Ford, The Survivor
Savageduck
like a survivor, here is a little salute.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
DMac
Should never put radial tyres on one of these cars.
Savageduck
You noticed, he even mixed types.
He has Firestone cross-plies on the front and radials on the back.
I suspect this is not all it appears to be. There appears to be some
work to the rear end, as evidence by the appearance of the rear wheel
wells.
He is also using standard California plates with plain vanilla
registration, not Historic Vehicle plates.
I have a feeling an inspection under the hood would reveal something
other than a restored original engine.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
David J. Littleboy
"Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
Huh? I thought they were black? You camera's got _serious_ color rendition
problems<g>.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Savageduck
>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
>
> Huh? I thought they were black? You camera's got _serious_ color rendition
> problems<g>.
No! Model-T was the Ford of "You can have it in any color, as long as
it is black."
This is a Model A, which was offered in various color options, but not black
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_A_(1927-1931)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
...but if you want black, I found this parked in town last week:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0509.JPG
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0508.JPG
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0511.JPG
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0507.JPG
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Eric Stevens
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-05-15 23:18:10 -0700, "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> said:
>
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
>>
>> Huh? I thought they were black? You camera's got _serious_ color rendition
>> problems<g>.
>
>No! Model-T was the Ford of "You can have it in any color, as long as
>it is black."
But even that was not correct. Black was the standard colour but you
could order it in other colours.
>
>This is a Model A, which was offered in various color options, but not black
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_A_(1927-1931)
Eric Stevens
Bruce
Let me guess ... it's the 2010 Ford ECO-Hybrid on test.
;-)
Peter
news:2009051520202050073-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
Here is a garage door opener, originally designed for a bike that will work
fine on that car too.
http://www.wimp.com/garageopener
--
Peter
Savageduck
Mine broke about 18 months ago.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Matt Clara
news:2009051520202050073-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
A lot of credit goes to Ford--they got in financial trouble in the early
2000s, restructured, and now they're doing fine. Last I heard, they
actually turned down free money from the government.
Plus, it's my understanding that their line of cars in Europe is fairly
popular. Their mistake, as far as I can tell from my armchair, was assuming
those cars wouldn't sell well here in the US.
Savageduck
I have a feeling the US market will actually be more willing to accept
some of the Euro-Fords now. I think Ford was trying too hard to
differentiate between the markets and protect the illusion of the
"American" vehicle.
Leaving some of the current Euro-Fords off US show room floors was a
mistake soon to be rectified.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Frank ess
I found this parked at the Mount Soledad Veterans' Memorial:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3566/3526509044_d2e4b1ef46_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3556/3513412227_28c5035e61_o.jpg
And again, at Mission Bay De Anza Cove:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3638/3495320109_7deda89d9a_o.jpg
It's black, too.
--
Frank ess
Alan Browne
Nice. It's very hard shooting cars in bright sunlight. Contrasts,
reflections, color shifts in the auto paint, shadows rendering blue,
etc. Why car adverts are usually shot in a studio with even-diffuse
lighting.
Is that a GPS on the dash? Wow! Ford was really ahead of its time!
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Savageduck
Too Ford traditional.
Were you driving it or stalking it?
...and I call your black with my black at Morro Bay.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/S600%40MorroBay.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
> Savageduck wrote:
>> Well since Ford is the only one of the Big 3, even remotely looking
>> like a survivor, here is a little salute.
>>
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
>
> Nice. It's very hard shooting cars in bright sunlight. Contrasts,
> reflections, color shifts in the auto paint, shadows rendering blue,
> etc. Why car adverts are usually shot in a studio with even-diffuse
> lighting.
...and therein lies the beauty of shooting in RAW.
>
> Is that a GPS on the dash? Wow! Ford was really ahead of its time!
I was thinking that myself. You'd think he'd know his way around by now.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Alan Browne
Ford borrowed a lot of cash a few years ago as part of that
restructuring so the cash on hand (that they are still burning at about
1.5 - 2B / quarter) is not their own. They recently paid back a chunk
of that cash to reduce overall borrowing costs.
So, they have not been any more brilliant than the other 2 idiots in
Detroit, they just borrowed a lot of cash when they could.
That money was supposed to be spent on a variety of things, including
new model development, some factory re-tooling, marketing and so on.
Instead it is mostly being used as blood while the co. continues to
hemmorage, albeit less than last year.
Ford suffers from the same problems as the other 2 idiots: Too many
models, too many dealerships and 2nd class quality. The other 2 idiots
have been forced to address that (Pontiac is shutting down and Hummer
and Saturn are close behind). This past week, GM and Chrysler announced
nearly 2000 dealerships that will have their agreements canceled by year
end. (And the lawsuits are about to fly...).
I am impressed by the spec of the Fusion Hybrid, need to see what that
will really be like. The US co's do not grok hybrid like Toyota and
Honda. The Fusion Hybrid might be the turning point in US Hybrids, at
least for Ford.
What really ticks me off is the recent advert campaign by Ford claiming
quality equal to Honda. This confused the heck out of me until I found
the claim basis: the defect rate in the first 90 days. Well, whenever I
want to buy a car for 90 days, I'll certainly consider Ford.
The 4 companies at the lowest defect rate in the first 3 years of
ownership are: Lexus, Accura, Toyota and Honda. I've had Honda's since
1989 and compared to everyone I know with all other vehicles, I have a
nuisance free life with Honda. They do not seem to break often. (I
have had a few things, but all minor and east to fix w/o going to a
garage. -oh, recently a problem with the EGR, bought the part and will
have it changed at the next oil change. Very awkward position to access
with my tools, so I'll let a mechanic do it.
Alan Browne
Could you at least post these reduced to about 1600 x 1000 pixels?
You complain about Flash BW, but then you post monster JPG's that don't
look particularly good until reduced to less than screen size...
Savageduck
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
I have been lucky with mechanical problems with vehicles I have owned.
My Ford list includes a Cortina GT?(just a lot of fun!!), a Contour,
which i re-contoured after falling asleep at the wheel after a 16 hour
shift!
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Ford_14.JPG
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Ford_12.JPG
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Ford_08.jpg (note the lowered
suspension!)
and an Escape, which my step-daughter from Hell has commandeered, and
has over 200K on the clock, and only a stone chipped windshield, tires
and brakes to replace.
I have also owned Subarus (2), a Datsun, a VW Beetle, a BMW 5 series
and of all things a FIAT 2300 which was a great problem free car.
I have become a Mercedes lover, with first a 560SEL, then an S600 coupe
(I loved that V12 until the AC compressor died and the $2800 fix and
gas prices goaded me to trade it) and now for the last 18 months I have
owned an E350, which has been trouble free.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-05-15 23:27:25 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> said:
>>
>>> On 2009-05-15 23:18:10 -0700, "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Huh? I thought they were black? You camera's got _serious_ color rendition
>>>> problems<g>.
>>>
>>> No! Model-T was the Ford of "You can have it in any color, as long as
>>> it is black."
>>>
>>> This is a Model A, which was offered in various color options, but not black
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_A_(1927-1931)
>>
>> ...but if you want black, I found this parked in town last week:
>>
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0509.JPG
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0508.JPG
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0511.JPG
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0507.JPG
>
> Could you at least post these reduced to about 1600 x 1000 pixels?
>
> You complain about Flash BW, but then you post monster JPG's that don't
> look particularly good until reduced to less than screen size...
OK! OK! Mea Culpa.
I was lazy and was looking for a quick response for David.
BTW I have no particular personal issue with Flash, but I know there
are some here who have broadband issues, and I apologize to them for my
fat Jag post.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
...but other than that, what did you think of the XK120?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Alan Browne
> I have become a Mercedes lover, with first a 560SEL, then an S600 coupe
> (I loved that V12 until the AC compressor died and the $2800 fix and gas
> prices goaded me to trade it) and now for the last 18 months I have
> owned an E350, which has been trouble free.
Mercedez are middle of the pack for defect rates in the first 3 years
per quality surveys. This is as much due to system complexity as
anything else, however, very richly featured cars like the Accura and
Lexus line fare much better than 'benz.
A friend bought a CLK320 and in the 2nd year one of the front wheel
assemblies cracked and broke off. He was in a turn at the time and not
at all amused.
He left the car in the road and took a train home. He told 'benz where
it was (about 300km from his home). When he got home, 'benz had a
loaner car waiting for him and his own car was returned a few days
later. (His car has otherwise been trouble free).
So great service from 'benz, but their implied claim to high reliability
is a bit suspect given the survey results and events like that of my
friend... and of course once the warranty expires any repair is costly
as it is for all German cars, Volvos, Range Rover, etc.
I'll stick to Honda or Toyota as the likely sweet spot for cost
efficiency. That is all cars are too me: transport. I run a car for at
least 8 yr. from new. Current Accord is in such great shape after 8
years it will likely go 12 years before I move on. May try a Toyota
next, esp. if the Camry Hybrid posts good numbers all around. Am
thinking of a Ford Escape too... but...
