When Did Detroit Start Building Cars Like Japanese dSLRs????
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: 7D full review at dpreview
Next: Photos about Botany
From: Bill Graham on 13 Nov 2009 22:17 "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5d7sf551q57pt73fl4mf1c4ibiclc45l18(a)4ax.com... > "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>No. The world should standardize on JUST ONE SYSTEM. It doesn't really >>matter which one, although anyone with half a brain would realize that the >>metric system is the best one. It would be as easy as teaching your >>grammar >>school students some other system for the first 4 or 5 years of their >>education.....How hard is that? > > In that country: impossible. People are so afraid, that on sightseeing > signs they would even scratch off the metric value whenever it is > mentioned in addition to miles or feet. > > jue It wouldn't be so bad if the sign makers used the words, "Km, Mls, or Ft" But unfortunately, the whole world seems to have a disease called, "Units-a-phobia" Nobody uses units on anything....When I drove my motorcycle into Canada for the first time, many years ago, I saw a sine that said, "Speed limit 100" I drove through the pouring rain about fifty miles as fast as I could before I came to a town and saw a sign in a school zone that said, "Speed limit 40" and suddenly realized that they were talking about Km per hour, and not Miles per hour.
From: J�rgen Exner on 13 Nov 2009 22:18 "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >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. Then if the unit "cup" doesn't have a relationship to a cup of beverage then what is the specific benefit of having that unit "cup" instead of using e.g 1/4 liter? jue
From: Bill Graham on 13 Nov 2009 22:28 "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:r48sf5hvnn2lu320s5prvsp7agi8aar9ff(a)4ax.com... > "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>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. > > Then if the unit "cup" doesn't have a relationship to a cup of beverage > then what is the specific benefit of having that unit "cup" instead of > using e.g 1/4 liter? > > jue None. It's just a slang term. Actually, when it comes to a cup of coffee, it's usually closer to 1/4 liter than a cup, which is 1/4 of a quart. You have to remember that the world is 99% housewives, and only 1% engineers.
From: Savageduck on 13 Nov 2009 23:54 On 2009-11-13 19:28:38 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said: > > "J�rgen Exner" <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:r48sf5hvnn2lu320s5prvsp7agi8aar9ff(a)4ax.com... >> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Then if the unit "cup" doesn't have a relationship to a cup of beverage >> then what is the specific benefit of having that unit "cup" instead of >> using e.g 1/4 liter? >> >> jue > > None. It's just a slang term. Actually, when it comes to a cup of > coffee, it's usually closer to 1/4 liter than a cup, which is 1/4 of a > quart. You have to remember that the world is 99% housewives, and only > 1% engineers. That would explain a pinch of salt. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Neil Harrington on 14 Nov 2009 01:05
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:Bo6dnSxGsJFFi2PXnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message > news:YvmdnSTtrLdFC2DXnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "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. >> > 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 Bill, you're almost certainly a lot younger than I am. I'm 80, less than two months shy of 81 in fact, and I semi-retired 30 years ago, fully retired 21 years ago. By the usual standards I know I should be investing a lot more conservatively than I am now, because of my age. > 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 moon. Government overspending is a huge part of the problem, that's true. Also the fact that as we live longer but in most cases still start drawing Social Security at somewhere between 62 and 65, there are fewer and fewer workers supporting each retiree through that system. That, along with all the extra giveaways our congresscritters have tacked onto Social Security over the years, sooner or later is going to bust the system. Obama already wants to cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare -- so he had dump more money into Medicaid, where his real constituents are. |