From: Bill Graham on

"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.

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:NZOdnbLHTLd7GGHXnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "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.
>
>
What makes me wonder is why we don't have 13 months of exactly 4 weeks each?
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.

From: tony cooper on

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:55:32 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>What makes me wonder is why we don't have 13 months of exactly 4 weeks each?
>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.

Bridge evolved out of Whist, but Whist wasn't played until sometime
around the 1700s. The seven day week had already been in vogue by
then.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Bill Graham on

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:88jpf5pjobqgh78iij3fsad3dd40i7ra65(a)4ax.com...
>
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:55:32 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>What makes me wonder is why we don't have 13 months of exactly 4 weeks
>>each?
>>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.
>
> Bridge evolved out of Whist, but Whist wasn't played until sometime
> around the 1700s. The seven day week had already been in vogue by
> then.
>
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

I'm not complaining about the 7 day week. I am complaining about the 12
month year. 13 months of exactly 4 weeks each is a much better solution than
the 12 months of varying number of days each that we now have....And, the
whole world seems to be happy with the present system......You'd think that
some culture, somewhere, would have adopted a 13 month year by now. Unless
fear of the number 13 is a lot more universal than I thought......

From: David on


"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LuWdnZMvpetETmHXnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in
> message news:88jpf5pjobqgh78iij3fsad3dd40i7ra65(a)4ax.com...
>>
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:55:32 -0800, "Bill Graham"
>> <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>What makes me wonder is why we don't have 13 months of
>>>exactly 4 weeks each?
>>>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.
>>
>> Bridge evolved out of Whist, but Whist wasn't played
>> until sometime
>> around the 1700s. The seven day week had already been in
>> vogue by
>> then.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>
> I'm not complaining about the 7 day week. I am complaining
> about the 12 month year. 13 months of exactly 4 weeks each
> is a much better solution than the 12 months of varying
> number of days each that we now have....And, the whole
> world seems to be happy with the present system......You'd
> think that some culture, somewhere, would have adopted a
> 13 month year by now. Unless fear of the number 13 is a
> lot more universal than I thought.....

The month was originally based upon the lunar cycle which is
about 29.5 days.

David