Alan Browne
>
> ...but other than that, what did you think of the XK120?
Not sure: I've never seen a "brick" paint job before.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0508.JPG
<runs>
Alan Browne
> ...but other than that, what did you think of the XK120?
Gorgeous, I like the perspective of the 507 shot the best. Too bad you
couldn't get that shot at the country club with a stunning redhead at
the wheel in a summer dress, stepping over the door with a little
glimpse of stocking and thigh...
Savageduck
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
> Savageduck wrote:
>
>>
>> ...but other than that, what did you think of the XK120?
>
> Not sure: I've never seen a "brick" paint job before.
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0508.JPG
>
>
>
> <runs>
Kinda neat, isn't it?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Neil Harrington
Those wheels look the wrong size, too. Especially noticeable in the rear.
Nice looking A-bone, though. Sure seems to have all the trimmin's. I don't
think I've seen that kind of "eyebrows" on the headlights before.
An old friend of mine used to have a Model A roadster with an Alexander
cylinder head -- OHV, I think. That was a classy little car. Never got any
pix of it, I regret to say.
Savageduck
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-05-15 21:08:59 -0700, DMac <d-...@d-mac.info.delete> said:
>>
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>> Well since Ford is the only one of the Big 3, even remotely looking
>>>> like a survivor, here is a little salute.
>>>>
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
>>>>
>>>
>>> Should never put radial tyres on one of these cars.
>>
>> You noticed, he even mixed types.
>> He has Firestone cross-plies on the front and radials on the back.
>> I suspect this is not all it appears to be. There appears to be some
>> work to the rear end, as evidence by the appearance of the rear wheel
>> wells.
>> He is also using standard California plates with plain vanilla
>> registration, not Historic Vehicle plates.
>> I have a feeling an inspection under the hood would reveal something
>> other than a restored original engine.
>
> Those wheels look the wrong size, too. Especially noticeable in the rear.
>
> Nice looking A-bone, though. Sure seems to have all the trimmin's. I don't
> think I've seen that kind of "eyebrows" on the headlights before.
Those are more of a 50's HR add-on. I don't think you would find them
on any Concours car. This is no Concours car.
>
> An old friend of mine used to have a Model A roadster with an Alexander
> cylinder head -- OHV, I think. That was a classy little car. Never got any
> pix of it, I regret to say.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
> Savageduck wrote:
>
>> ...but other than that, what did you think of the XK120?
>
> Gorgeous, I like the perspective of the 507 shot the best. Too bad you
> couldn't get that shot at the country club with a stunning redhead at
> the wheel in a summer dress, stepping over the door with a little
> glimpse of stocking and thigh...
I was standing with the owner when I took the shots, he and I, and I
suspect you, are not longer of an age (or visage)to attract the said
red head.
Then isn't that what the car is for?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Alan Browne
We'll see tonight. Still dawdling over shoes. Blonde, actually.
Doesn't mind my boring Honda...
John McWilliams
Those photos, when not + plussed +, show fully in a modest Safari window
on a MacBookPro, even better on an iMac.
--
John McWilliams
Alan Browne
Duh. But it still took bandwidth to DL them. (and believe it or not
Windblow browsers resize too).
Savageduck
That was one of the reasons I didn't think twice when I posted them.
They were no problem for me on my MacBookPro and Safari. There are
times I forget there is another World out there through the window.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
John McWilliams
I was surprised to hear Alan complaining about bandwidth. These are not
huge images pixel wise.
--
john mcwilliams
Neil Harrington
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
> news:2009051520202050073-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
>> Well since Ford is the only one of the Big 3, even remotely looking
>> like a survivor, here is a little salute.
>>
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
>>
>>
>
> A lot of credit goes to Ford--they got in financial trouble in the
> early 2000s, restructured, and now they're doing fine. Last I heard,
> they actually turned down free money from the government.
All that "free money from the government" comes with an agreement that says
"you will now run your company exactly the way the government wants you to,
with the people the government wants to run it, and with loads of extra
goodies for the unions which spent a lot of money getting Obama elected."
For example, the Obama administration "proposes that Chrysler's secured
creditors get 28 cents per dollar on the $7 billion owed to them, but that
the United Auto Workers union get 43 cents per dollar on its $11 billion in
claims -- and 55% of the company. This, even though the secured creditors'
contracts supposedly guaranteed them better standing than the union."
(George Will column, May 14.)
Paul Furman
Loaded real slow for me, 0511 took about 25 seconds, 5.56 MB
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Savageduck
I know!
Those were fat files, and it was not my intention to burden your bandwidth.
I had sent the full files to a friend in Nashville earlier in the week
and I had them available on my iDisc storage with my mac.com account.
So when I responded to David I just used the URLs to the files I knew I
had handy, and posted them without reducing size (or even thinking
about reducing size.)
I have fallen on my sword, so to speak, so make what you will of the images,
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Paul Furman
> I have fallen on my sword, so to speak, so make what you will of the
> images,
Here, I'll twist the sword a bit for you, help you out of the misery...
;-)
-understood that it was just a quick link, not standard practice
Alan Browne
These 5 MB files still take about 25 - 30 s. ea 'cause the server is not
particularly snappy (~175 kB/s).
A 400 kB JPG would load in a few sec. and be of the same quality when
viewed at screen size.
Alan Browne
Same here, about 175 kB/s - my ISP gives me 850 - 900 kB/s w/o a hitch,
so that was slow....
Alan Browne
> On 2009-05-16 20:42:50 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> said:
>>
>> Loaded real slow for me, 0511 took about 25 seconds, 5.56 MB
>
> I know!
> Those were fat files, and it was not my intention to burden your bandwidth.
It would not have been that bad if the server were faster. Those DL'd
at about 175 kB/s. My ISP will easily deliver 850 - 900 kB/s.
> I had sent the full files to a friend in Nashville earlier in the week
> and I had them available on my iDisc storage with my mac.com account. So
> when I responded to David I just used the URLs to the files I knew I had
> handy, and posted them without reducing size (or even thinking about
> reducing size.)
> I have fallen on my sword, so to speak, so make what you will of the
> images,
You are forgiven as we know your heart is in the right place... meaning
your sword ran you through the guts...
Savageduck
> Savageduck wrote:
>
>> Well since Ford is the only one of the Big 3, even remotely looking
>> like a survivor, here is a little salute.
>>
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
>
> I would like to see that restored back to its original condition. I
> love those old rides!
Hi Rita,
You have been conspicuous in your absence.
That Model A looks at first glimpse to be well restored.
Closer inspection reveals that it is more Hotrod than restored concours car.
To take it from the pretty good looking driver that it is now and
complete a full restoration would mean undoing alot of what has been
done to it and replacing that with original pieces, but it would be a
good starting point, if that was what you wanted to do.
With some dedication and money it could be done, however I think they
have more fun with this as a real driver than as a museum piece.
I didn't get to look under the hood, but I suspect the engine is of a
much later vintage than 1927-31.
The wheels are original, but "Whitewall" Cross-Ply Firestones (which do
no fit the era) on the front and radials on the back raises a few
questions.
There is obvious rear end work. It looks like a rear axle/ differential
replacement and modern upgrade, along with some sort of ride height
adjustment.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0604ccw.jpg
There are other subtle alterations. There are turn signals on the front
and the tail lights have been changed from tail/brake lights to
tail/brake/turnsignal lights.
The headlight "eye brows" have been added. Those are not in any way original.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0601ccw.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0602ccw.jpg
Then there is the "Jack" ball on the antenna?? :-)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Alan Browne
> For example, the Obama administration "proposes that Chrysler's secured
> creditors get 28 cents per dollar on the $7 billion owed to them, but that
> the United Auto Workers union get 43 cents per dollar on its $11 billion in
> claims -- and 55% of the company. This, even though the secured creditors'
> contracts supposedly guaranteed them better standing than the union."
> (George Will column, May 14.)
I cannot see the creditors standing for this. The bankruptcy judge
pretty much cold shouldered their higher priority claim on the assets.
I am not sure to what degree bankruptcy follows common law practice.
Chancery is an odd duck. But if the shareholders push precedent (and
they will) then you can look for an injunction in the following week or
2 (or simply refusal to accept the terms to force an actual bankruptcy
procedure).
Then Obama will have his nuts in a vise which is too bad as most of his
response to the crisis is better than just about any other alternative.
The shortsightedness of this whole thing is perplexing. No matter how
Chrysler (and GM) come out of this they will inevitably have to go back
to various creditors for cash at some point. What lender in his right
mind will lend money to a company (or industry) that subjugates the
value of the loan to junk status at non-junk rates? So, borrowing rates
will rise dramatically for industries "that can't be allowed to fail."
Savageduck
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-05-16 20:42:50 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> said:
>
>>>
>>> Loaded real slow for me, 0511 took about 25 seconds, 5.56 MB
>>
>> I know!
>> Those were fat files, and it was not my intention to burden your bandwidth.
