From: J�rgen Exner on
"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote:
>"R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton(a)> wrote in message
>> "The metric/imperial mix-up
>> The metric/imperial mix-up that destroyed the craft
>I understand, and I repeat the question: What does that have to do with
>English vs. metric? (In terms of one being preferable to the other.)
>The problem was that they mixed up two different measurement systems, not
>that one of them was better than the other. So you can say that it was just
>as much the fault of using the metric system as of anything else.

So, are you suggesting that in order to avoid future incidents like this
the world should standardizes on the measurement system that is used by
a small minority?

Why doesn't that surprise me?

From: J�rgen Exner on
Chris H <chris(a)> wrote:
>In message <W8-dnQ16jqYTl2fXnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d(a)>, Neil
>Harrington <secret(a)> 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.

Naa, no chance. They are way to convinced about their own unfailable
superiority and not using ISO is a matter of national security and
pride. Anyting _inter_national is by definition suspicious, evil, and to
be fought at all cost because it will destroy the American Way of Life.
Miles and pounds and gallons are a matter of national identity and no
rational argument can fight irrational superstition.

From: tony cooper on
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:25:21 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)>

>Only whilst the US stays within it's own boarders and does not trade
>with anyone else.

We repel boarders ever since those water-boarding incidents.

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> news:brKdnb9WGetYVGHXnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d(a)
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
>> news:gMudneX3UeLFH2HXnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d(a)
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:rP6dnVTiDe6ZBGbXnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d(a)
>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:qsydnQ67t4093GbXnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d(a)
>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:6b6dnQhWaqiOimbXnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d(a)
>>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:65udnU_MUZedlmbXnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d(a)
>>>>>>> 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.
It's nice to be young enough to be so optimistic about the future, and your
faith in American business is as good as was my dad's who invested in the
stock market all of his life. But I retired in 1996, and my faith in
American business has not served me well at all. My retirement has been
nothing short of miserable.....(financially speaking) I would have been
better off putting my entire life's savings into gold back in 1996 when I
retired at the age of 61. I was told for most of my life that saving 10% of
everything I earned would make for a good retirement. If I were going to do
it all over again based on what I know today, I would have saved twice
that.....20% minimum. This is a much more reasonable number, considering
that you work about 40 years, and usually live at least 10 after you retire.
Today, people are living closer to 20 years after they retire. With that
kind of life expectancy, 10% just doesn't cut it. Especially with the
government throwing our money at everything they see......Including the

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> news:Y-qdnVjXHOA4V2HXnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d(a)
>> What makes me wonder is why we don't have 13 months of exactly 4 weeks
>> each?
> Actually, the twelve-month calendar Julius Caesar gave us was a huge
> improvement on the ten-month Roman calendar on which it was based, and
> served pretty well for many centuries. I think it was Pope Gregory who
> made the last adjustments including the leap year arrangement.
>> Any bridge player can tell you that 13 times 4 is 52. This would be a
>> much better system than the stupid 12 months in a year system we have
>> now. We would still need a leap year day once every 4 years, but
>> otherwise, all months would be the same.
> A leap year every 4 years wouldn't quite do it, though. Thirteen four-week
> months only gives you 364 days, which is about 1.24 days short of an
> actual year.
Well, there are 4 X 13 weeks (52) in a year right now, so there wouldn't be
any difference between the correction we have right now and the one we would
have with a 13 month year. We would still need a leap year day (February
29th) once every four years just as we have now. The only difference is the
number of days per month wouldn't jump up and down from month to month as it
does now......We wouldn't have to memorize the, "30 days hath September,
April, June, and November....." poem that every schoolchild does now. All
months would have exactly 28 days 3 years out of every 4. So, if the first
of the month is on a Saturday this month, then you would know that the first
of every month will also be on a Saturday for the rest of the year, and this
would go on until the next leap year's February......This would be very
convenient when trying to plan your future appointments.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Prev: 7D full review at dpreview
Next: Photos about Botany