Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Aren't you people listening?

Reply
Thread Tools

Aren't you people listening?

 
 
Ken Tough
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-12-2004
Steve Hix <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>You *did* miss the memo that he was playing the UN (including Kofi's son)
>like a fiddle for cash, not to mention several major nation's worth
>buyers for his oil.
>
>Too bad about the Iraqi people, who weren't getting the medicines and
>food that the oil money was supposed to be buying.


Not true. Another big spin lie. The UN's oil-for-food programme
saved millions of lives in Iraq over a 10 year period. The
sanctions ensured there were no weapons and no capability for
weapons, including any missiles better than they can whack
together in Gaza. [While Israel, on the other hand, has launchers
capable of putting payloads/warheads into retrograde orbit].

Oh well, no one is interested anyway. 70% of america believes
Saddam Hussein was involved in 11 Sept attacks, despite being
whacked over the head with evidence. They elected Nixon at the
height of the watergate revelations, so no surprises on this
election either, I expect.

Look at the whacko paranoia of socialism. Norway's well-accepted
number 1 standard of living doesn't go anywhere to convincing
those types. What possibly would?

As obligatory RPD input: what countries other than Japan design
any decent digital con/pro-sumer equipment? I suppose there is
some benefit to not being allowed to make missiles.

--
Ken Tough
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Charlie Self
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-12-2004
Ken Tough writes:

>Oh well, no one is interested anyway. 70% of america believes
>Saddam Hussein was involved in 11 Sept attacks, despite being
>whacked over the head with evidence. They elected Nixon at the
>height of the watergate revelations, so no surprises on this
>election either, I expect.


Two loads of bullshit. Right now, Shrub is a shade behind in the polls, so 70%
must not quite believe as you think we do. Nixon was elected pre-Watergate for
Christ's sake. Frigging Watergate came about during the campaign and didn't
come to light until after the election.

> what countries other than Japan design
>any decent digital con/pro-sumer equipment? I suppose there is
>some benefit to not being allowed to make missiles.


They're getting there, though. I seem to recall Japan recently has begun to
create armed forces capable of actually being used. What's the 21st century
edition of kamikazi pilotry?

Charlie Self
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind
simultaneously, and accepting both of them." George Orwell
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-12-2004
Ken Tough <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Not true. Another big spin lie. The UN's oil-for-food programme
> saved millions of lives in Iraq over a 10 year period.


Kind of like if someone shoots you in the foot, instead of the head?

I think everyone has missed a couple obvious points in this thread: Many
people will vote for Bush because they believe their friends and loved ones
serving in Iraq will be safer with him in charge. For many, there is only
one issue right now.

> As obligatory RPD input: what countries other than Japan design
> any decent digital con/pro-sumer equipment? I suppose there is
> some benefit to not being allowed to make missiles.


I'm not sure about your implied cause and effect (lol), but doesn't Kodak
make anything here? How about HP? I'm sure both of them must outsource at
least "almost everything," but is it 100%? Speaking of outsourcing, Nikon
makes some of it's gear in Korea.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ken Tough
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-12-2004
Charlie Self <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Ken Tough writes:
>>Oh well, no one is interested anyway. 70% of america believes
>>Saddam Hussein was involved in 11 Sept attacks, despite being
>>whacked over the head with evidence. They elected Nixon at the
>>height of the watergate revelations, so no surprises on this
>>election either, I expect.


>Two loads of bullshit. Right now, Shrub is a shade behind in the polls, so 70%
>must not quite believe as you think we do.


Why should voting intentions be directly tied to the number who believe
or don't believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 11 Sept?

I refer the honourable gentleman to:
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article4011.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html

Those are old figures though. Seems brand new ones do put the
figure lower:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=569200

Whether Mr Rumsfeld's candour will change the way the country thinks is
another matter. A CNN/Gallup poll has found that 42 per cent of Americans
still believe that the former Iraqi leader was involved in the attacks,
and an astonishing 32 per cent that Saddam had planned them in person.

So maybe the fact that slightly less than half are still believing the
Bushite fantasies, is why he's now lagging.

>Nixon was elected pre-Watergate for
>Christ's sake. Frigging Watergate came about during the campaign and didn't
>come to light until after the election.


I refer you to:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...chronology.htm

29 Sept 1972
John Mitchell, while serving as attorney general, controlled a secret Republican
fund used to finance widespread intelligence-gathering operations against the
Democrats, The Post reports.

10 October 1972
FBI agents establish that the Watergate break-in stems from a massive campaign
of political spying and sabotage conducted on behalf of the Nixon reelection
effort, The Post reports.

7 November 1972
Nixon is reelected in one of the largest landslides in American political history,
taking more than 60 percent of the vote and crushing the Democratic nominee, Sen.
George McGovern of South Dakota.