>
> It would not have been that bad if the server were faster. Those DL'd
> at about 175 kB/s. My ISP will easily deliver 850 - 900 kB/s.
>
>
>> I had sent the full files to a friend in Nashville earlier in the week
>> and I had them available on my iDisc storage with my mac.com account.
>> So when I responded to David I just used the URLs to the files I knew I
>> had handy, and posted them without reducing size (or even thinking
>> about reducing size.)
>> I have fallen on my sword, so to speak, so make what you will of the images,
>
> You are forgiven as we know your heart is in the right place... meaning
> your sword ran you through the guts...
You have no idea of the forensics clean up I am going to have to deal
with, with this puddle of blood that surrounds me.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
BTW here is what I get from Charter Cable out in my wilderness, after a
speed check this morning
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/speakeasy_03.jpg
10.5mb/s down 989 kb/s up
Speakeasy gives a pretty simple speed check interface;
http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/
...however accurate that might be?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Alan Browne
millibits/second. Wow that is slow. ;-)
Note that: kb -- kilo bits
kB -- kilo bytes (8 X more than a "b").
M -- Mega
m -- milli
A really good speed checker is http://www.speedtest.net/ as you can
select where you dl from / ul to during the test.
From San Francisco to Montreal I get: 6.93 Mb /s (about 860 kB /s ) DL
and about 0.75 Mb/s up.
Savageduck
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
I'm not having a good week am I?
Yup it is Mb/s.
>
> A really good speed checker is http://www.speedtest.net/ as you can
> select where you dl from / ul to during the test.
>
> From San Francisco to Montreal I get: 6.93 Mb /s (about 860 kB /s ) DL
> and about 0.75 Mb/s up.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-05-17 08:27:03 -0700, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
>>
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> Loaded real slow for me, 0511 took about 25 seconds, 5.56 MB
>>>
>>> Same here, about 175 kB/s - my ISP gives me 850 - 900 kB/s w/o a hitch,
>>> so that was slow....
>>
>> BTW here is what I get from Charter Cable out in my wilderness, after a
>> speed check this morning
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/speakeasy_03.jpg
>> 10.5mb/s down 989 kb/s up
>> Speakeasy gives a pretty simple speed check interface;
>> http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/
>> ...however accurate that might be?
>
> millibits/second. Wow that is slow. ;-)
>
> Note that: kb -- kilo bits
> kB -- kilo bytes (8 X more than a "b").
>
> M -- Mega
> m -- milli
>
> A really good speed checker is http://www.speedtest.net/ as you can
> select where you dl from / ul to during the test.
>
> From San Francisco to Montreal I get: 6.93 Mb /s (about 860 kB /s ) DL
> and about 0.75 Mb/s up.
Well here i what I got using speedtest.net site;
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/SpeedTest_04.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Alan Browne
Hate to beat you when you're down, but... ;-)
Alan Browne
Pretty good, but then they're close to you, n'est pas?
What do you get when you point to Montreal?
This has nothing to do with the images, BTW, they DL'd at a miserable
175 kB/s.
Savageduck
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-05-17 09:36:03 -0700, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
>> Well here i what I got using speedtest.net site;
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/SpeedTest_04.jpg
>
> Pretty good, but then they're close to you, n'est pas?
>
> What do you get when you point to Montreal?
Pointed to Montreal I get 8.64 Mb/s down & 0.96 up.
>
> This has nothing to do with the images, BTW, they DL'd at a miserable 175 kB/s.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Alan Browne
> On 2009-05-17 10:26:09 -0700, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
>
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2009-05-17 09:36:03 -0700, Alan Browne
>>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
>
>
>>> Well here i what I got using speedtest.net site;
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/SpeedTest_04.jpg
>>
>> Pretty good, but then they're close to you, n'est pas?
>>
>> What do you get when you point to Montreal?
>
> Pointed to Montreal I get 8.64 Mb/s down & 0.96 up.
Cool. I'm happy with my 7.5 Mb/s plan. The price of the 10, 20, 30
and 50 Mbit/s plans isn't justifiable.
And they're rolling out 100 too...
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> A really good speed checker is http://www.speedtest.net/ as you can
>> select where you dl from / ul to during the test.
>>
>
>
>
> - JT
> 10 down, 2 up from Portland, ME
When the cable guy came to install the new modem (phone and internet) I
showed him that and I was afraid I'd be receiving Christmas cards
afterwards, he was so ecstatic.
I can't recall how I stumbled on that ... maybe I entered something
foolish like "internet speed test" in Google or sumpin'.
Earle Jones
Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
> Well since Ford is the only one of the Big 3, even remotely looking
> like a survivor, here is a little salute.
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
*
That looks like a '30 or '31 Model A with a rumble seat. My big brother
had one -- it's the first car I ever rode in.
earle
*
Earle Jones
Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
> Well since Ford is the only one of the Big 3, even remotely looking
> like a survivor, here is a little salute.
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
*
Columnist George Will claimed that the Prius sales success in the US was
because Toyota was losing money on each one.
If losing money on each sale was a path to success, then GM is the most
successful company in the history of the world!
earle
*
Savageduck
Well, from the owner's claim via his front license plate frame it is a
1930 Model A.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0601ccw.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Earle Jones
Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
> Well since Ford is the only one of the Big 3, even remotely looking
> like a survivor, here is a little salute.
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
*
Ford, in the "Escape" vehicle, licensed Toyota's Hybrid technology, but
only got the first Generation tech, as opposed to their later
developments.
My '05 Prius is clearly the best car I've ever owned.
I have used 1,602.803 gallons of (87 octane) gasoline and covered
79,314.7 miles for a long-term performance of 49.48 MPG. About half and
half city and highway driving.
No maintenance problems. We re-burned the computer EPROM (on a recall
notice) about four years ago.
earle
*
David J. Littleboy
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> A really good speed checker is http://www.speedtest.net/ as you can select
> where you dl from / ul to during the test.
>
> From San Francisco to Montreal I get: 6.93 Mb /s (about 860 kB /s ) DL and
> about 0.75 Mb/s up.
From Yokohama to Tokyo I get 51.4 Mb/s down, 50.2 Mb/s up. Zippy.
From SF to Tokyo I get 7.7 down, 8.66 up. Not bad.
From Portland Maine to Tokyo I get 2.1 down, 2.3 up.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Savageduck
In that case, since this started because of my response to you
regarding "black" and Ford, what did you think of the offending files?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
John McWilliams
> JT's Keeper wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> A really good speed checker is http://www.speedtest.net/ as you can
>>> select where you dl from / ul to during the test.
>>>
>>
>> Nice speed test site... THANKS! ;-)
>>
>>
>> - JT
>> 10 down, 2 up from Portland, ME
>
> When the cable guy came to install the new modem (phone and internet) I
> showed him that and I was afraid I'd be receiving Christmas cards
> afterwards, he was so ecstatic.
>
> I can't recall how I stumbled on that ... maybe I entered something
> foolish like "internet speed test" in Google or sumpin'.
That'd do it. My Cable guy gave me that URL several years ago.
However, 'Duck's image took under ten to load, and I am in the boonies
on Lake Tahoe.
--
John McWilliams
John McWilliams
> John McWilliams wrote:
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2009-05-16 12:30:47 -0700, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> said:
>>>
>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
>>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0509.JPG
>>>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0508.JPG
>>>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0511.JPG
>>>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0507.JPG
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you at least post these reduced to about 1600 x 1000 pixels?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You complain about Flash BW, but then you post monster JPG's that
>>>>>> don't look particularly good until reduced to less than screen
>>>>>> size...
>>>>>
>>>>> OK! OK! Mea Culpa.
>>>>> I was lazy and was looking for a quick response for David.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW I have no particular personal issue with Flash, but I know
>>>>> there are some here who have broadband issues, and I apologize to
>>>>> them for my fat Jag post.
>>>>
>>>> Those photos, when not + plussed +, show fully in a modest Safari
>>>> window on a MacBookPro, even better on an iMac.
>>>
>>> That was one of the reasons I didn't think twice when I posted them.
>>> They were no problem for me on my MacBookPro and Safari. There are
>>> times I forget there is another World out there through the window.
>>
>> I was surprised to hear Alan complaining about bandwidth. These are
>> not huge images pixel wise.
>
Just now, at at precisely 10:03:18 PM on Sunday, May 17, 2009, Pacific
Daylight Time, I dl'ed the file, under ten seconds, in an out of the way
place. At home, cable, d/l time too quick to notice. Perhaps at other
times, though their server was throttled back or i traffic in general
was high. And, yes, they're bigger than they need to be. But nice stuff.
--
john mcwilliams
Savageduck
Tahoe, Cal or Nevada? Not that it matters, you live in great country.
My cable guy gave me the Speakeasy URL
http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/ several yars ago when they finally
got the fiber optic cable out to us here at Lake Nacimiento.
Damn! I don't miss dialup.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
David J. Littleboy
Lots of excellent pics of cars (especially the brick reflection one). The
first of the offending pics was the front of a Jag (it's a Ford<g>!), but it
did take an age to download so I didn't click the others.
