From: Ray Fischer on
Neil Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>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.

The stupidity of this rightard is breathtaking. Even as he writes
about the plunge in the DJIA, even as the country is dealing with the
fallout of his "capitalist" leader, he still finds some reason to
slander Obama.

> 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.

Until Repubicans manage to sucker America again.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Bob Larter on
Bill Graham wrote:
>
> "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.

A metric cup *is* 1/4 of a liter.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Savageduck on
On 2009-11-14 00:08:39 -0800, "Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au> said:

> Savageduck wrote:
>> ColinD said:
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's just like the drive on the left/right side of the road
>>>> controversy.....What could be more stupid than that? All the auto
>>>> manufacturers in the world have to make their cars mirror-imaged for
>>>> export to England and Australia, and they even have to change lanes in
>>>> the middle of the tunnel under the English channel......Ridiculous!
>>>> Especially when it takes anyone with half a brain about 10 minutes to
>>>> learn to drive on the other side of the road! And these are countries
>>>> who aren't even at war with one another.....Go figure.....
>>>
>>> Also South Africa and half the rest of African countries, also Japan,
>>> Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the biggie, Indonesia - more population than the
>>> USA - all drive on the left, and Tonga has just changed to driving on the
>>> left because cars sourced from drive-left countries are cheaper and
>>> better suited to the island.
>>>
>>> As for adapting to the other side of the road in about 10 minutes, there
>>> are real problems with that. In this country - New Zealand - we have
>>> many road accidents caused by American and European drivers. They can
>>> drive on the 'wrong' side while they think about it, but when it comes
>>> to roundabouts they get confused and end up on the wrong side of the
>>> road. And in an emergency situation, instinct kicks in and they
>>> automatically steer right - right into oncoming traffic. There was an
>>> American on a motor bike not long ago who did that, and went head-on into
>>> a truck, lost a leg among other serious injuries. An Austrian woman in a
>>> rental RV did the same, and collected about 8 or 9 motorbikes out on a
>>> charity run, killed about five of them including a father and daughter.
>>> 10 minutes is a joke. Six months is more like it, to retrain your
>>> automatic reactions.
>>
>> The critical factor in maintaining safety in the left/right hand drive
>> issue, is to be consistent with having a left hand drive when driving on
>> the right, and right hand drive when driving on the left side of the road.
>> This positions the driver along the center line on the road and away from
>> the edge of the road in the direction of travel. I believe this was one of
>> the major factors in banning left hand drive vehicles in many countries
>> with driving on the left rules of the road.
>>
>> Those unfamiliar with local conditions have reflexive behavior which is
>> difficult to over come. I have investigated accidents where a driver from
>> a "left hand side of the road" country driving on the right in the US, has
>> made a left turn at an intersection, the tendency is to turn sharp left,
>> turning directly into oncoming traffic on the right. The same would be
>> true when driving on the left and making a right turn, ending up in the
>> left lane facing oncoming traffic.
>>
>> Still there are many right hand drive vehicles used for rural mail
>> delivery in the US, and those drivers seem to do fine hugging the right
>> edge of the road without turning into oncoming traffic.
>
> Years ago I read that left-hand drive is safer overall, because when a
> person is startled they tend to raise their non-dominant hand to protect
> their head. If at the time they are steering a car on the left of the road,
> 9 out of 10 will therefore sverve into oncoming traffic. Apparently the
> effect is statistically significant.

It seems we left our history far behind. Have you ever noticed where
the good old Wells Fargo stage coach driver sat, ...on the right,
shotgun on the left.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Eric Stevens on
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:18:29 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
<secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:

>
>"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?
>
>Cups (and mugs) come in a wide range of sizes. It's convenient to have a
>specific unit of measure, and there is one, called a cup, regardless of its
>relationship or non-relationship to any real-world cups. If your complaint
>that it shouldn't in that case be called a cup, very well, but most words in
>the English language have more than one meaning and this is just such a
>case. I'm sure most housewives understand that when a recipe or whatever
>calls for an amount like 1/2 cup, it's the standard measure that's referred
>to and not half of an actual cup. Context is everything in the language.
>

The problem is there is no such thing as a 'standard measure'. If you
don't believe me you should try making a recipe with the units of
measure different from the country it was written in. One of the
advantages of the SI 250 ml cup is that adopting it means that
everyone has to abondon their old units of measure. There is no longer
any arguing over which one is the right one.



Eric Stevens
From: RustY � on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:eZedndgR_YxY1WPXnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d(a)giganews.com...

> 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.

So, you need to vote for more taxes - or less social services - simple.