Nixon's approval rating soared, regardless of the (further) development
of the Watergate story throughout 1973, with rating of 68% in Feb 1973.
It wasn't until Hunt, Liddy, and McCord were actually convicted that
he started to slide. It's true that the depths of his involvement weren't
clear until past June '73, but even -then- his rating was above 40%.
http://www.nyu.edu/its/socsci/Docs/scandals.html is pretty good here.

--
Ken Tough
 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Self
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-12-2004
Ken Tough responds:

>Charlie Self <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Ken Tough writes:
>>>Oh well, no one is interested anyway. 70% of america believes
>>>Saddam Hussein was involved in 11 Sept attacks, despite being
>>>whacked over the head with evidence. They elected Nixon at the
>>>height of the watergate revelations, so no surprises on this
>>>election either, I expect.

>
>>Two loads of bullshit. Right now, Shrub is a shade behind in the polls, so

>70%
>>must not quite believe as you think we do.

>
>Why should voting intentions be directly tied to the number who believe
>or don't believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 11 Sept?


Snip

> Whether Mr Rumsfeld's candour will change the way the country thinks is
> another matter. A CNN/Gallup poll has found that 42 per cent of Americans
> still believe that the former Iraqi leader was involved in the attacks,
> and an astonishing 32 per cent that Saddam had planned them in person.
>
>So maybe the fact that slightly less than half are still believing the
>Bushite fantasies, is why he's now lagging.
>


I always wonder where the pollsters come up with the people in their polling. I
find that a very few people believe Saddass was involved or the leader, but 42%
and 70% don't quite equate anyway. The question answers aren't additive.

> 29 Sept 1972
> John Mitchell, while serving as attorney general, controlled a secret
>Republican
> fund used to finance widespread intelligence-gathering operations against
>the
> Democrats, The Post reports.
>
> 10 October 1972
> FBI agents establish that the Watergate break-in stems from a massive
>campaign
> of political spying and sabotage conducted on behalf of the Nixon reelection
>
> effort, The Post reports.
>
> 7 November 1972
> Nixon is reelected in one of the largest landslides in American political
>history,
> taking more than 60 percent of the vote and crushing the Democratic nominee,
>Sen.
> George McGovern of South Dakota.


The Post reports. One newspaper in one city on one side of the nation. DC ain/t
exactly classed as the nerve center of reporting, though it's too often the
heartbeat of news. The Post's reportorial team at the time was beginning to
gain info no one else had, but it was beating the other newspapers to the
punch, and it took some time for the news to filter outward--and to be
believed. It's hard to recall now, but Tricky Dicky had such a lock on people's
minds back then that he had NO worries at all about being elected. Except those
manufactured by his own paranoid fantasies.

His approval rating soared because he appeared to be doing something to end the
Vietnam War. And, of course, he found the solution and the perfect exit
strategy. Declare yourself the winner and leave.

And then the proof built up and he left.

General disbelief was probably not much different than my statement about Spiro
Agnew: he couldn't possibly have been stupid enough to sell out for $80,000."
He was and that was the last time I believed in the intelligence of a
politician, even one I despised (Bush has no intelligence to believe in,
anyway: that chimp is a puppet on a string).

Charlie Self
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind
simultaneously, and accepting both of them." George Orwell
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ken Tough
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-12-2004
Charlie Self <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>It's hard to recall now, but Tricky Dicky had such a lock on people's
>minds back then that he had NO worries at all about being elected. Except those
>manufactured by his own paranoid fantasies.


No, it's very easy for me to recall. Deja vu, almost.

>His approval rating soared because he appeared to be doing something to end the
>Vietnam War. And, of course, he found the solution and the perfect exit
>strategy. Declare yourself the winner and leave.
>
>And then the proof built up and he left.


Whoa, did someone just download to the matrix or something?

--
Ken Tough
 
Reply With Quote
 
mofman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004
> >It's hard to recall now, but Tricky Dicky had such a lock on people's
> >minds back then that he had NO worries at all about being elected. Except

those
> >manufactured by his own paranoid fantasies.

>


If we had the Powershot G5 back then, TD would be locked onto our CF cards -
and burnt to CDR, which may have faded away by now if we did not keep
recopying - except those manufactured by his polaroid. Perhaps we would
have developed a more permanent storage solution by now.

This is a digital photography group people!!!