Savageduck
I thought you were getting reasonable download speeds to Japan from SF?
Anyway the point was the Model A Fords were available in colors other
than black.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
David J. Littleboy
"Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
> On 2009-05-18 00:58:38 -0700, "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> said:
>>
>> Lots of excellent pics of cars (especially the brick reflection one). The
>> first of the offending pics was the front of a Jag (it's a Ford<g>!), but
>> it
>> did take an age to download so I didn't click the others.
>
> I thought you were getting reasonable download speeds to Japan from SF?
Not from your server, apparently...
> Anyway the point was the Model A Fords were available in colors other than
> black.
Sorry; I didn't intend to argue. I didn't realize that the A was available
in colors and thought maybe some overenergetic "restorers" had gotten out of
hand...
--
David J. Littleboy
Who only drove for one year in the US and has never driven in Japan...
Tokyo, Japan
Alan Browne
I can get 50 Mb/s here and 100 next year. Price isn't worth it though
(for me anyway).
Neil Harrington
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:iZmdnexho_Xwr43X...@giganews.com...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>
>> For example, the Obama administration "proposes that Chrysler's secured
>> creditors get 28 cents per dollar on the $7 billion owed to them, but
>> that the United Auto Workers union get 43 cents per dollar on its $11
>> billion in claims -- and 55% of the company. This, even though the
>> secured creditors' contracts supposedly guaranteed them better standing
>> than the union." (George Will column, May 14.)
>
> I cannot see the creditors standing for this. The bankruptcy judge pretty
> much cold shouldered their higher priority claim on the assets.
I read somewhere that some of the creditors (but I'm not sure now whether
this was with Chrysler or GM) formed a group to fight the administration's
proposal -- but eventually decided they couldn't possibly stand up under the
weight the government could bring to bear on them in many ways, and caved
in.
>
> I am not sure to what degree bankruptcy follows common law practice.
> Chancery is an odd duck. But if the shareholders push precedent (and they
> will) then you can look for an injunction in the following week or 2 (or
> simply refusal to accept the terms to force an actual bankruptcy
> procedure).
I think you mean the bondholders. The shareholders (at least, holders of
common stock) are pretty much holding worthless paper anyway if it goes to
an ordinary bankruptcy. The stock is now not much over a dollar a share and
won't be worth that once GM is bankrupt -- unless there's an "arranged
bankruptcy" in which case, who knows. But since common stockholders are at
the end of the line and there isn't anywhere near enough money to pay off
the creditors, it's hard to see them getting anything.
>
> Then Obama will have his nuts in a vise which is too bad as most of his
> response to the crisis is better than just about any other alternative.
Obama owes the unions big time, and has said so himself. The whole thing has
to be looked at from that perspective: what can he do to keep the union
bosses happy? Not what will work for the good of the industry or the
country.
>
> The shortsightedness of this whole thing is perplexing. No matter how
> Chrysler (and GM) come out of this they will inevitably have to go back to
> various creditors for cash at some point.
Unless they become wards of the government. With an unlimited supply of
taxpayer dollars, who knows. I'm wondering whether it may come to that.
> What lender in his right mind will lend money to a company (or industry)
> that subjugates the value of the loan to junk status at non-junk rates?
> So, borrowing rates will rise dramatically for industries "that can't be
> allowed to fail."
Yes, so it would seem.
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:iZmdnexho_Xwr43X...@giganews.com...
>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>
>>> For example, the Obama administration "proposes that Chrysler's secured
>>> creditors get 28 cents per dollar on the $7 billion owed to them, but
>>> that the United Auto Workers union get 43 cents per dollar on its $11
>>> billion in claims -- and 55% of the company. This, even though the
>>> secured creditors' contracts supposedly guaranteed them better standing
>>> than the union." (George Will column, May 14.)
>> I cannot see the creditors standing for this. The bankruptcy judge pretty
>> much cold shouldered their higher priority claim on the assets.
>
> I read somewhere that some of the creditors (but I'm not sure now whether
> this was with Chrysler or GM) formed a group to fight the administration's
> proposal -- but eventually decided they couldn't possibly stand up under the
> weight the government could bring to bear on them in many ways, and caved
> in.
>
>> I am not sure to what degree bankruptcy follows common law practice.
>> Chancery is an odd duck. But if the shareholders push precedent (and they
>> will) then you can look for an injunction in the following week or 2 (or
>> simply refusal to accept the terms to force an actual bankruptcy
>> procedure).
>
> I think you mean the bondholders.
Yes. Mistyped. Meant creditors (incl. the angry bondholders). The
shareholders are (appropriately) last in a bankruptcy.
The shareholders (at least, holders of
> common stock) are pretty much holding worthless paper anyway if it goes to
> an ordinary bankruptcy. The stock is now not much over a dollar a share and
> won't be worth that once GM is bankrupt -- unless there's an "arranged
> bankruptcy" in which case, who knows. But since common stockholders are at
> the end of the line and there isn't anywhere near enough money to pay off
> the creditors, it's hard to see them getting anything.
>
>> Then Obama will have his nuts in a vise which is too bad as most of his
>> response to the crisis is better than just about any other alternative.
>
> Obama owes the unions big time, and has said so himself. The whole thing has
> to be looked at from that perspective: what can he do to keep the union
> bosses happy? Not what will work for the good of the industry or the
> country.
>
>> The shortsightedness of this whole thing is perplexing. No matter how
>> Chrysler (and GM) come out of this they will inevitably have to go back to
>> various creditors for cash at some point.
>
> Unless they become wards of the government. With an unlimited supply of
> taxpayer dollars, who knows. I'm wondering whether it may come to that.
Mid term elections are only 18 months away. Even the currently giddy
Dems are too smart for that trap.
>> What lender in his right mind will lend money to a company (or industry)
>> that subjugates the value of the loan to junk status at non-junk rates?
>> So, borrowing rates will rise dramatically for industries "that can't be
>> allowed to fail."
>
> Yes, so it would seem.
>
>
--
Neil Harrington
"Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
news:2009051708481879149-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
>
> The wheels are original, but "Whitewall" Cross-Ply Firestones (which do
The wheels are original SOMETHING, but they're certainly not Model A wheels.
They're obviously too small when you look at their relationship to the
fenders, especially the rear wheels. Compare with the Model As shown here:
http://www.mafca.com/
David J. Littleboy
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>> From Yokohama to Tokyo I get 51.4 Mb/s down, 50.2 Mb/s up. Zippy.
>> From SF to Tokyo I get 7.7 down, 8.66 up. Not bad.
>> From Portland Maine to Tokyo I get 2.1 down, 2.3 up.
>>
>
> I can get 50 Mb/s here and 100 next year. Price isn't worth it though
> (for me anyway).
I'm in a valley here (so no line of sight to a transmitter) and the trees on
the hill behind my house absorb TV signals. We finally got fed up and got a
fiber line with all the TV, cable, and satellite channels available in Japan
as well as internet and phone service. (We still use out POTS phones,
though.)
IMHO, the speed is irrelevant. The only servers fast enough are the test
site servers.
Neil Harrington
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote in message
news:AbOdncWubJD6_IzX...@giganews.com...
>
>> Anyway the point was the Model A Fords were available in colors other
>> than black.
>
> Sorry; I didn't intend to argue. I didn't realize that the A was available
> in colors and thought maybe some overenergetic "restorers" had gotten out
> of hand...
That does frequently happen. I've seen a lot of "restored" antique cars in
colors the factories never used.
They often look very good, and I suppose the argument can be made that
someone who puts that much time, money and effort into an old car should be
able to have it the way he wants it. But my own opinion is that "restored"
should mean "just as it left the factory."
Neil Harrington
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:iZmdnexho_Xwr43X...@giganews.com...
[ . . . ]
>>
>>> The shortsightedness of this whole thing is perplexing. No matter how
>>> Chrysler (and GM) come out of this they will inevitably have to go back
>>> to various creditors for cash at some point.
>>
>> Unless they become wards of the government. With an unlimited supply of
>> taxpayer dollars, who knows. I'm wondering whether it may come to that.
>
> Mid term elections are only 18 months away.
But voters' memories are reliably short. They can always be given some kind
of nice-tasting candy before the elections, and the mainstream media (with
their "slobbering love affair" with Obama, as Bernard Goldberg put it) will
avoid reminding them of the bad stuff.
> Even the currently giddy Dems are too smart for that trap.
I hope so, but we'll see.
Savageduck
They are original wheels.
The problem is the changed rear suspension/rearend which alters the
relationship to the wheel well and wheels.
The radials on the back don't help either.
That all comes together to make it seem "wrong" to the eye.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
There are different levels of restoration. A full Concours restoration
would restore the vehicle to factory spec including paint.
A running rebuild might leave original weathered paint as is, but
everything else is brought to original running spec.
The most criminal "restorations" to my mind are those where the
restorer uses changes to the color which are to his taste, but would
never have been thought of or available in the original era of the
vehicle.
