 Nov 2009 10:40 "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message news:muudnU7_3uQPqWbXnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:s72dnR0m5on4k2bXnZ2dnUVZ8sGdnZ2d(a)bt.com... SNIP >>> And go metric, you mean? There'd be no point to it. Metric is silly for >>> most ordinary purposes, and it would cost billions to change everything. >> >> Well what about the cost of not changing it? >> >> Item 1 Mars Climate Orbiter crashes and burns* >> $327,600,000.00c >> >> So that's about one dollar per citizen - bad start! > > What has that to do with English vs. metric? > Er because they mixed up the metric and imperial (well US) units and it dodn't decelerate enough resulting in burn up... did you follow the link given? http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter%23The_metric.2Fimperial_mix-up&usg=AFQjCNHBbstCpB4S2gxZe2bJ9jJJGEClxw&ei=WH39SrDYMoWNjAeqmKWUCw&sa=X&oi=section_link&resnum=2&ct=legacy&ved=0CAwQygQ "The metric/imperial mix-up The metric/imperial mix-up that destroyed the craft was caused by a software error back on Earth. The thrusters on the spacecraft, which were intended to control its rate of rotation, were controlled by a computer that underestimated the effect of the thrusters by a factor of 4.45. This is the ratio between a pound force - the standard unit of force in the imperial system - and a newton, the standard unit in the metric system. The software was working in pounds force, while the spacecraft expected figures in newtons; 1 pound force equals approximately 4.45 newtons. The software had been adapted from use on the earlier Mars Climate Orbiter, and was not adequately tested before launch. The navigation data provided by this software was also not cross-checked while in flight. The Mars Climate Orbiter thus drifted off course during its voyage and entered a much lower orbit than planned, and was destroyed by atmospheric friction. "
From: Chris H on 13 Nov 2009 10:55 In message <-LWdnXfW8qDH8WrXnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> writes >This has exacly what to do with photography and why would anybody with >a new 50000 car be changing and disposing of oil. What bs > >I'll tell you why. I bought a new Hyundai around 20 years ago. Before I >went on a 1200 mile trip with it, I had the local Chrysler dealer (who >serviced them then) change the transmission oil. They forgot to refill >the oil in the manual transmission, and I drove the car 600 miles the >next day on a "dry" transmission. If failed the next morning when I >backed it out of my friends driveway. If you want it done right, you >have to do it yourself, (or, at least supervise it yourself) especially >when you are dealing with American, (big three) auto mechanics. So you are saying you can't trust American car dealers? -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris H on 13 Nov 2009 11:04 In message <W8-dnQ16jqYTl2fXnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> writes >> Even though the Yanks left the Empire they still won't join the rest of >> the world. > >And go metric, you mean? There'd be no point to it. You may have no choice... In many places I see Global standards that are used the whole world over except in the USA. Eventually the US is going to have to fit in with the rest of the world. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Neil Harrington on 13 Nov 2009 12:26
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:brKdnb9WGetYVGHXnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "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. The problem with gold is that it's sterile. It doesn't produce anything or earn any interest. Yes, its price is up now and may go higher still, or it may fall, and you can't really know which. Buy gold now and you could be buying at the peak. The question is, How much of the rise in gold (in dollars) is due to the dollar's weakness, as opposed to real increase in the value of gold? Increased attractiveness of gold is sure to mean it will be overbought sooner or later, if it isn't already. Long term, stocks have always outperformed gold, bonds, real estate or anything else I know of. There are always ups and downs in the market, and by 2007 the stock market already looked like it was due for a correction, simply because sooner or later there always is one and the market had been going up for a long time. For that reason I started taking my mutual fund distributions in cash instead of automatically reinvesting as I usually did. So when the market crash started I was up to about 30% cash, exceptionally high for me. Of course at that time money market funds were still paying pretty well, so going to cash still continued to make me a little money. Now they're paying practically nothing -- my money market fund now is down to about 1/8 of a percent and probably hasn't stopped falling. But I have only a few thousand in that now, have put some money in high-income funds and they're still yielding 5% or so on average, along with a nice increase in share price. Fidelity Strategic Income Fund for example as of yesterday's close had a total year-to-date gain of 29.67%. That won't go on forever (for this kind of fund) but it's nice while it lasts. I never expected anything remotely like the plunge in the market between October 2007 (when the Dow briefly went over 14,000) and the bottom in March of this year (when it fell to about 6,500). I'd been through the crash of '87 and thought that was a once-in-a-lifetime thing, but this is obviously much worse. What makes it worse still is our radical anti-capitalist president, along with a Congress that seems determined to spend us into the poorhouse permanently. But neither he nor they are going to be here forever, and with a return to fiscal sanity the stock market will still be the best place for your money in the long term. The terrible mess we've been through has cost us a lot of money, but it's been a buying opportunity too. |