Prev: "Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?
Next: (FLASH Question) New HVL-F42AM or used 5600HS (=HVL-F56AM)??
From: Chris H on 13 Nov 2009 13:25
In message <Ba-dnXxPaOA3AmDXnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil
Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> writes
>"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>> 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.
>The two systems co-exist perfectly well in virtually all everyday
>applications. If you're expecting to see American mileage signs on the
>highways change to kilometers, neither you nor your great-grandchildren will
>see that happen in your entire lifetimes. And we'll still be buying our milk
>in quarts and our meat by the pound. There is simply no reason to change.
I agree... but they are local things. Meat that is imported will be
imported in Kilograms, Exports will also have to be in Metric units.
But on the street you can convert to anything you like.
>The metric system seems to have started because Europeans squabbled over
>measurements, as Europeans always do over one thing or another.
And the Americans developed a completely new set on their own and
continue to squabble as Americans always do.....
>mile was different from the Italian mile, and neither would accept the
>standard of the other.
And American sizes are different again
> English barrels came in different sizes for different
>liquids, confusing units of measure based on the barrel. And so on.
Yes so standards were developed. Then International standards used
Globally except in the USA.
>problems neither had then nor have now nothing to do with us here.
Only whilst the US stays within it's own boarders and does not trade
with anyone else.
The US will internally have a system that is different to the rest of
the world. Except of course the multi nationals who will use Metric both
around the world and inside the US.
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
From: J�rgen Exner on 13 Nov 2009 13:40
"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>"R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> 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 13 Nov 2009 13:45
Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
>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.
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 13 Nov 2009 19:13
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:25:21 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org>
>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 13 Nov 2009 21:32
"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>> 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
> 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