Then there are the cars typified by this example which create the
illusion of a full estoration by using color options available when
new, but having far from original mechanicals. Sort of stealth hotrods.
They are everyday drivers and just a lot of fun.
Then there are the over the top hotrods where anything goes!
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Neil Harrington
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> JT's Keeper wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> A really good speed checker is http://www.speedtest.net/ as you can
>>> select where you dl from / ul to during the test.
>>>
>>
>> Nice speed test site... THANKS! ;-)
>>
>>
>> - JT
>> 10 down, 2 up from Portland, ME
>
> When the cable guy came to install the new modem (phone and internet) I
> showed him that and I was afraid I'd be receiving Christmas cards
> afterwards, he was so ecstatic.
>
> I can't recall how I stumbled on that ... maybe I entered something
> foolish like "internet speed test" in Google or sumpin'.
Thanks from me too, Alan. That is really a great speed test site.
The one I've been using is http://performance.toast.net/ which is pretty
good, but Speedtest is much better.
There's quite a difference between the two in results. Using Speedtest.net I
got 12.95 Mb/s, while Toast.net just now gave me 4.253 Mb/s. Probably this
is partly because the Speedtest server in my case was in Clifton, NJ, only ~
100 miles away. I don't know where the Toast server is located.
Neil Harrington
"Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
news:2009051722130260903-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
[ . . . ]
>
> My cable guy gave me the Speakeasy URL http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/
> several yars ago when they finally got the fiber optic cable out to us
> here at Lake Nacimiento.
>
> Damn! I don't miss dialup.
You can say that again. A couple months ago I helped a neighbor with doing
her tax return online, and she has a dial-up connection. Since there was
very little in the way of graphics I didn't think dial-up would be at much
of a disadvantage, but it was so slow as to be an absolute horror.
Alan Browne
Not at all. When I DL large files (say a Linux distro) from the US, it
will pour in at near my cable modems "subscription" capacity. Likewise
video (movie clips) from US servers poor in at full tilt).
I get phone, television and internet on the cable. Nice thing about the
phone is it is in its own physical channel separate from the internet.
(Unlike some "VOIP" which shares the same IP space).
Alan Browne
I can't remember who this happened to, but he restored a first year car
(Corvette if my memory serves) to factory spec (not sure about paint
source). This included painting the exhaust headers orange (or some
colour). Of course if you run a car the paint is burned off, but he
hardly ran the car at all (never drove it). So judges at a competition
deleted points 'cause of the paint.
He reamed them after the fact, but it was too late and he placed far
from the top 5 finish he deserved. After that he made sure his headers
were burned in...
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:ydCdnf4pa5fP44zX...@giganews.com...
>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:iZmdnexho_Xwr43X...@giganews.com...
>
> [ . . . ]
>>>> The shortsightedness of this whole thing is perplexing. No matter how
>>>> Chrysler (and GM) come out of this they will inevitably have to go back
>>>> to various creditors for cash at some point.
>>> Unless they become wards of the government. With an unlimited supply of
>>> taxpayer dollars, who knows. I'm wondering whether it may come to that.
>> Mid term elections are only 18 months away.
>
> But voters' memories are reliably short. They can always be given some kind
> of nice-tasting candy before the elections, and the mainstream media (with
> their "slobbering love affair" with Obama, as Bernard Goldberg put it) will
> avoid reminding them of the bad stuff.
Better a slobbering love affair with Obama than a slobbering President
McCain?
Actually I like McCain a lot*, but his reaction to the emerging
financial crisis, ducking a debate and bolting off the trail to the WH
conference then not contributing anything but a slightly dazed smile
kinda killed him off for me. Coupled with driller babe and increasing
trend to underwriting the party line as the election date drew near
(instead of the McCain Maverick line that got him there), he killed his
own ticket.
*some exceptions apply.
When Obama first emerged on the US scene in 2002 (ish) I knew
immediately that he had what it would take. I believed he would wait
until 2012 to try except for the Hilary factor. Had she won the
presidency, he faced a possible lockout of up to 16 years (2 Dem terms +
2 Rep terms) plus whatever other new great talent might emerge - so he
had to go in full throttle. Amazing, really. And that it got so many
disillusioned blacks to vote means that more of them feel invested in
the process - will likely have a profound social impact over time.
I think the US is very fortunate to have a man of Obama's calibre at
this time and it's a shame he didn't get there in 'better times'. The
real test is how he manages this. Bearing in mind that if you're going
to get something done you can't please everyone.
You might not like him, but the lad definitely has class and brains,
like his well educated and charming wife.
As to the Rep party, the leadership has become extremely polarized and
'factions' that adhere to Rush/Cheney are destroying it by making more
moderate Republican views (Powell) not only unwelcome, but vilified.
Maybe Obama and the Dems have nothing to fear at midterm if Cheney and
Rush are banging the drums. Fact is the bills need to be paid.
Alan Browne
That's the cool thing with speedtest, you can select cities worldwide.
Further, it will remember your IP address results from the past and will
put up your ISP's performance (from other users) as well as local
competitors. (You might have to set something in there for that to
happen, don't recall).
I don't take it too seriously, but it is handy when you think something
might be wrong as a first basic test.
Alan Browne
Yeah I did some banking from a friends country place over modem in Jan.
Took about 10 minutes to do a couple transfers. Come to think of it,
my bank was the first "online" in North America when I still had a modem
connection. It was nice and quick then at a mere 32kb/s.
I'll be spending a couple weeks at the same place this summer. Oh well,
make sure the chequing account is overloaded before I leave and prepay
my bills I guess. I just don't want to think about it.
Alan Browne
> Then there are the over the top hotrods where anything goes!
Introduced my SO to American Graffiti last night (first half, we got in
a bit late) and there are a lot of cool 50/60's cars in there including
the ubiquitous Deuce and the white T-bird.
Neil Harrington
"Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
news:200905180931421669-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
I think one problem there is that in the '20s and early '30s, B&W
photography was just about all there was apart from color artwork in
magazine advertisements, etc., and those were far from reliable. So getting
the colors accurate might be next to impossible even when the restorer
wanted to do that, but in many cases they obviously just didn't care anyway.
>
> Then there are the cars typified by this example which create the illusion
> of a full estoration by using color options available when new, but having
> far from original mechanicals. Sort of stealth hotrods. They are everyday
> drivers and just a lot of fun.
>
> Then there are the over the top hotrods where anything goes!
Yes. A friend rebuilt a Ford coupe, I think a '32, with a Buick V6 and
independent front suspension. It also had more modern wheels which were
obviously too small for the body and fender lines. He and a friend of his
put a lot of work into that car, but the point of doing something like that
eludes me.
Alan Browne
> Yes. A friend rebuilt a Ford coupe, I think a '32, with a Buick V6 and
> independent front suspension. It also had more modern wheels which were
> obviously too small for the body and fender lines. He and a friend of his
> put a lot of work into that car, but the point of doing something like that
> eludes me.
He said as he whiles away the day on the internet ... ;-)
Neil Harrington
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2009051722130260903-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
>>
>> [ . . . ]
>>> My cable guy gave me the Speakeasy URL
>>> http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/ several yars ago when they finally
>>> got the fiber optic cable out to us here at Lake Nacimiento.
>>>
>>> Damn! I don't miss dialup.
>>
>> You can say that again. A couple months ago I helped a neighbor with
>> doing her tax return online, and she has a dial-up connection. Since
>> there was very little in the way of graphics I didn't think dial-up would
>> be at much of a disadvantage, but it was so slow as to be an absolute
>> horror.
>
> Yeah I did some banking from a friends country place over modem in Jan.
> Took about 10 minutes to do a couple transfers. Come to think of it, my
> bank was the first "online" in North America when I still had a modem
> connection. It was nice and quick then at a mere 32kb/s.
Yes, that used to seem like plenty of speed. My first modem was a 300bps
card in an Apple II. Even that wasn't too bad for sending and receiving
text -- characters would appear at just about reading speed as I recall. In
those days the high end was 2400 bps -- and a 2400bps modem cost about $700,
too stiff for me.
>
> I'll be spending a couple weeks at the same place this summer. Oh well,
> make sure the chequing account is overloaded before I leave and prepay my
> bills I guess. I just don't want to think about it.
I sure don't want to think about helping my neighbor with her tax return on
dial-up next year, either. But maybe after having seen it done she'll be
able to do it herself. Normally she only uses the computer for e-mailing her
friends on AOL, so she doesn't really have much need for broadband.
Neil Harrington
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
Yes, and the need to do that does come up from time to time.
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
� "Neil Harrington" <sec...@illumnati.net> ������ ��� ������
news:U6adndhMJNTpEozX...@giganews.com...
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:L5ednXn37sQhCI3X...@giganews.com...
>> JT's Keeper wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>> A really good speed checker is http://www.speedtest.net/ as you can
>>>> select where you dl from / ul to during the test.