 
Reply With Quote
 
Steven M. Scharf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004
"Jen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> Aren't you people listening?
>
> Why do so many Americans still support Bush on Iraq? People, THERE
> WERE NO WMD. David Kay, Bush's top weapons inspector said so in
> January. Charles Duelfer, chief of CIA's weapons hunters, just issued
> definitive 1,000-page report that says Saddam had no stockpile of WMD
> for entire decade leading up to Bush W's attack.
>
> 9/11 Commission, which Bush selected, found no "collaborative
> relationship" between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
>
> Bush's Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted his UN testimony on
> Iraq's nuclear capability was "inaccurate and wrong, and in some cases
> deliberately misleading."


It's been beaten into their heads that Al Qaeda=Arabs, Iraq=Arabs,
therefore Al Qaeda=Iraq (when in fact, it's much more logical to
conclude that Al Qaeda=Saudi Arabia). But the facts no longer matter.
The Republicans believe that fear can overcome logic, and they may be
right.

A better question is why so many Americans still support Bush on
other issues. When I talk to the few Republicans at work, it all
comes down to a single issue, taxes. In Silicon Valley, joint incomes
of $200K are middle class incomes. The _only_ issue for these people
is that under Kerry they would be taxed at a higher rate.

Nothing else matters except their own personal income taxes, not the
deficit, not the environment, not the Supreme Court, not health care,
not even the right wing social issues such as abortion and stem cell
research. What they don't understand is that if we continue down the
Republican path of "spend but don't tax," that the value of our money
in terms of what it will buy will continue to fall, which is itself an
insiduous tax increase of sorts. Look at the price of gasoline at the
end of the Clinton administration and now. It isn't an issue of supply,
it's an issue of the falling value of the dollar and of speculation
in oil futures. The extra yearly expenditure on gasoline, at 20 gallons
per family per week, is more than the savings in income taxes for most
familes, and of course it's not just gasoline that has gone up
significantly in price. But Republicans have always been famous for
being able to dupe people into not looking at the big picture.


 
Reply With Quote
 
bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004
"Steven M. Scharf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:GX2bd.2853
$(E-Mail Removed):

> Look at the price of gasoline at the
> end of the Clinton administration and now. It isn't an issue of supply,
> it's an issue of the falling value of the dollar and of speculation
> in oil futures.


You don't think the dramatically increased demand from China has anything
to do with the price increases? The dollar is at .81 Euro, but gasoline
is up more than 20%... Speculation can only work to smooth out prices --
when speculators buy high and sell low they go bankrupt.

Falling dollar means we will export more and import less -- most people
consider those good things. The only potential downside is that it makes
investments in US securities less attractive which can drive up interest
rates.

I agree with you that government spending in general is bad and that it
should be cut wherever possible -- less taxation is always preferable,
and lower deficits require less foreign investment. The deficit, while
high in absolute terms, is actually "typical" from a % of GDP standpoint.

And yeah, I did take a few too many courses in economics.

RPD input: Falling dollar means higher digital camera prices and higher
media prices.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steven M. Scharf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2004

"bob" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns95815EED451AEbobatcarolnet@207.69.189.191. ..
> And yeah, I did take a few too many courses in economics.
>
> RPD input: Falling dollar means higher digital camera prices and higher
> media prices.


This does not necessarily follow. The Japanese companies (and other
companies) set prices based on market forces, not just on the value of
currency. When the Canadian dollar began to decline sharply against the U.S.
dollar, Canadian goods did not increase proportionately, resulting in very
good deals for U.S. citizens shopping in Canada, who were able to get a
refund of the GST. The manufacturers simply had to accept smaller margins.

As to oil, the U.S. is terrified of a shift by OPEC to demand payment in
Euros. Not just because of the rise in oil prices, but because of the
investors that are financing the U.S. debt would begin to withdraw their
dollar assets as the dollar value plunged. The U.S. is now in control of
Iraqi oil (at least they think they are) and are able to block any shift to
the Euro.

Technically, the deficit under Bush is less that than under Reagan, at least
in percentage of GDP. But it was too high under Reagan too. We need a couple
of decades of Democratic presidents to return some sound fiscal policy to
the government. Republicans have proven themselves as prolific spenders of
money we don't have, and it's not for financing projects with a long term
return (unless we are going to get free oil from Iraq for the next 100
years).

Read _The Economist_.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
People Helping People!!!!!!!!!!!! celeste96795@aol.com Java 1 06-11-2008 05:49 PM
Some people tell that at present, most web hosting servers supportall kinds of programming language, some people tell me that many web hostingserver don't support Java, What is the truth? Erwin Moller Java 3 05-07-2008 05:09 PM
people helping people......king kong, underworld 2, mi3, movie, dvd,music, games cam slade Computer Support 1 01-19-2006 06:07 AM
Do you know how many people have MCSD for .NET? Changgyu Oh MCSD 1 06-10-2005 07:20 AM
"8 Kinds of People You Don't Want to Marry" Ayo Computer Support 9 07-12-2003 02:18 PM



Advertisments