>>>>
going to have my connection upgraded to 2Mbps)
>>>
>>> Nice speed test site... THANKS! ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> - JT
>>> 10 down, 2 up from Portland, ME
>>
>> When the cable guy came to install the new modem (phone and internet) I
>> showed him that and I was afraid I'd be receiving Christmas cards
>> afterwards, he was so ecstatic.
>>
>> I can't recall how I stumbled on that ... maybe I entered something
>> foolish like "internet speed test" in Google or sumpin'.
>
> Thanks from me too, Alan. That is really a great speed test site.
>
> The one I've been using is http://performance.toast.net/ which is pretty
> good, but Speedtest is much better.
>
> There's quite a difference between the two in results. Using Speedtest.net
> I got 12.95 Mb/s, while Toast.net just now gave me 4.253 Mb/s. Probably
> this is partly because the Speedtest server in my case was in Clifton, NJ,
> only ~ 100 miles away. I don't know where the Toast server is located.
>
>
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
Neil Harrington
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ydCdnf4pa5fP44zX...@giganews.com...
>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:iZmdnexho_Xwr43X...@giganews.com...
>>
>> [ . . . ]
>>>>> The shortsightedness of this whole thing is perplexing. No matter how
>>>>> Chrysler (and GM) come out of this they will inevitably have to go
>>>>> back to various creditors for cash at some point.
>>>> Unless they become wards of the government. With an unlimited supply of
>>>> taxpayer dollars, who knows. I'm wondering whether it may come to that.
>>> Mid term elections are only 18 months away.
>>
>> But voters' memories are reliably short. They can always be given some
>> kind of nice-tasting candy before the elections, and the mainstream media
>> (with their "slobbering love affair" with Obama, as Bernard Goldberg put
>> it) will avoid reminding them of the bad stuff.
>
> Better a slobbering love affair with Obama than a slobbering President
> McCain?
I'm not so sure. Which is "better," emphysema or lung cancer? :-/
>
> Actually I like McCain a lot*, but his reaction to the emerging financial
> crisis, ducking a debate and bolting off the trail to the WH conference
> then not contributing anything but a slightly dazed smile kinda killed him
> off for me.
Yes, he did himself no favors there.
> Coupled with driller babe and increasing trend to underwriting the party
> line as the election date drew near (instead of the McCain Maverick line
> that got him there), he killed his own ticket.
The "driller babe" is OK with me, still a little rough around the edges but
far, far preferable to Biden as a veep. It will be interesting to see how
(or whether) she develops as a candidate for the future.
>
> *some exceptions apply.
>
> When Obama first emerged on the US scene in 2002 (ish) I knew immediately
> that he had what it would take. I believed he would wait until 2012 to
> try except for the Hilary factor.
I thought that he wouldn't get the nomination this time (and frankly I don't
think he expected to himself, at the beginning), but that he would learn a
lot from the experience and be a much stronger candidate in '12 or '16. So
in that respect I think he's a bit premature. No question that he's a fast
learner and politically agile, but he comes to the presidency with
relatively little experience.
> Had she won the presidency, he faced a possible lockout of up to 16 years
> (2 Dem terms + 2 Rep terms) plus whatever other new great talent might
> emerge - so he had to go in full throttle. Amazing, really.
He got some lucky breaks, especially in the last months. And he (or his
handlers) ran a very sharp campaign, while Hillary (or her handlers) made
some mistakes that proved costly.
> And that it got so many disillusioned blacks to vote means that more of
> them feel invested in the process - will likely have a profound social
> impact over time.
I don't think so much the blacks -- there was no question that he'd get
about 95% of the black vote since that many will almost always vote for the
perceived "black" candidate. The black turnout was expected to be high for
the same reason, so there's no surprise there. This was to some degree a
one-time thing. Now that the novelty of the First African American President
has been realized, I wouldn't necessarily expect the black turnout to be as
high in '12, and even less so in '16 when it's unlikely there'll be a black
nominee.
What *will* be a long-term benefit for the Dems will be the changing
demographics of the country in other respects, I think. Blacks will probably
remain about the same in proportion of population, but Hispanics will
increase and they will mostly support Democrats, unless something happens to
change this. Asiatics also will become a larger part of the population and
at present they also favor Democrats.
If current trends continue, the white majority will become a minority in a
few decades. This is sure to change the political landscape.
>
> I think the US is very fortunate to have a man of Obama's calibre at this
> time and it's a shame he didn't get there in 'better times'.
I think it's a shame he got there at all. I don't know how there could be
"better times" for him in any case. He has George W. Bush to blame for
anything that's wrong now or goes wrong during his term(s), since he
"inherited" the economic mess -- as he has reminded us many times, and will
undoubtedly continue to remind us. Under the guise of "stimulus" he can, and
clearly intends to, spend astronomical amounts of money to advance every
leftist-liberal and politically correct project you can think of, from
"fighting global warming" to "spreading the wealth around a little," as he
put it.
That Obama is the "first African American president" is of no importance
except to the tunnel-vision people who think that sort of "first" is
important. What is really important is that Obama is the first
anti-capitalist American president.
> The real test is how he manages this. Bearing in mind that if you're
> going to get something done you can't please everyone.
You "can't please everyone" whether you get anything done or not, but that's
not an excuse that is very effective against legitimate complaints.
>
> You might not like him, but the lad definitely has class and brains,
Brains, definitely. As for "class," it depends on what value you place on
glibness. No question he can talk a good game, and his campaign slogans
(probably not his own creations) certainly have appealed to a lot of people
who get all excited and giddy over slogans.
But "class" should mean something more than that, and in Obama's case I
don't see that it does. Has he made a promise yet that he hasn't broken? His
promises are meaningless, unless you just take it for granted that an Obama
promise is always "for now" or even "for today." He made a firm pledge about
taking public financing during the campaign, remember? And broke the pledge
as soon as he saw he could get more money by abandoning it.
He also promised to go through the "stimulus" bill LINE BY LINE and refuse
to sign it "if it contained a single line of pork." In fact the bill he got
contained about 9,000 items of pork and he signed it without hesitation.
I don't see how anyone to whom promises and pledges mean nothing, has
"class."
> like his well educated and charming wife.
More of the same Chicago-style politics. She got a raise from about $120,000
to over $300,000 when Obama got elected to the U.S. Senate; then he put in a
million-dollar earmark for her employer. One hand washes the other, as they
say. You can take it all right, you just have to hold your nose.
>
> As to the Rep party, the leadership has become extremely polarized and
> 'factions' that adhere to Rush/Cheney are destroying it by making more
> moderate Republican views (Powell) not only unwelcome, but vilified.
Powell's views are not "more moderate Republican," they aren't Republican at
all as far as I can see. Powell has supported Obama, a left-wing radical,
from the get-go. There is nothing remotely Republican about that.
>
> Maybe Obama and the Dems have nothing to fear at midterm if Cheney and
> Rush are banging the drums. Fact is the bills need to be paid.
Obama is not paying any bills. He's creating carloads of new bills. He's
putting the country trillions of dollars deeper in debt over the next
decade, even counting on his planned savings and new revenues, most of which
will almost certainly never materialize.
How will these bills be paid? There are just three possible ways: (1) much
higher taxes, (2) much higher rates of inflation, and (3) much higher taxes
along with much higher rates of inflation. The likeliest of those I think is
No. 3.
Note that the stock market, usually a pretty good leading indicator of the
economy, bottomed on March 9. It is still going up nicely as of today. So
the recovery actually started before any significant amount of the
"stimulus" money was spent -- most of it still is unspent, and therefore
cannot have contributed anything to the economy. What the so-called
"stimulus" is most likely to do is kill the economy, not stimulate it, once
it is farther along.
Obama's scheme, which some have already called the "new New Deal," is in the
opinion of some analysts likely to have the same effect in the long run that
FDR's actions did -- turn a sharp market decline into the Great Depression.
Economies always recover through free-market forces on their own, without
government interference. But once the gummint starts meddling with it, all
bets are off.
Neil Harrington
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>
>> Yes. A friend rebuilt a Ford coupe, I think a '32, with a Buick V6 and
>> independent front suspension. It also had more modern wheels which were
>> obviously too small for the body and fender lines. He and a friend of his
>> put a lot of work into that car, but the point of doing something like
>> that eludes me.
>
> He said as he whiles away the day on the internet ... ;-)
<guffaw!>
Touch�!
Alan Browne
Then no single politician, president can be said to have class...
>
>
>> like his well educated and charming wife.
>
> More of the same Chicago-style politics. She got a raise from about $120,000
> to over $300,000 when Obama got elected to the U.S. Senate; then he put in a
> million-dollar earmark for her employer. One hand washes the other, as they
> say. You can take it all right, you just have to hold your nose.
Your subscription to the Rep "smear the 'bamas" is showing.
>
>> As to the Rep party, the leadership has become extremely polarized and
>> 'factions' that adhere to Rush/Cheney are destroying it by making more
>> moderate Republican views (Powell) not only unwelcome, but vilified.
>
> Powell's views are not "more moderate Republican," they aren't Republican at
> all as far as I can see. Powell has supported Obama, a left-wing radical,
> from the get-go. There is nothing remotely Republican about that.
You're right: Powell is an objective, intelligent conservative.
Something the Reps don't have anymore.
>
>> Maybe Obama and the Dems have nothing to fear at midterm if Cheney and
>> Rush are banging the drums. Fact is the bills need to be paid.
>
> Obama is not paying any bills. He's creating carloads of new bills. He's
> putting the country trillions of dollars deeper in debt over the next
> decade, even counting on his planned savings and new revenues, most of which
> will almost certainly never materialize.
McCain would have done NOTHING different. As Paulson (IIRC) said (in
the Bush days) "we will drop money from the sky to fix this thing."
A lot of this cash, BTW, will be returned to the government. Some banks
are already throwing it back to get the gov't off their backs.
This is separate from the new deficit spending which is a partisan
independent problem - either party spends like crazy and the Reps want
unreasonably low taxes v. the budget and earmarks.
>
> How will these bills be paid? There are just three possible ways: (1) much
> higher taxes, (2) much higher rates of inflation, and (3) much higher taxes
> along with much higher rates of inflation. The likeliest of those I think is
> No. 3.
Well, duh. But what was the US thinking in lowering taxes so much while
increasing spending so much while boring countries like Canada have been
whittling away the debt and running (mostly) surplus budgets. Of course
we don't cook up false evidence to invade countries either. That
actually helps.
> Note that the stock market, usually a pretty good leading indicator of the
> economy, bottomed on March 9. It is still going up nicely as of today. So
> the recovery actually started before any significant amount of the
> "stimulus" money was spent -- most of it still is unspent, and therefore
> cannot have contributed anything to the economy. What the so-called
> "stimulus" is most likely to do is kill the economy, not stimulate it, once
> it is farther along.
Dead cat bounce. This "recovery" won't hold for very long.
> Obama's scheme, which some have already called the "new New Deal," is in the
> opinion of some analysts likely to have the same effect in the long run that
> FDR's actions did -- turn a sharp market decline into the Great Depression.
That is pure myth. FDR's incursions were well after the initial market
declines and were several phases, each adjusting to conditions. And the
times were far different than what they are now - the US at large was a
pretty poor agrarian society then compared to now.
> Economies always recover through free-market forces on their own, without
> government interference. But once the gummint starts meddling with it, all
> bets are off.
Sure. But if the government didn't meddle we would be having a
different conversation about why the unemployment rate was now at 25%
and gold at $4000/ounce. Pick your pain.
Neil Harrington
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
Our last president had a lot more class than Obama. I'm not denying Bush's
faults, which were considerable, especially his being hornswoggled by the
neocons into the Iraq mistake -- which was really his One Big Mistake. But
he had enough class not to blame his predecessor for anything -- and
remember, Bush inherited a developing recession also. The stock market and
the economy had been sliding for months before he took office.
More broadly, most politicians either keep their promises or show
embarrassment when they fail to do so. To Obama, promises and pledges
obviously are of no account whatever.
>>
>>
>>> like his well educated and charming wife.
>>
>> More of the same Chicago-style politics. She got a raise from about
>> $120,000 to over $300,000 when Obama got elected to the U.S. Senate; then
>> he put in a million-dollar earmark for her employer. One hand washes the
>> other, as they say. You can take it all right, you just have to hold your
>> nose.
>
> Your subscription to the Rep "smear the 'bamas" is showing.
If you see any inaccuracy in what I wrote, please point it out. If you call
the truth a "smear" because you just don't like the truth, that's not my
problem.
>
>>
>>> As to the Rep party, the leadership has become extremely polarized and
>>> 'factions' that adhere to Rush/Cheney are destroying it by making more
>>> moderate Republican views (Powell) not only unwelcome, but vilified.
>>
>> Powell's views are not "more moderate Republican," they aren't Republican
>> at all as far as I can see. Powell has supported Obama, a left-wing
>> radical, from the get-go. There is nothing remotely Republican about
>> that.
>
> You're right: Powell is an objective, intelligent conservative.
Conservatives don't support left-wing radicals. Ergo, Powell is no
conservative.
> Something the Reps don't have anymore.
>
>
>>
>>> Maybe Obama and the Dems have nothing to fear at midterm if Cheney and
>>> Rush are banging the drums. Fact is the bills need to be paid.
>>
>> Obama is not paying any bills. He's creating carloads of new bills. He's
>> putting the country trillions of dollars deeper in debt over the next
>> decade, even counting on his planned savings and new revenues, most of
>> which will almost certainly never materialize.
>
> McCain would have done NOTHING different. As Paulson (IIRC) said (in the
> Bush days) "we will drop money from the sky to fix this thing."
Neither you nor I know exactly what McCain would have done, but he wouldn't
have splurged all this money we really don't have as Obama is doing. McCain,
whatever his faults, has stood for fiscal responsibility. McCain was one of
the senators who tried to get better regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac, the very institutions who helped create this mess by promoting all the
insane lending to people who were poor credit risks and do not seem to have
understood what they were doing. Not a single Democrat senator joined McCain
in that. Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (the latter an
especially big recipient of Fannie Mae campaign donations, second only to
Barack Obama in fact) kept insisting the Republicans were "making a mountain
out of a molehill" (Frank's words) and there was nothing to worry about. Now
look.
>
> A lot of this cash, BTW, will be returned to the government. Some banks
> are already throwing it back to get the gov't off their backs.
Some banks are TRYING to return the money, but the last I heard the Obama
administration is refusing to take it back. When the banks have the gummint
money, the gummit has its hooks in the banks.
>
> This is separate from the new deficit spending which is a partisan
> independent problem - either party spends like crazy and the Reps want
> unreasonably low taxes v. the budget and earmarks.
What the Republicans SHOULD want is lower taxes and smaller government, all
around. One of the big disappointments about Bush is that he never did
anything about the latter.
>
>>
>> How will these bills be paid? There are just three possible ways: (1)
>> much higher taxes, (2) much higher rates of inflation, and (3) much
>> higher taxes along with much higher rates of inflation. The likeliest of
>> those I think is No. 3.
>
> Well, duh. But what was the US thinking in lowering taxes so much while
> increasing spending so much while boring countries like Canada have been
> whittling away the debt and running (mostly) surplus budgets.
You're quite right about that.
> Of course we don't cook up false evidence to invade countries either.
> That actually helps.
No one here "cooked up false evidence to invade countries." The mistakes
about Saddam's supposed WMDs were the result of bad intelligence, but they
were honest mistakes. Our intelligence believed it; so did the British, the
French, and others.
That said, it is true that the neocons wanted war against Iraq and got Bush
to go for it. The WMD business was a convenient pretext.
>
>
>> Note that the stock market, usually a pretty good leading indicator of
>> the economy, bottomed on March 9. It is still going up nicely as of
>> today. So the recovery actually started before any significant amount of
>> the "stimulus" money was spent -- most of it still is unspent, and
>> therefore cannot have contributed anything to the economy. What the
>> so-called "stimulus" is most likely to do is kill the economy, not
>> stimulate it, once it is farther along.
>
> Dead cat bounce. This "recovery" won't hold for very long.
This "dead cat" has bounced pretty good for a dead cat, so far. I expect the
stock market will indeed turn down again, to test the bottom as often
happens at the end of a steep decline, but after the typical double bottom I
think it will keep going up.
That doesn't mean the economy will follow it up promptly -- usually that is
not the case. Again, the stock market tends to be a leading indicator. I
expect unemployment will continue high for a while and housing prices (which
were much inflated anyway) probably have not yet bottomed.
>
>> Obama's scheme, which some have already called the "new New Deal," is in
>> the opinion of some analysts likely to have the same effect in the long
>> run that FDR's actions did -- turn a sharp market decline into the Great
>> Depression.
>
> That is pure myth. FDR's incursions were well after the initial market
> declines and were several phases, each adjusting to conditions.
And the "adjustments" continuing to keep us in a depression. People blame
Hoover, but FDR basically continued doing what Hoover had already done --
tried to stimulate the economy and raised taxes, especially on "the rich."
Before FDR was finished he had raised the top marginal rate to 90% -- and
his own Treasury secretary admitted none of it had done any good.
> And the times were far different than what they are now - the US at large
> was a pretty poor agrarian society then compared to now.
I don't know where you got that idea. We were then the most industrialized
nation on the planet. Of course "compared to now" we weren't as wealthy, but
that's hardly a sensible argument. Most nations are a lot wealthier now than
they were in the '20s and '30s.
>
>> Economies always recover through free-market forces on their own, without
>> government interference. But once the gummint starts meddling with it,
>> all bets are off.
>
> Sure. But if the government didn't meddle we would be having a different
> conversation about why the unemployment rate was now at 25% and gold at
> $4000/ounce. Pick your pain.
I'm not criticizing the injection of large amounts of money into the credit
markets, which was necessary. It's all the rest of the meddling that Obama
wants to do that I'm criticizing. He is extreme left wing, the farthest left
in the entire U.S. Senate while he was in it. If you like that mindset, you
naturally love Obama.
The best we can hope for is that the Democrat-led Congress will have enough
sense to put Obama on a shorter leash as far as wasting trillions of dollars
on pie-in-the-sky schemes is concerned. There is some reason to believe they
are already looking askance at some of his ideas, and while generally loyal
to The One they also have their own futures to think about.
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> A lot of this cash, BTW, will be returned to the government. Some banks
>> are already throwing it back to get the gov't off their backs.
>
> Some banks are TRYING to return the money, but the last I heard the Obama
> administration is refusing to take it back. When the banks have the gummint
> money, the gummit has its hooks in the banks.
They can't refuse to take the money back. Those that pass the 'stress
test' (the vast majority did) and that can raise the cash (by equity is
in fashion) can pay it back and it's over. The few that didn't need
some $80B in fluff ups, a bagatelle in this environment.
What you 'heard' sounds more like the anti-Obama propaganda machine.
>
>> This is separate from the new deficit spending which is a partisan
>> independent problem - either party spends like crazy and the Reps want
>> unreasonably low taxes v. the budget and earmarks.
>
> What the Republicans SHOULD want is lower taxes and smaller government, all
> around. One of the big disappointments about Bush is that he never did
> anything about the latter.
US Taxes can NOT go lower. Along with reduced spending, taxes MUST go
higher or the world will stop funding the US government. China has not
only drastically slowed its purchases of US treasuries, but is quietly
selling them off.
1. The US debt requires higher taxes (and less frivolous spending)
2. US federal entitlements are not funded. Requires more taxes.
3. The Reps are no different than the Dems when it comes to spending.
If you believe otherwise, you are programmed.
4. Bush saw his father lose his second term. Why? Because despite his
read-my-lips pledge he was in the end forced to increase taxes. That
cost him the election - Bush junior had no interest in balancing the
books, only in getting re-elected. Power corrupts the smartest of
people and it absolutely blows away dummies like Bush Jr.
You polarize everything and ignore simple truths, the most important
being the current federal debt and that the only way to pay it down is
to reduce spending AND increase taxes. And increase them a lot if
entitlements are to be paid in the future as required by law. (That 3rd
rail that politicians have too much fear of).
The US enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. But
it is also indebted beyond reason. This is because the US has been
spending like a suburban trophy wife with a platinum Amex card but not
raising the taxes to cover it.
US fed cost of borrowing: > $700M per day. You could blame Reagan,
Bush Sr., Clinton (less, he actually provided a surplus), Bush Jr and
the political parties they are part of and the lobbyists they spread
their legs for.
Better yet, stop blaming and start DOING. And as long as you believe
the Republican fantasy that this means no more taxes you are totally
programmed for failure.
> If you see any inaccuracy in what I wrote, please point it out. If
> you call the truth a "smear" because you just don't like the truth,
> that's not my problem.
I haven't got the time or inclination to post on each of them and I'm
very willing to admit I don't know it all. But your "lower taxes / cut
spending" cry coupled to myths of the great depression and the New Deal
is just plain spin from whatever spin factory turns you on. (Further, a
read of last weeks The Economist on Europe might be an eye opener to you).
Americans have become bitterly polarized to the point of party
dysfunction, esp. the Republican party. And those who can't recite the
core line are pariahs. (Again: Rush/Cheney).
Have some guts. Learn the baseline facts (STUDY the US entitlements for
the next 30-50 years and their prospects for funding) and no matter what
you think now, the truth is the US cannot fund much of it without
profound change - far less military spending (Eisenhower was absolutely
right), far less farm support and an increase in taxes.
And I mean profound way beyond the petty polarized thinking you emulate.
The United States cannot sustain the illusion of being master of the
world while it cannot master its own house. We know what that leads to,
just hope I'm dead by then and that my son has a way to cope - like
moving to Europe or Asia.
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>
> Have some guts. Learn the baseline facts (STUDY the US entitlements for
> the next 30-50 years and their prospects for funding) and no matter what
> you think now, the truth is the US cannot fund much of it without
> profound change - far less military spending (Eisenhower was absolutely
> right), far less farm support and an increase in taxes.
>
Indeed the Democrats have got us in a very big mess. Zero doubt.
Military spending is not a problem. The problem ... the ONLY
problem .. with spending is entitlements.
There are three keys to solving the problem:
1) no new entitlements, that is, zero of them. For example,
no government finding of more welfare-oriented medical care
(i.e. no medical care for people who do not pay taxes for it)
2) cutting present entitlements. That means cutting medicaid,
which is an unearned entitlement, dramatically, and even
cutting the earned entitlements (Social Security and Medicaid)
by small amounts (probably by raising the eligibility age gradually)
3) the big one ... increase prosperity and hence per capita GDP
and tax intake (that is, increase GDP faster than the amount needed to
fund entitlements). This last one is where the Democrats are very, very weak ...
they espouse policies that actually are intended to decrease prosperity and GDP.
For example ... intentionally stopping domestic energy independence
by refusing to allow additional fossil fuel extraction, refusing to solve the
problems of nuclear power by refusing to open the nuclear waste repository,
believing in the Tooth Fairy idea of wind power. They (they Democrats) also
refuse to allow shifting high-wage jobs from low value things like car manufacturing
to higher value ones like nuclear power plant construction.
Doug McDonald
Rich
wrote:
> Well since Ford is the only one of the Big 3, even remotely looking
> like a survivor, here is a little salute.
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0597c.jpghttp://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0604c.jpghttp://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ModelA_0605c.jpg
>
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
No, today every tasteless LOSER who never progressed mentally beyond
the high school "peer pressure mode" buys a 4-door, bloated silver Jap
mobile with NO style. That is what drives the market.
DMac
> And I mean profound way beyond the petty polarized thinking you emulate.
> The United States cannot sustain the illusion of being master of the
> world while it cannot master its own house. We know what that leads to,
> just hope I'm dead by then and that my son has a way to cope - like
> moving to Europe or Asia.
>
Ahhh The joys of dual citizenship! I arrive in the US with a US passport
and arrive in Australia with an Aussie one. The Aussie passport gets me
far more friendly intercourse with foreigners than the US one,
incidentally. Even the Canucks greet me warmly once they here the Aussie
accent!
Atheist Chaplain
news:guvief$jvn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
bullshit!
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
Bob Larter
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-05-17 08:27:03 -0700, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
>>
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009-05-16 12:30:47 -0700, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net>
>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2009-05-16 10:13:48 -0700, Alan Browne
>>>>>>>> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
>>>>>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0509.JPG
>>>>>>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0508.JPG
>>>>>>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0511.JPG
>>>>>>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0507.JPG
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could you at least post these reduced to about 1600 x 1000 pixels?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You complain about Flash BW, but then you post monster JPG's
>>>>>>>>> that don't look particularly good until reduced to less than
>>>>>>>>> screen size...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK! OK! Mea Culpa.
>>>>>>>> I was lazy and was looking for a quick response for David.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW I have no particular personal issue with Flash, but I know
>>>>>>>> there are some here who have broadband issues, and I apologize
>>>>>>>> to them for my fat Jag post.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those photos, when not + plussed +, show fully in a modest Safari
>>>>>>> window on a MacBookPro, even better on an iMac.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was one of the reasons I didn't think twice when I posted
>>>>>> them. They were no problem for me on my MacBookPro and Safari.
>>>>>> There are times I forget there is another World out there through
>>>>>> the window.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was surprised to hear Alan complaining about bandwidth. These are
>>>>> not huge images pixel wise.
>>>>
>>>> Loaded real slow for me, 0511 took about 25 seconds, 5.56 MB
>>>
>>> Same here, about 175 kB/s - my ISP gives me 850 - 900 kB/s w/o a
>>> hitch, so that was slow....
>>
>> BTW here is what I get from Charter Cable out in my wilderness, after
>> a speed check this morning
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/speakeasy_03.jpg
>> 10.5mb/s down 989 kb/s up
>> Speakeasy gives a pretty simple speed check interface;
>> http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/
>> ...however accurate that might be?
>
> millibits/second. Wow that is slow. ;-)
>
> Note that: kb -- kilo bits
> kB -- kilo bytes (8 X more than a "b").
>
> M -- Mega
> m -- milli
>
> A really good speed checker is http://www.speedtest.net/ as you can
> select where you dl from / ul to during the test.
>
> and about 0.75 Mb/s up.
From here in Melbourne, Oz, to the local server, I get 15Mb/s DL. From
here to NY, USA, my speed drops to 3.65Mb/s. Florida is a bit better, at
5Mb/s.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> A really good speed checker is http://www.speedtest.net/ as you can select
>> where you dl from / ul to during the test.
>>
>> From San Francisco to Montreal I get: 6.93 Mb /s (about 860 kB /s ) DL and
>> about 0.75 Mb/s up.
>
Effing hell! Do you have fibre or something?